
                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 30-Oct-1999 to Friday, 05-Nov-1999

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tg7642@cyclic.aux.net                             30-Oct-99 00:08:26
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <tg7642@cyclic.aux.net>

Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:

: >jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

: >Warp is a paradise for the gentle hacker as well, with the inclusion 
: >of REXX as its scripting language. REXX is quite powerful.

*sigh*  It sure is.  I really miss AREXX from my Amiga days.  I did
practically everything with it.

: Have you tried Regina yet? It's a free REXX interpreter for Win32, and
: qute functional. I'm working with the current maintainer right now to
: develop some REXX related things for Win32 (and also porting over my
: Rexx Dialog library).

AUUUUUGH!@#  I WANT, I WANT!  GIMME GIMME GIMME!  :-)

Seriously, do you have an URL to a home site?
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 00:06:09
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>> Marty writes:
 
>>>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
  
>>>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
>>>> "infantile game", Marty.
 
>>> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree 
>>> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer 
>>> intentions from one little sentence.
 
>> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".

> I suppose you have. I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty 
> some time ago, so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's 
> reply.

That won't necessarily help.  Marty has been avoiding certain questions
I've asked him.

>>> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
>>> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by 
>>> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.
 
>> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.

> I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
> interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
> too!" exchanges.

Undoubtedly due to Marty's "infantile game".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               30-Oct-99 00:21:26
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: WordPerfect OS/2 history 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

You're still too close to current history, Wayne. You're thinking of 
WP 5.2 for OS/2, which was released in the 2.x timeframe -- and was 
*intended* to be a stopgap until the "real" WP 6.0 for OS/2 could be 
released. (I had several conversations with the then-project manager, 
back then, so I was familiar with the project process. I was a major 
WP fan, back then, and wrote part of a book about WP 6 for DOS, so I 
had a particular and personal interest in the topic. If nothing else, 
I was perfectly positioned to pitch a "WP OS/2" book to the various 
publishers.)

In any case, I'm referring to the WordPerfect 5.0 for OS/2 product 
which was released in 1989 or thereabouts. It worked like WP 5.0 for 
DOS.

--Esther

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:17:19, Wayne Johnson 
<NO.SPAM.wjohnson@phobos.com> wrote:
| > WordPerfect, of course, is another example of an ISV that was gung-ho
| > on OS/2 but later dropped it. (I'm personally convinced they dropped
| > the 6.x version because they wanted to look good on the balance sheet
| > for the Novell buyout, but that's another issue.) Like several other
| > big ISVs who jumped on the OS/2 bandwagon early, WordPerfect put an
| > enormous amount of development effort into the "sure thing" of OS/2,
| > while Microsoft quietly put *its* effort into Word for Windows.
| > Meanwhile, I recall a message WPCorp's Pete Petersen left in the
| > Compuserve forum saying that WPCorp had sold 6 copies of WP 5.0 for
| > OS/2. Six. Undoubtably, they sold more copies after that -- I was told
| > that 5.0 had some big bugs, and sales were 'slow' until they were
| > fixed -- but the point is that they didn't make money on OS/2, and had
| > to get it from somewhere else.
| 
| My brother seems to be one of the six people who actually purchased
| WordPerfect for OS/2 and from what he has told me it was a terrible
| product.  I don't remember any specifics, but from his experience it seems
| that maybe WP version 6.x was dropped because the folks at WP could not
| product a good OS/2 product.
| 
| Personally I still like WP.  I use version 7 at home and at work.  I only
| use Word when I am forced to.
| 
| I miss OS/2.  I have only had to reboot my WIN98 box once so far today.
| 
| Wayne
| 
| 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               30-Oct-99 00:09:25
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 23:10:03, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:
| And that's "the" graphics program for OS/2. I pity the people who were
| making more esoteric, vertical market stuff for OS/2, or who were
| trying to offer a competing product to SPG.

Actually, it's the OS/2 vertical application vendors who have made the
most money -- and who, for the most part, are *still* making money.

When you sell your customer a turnkey solution, they usually don't 
care what's inside the black box. If you've chosen technology that 
enables your application to work better, more robustly, etc, then 
you're able to deliver at a lower price or cheaper support cost, or 
whatever.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 00:35:26
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Mike Timbol wrote:
 
>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.  Good show.

> Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
> part.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to answer the question about
whether the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2
constitutes an issue.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 00:31:13
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> See the "costly mistakes" thread for the proof.

>> There is no proof for your claim in that thread, Lucien.

> Review the thread; the proof is there.

Incorrect, Lucien.  I suggest you take another look at my two tests,
which disprove your alleged "proof".  Of course, you've now deleted
the first test twice and the second test once.  But I've reproduced
them below.

>>>>> Your statement about the "implements" sentence:
>>>>> is congruent with my thesis statement.

>>>> But it doesn't apply to the present situation, given that we have
>>>> presence of additional information.

>>> But it is still congruent with my thesis statement (taken directly
>>> from the "costly mistakes" thread).

>> Your thesis statement is irrelevant, given that it doesn't apply to
>> the present situation, Lucien.

> Wrong. It does apply, and is supported by your own statements.

Incorrect, Lucien.  You won't even admit to what my own statements are,
by virtue of the fact that you have repeatedly truncated my sentence
including "the ambiguity is resolved" before the word "resolved" and
then falsely accusing me of admitting to an ambiguity.

> Let's review your mistake again:

Impossible, Lucien, given that there is no mistake of mine.

> My thesis:
>
> the "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" sentences are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.

Irrelevant, given that there is no absence of additional information
in the present situation, Lucien.

> Your (congruent) statement:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

Which doesn't apply to the present situation, given that there is
additional information available.

> You also several times refer to and therefore affirm the presence of
> this underlying ambiguity.

Incorrect, Lucien.  I several times referred to how the ambiguity is
resolved in the present situation by the presence of additional
information.  You, of course, truncated my sentence before the word
"resolved" so that you could continue playing your own "infantile
game".

> This constitutes proof that you now unwittingly agree with my argument.

On the contary, it constitutes proof that you are too embarassed to
face reality, so you create your own fantasy by ignoring words that
change the meaning of my sentence.

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test again,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

You also failed to answer my other little test, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu                     30-Oct-99 00:34:17
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>> Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
>> Or are you really that idiotic?

> Now he's stealing my lines!

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> What a hypocrite.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm stealing your lines, Marty.

> Yet more evidence that he's playing his own "infantile game".

Lucien obviously is.

> Or is he really that idiotic?

Otherwise he's claiming that "the ambiguity is resolved" is an admission
of ambiguity.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               30-Oct-99 00:37:03
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:38:31, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
| There is AutoDesk. Of course with Microsoft's purchase of Visio; that could
| change real fast.
|  
| There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of WordPerfect
| for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
| Microsoft.

I'm afraid you have some of the facts wrong.

WordPerfect Corp dropped WP for OS/2 before they sold the company to 
Novell. By the time Corel got the remnants of WPCorp, the OS/2 
version(s) were history.

Corel is, however, another example on the stack. Corel published 
CorelDraw 2.5 for OS/2 (which I still have here, somewhere). Their 
reason for not publishing a version 3 was "we'll come out with v4 
simultaneously," but that plan got dropped. Corel's Cowpland promised 
a new native OS/2 version as late as Comdex 1995 (or was it 1996? at 
any rate, it was at the Corel presentation to the user group officers 
of the Association of PC User Groups), to a standing ovation -- but 
they later disavowed themselves of any such announcement. (I do hold 
quite a grudge against them for this.)

Corel did do quite well for some time thereafter, presenting 
themselves as another example for David's original question, though 
they aren't quite so healthy nowadays.

With no data whatsoever, I'm personally convinced that Cowpland used 
the "OS/2 version" as a bargaining chip with Microsoft. "We'll do a 
new OS/2 version unless you give us _this_..." -- and Microsoft was 
likely to cave in, right about then. Bullying goes both ways.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               30-Oct-99 00:26:29
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:04:15, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
| What about "ObjectVision" for OS/2?  That was certainly a serious OS/2
| product and IBM did not pay them to do it, AFAIK. 

Borland's ObjectVision failed as a product... its OS/2ness had nothing
to do with the product failure. It was a great start at a visual 
development environment, but for a bunch of reasons (which I no longer
recall) it wasn't a success. They killed the Windows version as well 
as the OS/2 version.

| I don't see where I am directing any "ire" at vendors, here.  This
| certainly was not my intent.  

That was a general comment, not directed specifically at you. <smile>

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 20:39:18
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 09:35:38, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> wrote:
> 
> > Karel Jansens writes:
> >
> > >> Marty writes:
> >
> > >>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
> >
> > >> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
> > >> "infantile game", Marty.
> >
> > > If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
> > > (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
> > > intentions from one little sentence.
> >
> > I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".
> >
> I suppose you have. 

Yes, he's also relying on those unsupported, unprovable claims of his. 
He's quite proud of how high he has made his house of cards.

> I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty some time ago,

Can't say I blame you.

> so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's reply.
> 
> > > BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
> > > word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
> > > continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.
> >
> > I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.
> >
> I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
> interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
> too!" exchanges. I guess one has to be in there to really appreciate
> it.

It requires more than just being there to appreciate it.  I'm there and
I don't appreciate it.  Of course, for someone who gets his jollies out
of finding new ways to misinterpret perfectly valid, unambiguous
statements made by others, I suppose it could be appreciated.

Karel... my case is simple.  I cite 3 posts as all the evidence I need
for my side of the story.

1] Mike Ruskai corrected a blatant spelling error of mine.
http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540806139&CONTEXT=941242499.2016149549&hitnum=
0

2] I thanked Mike for the spelling correction in Line 1 of this article.
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540825916&search=thread&CONTEXT=941242346.1360
920625&HIT_CONTEXT=941242346.1360920625&hitnum=0

3] My most recent response to one of Tholen's recent postings, after
explaining the situation to him repeatedly and having him reject my
explanation.  Just skimming the article should give you a good enough
idea of the idiocy that has ensued due to his blantant lack of common
sense, or alternatively his infantile game if he possesses common sense.
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541921409&search=thread&CONTEXT=941242346.1360
920625&HIT_CONTEXT=941242346.1360920625&hitnum=18

The third posting was just for flavor, but I ask you honestly, as
someone claiming to "have no vested interests", can you say after
reading the first two articles that the following statement has any
grounds in reality?:

> I don't expect you to understand that you made no reference to any
> misspelling in the relevant quotation.  You merely extended a thanks
> for some unspecified reason.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 00:41:29
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
 
>>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
 
>>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>>>
>>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
>>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
>>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
>>>
>>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               
>>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       ! L
!
>>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program
mus
>>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under 
O
>>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>>>
>>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>>>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>> Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
>>> parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
>>> directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
>>> standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
>>> decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
>>> platform.

>> I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
>> Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
>> Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
>> Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
>> Yeah right.

> I'm following the thread Dave.

Why, Marty?  According to you, it's not an issue.

> If I were not, then I wouldn't have known what you were talking about
> and that your argument has been that of semantics, as it is even still.

How ironic, coming from someone whose argument that it isn't an issue
has been that of semantics, as it is even still.

> "This program must be run under OS/2."  Too bad it doesn't have to be
> run and your semantics are worthless.

Too bad the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
an issue and your semantics are worthless, Marty.

> Both Mike and myself are waiting for an admission of your perfectly
> understandable mistake.

I am waiting for an admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented
in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.

> Your obstinance/infantile game still persists,

Your erroneous presupposition of "obstinance/infantile game" still
persists, Marty.

> preventing such a simple admission.

How ironic, coming from someone whose own "infantile game" prevents an
admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for
OS/2 is an issue.

> I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile game", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 00:54:10
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
 
>> I wrote:

>>> Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)

>>>>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
>>>>> "infantile game", Marty.

>>>> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
>>>> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
>>>> intentions from one little sentence.

>>> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".

>> I suppose you have. 

> Yes, he's also relying on those unsupported, unprovable claims of his. 

Incorrect, given that my claims have been both supported and proved.

> He's quite proud of how high he has made his house of cards.

You're erroneously presupposing that I've built a house of cards, Marty.

>> I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty some time ago,

> Can't say I blame you.

Not everyone wishes to spend time following your "infantile game", Marty.

>> so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's reply.

>>>> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
>>>> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
>>>> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.

>>> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.

>> I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
>> interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
>> too!" exchanges. I guess one has to be in there to really appreciate
>> it.

> It requires more than just being there to appreciate it.  I'm there and
> I don't appreciate it.

Then why do you persist with your "infantile game", Marty?

> Of course, for someone who gets his jollies out of finding new ways to
> misinterpret perfectly valid, unambiguous statements made by others,
> I suppose it could be appreciated.

Who might that be, Marty?

> Karel... my case is simple.

Your case is illogical, Marty.

> I cite 3 posts as all the evidence I need for my side of the story.
>
> 1] Mike Ruskai corrected a blatant spelling error of mine.
>
http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540806139&CONTEXT=941242499.2016149549&hitnum=
0

Irrelevant, Marty, given that you made no reference to any misspelling in
the posting in question.

> 2] I thanked Mike for the spelling correction in Line 1 of this article.
>
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540825916&search=thread&CONTEXT=941242346.1360
920625&HIT_CONTEXT=941242346.1360920625&hitnum=0

Incorrect, Marty.  You merely thanked him for some unspecified reason.
You said absolutely nothing about a spelling correction.

> 3] My most recent response to one of Tholen's recent postings, after
> explaining the situation to him repeatedly and having him reject my
> explanation.

I rejected your explanation for logical reasons, Marty, namely that there
is no reference to any misspelling in the posting in question.

> Just skimming the article should give you a good enough idea of the
> idiocy that has ensued

Your idiocy, Marty.

> due to his blantant lack of common sense,

Due to your inability to recognize the absence of any reference to a
spelling error on your part.

> or alternatively his infantile game

You're still erroneously presupposing the existence of some "infantile
game" on my part, Marty.

> if he possesses common sense.

More than you, Marty.

>
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541921409&search=thread&CONTEXT=941242346.1360
920625&HIT_CONTEXT=941242346.1360920625&hitnum=18
>
> The third posting was just for flavor,

On the contrary, it was just another opportunity for you to continue
playing your "infantile game" by spewing more insults.  You started
off with one.

> but I ask you honestly, as someone claiming to "have no vested
> interests", can you say after reading the first two articles
> that the following statement has any grounds in reality?:

Why should he read the first article, Marty?  You made no reference to
that article in the posting in question.  The posting in question
should stand on its own.

>> I don't expect you to understand that you made no reference to any
>> misspelling in the relevant quotation.  You merely extended a thanks
>> for some unspecified reason.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 21:16:28
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>> Can anyone believe this shit?
> 
> >> You're trying to get people to believe your "shit", Marty.
> 
> > I'm not trying to get "people" to believe anything.
> 
> Then why are you foisting your illogic on the newsgroup, Marty?

What alleged newsgroup, Dave?
 
> > I'm trying to get a mentally ill astronomer
> 
> Who might that be, Marty?

No, not Marty.

> > to believe what I'm telling him (it?) about what I stated.
> 
> Well, you're talking to the wrong person, Marty, given that I'm not
> "mentally ill".

I'm not talking to anyone, Dave.

> >>>>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.
> 
> >>>>>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
> >>>>>>>> a "lie/game" on my part.
> 
> >>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.
> 
> >>>>>> Illogically,
> 
> >>>>> Are you still too blind to see it?
> 
> >>>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> >>>> halluncinating?
> 
> >>> Are you still too blind to see it?
> 
> >> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> >> halluncinating?
> 
> > Are you still too blind to see it?
> 
> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
> halluncinating?

Are you still too blind to see it?

> > Answer: Yes.
> 
> Illogical, given that there is no reference to any misspelling to see,
> Marty.

Are you still too blind to see it?
 
> > Here's another clue Dave... maybe given enough clues you'll be able to
> > piece it together...
> >
> >
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540806139&CONTEXT=941166684.2138898509&hitnum=
0
> 
> Irrelevant, Marty.

Incorrect.  It shows where the spelling was corrected and the reason why
the thanks was specified where it was specified.  Did you even bother to
read it?

> The issue is the alleged "lie/game" on my part.

Changing the subject again?  How convenient.  I see the game continues.

> The above so-called "clue" has nothing to do with that alleged "lie/game".

Correct.  As does the reference to Mike and the misspelling.  Glad you
agree.  So why bring up a non sequitur in this discussion about my
"unspecified reason" for thanking Mike?

[important evidence removed in an attempt to cover my tracks and
minimize my embarassment]

> >>>>> I used the word "blatant".
> 
> >>>> You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
> >>>> "another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".
> 
> >>> Irrelevant, jackass.
> 
> >> On the contrary, they are just as relevant as the fact that you used
> >> "blatant", Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect, as none of their spellings were corrected by Mike.
> 
> Irrelevant, given that no reference was made to any spelling corrections
> in the sentence in question, Marty.

Incorrect as usual.

> Reference was made to an alleged "lie/game" on my part, however.

Non sequitur in this discussion.

> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

Never had 'em, never will.  Yours are still quite apparent.

> >>> Perhaps if you didn't cut the sentence there and read on, you might
> >>> understand,
> 
> >> I didn't cut any sentence, Marty.  Note how the the quotation ends
> >> with a period.
> 
> Note:  no response.

After cutting the above sentence at the comma, you have the gumption to
reinsert this absurdly incorrect statement.  How embarassing for you.

> >>> though in light of your argument below, I don't find that incredibly
> >>> likely.
> 
> >> I already understand perfectly, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

It was explained already.  It need not be supported repeatedly.  Once is
enough for most people with common sense.

> >>>>> I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
> >>>>> if Mike had not corrected me.
> 
> >>>> Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
> >>>> of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.
> 
> >>> So therefore I would always do the same, no matter who corrects me?
> 
> >> I didn't say that, Marty.  I said that it is illogical for you to
> >> claim that you would have spelled it wrong if Mike had not corrected
> >> you.
> 
> > But Dave, I actually <would have>.
> 
> How can you predict the future, Marty?

I can certainly predict my own actions in a given situation.  I'm the
one performing them, remember?  To argue with this point would be quite
illogical.

> > Whether it is logical or not, it's reality.
> 
> Since when is a prediction of the future "reality", Marty?

Since it would be a correct prediction, since I was predicting my own
actions in a specified situation.

> > Live with it.
> 
> I'm putting up with your illogic daily, Marty.

Not my problem.  Unfortunate that truth and reality appear illogical to
you.

> > Reality and logic are often in conflict with your inept logic "analysis".
> 
> Is that how you're trying to explain your illogic, Marty?

I have no need to explain what doesn't exist.  Either your analysis of
the situation is clearly inept or you are playing an infantile game.  I
haven't quite concluded which is the case yet.

> > How unfortunate that your logic is utterly incapable of modelling
> > and explaining the real world.
> 
> On the contrary, my logic is modeling and explaining the real world
> right now, Marty.  Your "infantile game" continues.

Your "logical" model doesn't seem to have any explanation for why I
thanked Mike (by your own admission).  Perhaps it requires some
revision.

> >>> Not only illogical, but moronic Dave.
> 
> >> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
> >> logical argument.
> 
> > Necessary in this case.
> 
> What makes invective necessary, Marty?

Your behavior.  I've tried calm reasoning and logic.  I've tried
mimicking (my long since terminated "infantile game").  I've tried quick
wit and parody.  I've tried harsh commentary.  About the only thing I
haven't tried is physical violence.  Sleep tight.

> > I was describing your behavior, not attempting to insult you personally.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty, as you were not describing my behavior at all.
> Rather, you were describing your "infantile game".

Incorrect.  Your behavior is not only illogical, but moronic.

> >>> I said I would have spelled it wrong if he had not corrected me.
> 
> >> And I said that that is illogical, given your history of still
> >> spelling words wrong after being told of your incorrect spelling.
> 
> >>> He had corrected me and I have henceforth spelled it correctly.
> 
> >> I told you that there is no such word as "hypocracy", and you have
> >> henceforth still gotten it wrong.
> 
> > I'm sorry.  Is that "illogical" to do.
> 
> It is illogical to claim that you would have gotten "blatant" wrong if
> you hadn't been corrected.

How is it illogical to predict what my own actions are going to be in a
controlled environment?  I was mistaken on the spelling of the word
blatant.  No one had corrected me, so I assumed my way was correct and
continued to use it as such.  It is reasonable and logical to assume
that I would have kept spelling it incorrectly if someone had not
corrected me.  Furthermore, it is unreasonable and illogical to assume
that I would suddenly change my mind and decide to spell it a different
way without being prompted by anyone else, and further unlikely that
this "new" way I decided to spell it would in fact be the correct one.

I have no time or desire to answer the rest of this article.  I will
fast forward to a two points, which I'm sure you would have restored
anyway:

> >>> The facts are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a 3 toed
> >>> sloth.
> 
> >> Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.
> 
> > Your right.  I don't.
> 
> Pretty bad, Marty.
>
> > My IQ eclipses that of a 3 toed sloth by a large margin.
> 
> You just stated that your IQ is *not* above that of a 3 toed sloth,
> Marty.

Not at all Dave.  I said it was not equal to that of a 3 toed sloth.  Do
try to read what I have written and not what you would have wanted me to
write.

> Now you're saying it *is* above that of a 3 toed sloth by a
> large margin.  Yet another example of your inconsistency.  Do make up
> your mind, Marty.

I said it was not equal, which is perfectly consistent with my statement
that it eclipses a 3 toed sloth's IQ by a large margin.  My mind was
quite made up Dave.

> >> By the way, I noticed that you still haven't answered my question about
> >> whether the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
> >> OS/2 is an issue.  Why is that?
> 
> > It is immaterial with respect to the idiocy you've demonstrated quite
> > clearly herein.
> 
> What alleged "idiocy", Marty?

Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious and accept that you made a
simple, perfectly forgivable mistake.

> It's quite material to yet another one of your lies.

What alleged "lie", Dave?

> >> Too embarassing for you to admit that I have, in fact, discussed issues,
> >> contrary to your ridiculous claim?
> 
> > You've discussed the semantics surrounding issues, not the issues
> > themselves.
> 
> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

The evidence is all present in Deja News.  You've made one critical
blunder after another in that thread because of your lack of familiarity
with the technical details involved.  Your semantics dug you into
several deep holes in that thread and you no longer know which way is
up.

> > I stand by my statement.
> 
> Just like you stood by your statement about me allegedly never admitting
> to errors.

This thread is further evidence of your never admitting to errors in an
argument.

> How does it feel to be consistently wrong, Marty?

I wouldn't know, Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 21:26:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
> 
> >>>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
> >>>> "infantile game", Marty.
> 
> >>> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
> >>> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
> >>> intentions from one little sentence.
> 
> >> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".
> 
> > I suppose you have. I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty
> > some time ago, so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's
> > reply.
> 
> That won't necessarily help.  Marty has been avoiding certain questions
> I've asked him.

I've been avoiding answering the same thing over and over again --
something Dave never seems to tire of.
 
> >>> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
> >>> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
> >>> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.
> 
> >> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.
> 
> > I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
> > interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
> > too!" exchanges.
> 
> Undoubtedly due to Marty's "infantile game".

If there's any game being played here, it seems to have at least two
players.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 02:29:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> I've noticed you failed to admit that you were incorrect in saying that
> Mike could not possibly have read the contents of the file.

Where did I say that, Marty?  Still having reading comprehension problems?

> I've noticed you side-tracked the real issue yet again and counter-accused
> me of everything which you, yourself are guilty, as usual.

How ironic, coming from the person who continues to side-track the
question about whether the discussion involving the Java 1.2 functionality
implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue.

> As stated below, "I'm not surprised."

As stated below, I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile
game", Marty.

> Can you admit that Timbol could very easily have verified his
> statements?

Can you admit that the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in
Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty?

> Further, can you admit that he is correct?

Further, can you admit that Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does indeed implement
Java 1.2 functionality, and that Mike Timbol was therefore incorrect
when he told Joseph Coughlan "bullshit"?  Can you even admit that
Lucien is incorrect?  Care to take the tests I gave him?

> I know where I'd place my money on that bet.

I know where I'd place my money on those bets.

>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>>>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>>>>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>>>>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>>>>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>>>>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
>>>>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
>>>>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
>>>>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               
>>>>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       ! L 
!
>>>>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program 
mus
>>>>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run
under O
>>>>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>>>>>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>>>>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>> Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
>>>>> parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
>>>>> directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
>>>>> standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
>>>>> decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
>>>>> platform.

>>>> I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
>>>> Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
>>>> Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
>>>> Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
>>>> Yeah right.

>>> I'm following the thread Dave.

>> Why, Marty?  According to you, it's not an issue.

>>> If I were not, then I wouldn't have known what you were talking about
>>> and that your argument has been that of semantics, as it is even still.
 
>> How ironic, coming from someone whose argument that it isn't an issue
>> has been that of semantics, as it is even still.

>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."  Too bad it doesn't have to be
>>> run and your semantics are worthless.
 
>> Too bad the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
>> an issue and your semantics are worthless, Marty.

>>> Both Mike and myself are waiting for an admission of your perfectly
>>> understandable mistake.
 
>> I am waiting for an admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented
>> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.

>>> Your obstinance/infantile game still persists,
 
>> Your erroneous presupposition of "obstinance/infantile game" still
>> persists, Marty.

>>> preventing such a simple admission.
 
>> How ironic, coming from someone whose own "infantile game" prevents an
>> admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for
>> OS/2 is an issue.

>>> I'm not surprised.
>> 
>> I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile game", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 30-Oct-99 02:29:25
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vbqs7$sen$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
>
>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>>
>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE                  

>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP        

>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00         @ 
>>      
>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00                  

>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00                 

>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90   
!L!
>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program
mus
>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under
O
>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>>
>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>>
>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
>
>> I didn't need to run the program, Dave.  You're jumping to illogical 
>> conclusions based on your ignorance.  Let's see why...
>
>This ought to be good.

And it is.

>>> Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>>>
>>>   ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>
>>>   ] 
>>> MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>>>   ] >
>>> DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>>   ] 
>>> MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>>
>>> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
>>> on an OS/2 system to boot!  
>
>> Completely incorrect.  To run the file, one must have an OS/2 system 
>> (or emulator).  You do not need to run the file to look at the contents.
>
>Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>file?

I was easily able to extract the contents of the self-extracting 
executable without using OS/2.  classes.zip is one of the files 
included.  Which part of this don't you understand?

>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>
>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>
>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
>> the first time:
>>
>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."
>
>And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

I already told you, moron.  "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>> What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
>> executable.
>
>Here's the output, Mike:
>
>] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
>] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
>] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>
>Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT, Mike.

Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
just as I mentioned. 

Now continue to the next logical step, as I stated previously...

>> Such files are compressed using a standard archive format which is
>> portable across platforms.
>
>Since when is the LX executable file format portable across platforms,
>Mike?  (See bytes 100 and 101 hex.)

Learn to read, you dolt.  I said the archive format was portable across
platforms, not the executable file format.   Since it is the same archive
format used on many other platforms, tools on many other platforms can
read it.

>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
>
>Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.

>>>> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
>>>> questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea what
>>>> you're talking about.
>
>>> On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
>
>> Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
>> the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
>> number of platforms.
>
>Here's the output, Mike:
>
>] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
>] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
>] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>
>Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT, Mike.

That's completely irrelevent.  I told you explicitely that I didn't run
the file.  I said I used WinZip.  Which part of this is too hard for
you to understand?

>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
>
>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
>
>Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?

>> Good show.
>
>You're providing the entertainment, Mike.

And the entertainment is making you look like an idiot.

>>>> And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.
>
>>> And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>>
>>> ] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>>
>>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.
>
>> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.  I could 
>> read the contents of the file from Linux, Solaris, Windows NT, even DOS.
>> I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT.
>
>Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>
>] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>
>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.
>
>Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>Mike.

Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
don't bother to test that evidence at all.  Instead, you you run some
test with InfoZip and expect that to mean anything?  Yet another 
demonstration of your useless logic.

The fact remains that the file is a self-extracting executable, which
I was easily able to read using WinZip on Windows NT.

This is yet *another* case where you've decided to drop all other
issues to concentrate on what you felt is your strongest argument,
only to have it blasted out of the water when your ignorance was exposed.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 23:06:06
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> > I've noticed you failed to admit that you were incorrect in saying that
> > Mike could not possibly have read the contents of the file.
> 
> Where did I say that, Marty?  Still having reading comprehension problems?

It's all right in this thread Dave.
 
> > I've noticed you side-tracked the real issue yet again and counter-accused
> > me of everything which you, yourself are guilty, as usual.
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to side-track the
> question about whether the discussion involving the Java 1.2 functionality
> implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue.

I've answered that question already.  I notice you haven't answered
mine.

> > As stated below, "I'm not surprised."
> 
> As stated below, I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile
> game", Marty.

What's more infantile of a game than repeatedly telling someone that
they are participating in an infantile game?

> > Can you admit that Timbol could very easily have verified his
> > statements?
> 
> Can you admit that the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in
> Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty?

I've answered that question already.  I notice you haven't answered
mine.
 
> > Further, can you admit that he is correct?
> 
> Further, can you admit that Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does indeed implement
> Java 1.2 functionality, and that Mike Timbol was therefore incorrect
> when he told Joseph Coughlan "bullshit"?  Can you even admit that
> Lucien is incorrect?  Care to take the tests I gave him?

Irrelevant to the question at hand in this thread.  How about answering
my questions which were appropriate to this thread?
 
> > I know where I'd place my money on that bet.
> 
> I know where I'd place my money on those bets.

And I know who'd win... this without even predicting the future.

> >>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
> >>>>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
> 
> >>>>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
> >>>>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
> >>>>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
> >>>>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
> >>>>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP    

> >>>>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
> >>>>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> >>>>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00             
  
> >>>>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       !
> >>>>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This
program mus
> >>>>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run
under O
> >>>>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the
alignment
> >>>>>> of the columns on the right side.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
clearly,
> >>>>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>> Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
> >>>>> parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
> >>>>> directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
> >>>>> standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
> >>>>> decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
> >>>>> platform.
> 
> >>>> I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
> >>>> Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
> >>>> Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
> >>>> Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
> >>>> Yeah right.
> 
> >>> I'm following the thread Dave.
> 
> >> Why, Marty?  According to you, it's not an issue.
> 
> >>> If I were not, then I wouldn't have known what you were talking about
> >>> and that your argument has been that of semantics, as it is even still.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from someone whose argument that it isn't an issue
> >> has been that of semantics, as it is even still.
> 
> >>> "This program must be run under OS/2."  Too bad it doesn't have to be
> >>> run and your semantics are worthless.
> 
> >> Too bad the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
> >> an issue and your semantics are worthless, Marty.
> 
> >>> Both Mike and myself are waiting for an admission of your perfectly
> >>> understandable mistake.
> 
> >> I am waiting for an admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented
> >> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
> 
> >>> Your obstinance/infantile game still persists,
> 
> >> Your erroneous presupposition of "obstinance/infantile game" still
> >> persists, Marty.
> 
> >>> preventing such a simple admission.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from someone whose own "infantile game" prevents an
> >> admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for
> >> OS/2 is an issue.
> 
> >>> I'm not surprised.
> >>
> >> I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile game", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: stanleys@cybernex.net                             29-Oct-99 22:48:23
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Stanley Sidlov <stanleys@cybernex.net>

Powerquest (Partition Magic), and  Hilgraeve (HyperTerminal -- included in
each and every OS2 Bonus Pack and Windows software package & the OS/2
version of HyperAccess doesn't have all the features and emulations of the
Win version and hasn't been updated in more than 2 years now -- does that
qualify as 'cold turkey?),  are the two best known, IMO.


"David T. Johnson" wrote:

> Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
> substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
> favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
> platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
> dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
> at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
> happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
>
> Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
> seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
> that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
> prosperous.
>
> SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
> with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
> "Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
> contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
> there will be an IPO anytime soon.
>
> Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
> OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
> ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
> and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
> called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
> world on fire.
>
> So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Warpstock Board of Directors [Thanks Esther, this
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             30-Oct-99 02:38:20
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vde8u$6v2$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> > Wrong. It does apply, and is supported by your own statements.
>
> Incorrect, Lucien.
> You won't even admit to what my own statements are,
> by virtue of the fact that you have repeatedly truncated my sentence
> including "the ambiguity is resolved" before the word "resolved" and

Irrelevant. The resolution (or not) of the ambiguity is not the issue.

> then falsely accusing me of admitting to an ambiguity.

You have admitted to an ambiguity. See below.

> Irrelevant, given that there is no absence of additional information
> in the present situation, Lucien.

Doesn't matter, our statements still hold.

Let's review again:

My thesis:

the "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" sentences are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Your (congruent) statement:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."


> > You also several times refer to and therefore affirm the presence of
> > this underlying ambiguity.

> Incorrect, Lucien.

On the contrary, you contradict yourself in the next sentence.

> I several times referred to how
> --->>>[[[[the ambiguity]]]]<<<---
> is resolved in the present situation by the presence of additional

Here, you've added yet another reference to the underlying ambiguity in
the JDK situation. You've agreed with me again that the ambiguity
exists.

These points constitute proof that you've fumbled into complete
agreement with my thesis.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 22:31:05
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

I've noticed you failed to admit that you were incorrect in saying that
Mike could not possibly have read the contents of the file.  I've
noticed you side-tracked the real issue yet again and counter-accused me
of everything which you, yourself are guilty, as usual.  As stated
below, "I'm not surprised."

Can you admit that Timbol could very easily have verified his
statements?  Further, can you admit that he is correct?  I know where
I'd place my money on that bet.

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
> 
> >>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
> >>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
> 
> >>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
> >>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
> >>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
> >>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
> >>>>
> >>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
> >>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
> >>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
> >>>
> >>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> >>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               
> >>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       ! L 
!
> >>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program 
mus
> >>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run
under O
> >>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
> >>>>
> >>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
> >>>> of the columns on the right side.)
> >>>>
> >>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
> >>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>> Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
> >>> parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
> >>> directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
> >>> standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
> >>> decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
> >>> platform.
> 
> >> I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
> >> Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
> >> Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
> >> Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
> >> Yeah right.
> 
> > I'm following the thread Dave.
> 
> Why, Marty?  According to you, it's not an issue.
> 
> > If I were not, then I wouldn't have known what you were talking about
> > and that your argument has been that of semantics, as it is even still.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone whose argument that it isn't an issue
> has been that of semantics, as it is even still.
> 
> > "This program must be run under OS/2."  Too bad it doesn't have to be
> > run and your semantics are worthless.
> 
> Too bad the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
> an issue and your semantics are worthless, Marty.
> 
> > Both Mike and myself are waiting for an admission of your perfectly
> > understandable mistake.
> 
> I am waiting for an admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented
> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
> 
> > Your obstinance/infantile game still persists,
> 
> Your erroneous presupposition of "obstinance/infantile game" still
> persists, Marty.
> 
> > preventing such a simple admission.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone whose own "infantile game" prevents an
> admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for
> OS/2 is an issue.
> 
> > I'm not surprised.
> 
> I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile game", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 22:34:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> > Mike Timbol wrote:
> 
> >>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
> 
> >> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
> >> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.  Good show.
> 
> > Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
> > part.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to answer the question about
> whether the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2
> constitutes an issue.

It depends on how it is discussed.  As I already stated, your semantical
treatment of it does not deal with the issue (or even facts) at hand. 
By itself, it is an issue.  Your posts fail to address this issue,
however.

Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
part.  Dave... it's not so bad to admit you are wrong.  It happens to
the best of us.  What is your problem?  You act as if you would
spontaneously combust if you admit that your logic produced an incorrect
result.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 02:31:22
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>> Marty writes:
 
>>>>>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
 
>>>>>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
>>>>>> "infantile game", Marty.
 
>>>>> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
>>>>> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
>>>>> intentions from one little sentence.
 
>>>> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".
 
>>> I suppose you have. I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty
>>> some time ago, so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's
>>> reply.
 
>> That won't necessarily help.  Marty has been avoiding certain questions
>> I've asked him.

> I've been avoiding answering the same thing over and over again --

Illogical, given that you haven't answered the question about whether the
implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue,
Marty.

> something Dave never seems to tire of.

You never seem to tire of your "infantile game", Marty.

>>>>> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
>>>>> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
>>>>> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.
 
>>>> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.
 
>>> I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
>>> interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
>>> too!" exchanges.
 
>> Undoubtedly due to Marty's "infantile game".

> If there's any game being played here, it seems to have at least two
> players.

You and who else are you speaking for, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:19:02
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
 
>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
 
>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.  Good show.
 
>>> Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
>>> part.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.
 
>> I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to answer the question about
>> whether the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2
>> constitutes an issue.

> It depends on how it is discussed.

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

> As I already stated, your semantical treatment of it

What alleged semantical treatment, Marty?

> does not deal with the issue (or even facts) at hand. 

Incorrect, Marty.

> By itself, it is an issue.

Glad you agree, Marty.  So why did you accuse me of never discussing
issues?

> Your posts fail to address this issue, however.

Incorrect, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

> Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
> part.

Since when is pontification a "cearly pointed-out mistake", Marty?

> Dave... it's not so bad to admit you are wrong.

Obviously, Marty, which is why I've done it when appropriate.

> It happens to the best of us.

And the worst of you, too.

> What is your problem?

You're erroneously presupposing that I have a problem, Marty.

> You act as if you would spontaneously combust if you admit that your
> logic produced an incorrect result.

Illogical, Marty.  What actions of mine suggest that I would
spontaneously combust?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 23:35:03
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> > Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
> > part.
> 
> Since when is pontification a "cearly pointed-out mistake", Marty?

I didn't say that Dave.  I said "clearly pointed-out mistake".  No
pontification was present.  You have been shown how Mike could have read
the self extracting EXE without using OS/2 as you claimed.  It's time to
admit your mistake.

How you tried it with a newer version of Unzip yet?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 23:13:25
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> > Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.
> 
> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
> Mike.

Now you've demonstrated how old your software is Dave.  Try this
version:

UnZip 5.32 of 3 November 1997, by Info-ZIP.  UnReduce (c) 1989 by S. H.
Smith.
Send bug reports to authors at Zip-Bugs@lists.wku.edu; see README for
details.

UNZIP.EXE  139827 bytes

It reads those executables just fine.  Don't take my word for it,
though.  Try it yourself and tell us your findings.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 23:20:17
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)
> 
> >>>>>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
> >>>>>> "infantile game", Marty.
> 
> >>>>> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
> >>>>> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
> >>>>> intentions from one little sentence.
> 
> >>>> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".
> 
> >>> I suppose you have. I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty
> >>> some time ago, so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's
> >>> reply.
> 
> >> That won't necessarily help.  Marty has been avoiding certain questions
> >> I've asked him.
> 
> > I've been avoiding answering the same thing over and over again --
> 
> Illogical, given that you haven't answered the question about whether the
> implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue,
> Marty.

One or both of our news servers must be lagged.  Be patient.
 
> > something Dave never seems to tire of.
> 
> You never seem to tire of your "infantile game", Marty.

I got tired of it when I admitted to it x months ago and ceased it. 
Yours is still in full force, however.

> >>>>> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
> >>>>> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
> >>>>> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.
> 
> >>>> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.
> 
> >>> I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
> >>> interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
> >>> too!" exchanges.
> 
> >> Undoubtedly due to Marty's "infantile game".
> 
> > If there's any game being played here, it seems to have at least two
> > players.
> 
> You and who else are you speaking for, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:14:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: (1/2) Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>> Can anyone believe this shit?

>>>> You're trying to get people to believe your "shit", Marty.

>>> I'm not trying to get "people" to believe anything.

>> Then why are you foisting your illogic on the newsgroup, Marty?

> What alleged newsgroup, Dave?

Hardly alleged, Marty.  You're posting to it.

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>> I'm trying to get a mentally ill astronomer

>> Who might that be, Marty?

> No, not Marty.

Who might that be, Marty?

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>> to believe what I'm telling him (it?) about what I stated.

>> Well, you're talking to the wrong person, Marty, given that I'm not
>> "mentally ill".

> I'm not talking to anyone, Dave.

I sense a semantic argument brewing.  How ironic.

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>>>>>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word
blatant.

>>>>>>>>>> On the contrary, Marty, you were pointing out an alleged example of
>>>>>>>>>> a "lie/game" on my part.

>>>>>>>>> I was thanking Mike for correcting my spelling of the word blatant.

>>>>>>>> Illogically,

>>>>>>> Are you still too blind to see it?

>>>>>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
>>>>>> halluncinating?

>>>>> Are you still too blind to see it?

>>>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
>>>> halluncinating?

>>> Are you still too blind to see it?

>> There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
>> halluncinating?

> Are you still too blind to see it?

There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
halluncinating?

And even more repetition.  How ironic, considering your previous complaints.

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>> Answer: Yes.

>> Illogical, given that there is no reference to any misspelling to see,
>> Marty.

> Are you still too blind to see it?

There's no reference to any misspelling to see, Marty.  Are you
halluncinating?

And even more repetition.  How ironic, considering your previous complaints.

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>> Here's another clue Dave... maybe given enough clues you'll be able to
>>> piece it together...

>>>
http://x37.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=540806139&CONTEXT=941166684.2138898509&hitnum=
0

>> Irrelevant, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Balderdash, Marty.

> It shows where the spelling was corrected

Irrelevant, given that no reference was made to that article in the
posting in question.

> and the reason why the thanks was specified where it was specified.

Irrelevnat, given that no reason was given in the posting in question
either, Marty.

> Did you even bother to read it?

Irrelevant, given that the article itself is irrelevant, for the reasons
given above.

>> The issue is the alleged "lie/game" on my part.

> Changing the subject again?

Obviously not, given that the alleged "lie/game" on my part was mentioned
specifically by you in the posting in question.

> How convenient.

You're erroneously presupposing that I changed the subject, Marty.

> I see the game continues.

Your game, Marty.

>> The above so-called "clue" has nothing to do with that alleged "lie/game".

> Correct.

Glad you agree, Marty.  So why did you bring it up?

> As does the reference to Mike and the misspelling.

That's the same "clue", Marty, therefore you're being redundant.

> Glad you agree.

Glad you agree, Marty.  So why did you bring it up?

> So why bring up a non sequitur in this discussion about my
> "unspecified reason" for thanking Mike?

You're erroneously presupposing that my posting was non sequitur, Marty.
Rather, you're the one bringing up irrelevant articles.

> [important evidence removed in an attempt to cover my tracks and
> minimize my embarassment]

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>>>>>> I used the word "blatant".

>>>>>> You also used the word "following", Marty.  You also used the word
>>>>>> "another", Marty.  You also used "lie/game".

>>>>> Irrelevant, jackass.

>>>> On the contrary, they are just as relevant as the fact that you used
>>>> "blatant", Marty.

>>> Incorrect, as none of their spellings were corrected by Mike.

>> Irrelevant, given that no reference was made to any spelling corrections
>> in the sentence in question, Marty.

> Incorrect as usual.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> Reference was made to an alleged "lie/game" on my part, however.

> Non sequitur in this discussion.

Illogical, given that your "lie/game" statement is what the discussion
is all about, Marty.

>> Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> Never had 'em,

Incorrect, Marty.  Short-term memory problems again?  Is was only a few
days ago that I proved you wrong when you called it a "fact" that I
never admit to mistakes.  That error was caused by your reading
comprehension problem, Marty.

> never will.

Trying to predict the future, Marty?

> Yours are still quite apparent.

Where, allegedly, Marty?

>>>>> Perhaps if you didn't cut the sentence there and read on, you might
>>>>> understand,

>>>> I didn't cut any sentence, Marty.  Note how the the quotation ends
>>>> with a period.

>> Note:  no response.

> After cutting the above sentence at the comma,

Illogical, Marty, as your false accusation occurred before that.

> you have the gumption to reinsert this absurdly incorrect statement.

On what basis do you claim that I "reinserted" it, Marty?

> How embarassing for you.

You're erroneously presupposing some embarassment for me, Marty.  It
should be rather embarassing for you, however, after making an illogical
statement and falsely accused me of "reinserting" some text.

>>>>> though in light of your argument below, I don't find that incredibly
>>>>> likely.

>>>> I already understand perfectly, Marty.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> It was explained already.

Not logically, Marty.

> It need not be supported repeatedly.

It need be supported logically once.

> Once is enough for most people with common sense.

You're erroneously presupposing that you've supported it logically
at least once.  In reality, you haven't.

>>>>>>> I would have spelled it wrong ("blatent" as I had in the past)
>>>>>>> if Mike had not corrected me.

>>>>>> Illogical, given that I called your attention to your misspelling
>>>>>> of "hypocrisy" and you still got it wrong after that.

>>>>> So therefore I would always do the same, no matter who corrects me?

>>>> I didn't say that, Marty.  I said that it is illogical for you to
>>>> claim that you would have spelled it wrong if Mike had not corrected
>>>> you.

>>> But Dave, I actually <would have>.

>> How can you predict the future, Marty?

> I can certainly predict my own actions in a given situation.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?  How many times has a
defendent engaged in an unexpected action in a given situation (like
a hit and run accident, for example) and explained "I wasn't thinking
clearly at the time"?  You're immune to emotional reactions?

> I'm the one performing them, remember?

So what, Marty?  See above.

> To argue with this point would be quite illogical.

Incorrect, Marty.  See above.

>>> Whether it is logical or not, it's reality.

>> Since when is a prediction of the future "reality", Marty?

> Since it would be a correct prediction,

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> since I was predicting my own actions in a specified situation.

Illogical, Marty.  See above.

>>> Live with it.

>> I'm putting up with your illogic daily, Marty.

> Not my problem.

You spewing your illogic daily is your problem, Marty.

> Unfortunate that truth and reality appear illogical to you.

You're erroneously presupposing that truth and reality appear illogical
to me, Marty.

>>> Reality and logic are often in conflict with your inept logic "analysis".

>> Is that how you're trying to explain your illogic, Marty?

> I have no need to explain what doesn't exist.

Irrelevant, given that your illogic does exist, Marty.

> Either your analysis of the situation is clearly inept or you are
> playing an infantile game.

Incorrect, Marty.  I see you've ignored another possibility.

> I haven't quite concluded which is the case yet.

Hasn't stopped you from erroneously accusing me of playing an "infantile
game", Marty.

>>> How unfortunate that your logic is utterly incapable of modelling
>>> and explaining the real world.

>> On the contrary, my logic is modeling and explaining the real world
>> right now, Marty.  Your "infantile game" continues.

> Your "logical" model doesn't seem to have any explanation for why I
> thanked Mike (by your own admission).

On the contrary, it does.  Given that your remark was about another
alleged example of my "lie/game", it's quite possible that you were
thanking Mike for calling that alleged example to your attention.

> Perhaps it requires some revision.

My logic doesn't require any revision, Marty.  What requires revision
is your writing.

>>>>> Not only illogical, but moronic Dave.

>>>> Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
>>>> logical argument.

>>> Necessary in this case.

>> What makes invective necessary, Marty?

> Your behavior.

Illogical, Marty.  Behavior does not make invective necessary.

> I've tried calm reasoning and logic.

Not in this case, Marty.  You've been trying your "infantile game".

> I've tried mimicking (my long since terminated "infantile game").

Obviously it hasn't been "long since terminated", Marty.

> I've tried quick wit and parody.

Whose definition of "wit", Marty?  Yours?

> I've tried harsh commentary.

Complete with illogic.

> About the only thing I haven't tried is physical violence.

What good would that do, Marty?  Have you tried physical violence in
the past?  Are you prone to such illogical behavior?

> Sleep tight.

Is that a threat, Marty?

>>> I was describing your behavior, not attempting to insult you personally.

>> Incorrect, Marty, as you were not describing my behavior at all.
>> Rather, you were describing your "infantile game".

> Incorrect.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Your behavior is not only illogical, but moronic.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>> I said I would have spelled it wrong if he had not corrected me.

>>>> And I said that that is illogical, given your history of still
>>>> spelling words wrong after being told of your incorrect spelling.

>>>>> He had corrected me and I have henceforth spelled it correctly.

>>>> I told you that there is no such word as "hypocracy", and you have
>>>> henceforth still gotten it wrong.

>>> I'm sorry.  Is that "illogical" to do.

>> It is illogical to claim that you would have gotten "blatant" wrong if
>> you hadn't been corrected.

> How is it illogical to predict what my own actions are going to be in a
> controlled environment?

On what basis do you call this newsgroup "a controlled environment",
Marty?  Do you really think you have control over what others post here?

> I was mistaken on the spelling of the word blatant.

Irrelevant, Marty, given that no reference to a misspelling was made in
the posting in question.

> No one had corrected me, so I assumed my way was correct and
> continued to use it as such.

I noted that no such word as "hypocracy" existed, yet you continued to
use it.

> It is reasonable and logical to assume that I would have kept spelling
> it incorrectly if someone had not corrected me.

It is reasonable and logical to assume that you would have looked up the
correct spelling of "hypcrisy" and started using it.  You didn't.  But
that's your problem, not mine.

> Furthermore, it is unreasonable and illogical to assume that I would
> suddenly change my mind and decide to spell it a different way without
> being prompted by anyone else,

Not at all, Marty, given that you suddenly changed your mind about using
your killfile to filter out my postings.

> and further unlikely that this "new" way I decided to spell it would
> in fact be the correct one.

You picked a new way to spell "hypocrasy" and got that one wrong also.

> I have no time or desire to answer the rest of this article.

That's your problem, Marty.  Perhaps you shouldn't start that which
you can't finish.  But why didn't you just stop at this point, if you
really have "no time"?

> I will fast forward to a two points,

Looks like your grammar also needs to be corrected.

> which I'm sure you would have restored anyway:

Why not address the matter of the discussion involving the implementation
of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8, Marty?  You still haven't
answered the question about whether it's an issue or not.

Given that you have time to fast forward to "a two points", you
contradicted yourself when you said you have no time to answer the
rest.

>>>>> The facts are obvious to anyone with an IQ above that of a 3 toed
>>>>> sloth.

>>>> Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.

>>> Your right.  I don't.

>> Pretty bad, Marty.

>>> My IQ eclipses that of a 3 toed sloth by a large margin.

>> You just stated that your IQ is *not* above that of a 3 toed sloth,
>> Marty.

> Not at all Dave.

Incorrect, Marty:

DT] Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.

M] Your right.  I don't.

> I said it was not equal to that of a 3 toed sloth.

On the contrary, you said it was "not above".  See the quotations above,
Marty.  No use of the word "equal" appears.

> Do try to read what I have written

I have, Marty.  Perhaps you should read what you have written.

> and not what you would have wanted me to write.

Irrelevant, given that my wants are not involved in what you actually
wrote, Marty.

>> Now you're saying it *is* above that of a 3 toed sloth by a
>> large margin.  Yet another example of your inconsistency.  Do make up
>> your mind, Marty.

> I said it was not equal,

On the contrary, you said it was "not above".  See the quotations above,
Marty.  No use of the word "equal" appears.

> which is perfectly consistent with my statement that it eclipses a
> 3 toed sloth's IQ by a large margin.

You're erroneously presupposing that you used the words "not equal",
Marty.  In reality, you used the words "not above", which I quoted.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:14:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: (2/2) Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

> My mind was quite made up Dave.

Too bad you didn't comprehend what you had written before you made up
your mind, Marty.

Yet more evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>>> By the way, I noticed that you still haven't answered my question about
>>>> whether the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
>>>> OS/2 is an issue.  Why is that?

>>> It is immaterial with respect to the idiocy you've demonstrated quite
>>> clearly herein.

>> What alleged "idiocy", Marty?

> Your refusal to acknowledge the obvious

How ironic, coming from someone who "refused" to acknowledge the obvious
use of "not above" rather not "not equal".

> and accept that you made a simple, perfectly forgivable mistake.

What alleged mistake of mine, Marty?

>> It's quite material to yet another one of your lies.

> What alleged "lie", Dave?

Nothing alleged about it, Marty; you clearly wrote the following lie:

M] It is immaterial with respect to the idiocy you've demonstrated quite
M] clearly herein.

>>>> Too embarassing for you to admit that I have, in fact, discussed issues,
>>>> contrary to your ridiculous claim?

>>> You've discussed the semantics surrounding issues, not the issues
>>> themselves.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Marty.

> The evidence is all present in Deja News.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing them out, Marty.

> You've made one critical blunder after another in that thread

Yet another example of your pontification, Marty.

> because of your lack of familiarity with the technical details involved.

Yet another example of your pontification, Marty.

> Your semantics dug you into several deep holes in that thread

Yet another example of your pontification, Marty.

> and you no longer know which way is up.

Yet another example of your pontification, Marty.

>>> I stand by my statement.

>> Just like you stood by your statement about me allegedly never admitting
>> to errors.

> This thread is further evidence of your never admitting to errors in an
> argument.

You lied about that once, and I embarassed you by proving you wrong.
Logically, one would expect you to not make the same mistake again,
but here you are, making the same mistake again.  That's your problem,
not mine, Marty.

>> How does it feel to be consistently wrong, Marty?

> I wouldn't know, Dave.

Haven't you been paying attention to your own feelings lately, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:25:22
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>> Like Tholen and common sense?  ;-)

>>>>>>>> Typical invective, and even more evidence that you're playing an
>>>>>>>> "infantile game", Marty.

>>>>>>> If he was only trying to get me into the discussion, I tend to agree
>>>>>>> (with the "game" part, that is). It is however difficult to infer
>>>>>>> intentions from one little sentence.

>>>>>> I've relying on far more than "one little sentence".

>>>>> I suppose you have. I've stopped reading your exchanges with Marty
>>>>> some time ago, so I cannot comment on those. I'll wait for Marty's
>>>>> reply.

>>>> That won't necessarily help.  Marty has been avoiding certain questions
>>>> I've asked him.

>>> I've been avoiding answering the same thing over and over again --

>> Illogical, given that you haven't answered the question about whether the
>> implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an
issue,
>> Marty.

> One or both of our news servers must be lagged.  Be patient.

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

>>> something Dave never seems to tire of.

>> You never seem to tire of your "infantile game", Marty.

> I got tired of it when I admitted to it x months ago and ceased it. 

Obviously you haven't ceased it, Marty.

> Yours is still in full force, however.

You're erroneously presupposing that I even have an "infantile game",
Marty.

>>>>>>> BTW, I don't second his comparison (analogy? - No, better not use that
>>>>>>> word, people might start frothing at the mouth again), although, by
>>>>>>> continuing your silly thread, you _both_ lost some credits in my book.

>>>>>> I don't find it silly to counter Marty's lies about me.

>>>>> I suppose you wouldn't, from your point of view. To me, without vested
>>>>> interests, the whole thing became eerily resemblant to "Did not! - Did
>>>>> too!" exchanges.

>>>> Undoubtedly due to Marty's "infantile game".

>>> If there's any game being played here, it seems to have at least two
>>> players.

>> You and who else are you speaking for, Marty?

Note:  no response.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:21:16
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
>>>> Or are you really that idiotic?
 
>>> Now he's stealing my lines!
 
>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>> What a hypocrite.
 
>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm stealing your lines, Marty.

>>> Yet more evidence that he's playing his own "infantile game".
 
>> Lucien obviously is.

>>> Or is he really that idiotic?
 
>> Otherwise he's claiming that "the ambiguity is resolved" is an admission
>> of ambiguity.

> If there were no ambiguity, then why would it need to be, or even be
> capable of being resolved?

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  The ambiguous part
is the phrase, which is the only part that Lucien likes to reproduce.
The entire sentence is not ambiguous.  The ambiguity in the phrase is
resolved by the additional information provided in the rest of the
sentence.

Take the two simple tests I gave to Lucien, Marty.

Then quit playing your "infantile game".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:23:24
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>> 
>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.
 
>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>> Mike.

> Now you've demonstrated how old your software is Dave.

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

> Try this version:

Why don't you try answering the question about whether the implementation
of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 is an issue, Marty?

> UnZip 5.32 of 3 November 1997, by Info-ZIP.  UnReduce (c) 1989 by S. H.
> Smith.

That's the version I was using, Marty.

> Send bug reports to authors at Zip-Bugs@lists.wku.edu; see README for
> details.
>
> UNZIP.EXE  139827 bytes
> 
> It reads those executables just fine.

Didn't read my copy just fine, Marty.

> Don't take my word for it, though.

Of course not, Marty.  You're a proven liar.

> Try it yourself and tell us your findings.

Already did, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:29:16
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> I've noticed you failed to admit that you were incorrect in saying that
>>> Mike could not possibly have read the contents of the file.

>> Where did I say that, Marty?  Still having reading comprehension problems?

> It's all right in this thread Dave.

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

If it's "all right in this thread", then why couldn't you point it out,
Marty?

>>> I've noticed you side-tracked the real issue yet again and counter-accused
>>> me of everything which you, yourself are guilty, as usual.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to side-track the
>> question about whether the discussion involving the Java 1.2 functionality
>> implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue.

> I've answered that question already.

Not logically, Marty.

> I notice you haven't answered mine.

Which question are you referring to, Marty?

>>> As stated below, "I'm not surprised."

>> As stated below, I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile
>> game", Marty.

> What's more infantile of a game than repeatedly telling someone that
> they are participating in an infantile game?

What you're doing, Marty.

>>> Can you admit that Timbol could very easily have verified his
>>> statements?

>> Can you admit that the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in
>> Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty?

> I've answered that question already.

Not logically, Marty.

> I notice you haven't answered mine.

Which question are you referring to, Marty?

>>> Further, can you admit that he is correct?

>> Further, can you admit that Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does indeed implement
>> Java 1.2 functionality, and that Mike Timbol was therefore incorrect
>> when he told Joseph Coughlan "bullshit"?  Can you even admit that
>> Lucien is incorrect?  Care to take the tests I gave him?

> Irrelevant to the question at hand in this thread.

Which question are you referring to, Marty?  And on what basis do you
call it irrelevant?  That has been the issue throughout.

> How about answering my questions which were appropriate to this thread?

Which questions are you referring to, Marty?

>>> I know where I'd place my money on that bet.

>> I know where I'd place my money on those bets.

> And I know who'd win... this without even predicting the future.

And I know who'd win... this without even predicting the future.

>>>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>>>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>>>>>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>>>>>>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>>>>>>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>>>>>>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>>>>>>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
>>>>>>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP    

>>>>>>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
>>>>>>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>>>>>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00             
  
>>>>>>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       !
>>>>>>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This
program mus
>>>>>>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run
under O
>>>>>>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the
alignment
>>>>>>>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
clearly,
>>>>>>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>>>> Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
>>>>>>> parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
>>>>>>> directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
>>>>>>> standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
>>>>>>> decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
>>>>>>> platform.

>>>>>> I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
>>>>>> Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
>>>>>> Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
>>>>>> Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
>>>>>> Yeah right.

>>>>> I'm following the thread Dave.

>>>> Why, Marty?  According to you, it's not an issue.

>>>>> If I were not, then I wouldn't have known what you were talking about
>>>>> and that your argument has been that of semantics, as it is even still.

>>>> How ironic, coming from someone whose argument that it isn't an issue
>>>> has been that of semantics, as it is even still.

>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."  Too bad it doesn't have to be
>>>>> run and your semantics are worthless.

>>>> Too bad the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is
>>>> an issue and your semantics are worthless, Marty.

>>>>> Both Mike and myself are waiting for an admission of your perfectly
>>>>> understandable mistake.

>>>> I am waiting for an admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented
>>>> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.

>>>>> Your obstinance/infantile game still persists,

>>>> Your erroneous presupposition of "obstinance/infantile game" still
>>>> persists, Marty.

>>>>> preventing such a simple admission.

>>>> How ironic, coming from someone whose own "infantile game" prevents an
>>>> admission that the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for
>>>> OS/2 is an issue.

>>>>> I'm not surprised.

>>>> I'm not surprised that you're continuing your "infantile game", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 23:45:23
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> >>> My IQ eclipses that of a 3 toed sloth by a large margin.
> 
> >> You just stated that your IQ is *not* above that of a 3 toed sloth,
> >> Marty.
> 
> > Not at all Dave.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty:
> 
> DT] Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.
> 
> M] Your right.  I don't.
> 
> > I said it was not equal to that of a 3 toed sloth.
> 
> On the contrary, you said it was "not above".  See the quotations above,
> Marty.  No use of the word "equal" appears.

I stand corrected on this point.  I misread the quote in question. 
See... some of us can admit to errors when they are pointed out.  But
I'm sure this is not random error on my part right?  It's all part of my
infantile game, right Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:40:08
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> Wrong. It does apply, and is supported by your own statements.

>> Incorrect, Lucien.
>> You won't even admit to what my own statements are,
>> by virtue of the fact that you have repeatedly truncated my sentence
>> including "the ambiguity is resolved" before the word "resolved" and

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, your failure to properly quote what I've written is
quite relevant.

> The resolution (or not) of the ambiguity is not the issue.

Incorrect, Lucien, because if an ambiguity is resolved by the
presence of additional information, then there is no ambiguity.
I proved that yet again by providing a simple test.  Of course,
you chose to delete that for the third time, and you've now
deleted the second simple test twice.  I've reproduced both
below for the benefit of potential new readers.

>> then falsely accusing me of admitting to an ambiguity.

> You have admitted to an ambiguity.

Incorrect, Lucien.

> See below.

The below doesn't quote me sufficiently completely, Lucien.

>> Irrelevant, given that there is no absence of additional information
>> in the present situation, Lucien.

> Doesn't matter,

On the contrary, the additional information does matter, Lucien, as
it changes the answer.

> our statements still hold.

My statements still hold, Lucien.  Yours crumble under the weight of
evidence.  Take the simple tests.

> Let's review again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.

> My thesis:
>
> the "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" sentences are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.

Irrelevant, given that there is no absence of additional information
in the present situation.

> Your (congruent) statement:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

But there is presence of other information, which resolves the
ambiguity, Lucien.  How many more time do I need to tell you that
before it finally sinks in?

>>> You also several times refer to and therefore affirm the presence of
>>> this underlying ambiguity.

>> Incorrect, Lucien.

> On the contrary, you contradict yourself in the next sentence.

There is no contradiction on my part, Lucien.  Do you know what it
means to have an ambiguity resolved?  It means there is no ambiguity.

>> I several times referred to how
>> --->>>[[[[the ambiguity]]]]<<<---
>> is resolved in the present situation by the presence of additional

> Here, you've added yet another reference to the underlying ambiguity in
> the JDK situation.

Incorrect, Lucien, given that the JDK situation provides additional
information that resolves the ambiguity, thus there is no ambiguity.

> You've agreed with me again that the ambiguity exists.

Incorrect, Lucien.  How can ambiguity exist if it's been resolved?

> These points constitute proof that you've fumbled into complete
> agreement with my thesis.

Illogical, Lucien, as there is no agreement with your flawed thesis.
The following tests demonstrate the flaw with your thesis.  That's
why you continue to ignore them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:58:02
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>>>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.

>>>> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>>>> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
>>>> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
>>>> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
>>>>
>>>> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE                 
 
>>>> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP       
 
>>>> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00         @ 
>>>> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00                 
 
>>>> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00                
 
>>>> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90   
!L!
>>>> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program
mus
>>>> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under 
O
>>>> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
>>>>
>>>> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
>>>> of the columns on the right side.)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
>>>> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>> I didn't need to run the program, Dave.  You're jumping to illogical 
>>> conclusions based on your ignorance.  Let's see why...

>> This ought to be good.

> And it is.

Had me chuckling, Mike.

>>>> Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>   ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net
>>>>   ] 
>>>> MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>>>>   ] 
>>>> DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>>>   ] 
>>>> MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>>>
>>>> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
>>>> on an OS/2 system to boot!  

>>> Completely incorrect.  To run the file, one must have an OS/2 system 
>>> (or emulator).  You do not need to run the file to look at the contents.

>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>> file?

> I was easily able to extract the contents of the self-extracting 
> executable without using OS/2.

Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

> classes.zip is one of the files included.

Irrelevant, Mike.

> Which part of this don't you understand?

What makes you think that I don't understand any part of it, Mike?

>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>
>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
>>> the first time:
>>>
>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

> I already told you, moron.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
logical argument.

> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

"This program must be run under OS/2."

>>> What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
>>> executable.

>> Here's the output, Mike:
>>
>> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
>> ] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
>> ] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>>
>> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT, Mike.

> Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
> important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
> just as I mentioned. 

An executable that requires OS/2 to run, Mike.

> Now continue to the next logical step, as I stated previously...

Or the next illogical step, as the case may be...

>>> Such files are compressed using a standard archive format which is
>>> portable across platforms.

>> Since when is the LX executable file format portable across platforms,
>> Mike?  (See bytes 100 and 101 hex.)

> Learn to read, you dolt.

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a logical
argument.

> I said the archive format was portable across platforms, not the
> executable file format.

But we're talking about an executable file, Mike.

> Since it is the same archive format used on many other platforms, tools
> on many other platforms can read it.

But not execute it.  I can use LIST on all sorts of binary files, Mike,
including Windows NT executables.  Is that what you call "reading"?

>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive format
portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

> Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.

LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
comprehensible to a human.

>>>>> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
>>>>> questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea what
>>>>> you're talking about.

>>>> On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

>>> Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
>>> the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
>>> number of platforms.

>> Here's the output, Mike:
>>
>> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
>> ] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
>> ] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>>
>> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT, Mike.

> That's completely irrelevent.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

> I told you explicitely that I didn't run the file.

You told me explicitly:

MT] Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
MT] important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
MT] just as I mentioned. 

And I responded explicitly:

DT] An executable that requires OS/2 to run, Mike.

> I said I used WinZip.

And I said:

DT] LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
DT] comprehensible to a human.

> Which part of this is too hard for you to understand?

What makes you think that I don't understand any part of it, Mike?

>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.

>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.

And I was able to "read" the file with LIST.

> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

Irrelevant, Mike.

> Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?

Such as OS/2?

>>> Good show.

>> You're providing the entertainment, Mike.

> And the entertainment is making you look like an idiot.

How ironic, coming from the person who insisted that what Joseph wrote
is "bullshit" and later turned around and admitted that Java 1.1.8 for
OS/2 does implement some Java 1.2 functionality.

>>>>> And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.

>>>> And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>>>
>>>> ] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>>>
>>>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>>>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>>>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

>>> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.  I could 
>>> read the contents of the file from Linux, Solaris, Windows NT, even DOS.
>>> I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT.

>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>
>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.

>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>> Mike.

> Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
> don't bother to test that evidence at all.

I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.

> Instead, you you run some test with InfoZip and expect that to mean
> anything?

It means what it says, Mike.

> Yet another demonstration of your useless logic.

How ironic, coming from the person who has demonstrated useless logic
repeatedly.

> The fact remains that the file is a self-extracting executable,

Which requires OS/2 to run.

> which I was easily able to read using WinZip on Windows NT.

Gee, I can "read" an NT executable on OS/2 using LIST, Mike.

> This is yet *another* case where you've decided to drop all other
> issues to concentrate on what you felt is your strongest argument,

Incorrect, Mike.  I haven't dropped the issue of why my reply was so
short.  Rather, you continue to delete the evidence that it was you
who deleted all but one line of Joseph's posting.  Of course, it's
been easy for me reinsert that which you avoid via deletion.

> only to have it blasted out of the water when your ignorance was exposed.

How ironic, considering how I've exposed your lie:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 03:58:02
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          30-Oct-99 04:17:10
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:09:29
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Have you tried Regina yet? It's a free REXX interpreter for Win32

>Seriously, do you have an URL to a home site?

http://www.lightlink.com/hessling/

Scroll down until you see "Regina REXX interpreter" (although there is
other Win32 REXX related stuff there)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 22:36:16
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:10:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
> >> Or are you really that idiotic?
> 
> > Now he's stealing my lines!
> 
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> > What a hypocrite.
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm stealing your lines, Marty.
> 
> > Yet more evidence that he's playing his own "infantile game".
> 
> Lucien obviously is.
> 
> > Or is he really that idiotic?
> 
> Otherwise he's claiming that "the ambiguity is resolved" is an admission
> of ambiguity.

If there were no ambiguity, then why would it need to be, or even be
capable of being resolved?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 04:00:11
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:10:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
>>> part.
 
>> Since when is pontification a "cearly pointed-out mistake", Marty?

> I didn't say that Dave.

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

> I said "clearly pointed-out mistake".

I'm well aware of that, Marty, but all you've really done is pontificate.

> No pontification was present.

Incorrect, Marty.

> You have been shown how Mike could have read the self extracting EXE
> without using OS/2 as you claimed.

Where is that alleged claim, Marty?

> It's time to admit your mistake.

It's time for you to reproduce the alleged claim, Marty.

> How you tried it with a newer version of Unzip yet?

I tried it with the version you recommended, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         30-Oct-99 04:03:13
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 04:10:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>> My IQ eclipses that of a 3 toed sloth by a large margin.
 
>>>> You just stated that your IQ is *not* above that of a 3 toed sloth,
>>>> Marty.
 
>>> Not at all Dave.
 
>> Incorrect, Marty:
>> 
>> DT] Then you must not have "an IQ above that of a 3 toed sloth", Marty.
>> 
>> M] Your right.  I don't.

>>> I said it was not equal to that of a 3 toed sloth.
 
>> On the contrary, you said it was "not above".  See the quotations above,
>> Marty.  No use of the word "equal" appears.

> I stand corrected on this point.

Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
inconsistency.

> I misread the quote in question. 

You wrote it, Marty.  You used such an excuse earlier to make it sound
like you knew what you were talking about.  So much for that argument.

> See... some of us can admit to errors when they are pointed out.

What took so long, Marty?  I pointed out your error and you responded
with "Not at all, Dave."

> But I'm sure this is not random error on my part right?

Two of the same errors in a row is not what I call random.

> It's all part of my infantile game, right Dave?

That too, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               30-Oct-99 03:56:20
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 05:17:14
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Mike Timbol writes:
> 
> >>>> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
> >>>> on an OS/2 system to boot!
> 
> >>> Completely incorrect.  To run the file, one must have an OS/2 system
> >>> (or emulator).  You do not need to run the file to look at the contents.
> 
> >> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >> file?
> 
> > I was easily able to extract the contents of the self-extracting
> > executable without using OS/2.
> 
> Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

You don't need to run the executable to extract its contents Dave.  Sure
he can't run it, but he doesn't need to.
 
> >>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
> 
> >>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
> >>> the first time:
> >>>
> >>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."
> 
> >> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> > I already told you, moron.
> > "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> "This program must be run under OS/2."

He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract its
contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
in a DOS session, it will run.  It runs long enough to display that
message you are quoting and exit, but it executes under DOS.
 
> >>> What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
> >>> executable.
> 
> >> Here's the output, Mike:
> >>
> >> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
> >> ] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
> >> ] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
> >>
> >> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
Mike.
> 
> > Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
> > important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
> > just as I mentioned.
> 
> An executable that requires OS/2 to run, Mike.

Right, but it can be extracted using standard utilities.  If you don't
believe him, try it yourself.  What he has said is easily verifyable.

> > I said the archive format was portable across platforms, not the
> > executable file format.
> 
> But we're talking about an executable file, Mike.

An executable file containing an archive.  It contains both DOS and OS/2
executables, as well as the ZIP archive.  Perhaps if you understood how
any of these three things worked, you would understand how the archive
could be decompressed without running the executable.
 
> > Since it is the same archive format used on many other platforms, tools
> > on many other platforms can read it.
> 
> But not execute it.  I can use LIST on all sorts of binary files, Mike,
> including Windows NT executables.  Is that what you call "reading"?

He can extract the entire contents of the archive into their fully
expanded files.  Does that clear it up for you?

> >>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> > Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
> 
> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive format
> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

The archive format is portable.  The executable format is not.  The
archive can be read from within the executable regardless of the
executable's portability.

> >> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
> >> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
> >> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
> >> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> >> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> > Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.
> 
> LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
> comprehensible to a human.

He can extract the entire contents of the archive into their fully
expanded files.  Does that clear it up for you?
 
> >>>>> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
> >>>>> questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea what
> >>>>> you're talking about.
> 
> >>>> On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
> 
> >>> Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
> >>> the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
> >>> number of platforms.
> 
> >> Here's the output, Mike:
> >>
> >> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
> >> ] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
> >> ] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
> >>
> >> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
Mike.
> 
> > That's completely irrelevent.
> 
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

He doesn't have to run it Dave.
 
> > I told you explicitely that I didn't run the file.
> 
> You told me explicitly:
> 
> MT] Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
> MT] important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
> MT] just as I mentioned.
> 
> And I responded explicitly:
> 
> DT] An executable that requires OS/2 to run, Mike.
> 
> > I said I used WinZip.
> 
> And I said:
> 
> DT] LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
> DT] comprehensible to a human.

Try it yourself some time.  WinZip can read it perfectly and extract its
full contents as intended.

Here's how a self-extractor works:  It consists of two major sections-
code and data.  The code part contains the platform-specific
instructions to decompress and create files out of the data.  The data
part contains your standard archive.  Using WinZip alleviates the need
to run the code part, since the relevant code is within WinZip itself. 
The data is formatted independently of the code, and hence can be read
by standard utilities.

> > Which part of this is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> What makes you think that I don't understand any part of it, Mike?
> 
> >>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
> 
> >>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
> >>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
> 
> >> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.
> 
> > I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
> 
> And I was able to "read" the file with LIST.

Were you able to easily obtain the information he just provided below
using LIST?

> > classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> > so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> > The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> > AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> Irrelevant, Mike.

He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents. 
How is that irrelevant?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                25-Oct-99 23:26:09
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 10:28:11
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7v34bm$9d6$6@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Marty writes:
> 
> > Joe Malloy wrote:
>  
> >> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something akin
to
> >> an Eliza program and tholened:
> 
> >>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>  
> >> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you respond
> >> like Eliza?
> 
> > Because he is engaging in an infantile game.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.

What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?

> > How hypocritical.
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile game",
> Marty.

Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g* in
an infantile game.

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 13:39:03
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:17
Subj: Re: WordPerfect OS/2 history 

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 00:21:52, esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler) 
wrote:

> You're still too close to current history, Wayne. You're thinking of 
> WP 5.2 for OS/2, which was released in the 2.x timeframe -- and was 
> *intended* to be a stopgap until the "real" WP 6.0 for OS/2 could be 
> released. (I had several conversations with the then-project manager, 
> back then, so I was familiar with the project process. I was a major 
> WP fan, back then, and wrote part of a book about WP 6 for DOS, so I 
> had a particular and personal interest in the topic. If nothing else, 
> I was perfectly positioned to pitch a "WP OS/2" book to the various 
> publishers.)
> 
> In any case, I'm referring to the WordPerfect 5.0 for OS/2 product 
> which was released in 1989 or thereabouts. It worked like WP 5.0 for 
> DOS.
> 

Or maybe not. IIRC, WP5.0 DOS worked, and WP5.0/2 mostly not.

WP6.0/2, should it ever have emerged, would have been my killer app 
for OS/2. The DOS version is still on my HD and is - even today - a 
quite capable WP. It may take some work, but in the end, it'll do 
anything a "modern" WP will do. Amazing, if you think of it.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 13:39:04
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

<Sigh!> Here we go again...
It seems to me that the two of you are pretty well capable of keeping 
the "conversation" going just between you two.

So why that apparently compulsive need (granted, it came from Marty 
originally, but still...) to drag other people into the fight? I don't
know about the issues at stake and I really wonder if I would care if 
I knew them.

<flame-retardant pants on>
Besides, every time I get mixed in, "his Glattness" will butt in with 
some stupid, totally unrelated and completely clueless remark (Lessee 
if he reads this. If he does, it's pretty obvious that his earlier 
claims of "having a life" are pretty loose, to put it mildly).

No thanks.

On a totally unrelated note: I just found a snippet of information 
telling me that you, together with Marc Buie, were responsible for 
calculating Pluto's exact diameter and came up with the numbers on 
Charon and its orbit. Nice one.

BTW, in the 99 edition of "the New Solar System" you get *two* 
mentions in the index; only one less that Carl Sagan. (Heh heh)


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 13:39:07
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

<Sigh!> Here we go again...
It seems to me that the two of you are pretty well capable of keeping 
the "conversation" going just between you two.

So why that apparently compulsive need (granted, it came from Marty 
originally, but still...) to drag other people into the fight? I don't
know about the issues at stake and I really wonder if I would care if 
I knew them.

<flame-retardant pants on>
Besides, every time I get mixed in, "his Glattness" will butt in with 
some stupid, totally unrelated and completely clueless remark (Lessee 
if he reads this. If he does, it's pretty obvious that his earlier 
claims of "having a life" are pretty loose, to put it mildly).

No thanks.


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             30-Oct-99 13:45:07
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vdpb1$fe5$6@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

Note: more references to the ambiguity are highlighted throughout the
post (emphasis added for the reader's convenience):

Here's one:

> Incorrect, Lucien, because if [[[[an ambiguity]]]] is resolved by the
> presence of additional information, then there is no ambiguity.

..and, going over this yet again, in case the additional information is
lacking, what do we have?

Hint: your statement gives the answer (emphasis added to the key
phrases):

"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[[either 'some' or
'all' functionality]]]]],[[[[[in the absence of any other
information]]]]]."

Now, back to the admissions to the ambiguity:

Here's another:

> But there is presence of other information, which resolves
>[[[[the ambiguity]]]], Lucien.

And another:

> There is no contradiction on my part, Lucien.  Do you know what it
> means to have [[[[an ambiguity]]]] resolved?

And another:

> >> I several times referred to how
> >> --->>>[[[[the ambiguity]]]]<<<---
> >> is resolved in the present situation by the presence of additional
>

And another:

> information that resolves [[[[[the ambiguity]]]]]
> thus there is no ambiguity.

I count 5 admissions in this post.

> > You've agreed with me again that the ambiguity exists.
>
> Incorrect, Lucien.  How can ambiguity exist if it's been resolved?

And, going over this yet again, it would have to exist in the first
place before resolving it would ever become possible, right? Right.

Reread your statement - it details the underlying ambiguity (WRT
quantification):

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

> > These points constitute proof that you've fumbled into complete
> > agreement with my thesis.
>
> Illogical, Lucien, as there is no agreement with your flawed thesis.

Wrong. Your own fumbling statements put you in agreement with my thesis.

Let's review again:

My thesis:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Your (congruent) statement:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 30-Oct-99 14:33:07
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:18
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

For the sake of clarity I have trimmed the contents of the post to which
I am replying.  BN


Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> Marty wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>>> Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.
> 
> >>>>>>> Marty,
> >>>>>>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.
> 
> >>>>>> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous
to
> >>>>>> the person who is the target of abuse.
> 
> >>>>>>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
> >>>>>>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.
> 
> >>>>>> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.
> 
> >>>>>>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.
> 
> >>>>>> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?
> 
> >>>>> I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
> >>>>> from "American Pie".
> 
> >>>> What were the lyrics?
> 
> >>>                    I started singing
> >>>                    Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
> >>>                    Spent a while out of my killfile
> >>>                    till my humor ran dry.
> >>>                    And good old Dave
> >>>                    my claims he did deny,
> >>>                    saying this is where the argument dies
> >>>                    this is where the argument dies....
> >>>
> >>> It took a while, but I found them.
> 
> >> Did you find any interpretation posted by me?  Did you find any
> >> line-by-line response from me?
> 
> > As I indicated later in that same post, I have seen no post in which you
> > interpreted the lyrics line by line.
> 
> Then why do you think Marty continues to accuse me of such an action?

Because you replied line by line to parody lyrics.  Marty's view is that
replying to parody lyrics is the same as replying to song lyrics.  He
sees a parody of a song as being a song.

> 
> >>> The URL is:
> >>>
> >>>
http://x38.deja.com/[S0=90688c2f1898753]/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843.2&CONTEXT=94096
0691.1591803974&hitnum=1
> 
> >>>>> Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.
> 
> >>>> Part of Marty's "infantile game".
> 
> >>> I'd looked at his use of parody as attempts to inject some humor into
the
> >>> discussion.  Of course, it was all at your expense.  I do not criticize
> >>> you for taking offense even though I would not have if I was the target.
> 
> >> What you would not have done is irrelevant.
> 
> > Au contraire, it is quite relevant.
> 
> The issue is what Marty has done, not what you would not have done,
> thus it is not relevant.

"The" issue is communication.  Specifically, communication between Marty,
Dave, Bennie, and anyone else who choses to read this thread.  

I put "the" in quotes, because, in reality, each person has a view of
what "the" issue is, and thus, there are at least as many perspepectives 
in this thread of what "the" issue is as there are posters who have 
contributed articles to this thread.  Each brings a world view frame of 
reference, a  communication skill set, and a personality that are 
inseparable from one another.  This is no great revelation, but I 
state it to provide a frame upon which to build, because I'd like 
to advance a notion concerning why so many threads involving 
Dave Tholen and others break down.    

First, a trivial example: in a thread about trees in a forest, one person
may have a propensity to focus upon the set of trees in the forest; a 
second may be predisposed to focus upon individual trees; while a third 
may concentrate upon a specific limb of a specific tree.

This can lead to confusion when the three attempt to speak to one
another on "The" topic.  The words used can be the same, but the
frame of reference for each person is so different that a gulf
exists that prevents the ideas from being passed from one to another.

Effective communication involves assessing the situation, determining
what gulfs exist, and attempting to bridge the gulfs, usually through
a process of successive approximations.  Logic is a science, but 
communication is an art.

An example from my own experience this week: in a conversation 
with my older son and my wife, I determined that they were deriving 
unintended meanings from two words I had used.  So, to break the
logjam, I told them that they should disregard those two words and 
any conclusions or inferences they drew from the usage of those 
words.  I then took a different path to convey the ideas I wanted to 
share with them.  I stopped using those two words in the discussion, 
not because I'd used them incorrectly, but because I realized that my 
wife and my son had different, though valid, definitions and were not 
going to understand my meaning as long as I continued using those 
words.  

To apply this to Marty and Dave: through Marty's many posts, I perceive
him to be a "big picture" type of person.  He is more of a generalist.
Dave, on the other hand, is by nature and profession, a person who
focuses on minute details (or, what appears minute due to the great
distance between himself and that upon which he is focused).  

To apply this to my trivial example, Marty looks at the forest; Dave 
examines a branch in great detail.  This is a major impediment for
the communication of ideas between Dave and Marty.  It is also why
Dave is misperceived by many of his opponents in this newsgroup.  Dave's
words of exacting specificity are misunderstood when filtered through a 
generalist's frame of reference.  It's like the difference between a
flashlight and a laser beam.  Both are useful, but not for the same
reasons.  Each has a strength that makes it more suitable for purposes
that are quite different from the other.  

> 
> > I inserted that editorial comment to make the point to you that I would
> > not criticize you for what you did while I also do not concur with you.
> 
> You do not concur about what?  That Marty is playing an "infantile game"?

I do not concur with the way you've approached resolving the issue between
you and Marty.  I do not agree with Marty's approach, either.  

I don't believe he is playing an "infantile game."  At least, not in any
way that I would define those terms.  But, you may be looking at a branch
of the tree and I may not be seeing the branches for the trees.

So, I'd like for you to clarify these points:

1) What do you mean by "infantile game" and how does your description
apply to Marty's posts?
2) Since a parody of a song still seems to be a song, then why are you
saying that the words Marty used in his song parodies are not song
lyrics?  If they are not song lyrics, then what do you say they are?

In the approach you've taken, you state matter-of-factly that Marty's
post did not contain song lyrics.  What you've omitted is the answer to
item number 2, above.  This leaves Marty with a rejection of his post,
but no replacement.  If these are not song lyrics, what are they?  In
the absence of a reasonable replacement, Marty simply digs in and holds
his position.  Inevitably, this leads to escalation of the conflict.
Each of you, of course, will employ the methods that have been acquired
and developed when confronted with these types situations.

Since the two of you have divergent frames of reference and strong
wills, the conflict has little hope of being resolved amicably or,
even, mutually satisfactorily.

It's the laser beam versus the flashlight.

> 
> > The remark also serves as an aside to any others who may read the post,
> > and there is where the relevancy of my remark gains more significance.
> 
> The fact that you called it an "aside" sure looks to me like a statement
> that it's not relevant to what was being discussed, namely Marty's
> "infantile game".

I inserted the aside, because I'm hoping to turn this thread on its side.
That way it can be looked at from a different angle.  

> 
> >>>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
> >>>>> to that one.
> 
> >>>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.
> 
> >>> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
> >>> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
> >>> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.
> 
> >> He tried that already, attempting to pass off his modified writings
> >> as "song lyrics".
> 
> > I recognized the songs he used as the basis for his parodies.  He is
> > correct: the words he posted could have been sung to the original
> > melodies.
> 
> Lots of words can be sung to original melodies.  That does not
> necessarily make them "song lyrics".

True.

> 
> > He did all but use the customary formula of "Sung to the tune of <insert
> > song title here>.  With apologies to <insert name of author here>."
> 
> One could just as easily claim that anything written here are "song
> lyrics", because they can be sung to music.

Also, true.  But, Marty crafted his words using the original songs' lyrics
and melodies so that his words are substitutes for the original lyrics.  
And he posted them with that context implied.  He could have and, in my
view, shold have improved his posts by using some variation of the 
formula I alluded to above.  This would have eliminated the ambiguity.

Furthermore, Marty has posted some words that could be reasonably construed
as being hurtful or insulting.  You, in turn, have used words, such as,
infantile, that also could be perceived similarly.  

> 
> >>>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> >>>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> >>>>> than humorous.
> 
> >>>> That's the correct interpretation.
> 
> >>> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> >>> be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
> >>> words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.
> 
> >> Humor is subjective.
> 
> > Indeed.
> 
> Thus one should not insist that something is humorous.

Humor is subjective and cultural.  What is funny in one culture will not 
necessarily be viewed as humorous in another.  But, the fact that an 
instance of humor will not be universally recognized as such does not 
abrogate the humor that instance contains.  However, humor, as noted
before, can also have hurtful or insulting connotations associated
with it.

> 
> >>>>> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
> >>>>> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
> >>>>> than ridiculing you.
> 
> >>>> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.
> 
> >>> Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
> >>> offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
> >>> humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
> >>> acknowledge that fact.
> 
> >> But that would support the notion that he is playing an "infantile
> >> game", yet he's denied that.
> 
> > I don't see Marty's use of humor as being infantile.
> 
> He's done far more than simply use what you consider to be "humor".
> Sounds like he was stuck at home with some illness and chose to spend
> his time in front of a computer responding to people on USENET to
> pass the time.  That is, he was entertaining himself at the expense
> of others.
> 
> > It seems to me that he is looking for ways to communicate with you
> > that are not so confrontational and acrimonious.
> 
> ?????  Then why was he being so confrontational?

Frustation, perhaps?  

> 
> >>>>> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
> >>>>> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
> >>>>> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.
> 
> >>>> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
> >>>> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
> >>>> anything useful.
> 
> >>> If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
> >>> anything useful.
> 
> >> He's not accomplishing anything useful from my perspective, regardless
> >> of what he means.
> 
> >>>>> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
> >>>>> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
> >>>>> humorous or for ridicule.
> 
> >>>> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
> >>>> response with a grain of salt.
> 
> >>> Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.
> 
> >> That doesn't change the fact that he is a proven liar.
> 
> > As a point of clarification, do you mean he has stated things that you
> > know are untrue,
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > but which he believes to be true,
> 
> Which he hasn't taken the time to determine if they are true.

Or, still interprets the words differently than they were intended
to be understood.    

> 
> > or are you stating that he is deliberately spreading falsehoods?
> 
> It's been quite deliberate on his part.  I presented him with evidence
> that proved him wrong.  He deleted the evidence and persisted with his
> lie.  He later claimed that he must have missed that, yet he responded
> to the article with the evidence.  Go figure.

Proving me wrong and my accepting the proof are two different actions.
I may be wrong, but as long as I haven't grasped the proof, it is quite
consistent of me to defend my position.  

I could be wrong about Marty, but I believe he's not arguing for 
argument's sake.  Nor is he a "Tholen baiter," unlike a number of others
who've posted in this newsgroup.  No, my perception is that Marty is
frustrated by the gulf in communication between you two.  And, I think
that he'd like to see this resolved in a positive way, but his 
frustration hampers his efforts.  

On the other hand, many have labelled you using numerous derogatory
terms, and I don't accept their characterisations.  Generally speaking, 
people are generalists and are not used to dealing with someone with 
your capacity for concentration upon minutia.  They simply don't 
understand what your points are, because they are not used to looking
at things the way you do.  You see your points, much like an astronomer 
who sees faraway objects using a powerful telescope.  However, the 
objects are not visible to the general public.  So, your points are not 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 30-Oct-99 14:33:07
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:18
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

perceived by others, and they refuse to take your word for it that the 
points are real and valid.

The generalist will see things broadly, but not so deeply.  This
can be likened to a horizontal line.  The opposite is to be able 
to narrow the focus deeply on an object.  This is like a vertical
line.  These two lines can form the letter T (sans serif), but
only if properly aligned.  Communication requires proper alignment.  
It is usually easier to align the ideas of two generalists, because 
there are more points from which to choose.  However, aligning a 
generalist and a specifist requires balancing the generalist's line 
on the exact point of the vertical line of the specifist.  This 
takes effort and patience on both sides, but without this proper 
alignment, communication does not occur.  

Being right and being understood are important to me.  If, after a good 
faith effort at communication, I am misunderstood, I will be content 
with merely being right.  But, I try to understand why I'm not being 
understood, because being right and communicating truth are not 
identical.  I try to learn from the experience.

My desire is to be right and to share "rightness" (i.e., truth) with
others.  I am enriched by the process of doing so, because
I am giving what does not diminish by the giving, and the
process of sharing truth inherently increases what I have to 
give.

Thanks for reading,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 15:10:12
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:18
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

This is an extremely interesting observation. I've often wondered why 
quite a few intelligent and reasonable posters (that should rule out 
the obvious other group - although Brad Wardell remains somewhat of a 
mystery then) have such an aversion vs Dave Tholen. My view of him was
that of a very intelligent person gifted with a somewhat strange (and 
therefore strikingly familiar) sense of humour, and my UseNet 
conversations with him have only confirmed that view.

What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon". I wonder if the 
nature of UseNet conversations will help to increase the polarisations
you describe, and if so, is there something that can be done? A bit 
like the "emoticons" will help to clarify someone's emotions?

Any sociologists with spare time (Hah! like they are busy *ever*!) to 
look into this? There could be a paper in it...


On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 14:33:14, Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net> wrote:

> 
> "The" issue is communication.  Specifically, communication between Marty,
> Dave, Bennie, and anyone else who choses to read this thread.  
> 
> I put "the" in quotes, because, in reality, each person has a view of
> what "the" issue is, and thus, there are at least as many perspepectives 
> in this thread of what "the" issue is as there are posters who have 
> contributed articles to this thread.  Each brings a world view frame of 
> reference, a  communication skill set, and a personality that are 
> inseparable from one another.  This is no great revelation, but I 
> state it to provide a frame upon which to build, because I'd like 
> to advance a notion concerning why so many threads involving 
> Dave Tholen and others break down.    
> 
> First, a trivial example: in a thread about trees in a forest, one person
> may have a propensity to focus upon the set of trees in the forest; a 
> second may be predisposed to focus upon individual trees; while a third 
> may concentrate upon a specific limb of a specific tree.
> 
> This can lead to confusion when the three attempt to speak to one
> another on "The" topic.  The words used can be the same, but the
> frame of reference for each person is so different that a gulf
> exists that prevents the ideas from being passed from one to another.
> 
> Effective communication involves assessing the situation, determining
> what gulfs exist, and attempting to bridge the gulfs, usually through
> a process of successive approximations.  Logic is a science, but 
> communication is an art.
> 
> An example from my own experience this week: in a conversation 
> with my older son and my wife, I determined that they were deriving 
> unintended meanings from two words I had used.  So, to break the
> logjam, I told them that they should disregard those two words and 
> any conclusions or inferences they drew from the usage of those 
> words.  I then took a different path to convey the ideas I wanted to 
> share with them.  I stopped using those two words in the discussion, 
> not because I'd used them incorrectly, but because I realized that my 
> wife and my son had different, though valid, definitions and were not 
> going to understand my meaning as long as I continued using those 
> words.  
> 
> To apply this to Marty and Dave: through Marty's many posts, I perceive
> him to be a "big picture" type of person.  He is more of a generalist.
> Dave, on the other hand, is by nature and profession, a person who
> focuses on minute details (or, what appears minute due to the great
> distance between himself and that upon which he is focused).  
> 
> To apply this to my trivial example, Marty looks at the forest; Dave 
> examines a branch in great detail.  This is a major impediment for
> the communication of ideas between Dave and Marty.  It is also why
> Dave is misperceived by many of his opponents in this newsgroup.  Dave's
> words of exacting specificity are misunderstood when filtered through a 
> generalist's frame of reference.  It's like the difference between a
> flashlight and a laser beam.  Both are useful, but not for the same
> reasons.  Each has a strength that makes it more suitable for purposes
> that are quite different from the other.  
> 
> > 
> > > I inserted that editorial comment to make the point to you that I would
> > > not criticize you for what you did while I also do not concur with you.
> > 
> > You do not concur about what?  That Marty is playing an "infantile game"?
> 
> I do not concur with the way you've approached resolving the issue between
> you and Marty.  I do not agree with Marty's approach, either.  
> 
> I don't believe he is playing an "infantile game."  At least, not in any
> way that I would define those terms.  But, you may be looking at a branch
> of the tree and I may not be seeing the branches for the trees.
> 
> So, I'd like for you to clarify these points:
> 
> 1) What do you mean by "infantile game" and how does your description
> apply to Marty's posts?
> 2) Since a parody of a song still seems to be a song, then why are you
> saying that the words Marty used in his song parodies are not song
> lyrics?  If they are not song lyrics, then what do you say they are?
> 
> In the approach you've taken, you state matter-of-factly that Marty's
> post did not contain song lyrics.  What you've omitted is the answer to
> item number 2, above.  This leaves Marty with a rejection of his post,
> but no replacement.  If these are not song lyrics, what are they?  In
> the absence of a reasonable replacement, Marty simply digs in and holds
> his position.  Inevitably, this leads to escalation of the conflict.
> Each of you, of course, will employ the methods that have been acquired
> and developed when confronted with these types situations.
> 
> Since the two of you have divergent frames of reference and strong
> wills, the conflict has little hope of being resolved amicably or,
> even, mutually satisfactorily.
> 
> It's the laser beam versus the flashlight.
> 
> > 
> > > The remark also serves as an aside to any others who may read the post,
> > > and there is where the relevancy of my remark gains more significance.
> > 
> > The fact that you called it an "aside" sure looks to me like a statement
> > that it's not relevant to what was being discussed, namely Marty's
> > "infantile game".
> 
> I inserted the aside, because I'm hoping to turn this thread on its side.
> That way it can be looked at from a different angle.  
> 
> > 
> > >>>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you
replied
> > >>>>> to that one.
> > 
> > >>>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.
> > 
> > >>> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen
any
> > >>> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If
you
> > >>> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.
> > 
> > >> He tried that already, attempting to pass off his modified writings
> > >> as "song lyrics".
> > 
> > > I recognized the songs he used as the basis for his parodies.  He is
> > > correct: the words he posted could have been sung to the original
> > > melodies.
> > 
> > Lots of words can be sung to original melodies.  That does not
> > necessarily make them "song lyrics".
> 
> True.
> 
> > 
> > > He did all but use the customary formula of "Sung to the tune of <insert
> > > song title here>.  With apologies to <insert name of author here>."
> > 
> > One could just as easily claim that anything written here are "song
> > lyrics", because they can be sung to music.
> 
> Also, true.  But, Marty crafted his words using the original songs' lyrics
> and melodies so that his words are substitutes for the original lyrics.  
> And he posted them with that context implied.  He could have and, in my
> view, shold have improved his posts by using some variation of the 
> formula I alluded to above.  This would have eliminated the ambiguity.
> 
> Furthermore, Marty has posted some words that could be reasonably construed
> as being hurtful or insulting.  You, in turn, have used words, such as,
> infantile, that also could be perceived similarly.  
> 
> > 
> > >>>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
> > >>>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
> > >>>>> than humorous.
> > 
> > >>>> That's the correct interpretation.
> > 
> > >>> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
> > >>> be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
> > >>> words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.
> > 
> > >> Humor is subjective.
> > 
> > > Indeed.
> > 
> > Thus one should not insist that something is humorous.
> 
> Humor is subjective and cultural.  What is funny in one culture will not 
> necessarily be viewed as humorous in another.  But, the fact that an 
> instance of humor will not be universally recognized as such does not 
> abrogate the humor that instance contains.  However, humor, as noted
> before, can also have hurtful or insulting connotations associated
> with it.
> 
> > 
> > >>>>> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
> > >>>>> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
> > >>>>> than ridiculing you.
> > 
> > >>>> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.
> > 
> > >>> Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
> > >>> offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
> > >>> humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
> > >>> acknowledge that fact.
> > 
> > >> But that would support the notion that he is playing an "infantile
> > >> game", yet he's denied that.
> > 
> > > I don't see Marty's use of humor as being infantile.
> > 
> > He's done far more than simply use what you consider to be "humor".
> > Sounds like he was stuck at home with some illness and chose to spend
> > his time in front of a computer responding to people on USENET to
> > pass the time.  That is, he was entertaining himself at the expense
> > of others.
> > 
> > > It seems to me that he is looking for ways to communicate with you
> > > that are not so confrontational and acrimonious.
> > 
> > ?????  Then why was he being so confrontational?
> 
> Frustation, perhaps?  
> 
> > 
> > >>>>> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
> > >>>>> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
> > >>>>> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.
> > 
> > >>>> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
> > >>>> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
> > >>>> anything useful.
> > 
> > >>> If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
> > >>> anything useful.
> > 
> > >> He's not accomplishing anything useful from my perspective, regardless
> > >> of what he means.
> > 
> > >>>>> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit
what
> > >>>>> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
> > >>>>> humorous or for ridicule.
> > 
> > >>>> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
> > >>>> response with a grain of salt.
> > 
> > >>> Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.
> > 
> > >> That doesn't change the fact that he is a proven liar.
> > 
> > > As a point of clarification, do you mean he has stated things that you
> > > know are untrue,
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > > but which he believes to be true,
> > 
> > Which he hasn't taken the time to determine if they are true.
> 
> Or, still interprets the words differently than they were intended
> to be understood.    
> 
> > 
> > > or are you stating that he is deliberately spreading falsehoods?
> > 
> > It's been quite deliberate on his part.  I presented him with evidence
> > that proved him wrong.  He deleted the evidence and persisted with his
> > lie.  He later claimed that he must have missed that, yet he responded
> > to the article with the evidence.  Go figure.
> 
> Proving me wrong and my accepting the proof are two different actions.
> I may be wrong, but as long as I haven't grasped the proof, it is quite
> consistent of me to defend my position.  
> 
> I could be wrong about Marty, but I believe he's not arguing for 
> argument's sake.  Nor is he a "Tholen baiter," unlike a number of others
> who've posted in this newsgroup.  No, my perception is that Marty is
> frustrated by the gulf in communication between you two.  And, I think
> that he'd like to see this resolved in a positive way, but his 
> frustration hampers his efforts.  
> 
> On the other hand, many have labelled you using numerous derogatory
> terms, and I don't accept their characterisations.  Generally speaking, 
> people are generalists and are not used to dealing with someone with 
> your capacity for concentration upon minutia.  They simply don't 
> understand what your points are, because they are not used to looking
> at things the way you do.  You see your points, much like an astronomer 
> who sees faraway objects using a powerful telescope.  However, the 
> objects are not visible to the general public.  So, your points are not 
> perceived by others, and they refuse to take your word for it that the 
> points are real and valid.
> 
> The generalist will see things broadly, but not so deeply.  This
> can be likened to a horizontal line.  The opposite is to be able 
> to narrow the focus deeply on an object.  This is like a vertical
> line.  These two lines can form the letter T (sans serif), but
> only if properly aligned.  Communication requires proper alignment.  
> It is usually easier to align the ideas of two generalists, because 
> there are more points from which to choose.  However, aligning a 
> generalist and a specifist requires balancing the generalist's line 
> on the exact point of the vertical line of the specifist.  This 
> takes effort and patience on both sides, but without this proper 
> alignment, communication does not occur.  
> 
> Being right and being understood are important to me.  If, after a good 
> faith effort at communication, I am misunderstood, I will be content 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 15:10:12
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:18
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> with merely being right.  But, I try to understand why I'm not being 
> understood, because being right and communicating truth are not 
> identical.  I try to learn from the experience.
> 
> My desire is to be right and to share "rightness" (i.e., truth) with
> others.  I am enriched by the process of doing so, because
> I am giving what does not diminish by the giving, and the
> process of sharing truth inherently increases what I have to 
> give.
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> Bennie Nelson

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au                               30-Oct-99 15:29:05
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 14:31:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:58:49, Hobbyist 
<alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:

> > So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?
> 
> And why do you think they invented Unimaint for OS/2? :))
> 
In my experience Unimaint was very necessary for OS/2 v2 and
3 but Warp 4 has almost no need for it (sure its handy 
sometimes and nice to have but I can/could operate without 
it - and couldn't under 2 or 3). Warp 4 was and is very 
stable re ini file's for me (or maybe I learnt from all the 
things I did wrong in 2 and 3 :)) And lets remember V2 anr 3
were "competing" with DOS and or Win 3 - remember those 
systems hassles ?
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT 
octa4.net.au 
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: possum@tree.branch                                30-Oct-99 16:44:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: possum@tree.branch (Mike Trettel)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 20:59:13 GMT, Dale Ross <dross1@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>"Mike Trettel" <possum@tree.branch> wrote in message
>news:slrn81k2lu.e21.possum@ss5.fred.net...

>>
>> Careful, Dave.  You're putting hime in the position of disproving a
>> negative assertion, which is a logical impossibility.  The MVP program is
>> a bit spooky allright, but I don't think it's neccesary to assume that
>> every MVP is a "spook" or somehow under MS's control.  What I do think
>> that's interesting is the fact that MS would treat their own boosters in
>> this fashion.
>
>An MVP is NOT a booster. In fact I know several MVPs that would not consider
>themselves even a slight fan of Microsoft.
>
>Dale
>
>

I can see how that can be so.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but would you say
that a majority of MVP's are MS "advocates" or not?  I'm not trying to
imply that the loyalty of the MVP's has been bought for what seems to me
to be trinkets, but it does seem to me that a majority of the folks
inclined to join the MVP program would have a fairly decent opinion of MS
in the first place.  The MVP program appears to me to have been an
attempt to build a core set of "true believers", who would speak highly of
MS in settings outside of the MS newsgroups.  Also, it seems to be a way
to reduce support costs-maybe that was more important! :-)  

-- 
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             30-Oct-99 09:50:11
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Dale Ross wrote:
> 
> "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:3819959C.C5E457F7@isomedia.com...
> > > Of course all MVPs have access to the list. Microsoft updates the list.
> You
> > > give me a name, I'll tell you which product they are an MVP for. Like I
> > > said, I've seen no one here name an MVP other than myself.
> >
> > So is this list on a Microsoft server?  Can non-MVPs look at the list?
> 
> David you are going around in a circle now. I've already told you who can
> and who cannot access the list. Final statement on that.
> 
> The PSS folks that head up the MVP program keep the list updated.
> MVPs can access the list
> Non-MVPs cannot access the list.

Well, you didn't answer my question but I guess we can assume that the
list is on a server owned and maintained by Microsoft Corporation.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dross1@carolina.rr.com                            30-Oct-99 17:17:05
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com>

"David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:381AF79E.92A1A514@isomedia.com...
> Dale Ross wrote:
> > The PSS folks that head up the MVP program keep the list updated.
> > MVPs can access the list
> > Non-MVPs cannot access the list.
>
> Well, you didn't answer my question but I guess we can assume that the
> list is on a server owned and maintained by Microsoft Corporation.

I am not sure why I would have to even say it. It is after all a Microsoft
run program.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dross1@carolina.rr.com                            30-Oct-99 17:19:24
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com>

"Mike Trettel" <possum@tree.branch> wrote in message
news:slrn81m851.fu.possum@pooh.100acrewood...
> >An MVP is NOT a booster. In fact I know several MVPs that would not
consider
> >themselves even a slight fan of Microsoft.
> >
> >Dale
> >
> >
>
> I can see how that can be so.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but would you say
> that a majority of MVP's are MS "advocates" or not?

Advocates? No, I'd say that only a very few could be considered advocactes.
You will not see the majority of the MVPs running around the NET defending
Microsoft. You will not see that in the microsoft.public.* newsgroups
either. I think you could find it easy to research the subject and come to
the same conclusion.

> I'm not trying to
> imply that the loyalty of the MVP's has been bought for what seems to me
> to be trinkets, but it does seem to me that a majority of the folks
> inclined to join the MVP program would have a fairly decent opinion of MS
> in the first place.

You would think that. However that is not necessarily the case. You are not
brought into the program because of your opinion of Microsoft. If that were
true I could probably name a dozen or more MVPs that would never have been
invited into the program. You are invited into the program because of your
"technical" contritubutions in the newsgroups. The only way that someone can
be invitied into the program is go to a microsoft.public.* newsgroup and
answer a LOT of questions accurately.

> The MVP program appears to me to have been an
> attempt to build a core set of "true believers", who would speak highly of
> MS in settings outside of the MS newsgroups.  Also, it seems to be a way
> to reduce support costs-maybe that was more important! :-)

Your first guess is not accurate. I've said it before, how could you miss
it. MVPs do not work outside of MS newsgroups. Any time spent outside the MS
newsgroups the MVP is on his/her personal time.

Your second guess is right on. The program was started by and has been run
by the Product Support Services (PSS) Group at Microsoft. Microsoft pulled
support engineers from the frontlines and replaced them with MVPs. Most
customers will tell you that was a good thing. MVPs do have direct access to
PSS.

The only way to become an MVP and stay an MVP is to post a lot of accurate
messages in response to customer problems in the MS newsgroups. You can
loose your MVP status just as quickly as you earned it by not helping your
peers in the MS newsgroups.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          30-Oct-99 18:26:25
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
>Dave Tholen. My view of him was
>that of a very intelligent person

That's because you're obviously wowed by the pompously self-indulgent
and self-promoting manner in which Tholen delivers his "Tholen
Cliches", and seem content not to look beyond the superficiality of
them and discover the mindless, absurd amount of hypocrisy,
inconsistency, lack of common sense, contradiction, and foolishness in
Tholen's tripe.

Some of us are not so superficial, easily impressed, ignorant, and
dare I say it... yes, I do because it's true... clueless.

You were a newbie before, so you had an excuse then. What's your
excuse now?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tg7642@cyclic.aux.net                             30-Oct-99 18:26:20
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <tg7642@cyclic.aux.net>

Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> writes:

: >>Have you tried Regina yet? It's a free REXX interpreter for Win32

: >Seriously, do you have an URL to a home site?

: http://www.lightlink.com/hessling/

: Scroll down until you see "Regina REXX interpreter" (although there is
: other Win32 REXX related stuff there)

Many thanks, Jeff.  :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          30-Oct-99 18:37:21
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
><Sigh!> Here we go again...

Indeed. You've reposted almost the same message. You obviously are too
stupid to figure out how to properly use your email reader. And this
is the person who had the nerve to accuse Windows users of being
"ignorant"?

Clearly, you're a bumbling, incompetent fool yourself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          30-Oct-99 18:35:10
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
>I don't
>know about the issues at stake and I really wonder if I would care if 
>I knew them.

That doesn't seem to stop you from hypocritically reading and
responding to posts in the thread. Get a clue, dummy.

><flame-retardant pants on>

Too bad those "retardant" pants haven't been able to prevent you from
being a retard.

>Besides, every time I get mixed in, "his Glattness" will butt in with 
>some stupid, totally unrelated and completely clueless remark

You mean like your stupid, totally unrelated reference to me above in
responding to Marty about his discussion with Tholen?

What is truly stupid and clueless is your past attempts (and
hypocritically current attempts in the Navigator thread) to run
interference for Tholen. That's the first thing you foolishly
attempted to do when entering the newsgroup.

You're not very bright, and you prove it when you get in way over your
head, as you have consistently done in your foolish involvement in
threads concerning Tholen.

Remember, some of us aren't so dumb and clueless and superficial that
we're easily impressed by Tholen's insipid mindless tripe. You
shouldn't assume that we're all like you.

>if he reads this. If he does, it's pretty obvious that his earlier 
>claims of "having a life" are pretty loose, to put it mildly).

Maybe if you had a life, you wouldn't have needed to post your message
at all.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          30-Oct-99 18:21:19
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson
>To apply this to my trivial example, Marty looks at the forest; Dave 
>examines a branch in great detail.

First of all, your "analysis" of Tholen is so far off the mark, it's
laughable. In fact, Tholen is one of the biggest purveyors of
mindlessly simplistic generalities (I refer to them as "Tholen
cliches" because he uses them so often) in this newsgroup. If you had
actually read his posts with a *competent* discerning level of
intelligence, or at least perused my digest of his posts, you'd see a
heap of examples of exactly that. For example, here are some Tholen
generalities:

Here he draws an amazingly foolish, and quite incorrect
conclusion/generality that none of the people, whom he claims have
comprehension problems, use OS/2:

From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Mr. Tholen an OS/2 advocate? (was holes in ...)
Date: 27 Feb 1997 23:21:42 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5f54u6$s42@news.Hawaii.Edu>

It's quite objective to note who the people are with the comprehension
problems. There seems to be this interesting dichotomy along operating
system usage lines. That alone should tell you something.

From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Mr. Tholen an OS/2 advocate? (was holes in ...)
Date: 27 Feb 1997 23:21:42 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5f54u6$s42@news.Hawaii.Edu>

>I could give you names of 17 persons that sent me email like "don't 
>bother with Tholen, he is an idiot".

And I can guess what operating system those 17 don't use.

===============================================

From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 on PowerPC?
Date: 18 Oct 1996 22:58:52 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <54923c$ot9@news.Hawaii.Edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hale.ifa.hawaii.edu

Correct answers come from official sources.

From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dave Tholen:  have you used NT?
Date: 8 Nov 1996 16:14:24 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <55vm90$j8a@news.Hawaii.Edu>

Subjective comments can't be evaluated for their accuracy.

From: tholen@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [TNT] Will Zachmann drops
Date: 1 Dec 1996 00:10:08 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <57qid0$a7i@news.Hawaii.Edu>

OS/2 doesn't "need" commitment from outside PSP.

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups:
comp.sys.be,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,c
omp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Apple OS Strategy (Infoworld Article)
Date: 4 Jan 1997 16:39:56 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5am14s$g76@news.Hawaii.Edu>

What matters is where the apps are.

From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Insincere, eh?
Date: 10 Mar 1997 09:59:00 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 184
Message-ID: <5g0m14$mpe@news.Hawaii.Edu>

Repetition shows insincerity.

From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is Roberto Alsina a member of the anti-OS/2 crowd?
Date: 4 Mar 1997 09:24:03 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5fgpnj$9sf@news.Hawaii.Edu>

A diploma means little.

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: An Idea :Was CREATIVE LABS DROPS OS/2 SUPPORT
Date: 11 Jan 1997 21:18:32 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5b9038$239@news.Hawaii.Edu>

The group of Windows users is replete with people who insult, attack,
harrass, and abuse others, who consider themselves as doing the
computer community a favour.

From: tholen@newton.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [TNT] OS/2 on PowerPC?
Date: 5 Dec 1996 22:05:22 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <587gv2$h1c@news.Hawaii.Edu>

My claims prove what I'm claiming.

=============================================

And these are just a *few* of the mindless generalities that are
pulled out just from a quick review of some of his past posts.

Furthermore, Tholen habitually draws foolish, incorrect "generalities"
and "conclusions" from his "exacting specificity" (as you so
erronously label what is clearly ignorant "tunnel vision") which are
negated by details that he refuses to even consider. For example,
that's why he doesn't even realize/acknowledge that Mike Timbol was
able to examine the contents of a specific self-extracting archive on
NT. Yes, Tholen has *proven* himself to be an ignorant buffoon, and I
imagine a lot of his ignorance is simply because he's mentally
disturbed and has what appears to be a case of megalomania which
prevents him from actually learning from others.

In addition, Tholen repeatedly contradicts his own hypocritical
rhetoric with alarming frequency. That's direct evidence of his lack
of intelligence. He simply isn't smart enough to be consistent nor
"logical". He spends more time pontificating that he is dispensing
logic than he actually does dispensing posts that *don't* directly
contradict the dim-witted, specious "logic" that he dispenses in other
posts.

You'd know all this if you actually read his posts with a critical
eye, or at least perused my digest which does all of the work of
collecting examples of his most damning hypocritical moments.

Clearly, you don't *anything* about Tholen (just like Karel doesn't --
the guy who somehow "lost" the digest that I provided him a day after
he received it, and didn't even read it. And this is the guy who has
the nerve to suggest that Windows users are "ignorant"? Karel seems
like an utterly bumbling fool himself, from what evidence I've seen).

The real question here is: How is it that, after reading the
ridiculously stupid tripe that Tholen posts, you've somehow come to
such a "flattering" misdiagnosis of his "intelligence"?

And I have a good idea how.

I've read enough of your posts now to glean an element of pompous
gee-don't-I-sound-SMART-and-FAIR-and OH-SO-LOGICAL *posturing* in them
(as well as other evidence that you aren't all that bright. Your
paranoid musings about MVP's in this newsgroup sound positively
brain-damaged). I strongly suspect that, like Tholen, you suffer from
self-esteem problems which you've attempted to compensate for by
*trying* to promote this image of yourself as a "ultra-logical mind".
(I roared with laughter at your pompous story about how your poor,
less-logically-gifted wife and son just couldn't seem to understand
your words. I have absolutely no doubt that, in private with his
friends, your son says something like "You know, my dad is SUCH a
pompous ass. He actually thinks that he's smart, but hardly anyone
understands him and he's so clueless that he thinks it's really
everyone else's fault. I can't wait for the day when he's hoisted on
his own petard". Honestly, drop the posturing and have a talk with
your son. Maybe if he actually believes that you're being sincere, and
can "take" the criticism, he'll admit this to you. Maybe that will be
the first step you can take toward *real* self-improvement rather than
wasting your time futilely attempting to sell people on this erroneous
idea that you're "logical").

It's a pity that you don't actually have the intellectual aptitude to
pull off your ruse, otherwise, you'd see the peril in misanalyzing
Tholen's mindless generalities, hypocrisy, inconsistency, and foolish
contradictions as "logical exacting specificity". It just shows that
you don't know the first thing about real logic. In fact, I believe
that the real reason why you seem to be so enamored of Tholen's tripe
is because you erroneously believe that it is perceived to be
"impressive" (and more than anything, that's what a person like you
who lacks self-esteem wants). The truly ironic thing is that Tholen's
tripe impresses no one with any intelligence. The only people who are
"wowed" by it are the foolishly ignorant pompous sorts like you. The
rest of us laugh at Tholen and the unfortunate "dummies" who lack the
insight to actually glean just how hypocritical, inconsistent,
contradictory, and mindlessly cliched Tholen's "thinking" is. You're
being pitied as "clueless" by the very people whom you think that
you're impressing (although I doubt that some others will actually
come right out and tell you that's what they think when they read your
exceedingly clueless "analysis" about Tholen. Marty seems to like you,
so I doubt that he'd come right out and say "Now that truly is
clueless", although I'll bet that he has had that thought more than
once while reading your posts about Tholen. On the other hand, I tend
to be a blunt person. Obviously, Brad Wardell is likewise, which is
why he *did* tell you right out that your analysis of Tholen was
exceptionally clueless). Funny, it is.

>It is also why
>Dave is misperceived by many of his opponents in this newsgroup.

Your own lack of intelligence (combined with your misguided, pompous
attempt to sound "logical") is why you've erroneously concluded that
Tholen is "misperceived by many of his opponents". Of course, that's
why you've also foolishly dismissed those opponents as "unskilled at
logic" and "mentally blocked".

It's a pity you don't realize how laughable you are when you run
interference for this truly ignorant dummy, and do it in your
typically pompous, ignorant manner. That makes it all the more
hysterically funny. You've got great career potential as a circus
clown, Bennie. But just don't try to do any job that requires *real*
intelligence, as opposed to simply following someone else's
instructions. Frankly, you don't have the aptitude for it (assuming
that you'd apply the same level of "analysis" that you've demonstrated
in running interference for Tholen).

P.S.  Although Karel is obviously no brain surgeon, I'll give him
credit that he isn't so *totally* clueless that he doesn't realize how
badly he comes off when he tries to run interference for a dummy like
Tholen. Of course, I also don't believe that he's intellectually
capable of recognizing the sort of hypocrisy, inconsistency,
contradiction, and mindless generalities that Tholen spews. But at
least Karel is not so dumb that he hasn't learned that not everyone in
the newsgroup is an ignorant buffoon who is wowed by simplistically
stupid "Tholen Logic".

On the other hand, Bennie is one of those unfortunate ignorant
buffoons. Hey, it happens. And at least we get some entertainment in
watching him ineptly pass off Tholen's tripe as "exacting
specificity". HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Good one. Come on, Bennie. Reach down in
the depths of your pomposity and pull out another gem of foolishness
for us. We could use the chuckle.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@attglobal.net                             30-Oct-99 19:34:17
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: pcguido@attglobal.net

In <MPG.128160db7e579a98989a84@news1.mnsinc.com>, David H. McCoy
<forgitaboutit@fake.com> writes:
|In article <381759A0.91099D7@isomedia.com>, djohnson@isomedia.com says...
||Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
||substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
||favor a Windows version?	You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
||platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
||dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
||at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
||happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
||
||Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
||seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
||that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
||prosperous.
||
||SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
||with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
||"Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
||contract programming services on their web site.	It doesn't look like
||there will be an IPO anytime soon.
||
||Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
||OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
||ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
||and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
||called Jbuilder.	They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
||world on fire.
||
||So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
||their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
||
|
|Now, let's here it for all the all OS/2 companies going IPO.
|<quiet>
|Okay, how about just the all OS/2 companies making a good living, let alone a
|great one.
|<real quiet>
|
|Borland was never an OS/2 company and SPG decide to bail on OS/2 and live,
|which they are doing, than stay with OS/2 and go broke.

|David H. McCoy

Short translation of David's (or whoever he is today) reply:

He doesn't know of any former OS/2 ISV's who have struck it
rich by switching to being a Windows ISV.


Guido

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@attglobal.net                             30-Oct-99 19:55:26
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 16:38:13
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: pcguido@attglobal.net

In <3819a357_4@news1.prserv.net>, flmighe@attglobal.net writes:
|In <381759A0.91099D7@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson"
<djohnson@isomedia.com> writes:
||Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
||substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
||favor a Windows version?	You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
||platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
||dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
||at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
||happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
||
||Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
||seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
||that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
||prosperous.
||
||SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
||with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
||"Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
||contract programming services on their web site.	It doesn't look like
||there will be an IPO anytime soon.
||
||Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
||OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
||ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
||and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
||called Jbuilder.	They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
||world on fire.
||
||So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
||their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
|
|There is AutoDesk. Of course with Microsoft's purchase of Visio; that could
|change real fast.
|
|There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of WordPerfect
|for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
|Microsoft.
|
|It is apparent from the DoJ antitrust case that Microsoft likely forced
|companies to abandon OS/2.
|
|IBM itself abandoned marketing OS/2 owing to Microsoft's bullying. That
|is the the testimony given during the case.
|
|http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/lsmonop.htm
|has more informaton

Show N'Tell, a vertical market IVR Telephony Engine from BrookTrout
started life as an OS/2 product. I believe the company was called
Naturally Speaking; but, I'm not sure. At any rate, the original
owners never got very far; but, BrookTrout has hitched their wagon
to the COM star and are doing pretty well under NT.

It doesn't hurt Show N'Tell that there is just about zero competition
in their market niche; but, the original OS/2 guys are long gone ;(

Guido

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  30-Oct-99 16:36:14
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Ugh.  Something akin to a <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> upchucked and
tholened:

> > One or both of our news servers must be lagged.  Be patient.
>
> Suddenly the person who claimed to not have the time to reply to the
> rest of another posting has the time to reply to this posting.  Typical
> inconsistency.

You don't understand, as usual, Tholen.  You're making it interesting the
longer you persist in your "infantile game," you see.  Par for the course.

> >>> something Dave never seems to tire of.
>
> >> You never seem to tire of your "infantile game", Marty.
>
> > I got tired of it when I admitted to it x months ago and ceased it.
>
> Obviously you haven't ceased it, Marty.
>
> > Yours is still in full force, however.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I even have an "infantile game",
> Marty.

You're erroneously asserting an erroneous assertion to an assertion that is
assertively correct, Tholen.  It figures.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 20:41:23
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

It took Jeff less than five hours.
If you ever need to know your future, I'm obviously your man. (almost 
creepy, this close to Halloween)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             30-Oct-99 13:40:23
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 12:56:19, Jim Stuyck <jstuyck@home.com> wrote:
> 
> | You may recall that there was even a Sidekick user's guide packed
> | into one release's boxed OS/2.  But Sidekick was a BAD application.
> | Slow...  IBMers had the IBM Internal Use Only package that they
> | could use and most of us found it superior to Sidekick in just about
> | every way imaginable.  That stuff later became part of OS/2 "as is"
> | applications.
> 
> Sidekick was bundled with OS/2 1.2. I used Sidekick for a lot of
> "hands-on" examples when I was an instructor for Learning Tree's OS/2
> class, so I got to know it pretty well. FWIW, it wasn't slow on a 386,
> though I wouldn't be surprised if it were pokey on the 286s that were
> common back then.
> 
> OTOH, I'd never have picked Sidekick as a likely app to use on OS/2.
> Sidekick was a perfect example of what could be done with a TSR in a
> single-tasking environment, but it wasn't particularly necessary for a
> multitasking OS. If you could use a "real" phone book application in
> another OS/2 window, why would you want the mini-one in Sidekick? And
> so on.
> 
> I'm sure that Philippe made a smokin' deal with IBM and/or Microsoft,
> at the time, and the message of the app bundle (that you could get
> right to work, using brand-name apps) was a good one. (And oh dear, I
> *do* miss having Philippe Kahn around. He's such a cool guy, and a
> wonderful character.) But a "WordPerfect Lite for OS/2" would have
> been much more useful, in the long run.
> 
> WordPerfect, of course, is another example of an ISV that was gung-ho
> on OS/2 but later dropped it. (I'm personally convinced they dropped
> the 6.x version because they wanted to look good on the balance sheet
> for the Novell buyout, but that's another issue.) Like several other
> big ISVs who jumped on the OS/2 bandwagon early, WordPerfect put an
> enormous amount of development effort into the "sure thing" of OS/2,
> while Microsoft quietly put *its* effort into Word for Windows.
> Meanwhile, I recall a message WPCorp's Pete Petersen left in the
> Compuserve forum saying that WPCorp had sold 6 copies of WP 5.0 for
> OS/2. Six. Undoubtably, they sold more copies after that -- I was told
> that 5.0 had some big bugs, and sales were 'slow' until they were
> fixed -- but the point is that they didn't make money on OS/2, and had
> to get it from somewhere else.

You're rewriting history, here, Esther.  In 1989 there were next to no
OS/2 licenses sold.  It was a very young and immature product.  Everyone
used DOS.  IBM and Microsoft were jointly developing OS/2 and were both
eagerly pitching it as the replacement to DOS, not unlike the way
Microsoft pitches Windows 2000 to be the replacement to Windows 98 and
NT.   When Microsoft and IBM split up over OS/2, Microsoft dropped
support for OS/2 faster than you could sneeze.  And so did most of the
software developers who depended on Microsoft and had any brains.  OS/2
was only a "sure thing" while Microsoft was supporting it (due to their
monopoly).  I actually have a copy of Microsoft Excel for OS/2 v3
published by Microsoft in 1992.  It is a native OS/2 PM application and
is functionally equivalent to the Windows Excel v3 that was published
for Windows 3.1 at that time.  But it was a stillborn product that
Microsoft suffocated.  I doubt if you could even find any evidence on
the MS Website that it ever existed.  But MS Excel for OS/2 works quite
well.

The recent antitrust trial made it abundantly clear that a large
software developer like Borland or WordPerfect could not possibly hope
to survive if they didn't work with Microsoft.  THAT is the ONLY reason
that Wordperfect dropped OS/2.  Even so, Wordperfect was too slow in
dumping OS/2 and they paid a price with their first versions of
Wordperfect 5.x for Windows.  Even IBM had to back away from their very
own OS/2 product if they wanted to get a distribution agreement for
Windows 95 from Microsoft.  Didn't you follow the trial last summer? 
The testimony from IBM executives about this was very clear.  I am still
amazed at how many people have the evidence staring them right between
the eyes and who still say:  'Well, [fill in the blank] company was just
too stupid to compete with Microsoft.'         




> 
> For the big name ISVs, OS/2 1.x development was a time, resource, and
> money suck -- and you wonder why they were unenthusiastic about
> creating new versions when 2.0 was promised Real Soon Now? We can all
> point to the Evil Empire of Microsoft for the real damage (such as MS
> working on Excel for Windows while Lotus was actively writing 1-2-3/G
> for OS/2 -- on which I contracted, at the time), but nonetheless those
> companies were burnt badly by OS/2. If Microsoft was taking away their
> market "where the money was" (ie Windows) then their own survival
> required that they put _all_ their resources into trying to get it
> back or maintain what they had... which meant Windows.
> 
> --Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               30-Oct-99 14:35:00
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 19:47:00
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On 30 Oct 1999 19:55:53 GMT, pcguido@attglobal.net wrote:

>Show N'Tell, a vertical market IVR Telephony Engine from BrookTrout
>started life as an OS/2 product. 

That's because the product wasn't even working when they were selling it.   I
got a copy of that junk and almost gone to court with them before getting my
money back.   They gave me my money back only after I told them I will be
working show floors passing out flyers telling people about my experience
with them.    From what I can tell, their OS/2 version never did work (they
used a Win/OS/2 GUI sitting on top of an OS/2 engine - nothing wrong if it
actually worked).

>I believe the company was called
>Naturally Speaking; but, I'm not sure. At any rate, the original
>owners never got very far; but, BrookTrout has hitched their wagon
>to the COM star and are doing pretty well under NT.

They are hardly a "COM star".  Even Brooktrout is just a small player.   I
used to get Rhetorex cards within a couple of days after ordering it.   Now
with Brooktrout owning the company, it took me over 2 months to get a VPS
card.    This company is not going anywhere anytime soon.

>
>It doesn't hurt Show N'Tell that there is just about zero competition
>in their market niche; 

That's incorrect.    They are not a major player (or anywhere close to it).

>but, the original OS/2 guys are long gone ;(

I should be glad that my industry is rid of guys like those.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               30-Oct-99 23:19:13
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 21:22:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 17:40:47, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
| You're rewriting history, here, Esther.  In 1989 there were next to no
| OS/2 licenses sold.

According to...? What's your source?

I spoke with Lee Reiswig about OS/2 1.x sales, back in 1992. I got 
more credible numbers from him then than I have *ever* seen reported 
elsewhere.

|When Microsoft and IBM split up over OS/2, Microsoft dropped
| support for OS/2 faster than you could sneeze.  And so did most of the
| software developers who depended on Microsoft and had any brains.  OS/2
| was only a "sure thing" while Microsoft was supporting it (due to their
| monopoly).

No, not exactly. OS/2 was a sure thing as long as it was supported by 
BOTH vendors -- when it was the love child of the two most powerful 
companies in the PC industry. When one dropped its support... well, it
was like a disfunctional marriage breaking apart, with recriminations 
and accusations. Some friends ally themselves with the husband, some 
with the wife... and, inevitably, it's the children (users) who 
suffer.

During the OS/2 1.x days, IBM said "We'll handle the big companies, 
and leave end-user OS/2 marketing to you, Microsoft" -- sensibly so, 
because that let each company use its best skills. IBM did indeed sell
OS/2 to the corporate customers they understood best, and left 
Microsoft everything else to do... including the job of establishing 
alliances with ISVs, a job IBM has _never_ understood (and doesn't 
understand to this day). The ISV's alliances were with Microsoft, not 
IBM. Microsoft charted the course... and, as it became evident that 
IBM was paying attention only to the large corporate customers, the 
ISVs saw more opportunity with Microsoft. (If, as has been presented, 
Microsoft also played dirty pool, then the message was merely 
underlined.)

If the OS/2 1.x ISVs had been making money, then Microsoft couldn't 
have made inroads. If their customers -- particularly their big 
customers -- said "We're committed to OS/2" the ISVs wouldn't have 
dropped OS/2 support. They weren't and they didn't, and the ISVs were 
weary of the "next version, it's gonna take over the world" promises. 
By then, Windows had Microsoft's marketing might behind it, and IBM 
had lost its position of power. Like that family divorce, these people
were forced to choose which partner to believe in. Or, as the then-VP 
of marketing for OS/2 once told me, "We've been promising management 
that we're going to hit our next ball out of the park for *years.* 
After all this time, they no longer have a reason to believe us." The 
ISVs, with less commitment, felt the same way.

The evidence in the antitrust trial is real -- at least so far as I 
can tell -- but it's not the whole story. Microsoft acted like bad 
boys, but IBM shot itself in the foot time after time.

| The recent antitrust trial made it abundantly clear that a large
| software developer like Borland or WordPerfect could not possibly hope
| to survive if they didn't work with Microsoft.  THAT is the ONLY reason
| that Wordperfect dropped OS/2.

Sorry, David, but on this one you're wrong. There are ISVs for whom 
I'm convinced that Microsoft pressure played a part, but all evidence,
in the matter of WP for OS/2, points to WPCorp's concern about making 
the company look as profitable as possible for the Novell buyout. They
were just about to start the expensive part of the process -- beta 
testing and then marketing it -- and they got off the freeway at the 
exit where the sign said, "Toll booth ahead."

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            30-Oct-99 23:45:03
  To: All                                               30-Oct-99 21:22:09
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 23:19:26, esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler) 
wrote:

> 
> No, not exactly. OS/2 was a sure thing as long as it was supported by 
> BOTH vendors -- when it was the love child of the two most powerful 
> companies in the PC industry. When one dropped its support... well, it
> was like a disfunctional marriage breaking apart, with recriminations 
> and accusations. Some friends ally themselves with the husband, some 
> with the wife... and, inevitably, it's the children (users) who 
> suffer.
> 
Does that mean we'll need therapy? I *do* have this feeling of 
depravation, like Mommysoft doesn't love me as much as the "new kids".

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hunters@thunder.indstate.edu                      29-Oct-99 14:28:11
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:14
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: hunters@thunder.indstate.edu

In article <BGtODEdD7Dku-pn2-lb0EgWPV6MBP@n449.telekabel.euronet.nl>,
  ReplyToNews@The-Net-4U.com wrote:

> Get the feeling that this is becoming a discussion over my head <g>
> about the source of what phone-companies are doing over there. I do
> not really care if it commercial practice, a ruling, law or a consent
> decree.

Ah, I see. As I had read the post, you were saying that a judge, or
something, had ruled *against* a law or proposal to make us in the US
pay long-distance rates for internet usage. However, this could not be
true, since there was never such a law or proposal, as the URL points
out. And thus the confusion. I'm thinking about ruling against a law,
and others were thinking about rulings for a law.

> What I was pointing at (originally) is that there is a difference (as
> far as I know) in the way customers are charged in the USA and in
> Europe for the time they are connected to their ISP's local call
> access point.

Natch. :)

--
-Steven Hunter               *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
hunters@thunder.indstate.edu *AMD K6-2 400* |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: thannymeister@spambegone.yahoo.com                29-Oct-99 11:15:23
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:14
Subj: Re: Giga says Win2k worth the money

From: "Mike Ruskai" <thannymeister@spambegone.yahoo.com>

On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 17:59:40 -0400, Marty wrote:

>Illya Vaes wrote:
>> 
>> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
>> >Microsoft designed Windows 2000 from the ground up [...]
>> 
>> Ah, the Windows 95 approach.
>> That tells any critical reader enough, methinks.
>
>How could the Win95 approach be "from the ground up"?  Unless you count
>DOS as the "ground", that is.

Actually, the early Chicago betas were ground-up approaches.  They
couldn't get compatibility to work worth a damn, though, so they switched
over to modifying the WfWG sources.  But not all of them, of course.  The
16-bit USER.EXE and GDI.EXE modules weren't touched.  No one at Microsoft
knows enough about them to safely alter them.



 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone' to send e-mail.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TLF (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             29-Oct-99 08:36:09
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:14
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Kim Cheung wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:21:28 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
> 
> >All I can say is that it works well.  Maybe he worked on another version
> >or something.  Why is the GUI part understandable?  It's all GUI.  Are
> >we talking about the same software?  Would you like me to send you some
> >screenshots?
> 
> When I say "it's slow" - I always put it in perspective: memory, video, CPU,
> technology at the time - and so forth.
> 
> The part that was very slow was walking the logic tree, evaluating
dependency
> branches, data base table mapping and so forth: nothing to do with GUI.

On current hardware, these things occur essentially instantaneosly with
the applications I have implemented with it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             29-Oct-99 08:39:28
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Dale Ross wrote:
> 
> "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:38190307.9F52FBB4@isomedia.com...
> > Dale Ross wrote:
> > > Because I have a list of all the Microsoft MVPs.
> >
> > Do all of the Microsoft MVPs get a copy of this list?  And how is it
> > updated?
> 
> Of course all MVPs have access to the list. Microsoft updates the list. You
> give me a name, I'll tell you which product they are an MVP for. Like I
> said, I've seen no one here name an MVP other than myself.

So is this list on a Microsoft server?  Can non-MVPs look at the list?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 12:11:28
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Mike Timbol wrote:
> 
> >See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
> 
> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.  Good show.

Now let's wait for him to admit this clearly pointed-out mistake on his
part.  Personally, I'm not holding my breath.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se                  29-Oct-99 16:47:04
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Papyrus;  was: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: "Lennart Gahm" <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se>

If you want a lean and fast wordprocessor/desktop-pub./database/etc
application you should take a look at Papyrus.
I saw it at WarpStock Europe and was really impressed.
It take up ~3MB (yes 2 diskettes) of your HD, less if you skip help and
demos.
Papyrus is extremly fast and have smart functions that other lacks.
The database part has the smartest and fastest mecanism for finding
data in a database i have ever seen. It's own storage format is XML.
It can even import MS Word (not Excel). 

So far it's Germen only, but they are working on an English version.
Papyrus exist for both OS/2 and Windows.
See more about Papyrus at 
http://www.rom-logicware.com/

Lennart Gahm, Swedish OS/2 User Group


On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:37:38 -0400, Mirage Media wrote:

>Hi!
>Completely agree with you about SO3.1. Have you actually tried using it
>more than 30 days? Mine ran close to 3 months before I wiped the drive
>to build a new system.It *would* be nice to have it as a choise....
>
>Corey
>Mirage Media
>Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
>
>Karel Jansens wrote:
>> 
>> I found a trial version of StarOffice 3.1 on my Warp 4 Sampler CD (I
>> never really looked at it before, since I got what I need, but I
>> chucked it in by mistake and had a look).
>> 
>> Does anyone know how to get this thing working properly? I sent a mail
>> to StarDivision, but they don't reply (probably don't remember they
>> ever made the thing).
>> 
>> Before calling me a weird luddite, let me tell you why I like it. It's
>> small, it's fast, and best of all, it doesn't have that ridiculous
>> StarDesktop taking over a perfectly working WPS setup. I know it's not
>> as stable as 5.1 and it lacks a lot of the features, but the
>> spreadsheet and drawing applications are quite nice, so I'd like to
>> give it a go... provided I can keep it working for more than 30 days.
>> 
>> Anyone?
>> 
>> Karel Jansens
>> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>> 
>>   
>>                      boot options                    
>>                                                      
>>                 Please choose from list              
>>                                                      
>>                  <OS/2>        <linux>               
>>                                                      
>>   [Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending 
>>            of advocacy program. No refunds]          
>>   
>> 
>> If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               29-Oct-99 09:56:12
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:36:19 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:

>On current hardware, these things occur essentially instantaneosly with
>the applications I have implemented with it.

Yep - because there shouldn't be any trouble doing these things with a 386/16
processor over ISA bus.    123 walked the dependency tree on the original
floppy based 4.77MHZ PC.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               29-Oct-99 13:56:27
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Mike Timbol wrote:
> 
> >>> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
> >>> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
> 
> >> Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
> >> let's take a closer look at that file.  Here's the output from the
> >> LIST program in hexadecimal mode.  Notice the corresponding filename
> >> in the first line (you can also tell when I downloaded it):
> >>
> >> ] LIST       1   00%        08/10/99 23:06  JAVAINUF.EXE
> >> ] 000000  4D 5A 50 00 02 00 00 00 04 00 0F 00 FF FF 00 00  MZP     
> >> ] 000010  B8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 00 1A 00 00 00 00 00          @
> >
> >> ] 000020  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> >> ] 000030  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00               
> >> ] 000040  BA 10 00 0E 1F B4 09 CD 21 B8 01 4C CD 21 90 90       ! L
!
> >> ] 000050  54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73  This program
mus
> >> ] 000060  74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F  t be run under 
O
> >> ] 000070  53 2F 32 2E 0D 0A 24 37 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  S/2.
> >>
> >> (I did replace one tab character with a space to preserve the alignment
> >> of the columns on the right side.)
> >>
> >> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite clearly,
> >> the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> > Now let's try one more thing.  Run Unzip with this EXE file as a
> > parameter.  You'll note that it has a standard info-zip style central
> > directory entry within it, which can be easily identify by nearly any
> > standard decompression program.  Hence, it is quite possible to
> > decompress this "OS/2 only" self-extracting archive on a different
> > platform.
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to tell me whether the implementation of
> Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is an issue, Marty.
> Can't you finish what you start before jumping into other discussions?
> Oh yeah, you aren't following me around like a puppy, according to you.
> Yeah right.

I'm following the thread Dave.  If I were not, then I wouldn't have
known what you were talking about and that your argument has been that
of semantics, as it is even still.  "This program must be run under
OS/2."  Too bad it doesn't have to be run and your semantics are
worthless.  Both Mike and myself are waiting for an admission of your
perfectly understandable mistake.  Your obstinance/infantile game still
persists, preventing such a simple admission.  I'm not surprised.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 18:19:00
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: Papyrus;  was: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 16:47:08, "Lennart Gahm" 
<lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote:

> If you want a lean and fast wordprocessor/desktop-pub./database/etc
> application you should take a look at Papyrus.
> I saw it at WarpStock Europe and was really impressed.
> It take up ~3MB (yes 2 diskettes) of your HD, less if you skip help and
> demos.
> Papyrus is extremly fast and have smart functions that other lacks.
> The database part has the smartest and fastest mecanism for finding
> data in a database i have ever seen. It's own storage format is XML.
> It can even import MS Word (not Excel). 
> 
> So far it's Germen only, but they are working on an English version.
> Papyrus exist for both OS/2 and Windows.
> See more about Papyrus at 
> http://www.rom-logicware.com/
>
 
I know PaPyrus. I've tried the test version, but I already have a 
perfectly suitable wordprocessor (DeScribe) that I know inside out. 
Besides, PaPyrus gave me a slightly buggy feeling (it was some time 
ago, granted, but still) and I prefer my software to be all in the 
same language.

I was looking at the spreadsheet and drawing application from 
StarOffice 3.1, and I wondered if they could be persuaded to work 
beyond the 30 day trial limit.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  ֻ
                     boot options                    
                                                     
                Please choose from list              
                                                     
                 <OS/2>        <linux>               
                                                     
  [Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending 
           of advocacy program. No refunds]          
  ּ

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 18:19:00
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:38:31, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:

[snip]
> >
> >So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> >their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?
> 
> There is AutoDesk. Of course with Microsoft's purchase of Visio; that could
> change real fast.
> 
Visio and AutoDesk have the same target market? You better hope on-one
from AutoDesk reads this, or you'll get fried bigtime...

> There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of WordPerfect
> for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
> Microsoft.
> 
Corel didn't own WordPerfect at the time. But Corel itself once has a 
pretty good version of Draw! for OS/2. Version number was 2.5, IIRC, 
and it was on a par with Windows version 3 (Which, incidentally, I 
still use occasionally. 'cuz I'm a luddite)
 
[snip]

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  ֻ
                     boot options                    
                                                     
                Please choose from list              
                                                     
                 <OS/2>        <linux>               
                                                     
  [Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending 
           of advocacy program. No refunds]          
  ּ

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            29-Oct-99 18:19:02
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 17:37:38, Mirage Media <mirage@iae.nl> wrote:

> Hi!
> Completely agree with you about SO3.1. Have you actually tried using it
> more than 30 days? Mine ran close to 3 months before I wiped the drive
> to build a new system.It *would* be nice to have it as a choise....
> 
That's what I'm trying to find out. :^)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

  ֻ
                     boot options                    
                                                     
                Please choose from list              
                                                     
                 <OS/2>        <linux>               
                                                     
  [Remainder O/S automatically removed due to ending 
           of advocacy program. No refunds]          
  ּ

If they don't get paid anymore, there's no use mocking them...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jdc0014@InfoNET.st-johns.nf.ca                    29-Oct-99 18:35:02
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 05:35:15
Subj: Re: Papyrus;  was: StarOffice 3.1 try and buy: how to get it working?

From: jdc0014@InfoNET.st-johns.nf.ca (John Hong)

Lennart Gahm (lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se) wrote:

: So far it's Germen only, but they are working on an English version.
: Papyrus exist for both OS/2 and Windows.
: See more about Papyrus at 
: http://www.rom-logicware.com/

	I'm sorry but this is getting just a little bit ridiculas.  We've 
been waiting on this mythical english version of Papyrus since almost 
1997!  Yet there still seems to be no change in their progress.  Ugh.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: St. John's InfoNET (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          31-Oct-99 03:44:25
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:20
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
>Jeff didn't even need five hours. This is really becoming pavlovian. 
>Hey! maybe he could learn to do tricks...

Maybe you could even learn to use your email reader so that you don't
repost messages twice. But then, you're obviously one of those
"ignorant" computer users you refer to in your other posts when you're
playing OS/2 zealot.

It's also telling that your tag line is longer than your messages.
I've noticed that you're short on substance and long on filler. That's
probably why you're so impressed by a loser like Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 05:42:21
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes [to Bennie Nelson]:

> This is an extremely interesting observation. I've often wondered why 
> quite a few intelligent and reasonable posters (that should rule out 
> the obvious other group - although Brad Wardell remains somewhat of a 
> mystery then) have such an aversion vs Dave Tholen.

It may be interesting, but as you should note in my response to Bennie,
I think he's way off base with regard to the recent discussions.  His
hypothesis may be applicable to some previous discussions, however.

> My view of him was that of a very intelligent person gifted with a
> somewhat strange (and therefore strikingly familiar) sense of humour,

Different.  That doesn't make it "strange".  I don't know if you get
the program over there, but over here, I've heard several people in
my age group comment on how "Saturday Night Live" isn't as funny as
it used to be.  I think that's more a reflection on what could be
called "The Generation Gap".  The show has a target age group.  As we
get older, we move out of the age group to which the show (and its
humor) is targeted.  What's missing from USENET is often the age
information, although Timbol revealed his age when he commented that
he's "a relative newbie with limited experience" some time back.  I
wouldn't be surprised if Lucien and Marty are also considerably
younger than I am.

> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>
> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 06:00:12
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Instead of addressing the issues raised,

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

> once again Dave has chosen to avoid them and pontificate that I am
> again playing an infantile game. 

I've not pontificated, Marty.  I've presented evidence.

> How infantile, further proving my statements correct.

Illogical, Marty, given the evidence I've presented that you are
indeed playing an "infantile game".  Notice how you posted several
items yesterday after claiming that you didn't have time to reply
to the rest of one of my articles.  Not once did you address that
inconsistency.

> He did manage to sneak in a few valid responses in between his
> repetition of dodging the issue,

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

> so I'll address these areas.

To continue playing your "infantile game".  For example, here you are
clearly calling it an "issue", yet you accused me of never discussing
the issues.  Another inconsistency on your part, one that you've
continued to ignore by deleting my references to your inconsistency.

>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
>>>>>>> the first time:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>> I already told you, moron.
>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract its
>>> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
>>> in a DOS session, it will run.

>> Here's the output, Marty:
>>
>> ] E:\>javainuf
>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
>>> but it executes under DOS.

>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then calls
> INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
> inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.

That's what you call "running" the program, Marty?  You clearly said that
the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS session.  The display of a
stub doesn't extract any archive.  So, naturally, you try to divert
attention away from that by talking about the details of how a stub works.
Typical.

>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive format
>>>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

>>> The archive format is portable.

>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
> format is portable.

It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood the
difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.

>>> The executable format is not.

>> Glad you agree, Marty.

> Likewise.

Agreement makes cameo appearance.

>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
>>> How is that irrelevant?

>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
> could view the archive.

Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?

> And now, so that you don't complain:

>> According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
>> to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
>> that you insist you're not playing.

> I already stated that it was an issue, but that you have failed to
> address it in your argument.

You didn't retract your claim that I never discuss issues, Marty.
When you finally (after deleting it once) acknowledged my evidence
that I have, in fact, admitted to mistakes, you didn't apologize
for the error.  You simply reworded your claim.  Now you're doing
the same thing.  I have addressed the current issue in my responses
to Timbol.  He's the one who claimed that Joseph's statement was
"bullshit".  If you want to get involved, then either agree with
Timbol that Joseph's statement is "bullshit" and try to explain why
it is so, in the light of the evidence I've presented, or agree
with me (in which case I don't understand why you'd be responding
to me rather than Timbol).

> Infantile games have nothing to do with my end of this argument.

They have everything to do with your recent round of responses to me.

> I've noticed that you used the above paragraph as your escape route
> to several points you didn't feel like addressing. 

How ironic, coming from the person who has used various escape routes
to avoid discussing several points that proved you to be wrong.

> How convenient.

Too emabrassing for you, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dross1@carolina.rr.com                            31-Oct-99 06:24:29
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com>

"Bob Germer" <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message news:381bcd7f$1> I
have a bridge between two of New York City's boroughs I would like to
> talk with you about buying from me.

Sorry Bob but I understand that you owe too much in back taxes on it.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 04:05:18
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

> Note: more references to the ambiguity are highlighted throughout the
> post (emphasis added for the reader's convenience):

Note:  more ignorance of "the ambiguity IS RESOLVED" are highlighted
throughout the post.  Emphasis added for the reader's convenience.

> Here's one:

>> Incorrect, Lucien, because if [[[[an ambiguity]]]] is resolved by the
>> presence of additional information, then there is no ambiguity.

Here's the revised version.

>> Incorrect, Lucien, because if [[[[an ambiguity is resolved]]]] by the
>> presence of additional information, then there is no ambiguity.

> ...and, going over this yet again, in case the additional information is
> lacking, what do we have?

Irrelevant, given that the additional information is not lacking in
the present situation.

> Hint: your statement gives the answer (emphasis added to the key
> phrases):

Still irrelevant, given that the additional information is not lacking
in the present situation.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[[either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality]]]]],[[[[[in the absence of any other
> information]]]]]."

Note that there is no absence of any other information in the
present situation, Lucien.

> Now, back to the admissions to the ambiguity:

Now, back to the ignorance of "the ambiguity IS RESOLVED".

> Here's another:

>> But there is presence of other information, which resolves
>> [[[[the ambiguity]]]], Lucien.

Here's the revised version:

>> But there is presence of other information,
>> [[[[which resolves the ambiguity]]]], Lucien.

> And another:

>> There is no contradiction on my part, Lucien.  Do you know what it
>> means to have [[[[an ambiguity]]]] resolved?

Here's the revised version:

>> There is no contradiction on my part, Lucien.  Do you know what it
>> means to have [[[[an ambiguity resolved]]]]?

> And another:

>>>> I several times referred to how
>>>> --->>>[[[[the ambiguity]]]]<<<---
>>>> is resolved in the present situation by the presence of additional

Here's the revised version:

>>>> I several times referred to how
>>>> --->>>[[[[the ambiguity is resolved]]]]<<<---
>>>> in the present situation by the presence of additional

> And another:

>> information that resolves [[[[[the ambiguity]]]]]
>> thus there is no ambiguity.

Here's the revised version:

>> information that [[[[resolves the ambiguity]]]]]
>> thus there is no ambiguity.

> I count 5 admissions in this post.

I count 5 cases of ignorance of crucial inforamtion in this post (yours).
I count 5 instances of illogic, given that there are no admissions of
ambiguity on my part.

>>> You've agreed with me again that the ambiguity exists.

>> Incorrect, Lucien.  How can ambiguity exist if it's been resolved?

> And, going over this yet again, it would have to exist in the first
> place before resolving it would ever become possible, right?

You're erroneously presupposing some chronology, Lucien.  It's not as
if the statement started out as an ambiguous phrase that later became
unambiguous after additional information was provided.  The additional
information was there all along, so there never was any ambiguity.
When I wrote that "the ambiguity is resolved", it's clear that it
means "the ambiguity of the stand-alone phrase is resolved by the
fact that the phrase doesn't stand alone".

> Right.

Wrong, Lucien, for reasons given above.

> Reread your statement

Unnecessary, Lucien.

> - it details the underlying ambiguity (WRT quantification):

On the contrary, it details the underlying lack of ambiguity, thanks
to the presence of additional information.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

Note that there is no absence of any other information in the present
situation, Lucien.  The fact that you continue to ignore that fact is
further evidence that you are simply playing an "infantile game".

>>> These points constitute proof that you've fumbled into complete
>>> agreement with my thesis.

>> Illogical, Lucien, as there is no agreement with your flawed thesis.

> Wrong.

Balderdash, Lucien.  You have yet to identify any such agreement.

> Your own fumbling statements put you in agreement with my thesis.

You're erroneously presupposing some fumbling statements on my part,
Lucien, when in reality, the fumbling is all yours, given how you
continue to ignore the fact that additional information is present.

> Let's review again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.

> My thesis:
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.

There is no absence in either the previous or present situations,
Lucien, thus your thesis doesn't even apply to either argument.
Try a relevant argument.  Or try taking the tests that you've now
deleted several times.

> Your (congruent) statement:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

There is no absence in either the previous or present situations,
Lucien, thus your thesis doesn't even apply to either argument.
Try a relevant argument.  Or try taking the tests that you've now
deleted several times.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 04:13:02
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
>>>>>> on an OS/2 system to boot!

>>>>> Completely incorrect.  To run the file, one must have an OS/2 system
>>>>> (or emulator).  You do not need to run the file to look at the contents.

>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>>> file?

>>> I was easily able to extract the contents of the self-extracting
>>> executable without using OS/2.

>> Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

> You don't need to run the executable to extract its contents Dave.  Sure
> he can't run it, but he doesn't need to.

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
>>>>> the first time:
>>>>>
>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>> I already told you, moron.
>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>> "This program must be run under OS/2."

> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract its
> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
> in a DOS session, it will run.

Here's the output, Marty:

] E:\>javainuf
] This program must be run under OS/2.

> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
> but it executes under DOS.

It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

>>>>> What you apparently don't realize is that the file is a self-extracting
>>>>> executable.

>>>> Here's the output, Mike:
>>>>
>>>> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
>>>> ] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
>>>> ] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>>>>
>>>> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
Mike.

>>> Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
>>> important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
>>> just as I mentioned.

>> An executable that requires OS/2 to run, Mike.

> Right, but it can be extracted using standard utilities.  If you don't
> believe him, try it yourself.  What he has said is easily verifyable.

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>> I said the archive format was portable across platforms, not the
>>> executable file format.

>> But we're talking about an executable file, Mike.

> An executable file containing an archive.  It contains both DOS and OS/2
> executables, as well as the ZIP archive.  Perhaps if you understood how
> any of these three things worked, you would understand how the archive
> could be decompressed without running the executable.

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>> Since it is the same archive format used on many other platforms, tools
>>> on many other platforms can read it.

>> But not execute it.  I can use LIST on all sorts of binary files, Mike,
>> including Windows NT executables.  Is that what you call "reading"?

> He can extract the entire contents of the archive into their fully
> expanded files.  Does that clear it up for you?

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive format
>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

> The archive format is portable.

Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

> The executable format is not.

Glad you agree, Marty.

> The archive can be read from within the executable regardless of the
> executable's portability.

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>>>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>>>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
>>>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>> Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.

>> LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
>> comprehensible to a human.

> He can extract the entire contents of the archive into their fully
> expanded files.  Does that clear it up for you?

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>>>>>> I'm not avoiding the question at all -- you just keep changing the
>>>>>>> questions you're asking, because you don't have the faintest idea what
>>>>>>> you're talking about.

>>>>>> On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

>>>>> Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
>>>>> the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
>>>>> number of platforms.

>>>> Here's the output, Mike:
>>>>
>>>> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2  5-1-1997
>>>> ] Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved. Shareware Version
>>>> ] PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>>>>
>>>> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
Mike.

>>> That's completely irrelevent.

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

> He doesn't have to run it Dave.

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>> I told you explicitely that I didn't run the file.

>> You told me explicitly:
>>
>> MT] Irrelevent -- as I said, I didn't need to run the program.  What's
>> MT] important to note is that the file is a self-extracting executable,
>> MT] just as I mentioned.
>>
>> And I responded explicitly:
>>
>> DT] An executable that requires OS/2 to run, Mike.

>>> I said I used WinZip.

>> And I said:
>>
>> DT] LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
>> DT] comprehensible to a human.

> Try it yourself some time.  WinZip can read it perfectly and extract its
> full contents as intended.


According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

> Here's how a self-extractor works:  It consists of two major sections-
> code and data.  The code part contains the platform-specific
> instructions to decompress and create files out of the data.  The data
> part contains your standard archive.  Using WinZip alleviates the need
> to run the code part, since the relevant code is within WinZip itself. 
> The data is formatted independently of the code, and hence can be read
> by standard utilities.

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>> Which part of this is too hard for you to understand?

>> What makes you think that I don't understand any part of it, Mike?

>>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

>>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.

>>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.

>> And I was able to "read" the file with LIST.

> Were you able to easily obtain the information he just provided below
> using LIST?

According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
that you insist you're not playing.

>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>> Irrelevant, Mike.

> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents. 
> How is that irrelevant?

Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 00:50:07
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Instead of addressing the issues raised, once again Dave has chosen to
avoid them and pontificate that I am again playing an infantile game. 
How infantile, further proving my statements correct.  He did manage to
sneak in a few valid responses in between his repetition of dodging the
issue, so I'll address these areas.

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
> 
> >>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
> >>>>> the first time:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."
> 
> >>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>> I already told you, moron.
> >>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> > He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract its
> > contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
> > in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> Here's the output, Marty:
> 
> ] E:\>javainuf
> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> > It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
> > but it executes under DOS.
> 
> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then calls
INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.

> >>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> >>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
> 
> >> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive format
> >> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.
> 
> > The archive format is portable.
> 
> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
format is portable.

> > The executable format is not.
> 
> Glad you agree, Marty.

Likewise.
 
> >>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> >>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> >>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> > He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
> > How is that irrelevant?
> 
> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
could view the archive.

And now, so that you don't complain:
> According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
> to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
> that you insist you're not playing.

I already stated that it was an issue, but that you have failed to
address it in your argument.  Infantile games have nothing to do with my
end of this argument.  I've noticed that you used the above paragraph as
your escape route to several points you didn't feel like addressing. 
How convenient.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     30-Oct-99 09:41:06
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Drestin Black wrote:

> Oh, it returns a hit cause it's looking for those words using an OR. so any
> page with "creeping" would be returned too. Did you get many haunted house
> sites? or "corruption" - did that list any polititions sites?

No.
It returns a hit because it did a honest search.  Remember you said you found
none - zero.

> BTW: I got more hits when I searched for "linux kernel panic" - hmm....

And I got even more when I searched on "Registry Corruption".  I also got more
searching on Blue Screen of Death (BSOD).

For consistency try, "creeping LINUX kernel panic"

Hey I think I know you.  Are you really Philip Shet?  I think you were in my
grammar school.

>
>
> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:3818F2F6.BB729F9D@ibm.net...
> > I found over 10 pages of hits when I did a search.
> >
> > pcguido@attglobal.net wrote:
> >
> > > So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?
> > >
> > > Guido
> > >
> > > In <s0uci5psr0132@corp.supernews.com>, "Drestin Black"
> <workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam> writes:
> > > |I'm sorry, "creeping registry corruption" does not return any hits on
> any
> > > |search I've performed.
> >
> > Search results using google:
> >
> > Computing.Net - Forums - Windows9x
> > ...dictionary. Rick 23:13:20 6/29/99 (0) Registry-removing driver
> references...
> > ...6/30/99 (4) old compaq486 missing registry files streetsinger
> 17:03:53...
> > computing.net/windows95/wwwboard/wwwboard.html Cached (61k)  New! Try out
> GoogleScout
> >
> > Cause of Registry corruption?
> > ...Next Thread | Cause of Registry corruption? Base: Registry...
> > ...White, 8/18/98 to: "Cause of Registry corruption?" | Subscribe |...
> > www.win95mag.com/HyperNews/get/registry/49.html Cached (10k)  New! Try out
> GoogleScout
> >
> >      registry "backups"
> >      ...& Tricks Re: Cause of Registry corruption? (Bill Weaver)...
> >      ...Previous Message | Next Thread | registry "backups" Base:
> Registry...
> >      www.win95mag.com/HyperNews/get/registry/49/1.html Cached (12k)  New!
> Try out GoogleScout
> >
> > Office for Windows Troubleshooting Kernel32.dll Error Messages in
> Microsoft Of
> > ...CD-ROM Drive Cache Check for Registry Corruption Check the Hard...
> > ...Return to Top Check for Registry Corruption Important This section...
> > support.microsoft.com/support/office/content/kernel32/kernel32b.asp Cached
> (30k)  New! Try out
> > GoogleScout
> >
> >      Q179827 - Blue Screens Caused by Pool Corruption Due to Registry
> Handle Leak
> >      ...Screens Caused by Pool Corruption Due to Registry Handle Leak
> The...
> >      ...by an application containing a registry handle leak. This leak
> occurs...
> >      support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q179/8/27.asp Cached (11k)
> New! Try out GoogleScout
> >
> > The Risks Digest Volume 19: Issue 60
> > ...Massive NT Outage due to Registry corruption Mike Andrews Airport...
> > ...Massive NT Outage due to Registry corruption...
> > catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/19.60.html Cached (34k)  New! Try out GoogleScout
> >
> > Compaq.com - Home & Home Office Computing - Service & Support
> > ...referred to as the Registry. If there is some corruption to any of...
> > ...restart the computer. Registry Corruption The registry in...
> > www.compaq.com/athome/support/paqtip/20042.html Cached (21k)  New! Try out
> GoogleScout
> >
> > www.wown.com/j_helmig/nttcpbad.htm
> >  New! Try out GoogleScout
> >
> > Patchwork Built into Windows 98 (Desktop Control) / May 1998
> > ...more likely to occur than Registry corruption. Only if the problem...
> > ...corrupted ones. Because Registry corruption can prevent Windows...
> > www.zdnet.com/wsources/content/0598/hd_dc.html Cached (24k)  New! Try out
> GoogleScout
> >
> > bootNet ... Ask Alex: Ini or Outy [982251611.html]
> > ...the corruption, avoiding a more serious problem. If a Registry...
> > ...Clinic you had a reader with registry corruption problems who was...
> > www.bootnet.com/askalex/982251611.html Cached (9k)  New! Try out
> GoogleScout
> >
> >
> >

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           31-Oct-99 01:02:07
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <UMFS3.1025$hI6.17815@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, on 10/30/99 at 05:19
PM,
   "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com> said:

> Your second guess is right on. The program was started by and has been
> run by the Product Support Services (PSS) Group at Microsoft. Microsoft
> pulled support engineers from the frontlines and replaced them with
> MVPs. Most customers will tell you that was a good thing. MVPs do have
> direct access to PSS.

I have a bridge between two of New York City's boroughs I would like to
talk with you about buying from me.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               30-Oct-99 22:32:25
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On 30 Oct 1999 23:19:26 GMT, Esther Schindler wrote:

>but IBM shot itself in the foot time after time.

And they are continuing.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 05:33:01
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

> For the sake of clarity I have trimmed the contents of the post to which
> I am replying.  BN

You're sure it's not for some other reason?

>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Dave Tholen wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Sarcasm shooting right over your head as usual.  I'm not surprised.

>>>>>>>>> Marty,
>>>>>>>>> A number of posts you've made have contained humorous moments.

>>>>>>>> What may seem humorous to a bystander won't necessarily be humorous
to
>>>>>>>> the person who is the target of abuse.

>>>>>>>>> Dave did not seem to recognize them as such, or chose to interpret
>>>>>>>>> some or all of them without the humorous ingredients.

>>>>>>>> I've chosen to interpret the ones used to abuse me as abuse.

>>>>>>>>> Your "American Pie" was especially good, I thought.

>>>>>>>> Where did I indicate any interpretation of that so-called "humor"?

>>>>>>> I don't recall if you posted a reply to the parody lyrics derived
>>>>>>> from "American Pie".

>>>>>> What were the lyrics?

>>>>>                    I started singing
>>>>>                    Bye, bye Mr. Dave Tholen guy.
>>>>>                    Spent a while out of my killfile
>>>>>                    till my humor ran dry.
>>>>>                    And good old Dave
>>>>>                    my claims he did deny,
>>>>>                    saying this is where the argument dies
>>>>>                    this is where the argument dies....
>>>>>
>>>>> It took a while, but I found them.

>>>> Did you find any interpretation posted by me?  Did you find any
>>>> line-by-line response from me?

>>> As I indicated later in that same post, I have seen no post in which you
>>> interpreted the lyrics line by line.

>> Then why do you think Marty continues to accuse me of such an action?

> Because you replied line by line to parody lyrics.

When one changes the words, they are no longer lyrics.  Please don't
try to engage in a semantic argument about that.  Otherwise one could
sing any words you want and call them "song lyrics" as a result.  Then
I could just as easily accuse Marty of responding to "song lyrics".
What would that accomplish?

> Marty's view is that replying to parody lyrics is the same as replying to
> song lyrics.

That's not my view, for reasons given above.

> He sees a parody of a song as being a song.

That's not my view, for reasons given above.  Don't try to convince me
otherwise, as it will do nothing to advance the argument.  Instead, it
merely advances Marty's "infantile game", given that a line-by-line
response to whatever he chooses to call "song lyrics" doesn't make any
difference.

>>>>> The URL is:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://x38.deja.com/[S0=90688c2f1898753]/getdoc.xp?AN=538722843.2&CONTEXT=94096
0691.1591803974&hitnum=1

>>>>>>> Parody, of course, can be used for comical effect or ridicule.

>>>>>> Part of Marty's "infantile game".

>>>>> I'd looked at his use of parody as attempts to inject some humor into
the
>>>>> discussion.  Of course, it was all at your expense.  I do not criticize
>>>>> you for taking offense even though I would not have if I was the target.

>>>> What you would not have done is irrelevant.

>>> Au contraire, it is quite relevant.

>> The issue is what Marty has done, not what you would not have done,
>> thus it is not relevant.

> "The" issue is communication.

Marty isn't trying to communicate.  He's simply playing his "infantile
game".

> Specifically, communication between Marty, Dave, Bennie, and anyone
> else who choses to read this thread.  

Communication isn't enhanced with semantics arguments over what
constitutes "song lyrics".

> I put "the" in quotes, because, in reality, each person has a view of
> what "the" issue is,

There is no real issue here.  We're simply witnessing Marty playing
his "infantile game".

> and thus, there are at least as many perspepectives in this thread
> of what "the" issue is as there are posters who have contributed
> articles to this thread.

Not all of them are playing an "infantile game", though Marty and
Lucien clearly are.

> Each brings a world view frame of reference, a  communication skill
> set, and a personality that are inseparable from one another.

While some bring "infantile games".

> This is no great revelation, but I state it to provide a frame upon
> which to build, because I'd like to advance a notion concerning why
> so many threads involving Dave Tholen and others break down.    

It's already clear why they "break down".  For example, Lucien doesn't
want to admit why he's wrong (either now or before).  That's why he
tosses around jargon to obfuscate.  That's why he deletes simple tests
that show why he's wrong.  That's why he continues to ignore words like
"is resolved".

Similarly, Marty doesn't want to admit that he's wrong about me.  He
called it a "fact" that I never admit to errors.  He even claimed to
have read 50 percent of my postings to reach that conclusion, and
later bumped that figure up to 100 percent when I explained how it is
illogical to make a universal claim based on non-universal evidence.
He even went so far as to delete the evidence that proved him wrong,
and denied the fact that I had proven him wrong.  Meanwhile, is he
debating any real issue?  His killfile suddenly quit filtering my
postings when I responded to Mr. "134 articles a day" using a
quotation several times, and he tried to use that as some sort of
evidence for lack of normalcy.  In other words, it's been one long
personal attack of his.

And we also have Timbol, insisting that what Joseph Coughlan wrote
about the Java 1.2 functionality that was implemented in Java 1.1.8
for OS/2 is "bullshit".  Yet hundreds of lines later, I finally
managed to get him to admit that Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 does implement
some Java 1.2 functionality, thus what Joseph said is not "bullshit",
regardless of whether you believe Lucien's claim of ambiguity or not.
Timbol is simply trying to save face by trying to find something else
he can claim I'm wrong about, which is why he diverts attention away
from the issue at hand.

In many cases, the opponent brings up the claim "You just want to have
the last word", which is usually a pretty good indication that it is
the opponent who is trying to get the last word, because to continue
an argument after such a claim could make it look to the casual reader
like the opponent is making a correct claim.  I don't fall for that
trickery, however.

> First, a trivial example: in a thread about trees in a forest, one person
> may have a propensity to focus upon the set of trees in the forest; a 
> second may be predisposed to focus upon individual trees; while a third 
> may concentrate upon a specific limb of a specific tree.

Even when it is clear which is the appropriate focus.

> This can lead to confusion when the three attempt to speak to one
> another on "The" topic.  The words used can be the same, but the
> frame of reference for each person is so different that a gulf
> exists that prevents the ideas from being passed from one to another.

That's what Lucien is doing when he ignores the "is resolved" portion
of the statement.  Of course, he's been doing that purposely, given
the number of times he's done it.  It's obviously not just a careless
error on his part.

> Effective communication involves assessing the situation, determining
> what gulfs exist, and attempting to bridge the gulfs, usually through
> a process of successive approximations.  Logic is a science, but 
> communication is an art.

But when someone is intentionally playing an "infantile game", they're
not trying to communicate.  They're simply trying to have some fun.
Hence the personal attacks.  Witness Marty's repeated references to
"normal, well-adjusted, relaxed individual".  He's not trying to debate
any issue.  He's trying to poke fun, maybe getting some gullible readers
to believe him along the way.

> An example from my own experience this week: in a conversation 
> with my older son and my wife, I determined that they were deriving 
> unintended meanings from two words I had used.  So, to break the
> logjam, I told them that they should disregard those two words and 
> any conclusions or inferences they drew from the usage of those 
> words.  I then took a different path to convey the ideas I wanted to 
> share with them.  I stopped using those two words in the discussion, 
> not because I'd used them incorrectly, but because I realized that my 
> wife and my son had different, though valid, definitions and were not 
> going to understand my meaning as long as I continued using those 
> words.  

Were your wife and older son trying to play an "infantile game"?

> To apply this to Marty and Dave: through Marty's many posts, I perceive
> him to be a "big picture" type of person.

Don't try to conclude something about the type of person he is in other
aspects of his life when his responses here are based on his "infantile
game".

> He is more of a generalist.
> Dave, on the other hand, is by nature and profession, a person who
> focuses on minute details (or, what appears minute due to the great
> distance between himself and that upon which he is focused).  

What "great distance"?

> To apply this to my trivial example, Marty looks at the forest; Dave 
> examines a branch in great detail.

I examine whatever happens to be the issue.  If the branch is the issue,
I'll examine it.

> This is a major impediment for the communication of ideas between Dave
> and Marty.

In reality, the major impediment is that Marty isn't trying to communicate.
He's simply playing an "infantile game".  Go back to when his killfile
suddenly stopped filtering my postings and review everything he's written
in response to me.  It should be obvious.

> It is also why Dave is misperceived by many of his opponents in this
> newsgroup.

Don't confuse a written misperception with an actual misperception.
Some people write that which they hope will gain them support, which
is not necessarily that which they really believe.  Witness politicians.

> Dave's words of exacting specificity are misunderstood when filtered
> through a generalist's frame of reference.  It's like the difference
> between a flashlight and a laser beam.  Both are useful, but not for
> the same reasons.  Each has a strength that makes it more suitable
> for purposes that are quite different from the other.  

If I'm writing exactly, there should be no misunderstanding, if the
reader makes an honest attempt to comprehend.  But Lucien, for example,
is not making such an honest attempt.  He's simply trying to have some
fun.  Apply my two simple tests to his arguments and see how they
crumble.  If he was being honest, he would have stopped long ago.
Instead, he simply deletes the tests and repeats his incorrect
argument over and over.  Have you noticed when the last time Lucien
added anything new to his argument?  It was long ago.

>>> I inserted that editorial comment to make the point to you that I would
>>> not criticize you for what you did while I also do not concur with you.

>> You do not concur about what?  That Marty is playing an "infantile game"?

> I do not concur with the way you've approached resolving the issue between
> you and Marty.

What's wrong with presenting evidence to prove Marty's claims wrong?

> I do not agree with Marty's approach, either.  

He's not trying to resolve any issue.  He's simply playing an "infantile
game".

> I don't believe he is playing an "infantile game."

Why?  It's been mostly a long, personal attack.  Witness the repeated
references to what a "normal, well-adjusted, relaxed individual" would
do.

> At least, not in any way that I would define those terms.

I'm simply using Marty's own admission from earlier this year.  I'm
not trying to apply my own definition to those terms either.

> But, you may be looking at a branch of the tree and I may not be
> seeing the branches for the trees.

I'm looking at what Marty admitted.

> So, I'd like for you to clarify these points:
>
> 1) What do you mean by "infantile game" and how does your description
> apply to Marty's posts?

I mean what Marty meant earlier this year.

> 2) Since a parody of a song still seems to be a song, then why are you
> saying that the words Marty used in his song parodies are not song
> lyrics?

You're presupposing that a parody of a song is still necessarily a song.
I disagree, especially in a written forum, for which there are no
musical notes accompanying the so-called "lyrics".  Change the words
sufficiently, and even though you might be thinking of a tune while
writing those words, there's no guarantee that the words will conjur
up that tune in the mind of the reader.

> If they are not song lyrics, then what do you say they are?

Nothing different from the other text Marty has written.
  
> In the approach you've taken, you state matter-of-factly that Marty's
> post did not contain song lyrics.

That's because they didn't.

> What you've omitted is the answer to item number 2, above.

See my answer to item number 2 above.

> This leaves Marty with a rejection of his post,

Incorrect.  By stating that they are not song lyrics, I have not
rejected his post at all.  I simply treated his so-called "song
lyrics" the same way I treat his other non-song-lyrics.

> but no replacement.

Incorrect.  Treating his so-called "song lyrics" the same way I treat
his other non-song-lyrics is what I call a replacement.

> If these are not song lyrics, what are they?

Nothing different from the other text Marty has written.

> In the absence of a reasonable replacement, Marty simply digs in and holds
> his position.

There is no absence of a reasonable replacement.

> Inevitably, this leads to escalation of the conflict.

It leads to a continuation of his "infantile game".

> Each of you, of course, will employ the methods that have been acquired
> and developed when confronted with these types situations.

Marty is the first person to accuse me of responding line-by-line to
"song lyrics".  I have not previously acquired any method to deal with
such a situation.

> Since the two of you have divergent frames of reference and strong
> wills, the conflict has little hope of being resolved amicably or,
> even, mutually satisfactorily.

Marty has a strong will to play an "infantile game".  Did you notice

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 05:33:01
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 06:30:21
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

when he admitted to being ill?  Clearly, he was stuck at home and
bored, so that's why he stopped using his killfile and started posting
thousands of lines, dozens of articles, attacking me.

> It's the laser beam versus the flashlight.

It's the person playing an "infantile game" versus the person not letting
the other person get away with it.

>>> The remark also serves as an aside to any others who may read the post,
>>> and there is where the relevancy of my remark gains more significance.

>> The fact that you called it an "aside" sure looks to me like a statement
>> that it's not relevant to what was being discussed, namely Marty's
>> "infantile game".

> I inserted the aside, because I'm hoping to turn this thread on its side.
> That way it can be looked at from a different angle.  

I didn't know that a thread had a "side" onto which it could be turned.

>>>>>>> Marty had posted parody lyrics for another 70's tune, and you replied
>>>>>>> to that one.

>>>>>> Not line by line, as Marty alleged.

>>>>> Although I have not read every post in the threads, I have not seen any
>>>>> post that shows you answering any of the parodies line by line.  If you
>>>>> had, it would be simple for Marty to supply a DEJA URL for the post.

>>>> He tried that already, attempting to pass off his modified writings
>>>> as "song lyrics".

>>> I recognized the songs he used as the basis for his parodies.  He is
>>> correct: the words he posted could have been sung to the original
>>> melodies.

>> Lots of words can be sung to original melodies.  That does not
>> necessarily make them "song lyrics".

> True.

So, what made Marty's words "song lyrics", especially in the absence of
an accompanying tune?

>>> He did all but use the customary formula of "Sung to the tune of <insert
>>> song title here>.  With apologies to <insert name of author here>."

>> One could just as easily claim that anything written here are "song
>> lyrics", because they can be sung to music.

> Also, true.  But, Marty crafted his words using the original songs' lyrics
> and melodies so that his words are substitutes for the original lyrics.  

No melodies were present in this forum.

> And he posted them with that context implied.

That doesn't guarantee that the context will be inferred.

> He could have and, in my view, shold have improved his posts by using
> some variation of the formula I alluded to above.  This would have
> eliminated the ambiguity.

Quotation marks would have helped.  He didn't use any.
"Apologies to [insert appropriate reference]" would have helped.  He
didn't use that approach either.  For example, when Marty claimed that
he's a "normal, well-adjusted, and relaxed individual", I could have
responded with:

   "Why can't a fella ever once prefer
   a usual girl like me.
   What's the matter with the man,
   What's the matter with the man,
   What's the matter with the man!"
      --Cinderella's stepsisters

Now, those are song lyrics, with attribution.  Or, I could have used:

   "I learned that the rabbi who must praise himself has a
   congregation of one."
      --from "Fiddler on the Roof"

Not song lyrics, but it's in the script.

> Furthermore, Marty has posted some words that could be reasonably construed
> as being hurtful or insulting.

All part of his "infantile game".

> You, in turn, have used words, such as, infantile, that also could be
> perceived similarly.  

On the contrary, I'm simply using the description that Marty admitted to
earlier this year.  Why do you think I'm using quotation marks?

>>>>>>> Based upon what I've read in your subsequent posts, it seems that
>>>>>>> you've chosen to interpret Marty's words as being ridicule rather
>>>>>>> than humorous.

>>>>>> That's the correct interpretation.

>>>>> The question I would like Marty to answer is whether he intended to
>>>>> be offensive or merely humorous.  Since you've taken offense at his
>>>>> words, for you there is no humor, regardless of what he intended.

>>>> Humor is subjective.

>>> Indeed.

>> Thus one should not insist that something is humorous.

> Humor is subjective and cultural.  What is funny in one culture will not 
> necessarily be viewed as humorous in another.  But, the fact that an 
> instance of humor will not be universally recognized as such does not 
> abrogate the humor that instance contains.

You're presupposing that humor is, in fact, contained.

> However, humor, as noted before, can also have hurtful or insulting
> connotations associated with it.

Especially when playing an "infantile game" on purpose.

>>>>>>> When I read Marty's posts originally, it seemed to me that he was
>>>>>>> making an attempt at being funny, at your expense, of course, rather
>>>>>>> than ridiculing you.

>>>>>> The key words here are "at your expense".  That's abuse.

>>>>> Since you have found Marty's attempts at being humorous to be
>>>>> offensive, you view it that way.  If Marty merely meant to be
>>>>> humorous, it would be appropriate for him to step up and
>>>>> acknowledge that fact.

>>>> But that would support the notion that he is playing an "infantile
>>>> game", yet he's denied that.

>>> I don't see Marty's use of humor as being infantile.

>> He's done far more than simply use what you consider to be "humor".
>> Sounds like he was stuck at home with some illness and chose to spend
>> his time in front of a computer responding to people on USENET to
>> pass the time.  That is, he was entertaining himself at the expense
>> of others.

>>> It seems to me that he is looking for ways to communicate with you
>>> that are not so confrontational and acrimonious.

>> ?????  Then why was he being so confrontational?

> Frustation, perhaps?  

Why would he be frustrated by a discussion between me and Mr. "134
articles a day"?  In reality, he had nothing better to do while stuck
at home with an illness.

>>>>>>> Given the antipathy Marty has expressed towards you, I'm not
>>>>>>> surprised that you did not see it the same way I did.  My
>>>>>>> post was not intended to be critical of you or Marty.

>>>>>> Too bad, as I wish some people would discourage Marty from polluting
>>>>>> this newsgroup with his "infantile game".  He's not accomplishing
>>>>>> anything useful.

>>>>> If he meant to ridicule you, then I agree that is not accomplishing
>>>>> anything useful.

>>>> He's not accomplishing anything useful from my perspective, regardless
>>>> of what he means.

>>>>>>> One of my intentions for posting was to see if Marty would admit what
>>>>>>> his motives were in posting the parodies: did he intend them to be
>>>>>>> humorous or for ridicule.

>>>>>> But Marty is a proven liar, thus you would have to take his written
>>>>>> response with a grain of salt.

>>>>> Marty has posted many useful articles in this and other newsgroups.

>>>> That doesn't change the fact that he is a proven liar.

>>> As a point of clarification, do you mean he has stated things that you
>>> know are untrue,

>> Yes.

>>> but which he believes to be true,

>> Which he hasn't taken the time to determine if they are true.

> Or, still interprets the words differently than they were intended
> to be understood.    

A claim that I've never admitted to making a mistake is not a matter
of a "different interpretation".

>>> or are you stating that he is deliberately spreading falsehoods?

>> It's been quite deliberate on his part.  I presented him with evidence
>> that proved him wrong.  He deleted the evidence and persisted with his
>> lie.  He later claimed that he must have missed that, yet he responded
>> to the article with the evidence.  Go figure.

> Proving me wrong and my accepting the proof are two different actions.
> I may be wrong, but as long as I haven't grasped the proof, it is quite
> consistent of me to defend my position.  

Purposely avoiding the proof to allow one to consistently defend a
position isn't a very honorable approach.

> I could be wrong about Marty, but I believe he's not arguing for 
> argument's sake.

He's arguing because he had nothing better to do while laid up at home
with an illness.

> Nor is he a "Tholen baiter," unlike a number of others
> who've posted in this newsgroup.  No, my perception is that Marty is
> frustrated by the gulf in communication between you two.

Why would he be frustrated by a discussion between me and Mr. "134
articles a day"?  In reality, he had nothing better to do while stuck
at home with an illness.

> And, I think that he'd like to see this resolved in a positive way,
> but his frustration hampers his efforts.  

It can't be resolved in a positive way while he deletes the evidence
and continues to lie.

> On the other hand, many have labelled you using numerous derogatory
> terms, and I don't accept their characterisations.  Generally speaking, 
> people are generalists and are not used to dealing with someone with 
> your capacity for concentration upon minutia.  They simply don't 
> understand what your points are, because they are not used to looking
> at things the way you do.  You see your points, much like an astronomer 
> who sees faraway objects using a powerful telescope.  However, the 
> objects are not visible to the general public.  So, your points are not 
> perceived by others, and they refuse to take your word for it that the 
> points are real and valid.

The simple tests I gave to Lucien are nothing like faraway objects
viewed with a powerful telescope.  The evidence I presented that
proved Marty's "fact" to not be a "fact" is nothing like a faraway
object viewed with a powerful telescope.  These tests and evidence
are easily visible to the general public.  Your analogy simply isn't
very appropriate to the recent discussions.

> The generalist will see things broadly, but not so deeply.  This
> can be likened to a horizontal line.  The opposite is to be able 
> to narrow the focus deeply on an object.  This is like a vertical
> line.  These two lines can form the letter T (sans serif), but
> only if properly aligned.

Lucien hasn't been speaking like a generalist.  He's tossed around
jargon like "X bar syntax" and "peri-verbal" and "quantification" as
though he's an expert in the field, yet he can't handle a couple of
simple tests that prove his claims to be invalid.  Clearly, he's
arguing for the sake of argument, presumably having some fun while
he's at it.

> Communication requires proper alignment.  

Communication requires a desire to communicate.  Lucien has no such
desire in this case.  Neither does Marty.  They're just having fun.

> It is usually easier to align the ideas of two generalists, because 
> there are more points from which to choose.  However, aligning a 
> generalist and a specifist requires balancing the generalist's line 
> on the exact point of the vertical line of the specifist.  This 
> takes effort and patience on both sides, but without this proper 
> alignment, communication does not occur.  

Too bad that your analysis really doesn't apply to the recent
discussions.  It could be applied to some previous discussions,
however.

> Being right and being understood are important to me.  If, after a good 
> faith effort at communication, I am misunderstood, I will be content 
> with merely being right.  But, I try to understand why I'm not being 
> understood, because being right and communicating truth are not 
> identical.  I try to learn from the experience.

I'm not content with merely being right.  There are a lot of gullible
readers out there.  As an educator, I hate to see readers misguided.

> My desire is to be right and to share "rightness" (i.e., truth) with
> others.  I am enriched by the process of doing so, because
> I am giving what does not diminish by the giving, and the
> process of sharing truth inherently increases what I have to 
> give.

You can't share truth with others if you allow non-truth to go
unchallenged.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               31-Oct-99 01:55:03
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 10:32:25
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:57:38 -0500, jasper wrote:

>I've been working for six years to get an OS/2 version of UNIFACE out of the
>doors.

What does your program do?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           31-Oct-99 08:38:08
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 10:32:26
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <_gRS3.1403$hI6.24385@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, on 10/31/99 at 06:24
AM,
   "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com> said:

> "Bob Germer" <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message news:381bcd7f$1>
> I have a bridge between two of New York City's boroughs I would like to
> > talk with you about buying from me.

> Sorry Bob but I understand that you owe too much in back taxes on it.

Thanks for confirming my suspicion of your total lack of mental ability.
One would have to be a total idiot to believe that anyone owned the
Brooklyn Bridge. If one thinks someone owes taxes on it, one is thereby
proven so stupid as to believe anyone could own the bridge.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             31-Oct-99 12:48:05
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 10:32:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vgf6h$i61$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> > ...and, going over this yet again, in case the additional
information is
> > lacking, what do we have?
>
> Irrelevant, given that the additional information is not lacking in
> the present situation.

....but if it were, what would we have?

The answer is provided by your statement:

"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[[either 'some' or
'all' functionality]]]]], in the absence of any other
information."

> Here's the revised version:

The "revised version" still (correctly) presupposes an ambiguity
(emphasis mine):

> >> But there is presence of other information,
> >> [[[[which resolves ---->>>>the ambiguity<<<<----]]]], Lucien.
> >> Incorrect, Lucien.  How can ambiguity exist if it's been resolved?
>
> > And, going over this yet again, it would have to exist in the first
> > place before resolving it would ever become possible, right?
>
> You're erroneously presupposing some chronology, Lucien.

Wrong. We are presupposing an underlying ambiguity, no chronology is
involved. You unwittingly continue to provide proof of your agreement
that there is an underlying ambiguity in the JDK sentence. See below.

> It's not as
> if the statement started out as an ambiguous phrase that later became
> unambiguous after additional information was provided.

On the contrary, this multi-level situation is precisely what is
suggested by the data (and what was proved to be the case for
the "prevents costly mistakes" situation in the "costly mistakes"
thread).
Your very own statement supports this view for the JDK sentence:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

> The additional
> information was there all along, so there never was any ambiguity.
> When I wrote that "the ambiguity is resolved", it's clear that it
> means "-->>the ambiguity<<-- of the stand-alone phrase is resolved by

(emphasis mine)

> the fact that the phrase doesn't stand alone".

And you once again agree that there is an underlying ambiguity, which
is correct. And, as it is impossible to resolve an ambiguity that
didn't exist underlyingly in the first place, your claim of "the
ambiguity of the stand-alone phrase" indicates agreement with my claim
of an ambiguity. Very good.

> > - it details the underlying ambiguity (WRT quantification):
>
> On the contrary, it details the underlying lack of ambiguity, thanks
> to the presence of additional information.

Wrong. Let's review it again:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Your statement indicates an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification in
the 'implements' case, in the absence of other information.

Let's review my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Thus, we are in agreement.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jasper.dekeijzer@worldonline.nl                   31-Oct-99 10:57:19
  To: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 22:05:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

To: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>
From: jasper <jasper.dekeijzer@worldonline.nl>

David,

I've been working for six years to get an OS/2 version of UNIFACE out of the
doors. We were actually very successfull with this version. But since more
and more customers wanted to have a windows version, including those which
were using the OS/2 version of the product, we had to move more and more
resources on the Windows version.  Today the development of the OS/2 version
is stopped and it is hard to get an OS/2 version of UNIFACE (we can still
build it!) .

Jasper de Keijzer.



David T. Johnson wrote:

> Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
> substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
> favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
> platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
> dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
> at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
> happened to these OS/2 ISVs?
>
> Microrim used to sell a product called R:base for OS/2.  Now, Microrim
> seems to be gone.  There is a small company called Rbase Technologies
> that seems to still sell R:base but they do not appear to be very
> prosperous.
>
> SPG used to sell a program called Colorworks for OS/2.  They stopped
> with the OS/2 product and moved to Windows with a critically-acclaimed
> "Colorworks:Web3."  Now, they sell "Colorworks:Web4" and advertise their
> contract programming services on their web site.  It doesn't look like
> there will be an IPO anytime soon.
>
> Borland was a large software company that sold development tools for
> OS/2 including a C++ compiler and application builders like
> ObjectVision.  Now they are smaller-sized company called Borland/Inprise
> and their biggest product seems to be a Java enterprise development tool
> called Jbuilder.  They look to be doing OK but not exactly setting the
> world on fire.
>
> So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WorldOnline News server (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 23:01:05
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>>>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>>>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
>>>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>> Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.

>> LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
>> comprehensible to a human.

> WinZip can extract the contents of the archive, just as if you had
> run the self-extraction program.  The point of a self-extracting archive
> is to be able to uncompress the archive without an archive tool.  If
> you have an archive tool that understands the format, such as WinZip, 
> then you can use that tool.

I used OS/2 as my "tool", Mike.  It understands LX format executables.

> That's what I did.  That's what everyone else involved in this thread
> understands that I did.  Several people even verified it themselves.

On what basis do you claim to know what "everyone else involved in this
thread" did, Mike?

> You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
> these simple facts.

You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
the simple fact that Joseph's statement is not "bullshit", contrary to
your claim.

>>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

>>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.

>>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>
>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>> Irrelevant, Mike.

> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.

I can read the file as well, Mike.  Does that prove that I ran WinZip?

> I am able to give you much more information about the archive and the
> files in it than if I had run the archive on OS/2.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

>>> Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?

>> Such as OS/2?

> Obviously WinZip is better than the tools which you use on OS/2, since
> WinZip can extract the files from the archive, whereas the archive
> tool you use on OS/2 cannot.

Marty claimed otherwise, Mike.

>>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.

>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
>>> don't bother to test that evidence at all.

>> I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
>> doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.

> Your comparison of using LIST vs. using WinZip demonstrates your
> ignorance of the subject once again.

It does no such thing, Mike.  Meanwhile, your deletion tactic
demonstrates your embarassment over the reason why my original
reply was so short:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: nemo@union.edu                                    31-Oct-99 18:16:22
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: nemo@union.edu

In <381C9B80.9127BBBB@isomedia.com>, on 10/31/99 
   at 02:41 PM, "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> said:

> Maybe that, more than
>anything else, will force Gerstner to cut loose some money for an OS/2
>update.  Heh, heh, heh.

I know you're joking. Still, IBM's policy, as I understand it, is that
OS/2 is not for the desktop. Upgrading to W2K is consistent with that
policy. 

Sigh. Using OS/2 is such sweet sorrow.

F.

-----------------------------------------------------------
      Felmon John Davis		
     davisf@union.edu	|  davisf@capital.net     
     Union College /  Schenectady, NY
     - insert standard doxastic disclaimers -
     OS/2 - ma kauft koi katz em sack 
-----------------------------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Logical Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            31-Oct-99 18:41:14
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <381C9B80.9127BBBB@isomedia.com>, djohnson@isomedia.com says...
>> He said he isn't sure if IBM is the OS's biggest customer so far, but he
looks
>> forward to more contracts of a similar size.
>> 
>>
*******************************************************************************

>> 
>> Well folks, even the makers of OS/2 know a good thing. See you on the other
>> side...
>> --
>Are you suggesting that IBM is changing their desktops from OS/2 to
>Windows 2000?   Haven't you maintained that IBM did not use OS/2
>anymore?  Since IBM does not use OS/2, this means that IBM is upgrading
>from Windows 9x or NT4 to Windows 2K, probably in the desperate hope
>that they can find something halfway workable.  Maybe that, more than
>anything else, will force Gerstner to cut loose some money for an OS/2
>update.  Heh, heh, heh.
>

I'm not suggesting anything and I haven't maintained thta IBM is not using 
OS/2,  so unless you can back such a statement up(and you cannot), don't imply 

otherwise.

You are truly one of the best(or worst) spinsters here, and amuse me to no
end.
Please keep it up.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 23:27:19
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>> -- snip --
 
>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
 
>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the *SELF-EXTRACTION
>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
 
>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
>> that claim?

> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.

Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your responses to me.

> You even verified that for me.

I did no such thing, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 23:26:10
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Instead of addressing the issues raised,

>> According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue,

> As I have said several times now, this is an issue but you have not
> treated it as such.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> It is completely unnecessary to repost this paragraph umpteen more
> times after I addressed it already.

Pontificating isn't "addressing" the matter, Marty.

> How infantile to do so.

How ironic, coming from someone who uses pontification to "address"
certain matters.

>>> once again Dave has chosen to avoid them and pontificate that I am
>>> again playing an infantile game.

>> I've not pontificated, Marty.  I've presented evidence.

> You've also presented evidence of your own infantile game,

Yet another example of your pontification.

> and continue to do so.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> How infantile, further proving my statements correct.

>> Illogical, Marty, given the evidence I've presented that you are
>> indeed playing an "infantile game".

> By repeatedly stating so without proof.

Actual quotations from you are proof, Marty.

> But then again, who cares what I'm "playing" or doing.

You obviously do, Marty.

> Try addressing the issues raised

I already have, Marty.

> and give up your irksome diversion.

How ironic, coming from someone who chose to bring up the alleged
behavior of a "normal, well-adjusted, relaxed individual", which is a
diversion, rather than addressing the issues.

>> Notice how you posted several items yesterday after claiming that you 
>> didn't have time to reply to the rest of one of my articles.  Not once did 
>> you address that inconsistency.

> How is that inconsistent?

By demonstrating that you had the time, Marty.

> My time allotment is my business alone.

Then why did you mention it in the newsgroup, Marty?  Why did you use
it as an excuse for not responding to most of the rest of my posting?

> You have no knowledge of it

On the contrary, I have knowledge of what you posted about it.

> and can draw no conclusions about it based on my posting tendancies.

On the contrary, I can draw a conclusion based on what you wrote, both
in that response and subsequently.

>>> He did manage to sneak in a few valid responses in between his
>>> repetition of dodging the issue, so I'll address these areas.

>> To continue playing your "infantile game".  For example, here you are
>> clearly calling it an "issue", yet you accused me of never discussing
>> the issues.

> Correct.  You still aren't discussing the issue.

I'm not discussing the issue *with you*, Marty, but I was discussing
the issue with Timbol, which proves that I do discuss issues, contrary
to your claim.

> You've dodged it to continually pontificate that I'm playing an infantile
> game.

Hardly pontification, given the evidence that I've presented.

>> Another inconsistency on your part, one that you've
>> continued to ignore by deleting my references to your inconsistency.

> I deleted your unnecessary repeated use of the same paragraph, which I
> did respond to once already.  No inconsistency to be seen on my part.

Balderdash, Marty, given your own use of repetition.

>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
>>>>>>>>> the first time:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract its
>>>>> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
>>>>> in a DOS session, it will run.

>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
>>>>
>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
>>>>> but it executes under DOS.

>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then calls
>>> INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
>>> inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.

>> That's what you call "running" the program, Marty?

> Yes.

It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
responses to me.

> Code is executed from inside of the executable.

The program doesn't run, Marty.

> That's what I call running.

It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
responses to me.

>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS
session.

> No.  I said the executable would.

Balderdash, Marty:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence of
a reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it will
run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the "self-extracting
archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick, Marty.  Neither is a
reference to an executable.  Only one of the two subjects is a logical
choice.

>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.

> Right.

Glad you agree, Marty.

>> So, naturally, you try to divert attention away from that by talking about 
>> the details of how a stub works.  Typical.

> Not really.

Then why did you do so, Marty?

> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
> ^
> |---- Incorrect statement.

The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the program,
Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?

>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
format
>>>>>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

>>>>> The archive format is portable.

>>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>>> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
>>> format is portable.

>> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood the
>> difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.

> Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me how
> this makes a difference.

Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
>>>>> How is that irrelevant?

>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
>>> could view the archive.

>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?

> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> DT] file?
> 
> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
>
> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't represent
a claim that he couldn't view the archive.

>>> And now, so that you don't complain:

>>>> According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
>>>> to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
>>>> that you insist you're not playing.

>>> I already stated that it was an issue, but that you have failed to
>>> address it in your argument.

>> You didn't retract your claim that I never discuss issues, Marty.
>> When you finally (after deleting it once) acknowledged my evidence
>> that I have, in fact, admitted to mistakes, you didn't apologize
>> for the error.  You simply reworded your claim.

> I apologize for the error, and stand by my reworded claim.

Standing by another lie, eh Marty?  So much for your apology.

>> Now you're doing the same thing.  I have addressed the current 
>> issue in my responses to Timbol.  He's the one who claimed that 
>> Joseph's statement was "bullshit".  If you want to get involved, 

> I can get involved in any way I choose Dave.

By playing your "infantile game", rather than discussing the issue.
How ironic.

>> then either agree with Timbol that Joseph's statement is "bullshit" 
>> and try to explain why it is so, in the light of the evidence I've 
>> presented, or agree with me (in which case I don't understand why 
>> you'd be responding to me rather than Timbol).

> I've entered the discussion to convice you that the archive can be
> viewed and extracted without using OS/2.  Do you accept this fact?

But I'm allegedly in your killfile, Marty.  You even recently complained
about my antispammed ID, because you allegedly didn't want to see my
alleged "drivel".  Yet here you are.

>>> Infantile games have nothing to do with my end of this argument.

>> They have everything to do with your recent round of responses to me.

> Incorrect.

Feel free to explain why you complained about my antispammed ID,
Marty, and then jumped in to discuss what "normal, well-adjusted,
relaxed individuals" would do.

>>> I've noticed that you used the above paragraph as your escape route
>>> to several points you didn't feel like addressing.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who has used various escape routes
>> to avoid discussing several points that proved you to be wrong.

> Ironic indeed that you should point that out, seeing as how you have yet
> to admit that you are wrong in this discussion, after having been proven
> wrong.

You're erroneously presupposing that your reworded claim is the
truth, Marty.  It's no more the truth than your previous lie.

>>> How convenient.

>> Too emabrassing for you, Marty?

> Not at all Dave.  Your convenience should embarass you, not me.

Illogical, Marty.  Your continued lies further demonstrate that you are
playing an "infantile game".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 23:32:04
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
 
>>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
>>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

>>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

>>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
>>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

>>> I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.  Dave may have misunderstood my
>>> intention to play an infantile game.  Oh brother.
 
>> OK, this one I don't get. So did you have the intention of playing "an
>> infantile game"? Or were you doing something else that got mistaken
>> for "an infantile game"?

> No infantile game exists on my part.

Incorrect, Marty.  I've reproduced actual quotations of yours that can
be logically explained only by the existence of your "infantile game".

> Dave assumes that since I admitted to "playing" one in the past (when
> I was mimicking him) that he can write off anything I say in the future
> as an infantile game.

Incorrect, Marty.  I'm not relying on any assumption.  I'm relying on
your actual statements and your actual behavior.

> This in itself, is infantile on his part as I have pointed out
> repeatedly.

Your repeated pontification doesn't prove any "infantile" behavior on
my part, Marty.  I did not have you in a killfile, for example.  I did
not jump into a thread to respond to a posting of yours that was in
response to someone else, for another example.

>> Anyway, how old are you, Marty?

> Old enough to have a degree in Computer Engineering and a full time job
> with IBM supporting myself after having 5 previous years of work
> experience.

And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 20:29:21
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
> >>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> 
> >>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> 
> >>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
> >>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?
> 
> >>> I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.  Dave may have misunderstood my
> >>> intention to play an infantile game.  Oh brother.
> 
> >> OK, this one I don't get. So did you have the intention of playing "an
> >> infantile game"? Or were you doing something else that got mistaken
> >> for "an infantile game"?
> 
> > No infantile game exists on my part.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  I've reproduced actual quotations of yours that can
> be logically explained only by the existence of your "infantile game".
                         ^^^^

Absolutely incorrect Dave.

> > Dave assumes that since I admitted to "playing" one in the past (when
> > I was mimicking him) that he can write off anything I say in the future
> > as an infantile game.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm not relying on any assumption.  I'm relying on
> your actual statements and your actual behavior.
> 
> > This in itself, is infantile on his part as I have pointed out
> > repeatedly.
> 
> Your repeated pontification doesn't prove any "infantile" behavior on
> my part, Marty.

You've repeatedly declared that I am playing an infantile game
regardless of what I post.  This is infantile on your part.  No
pontification necessary.

> I did not have you in a killfile, for example.

How would that be proof of an infantile game?

> I did not jump into a thread to respond to a posting of yours that was in
> response to someone else, for another example.

You certainly have Dave.

> >> Anyway, how old are you, Marty?
> 
> > Old enough to have a degree in Computer Engineering and a full time job
> > with IBM supporting myself after having 5 previous years of work
> > experience.
> 
> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.

I guess I should be fired then, because I haven't insulted any people
here.

> And don't forget MAME, Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

What does my work on a new audio system and advanced graphics animation
applications for OS/2 have to do with being infantile Dave?  Is it
infantile to contribute to the OS/2 community?  All I did is write the
system upon which MAME can be run natively in OS/2.  I am not
responsible for the games themselves.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            01-Nov-99 00:30:24
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:32:08, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> 
> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
> 
Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software. I like it. I like it a 
lot.
(although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)


(*) ROMs that I don't have, of course. Because that would be illegal, 
especially if they were on a CDROM that was bought.
A CDROM that I don't own.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            01-Nov-99 00:30:21
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:51:21, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> 
> >> But those aren't the "newest threads".
> 
> > Well... indeed. Otherwise I might have come to your conclusion. But I 
> > didn't, so I haven't.
> > ...
> > I think.
> 
> You're not sure?
> 
The auxiliaries are getting me confused.


> 
> >>> As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
> >>> doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
> >>> the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
> >>> do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.
> 
> >> Or it might have to do with you aging.
> 
> > Never!
> > No way!
> > It's the shows, you see! They've gotten dummer, you see!
> > It's not me!
> > You see!
> 
> You mean "dumber"?
> 
Damn these new-fangled keyboards!
Back in them olden days when we had quills and proper ink, this kind 
of thing didn't happen.
Anyway, we were talking about getting old, right?

> >>> And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
> >>> least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
> >>> 38, BTW.
> 
> >> You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.
> 
> > Which is...?
> 
> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.  Let's
> put it this way:  I watched the original run of "The Prisoner".
> 
Dude! You're *ancient*! I've met people who considered me a dinosaur, 
just because I saw Armstrong taking his first step live...

But I was really asking for the address of your page...

> >>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
> >>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> 
> >>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> 
> >>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
> >>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?
> 
> >> Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he complained
> >> about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
> >> to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?
> 
> > Without getting into something I haven't been following: I've never 
> > quite understood the use of a kill-file. I don't filter out anything; 
> > if I don't want to read a certain post or poster, I just don't read 
> > it. A simple <CTRL>-<ALT>-<R> in ProNews will mark all articles read, 
> > whether I've actually sniffled them or not. When the counter reaches 
> > 1,500, they're all history.
> 
> Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that Marty didn't
> claim to make use of a killfile.
> 
Oh, I know for a fact that he claimed it. I read the post. This was 
just a casual observation on my part. In any case, his explanation 
that your changed ID futzed up his killfilter sounds valid. If I 
learned one thing on UseNet, it's to be careful with the supposed 
intentions behind the facts. It's easier to ask than to speculate.

> > I can understand why some might want to filter out spam, but it's no 
> > big problem in the groups I follow and anyway, spammers aren't very 
> > well caught by killfilters. Frankly, I suspect that post people who 
> > "put someone in their killfile" only wrote this to p*ss said person 
> > off and will continue to read the posts, reveling in the increasing 
> > levels of frustration and anger of the victim when nobody answers 
> > back. There's nothing worse than a one-sided discussion.
> 
> Which is consistent with the fact that some of the people who made the
> most boisterous claims of putting me in their killfile did wind up
> responding to me later on, including Mike Timbol, David Leblanc, and
> now Marty.
> 
> However, the increased level of frustration was on their part, not
> mine, because they couldn't resist responding any longer.
> 
Which is very interesting. Some of them said they would rather stick 
their genitals in a meat-grinder than ever talk to you again (well, 
maybe not in those words...). Yet they all come back. Hmmm...

> > Or maybe I just have a sick mind...
> 
> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.
> 
I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
mind". So: thanks.
(in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
replies)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 20:48:17
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Time for a new approach... I'm no longer going to respond to your
baby-talk tripe accusing me of an infantile game.  I will only respond
to your attempt to address issues.  This should save us both a lot of
bandwidth.

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend
it
> >>>>>>>>> the first time:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."
> 
> >>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
> >>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract
its
> >>>>> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting
archive
> >>>>> in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>>> Here's the output, Marty:
> >>>>
> >>>> ] E:\>javainuf
> >>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
> >>>>> but it executes under DOS.
> 
> >>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.
> 
> >>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
> >>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
> >>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then calls
> >>> INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
> >>> inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.
> 
> >> That's what you call "running" the program, Marty?
> 
> > Yes.
> 
> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
> responses to me.

It runs code from inside of the executable.  It could have been a simple
stub to display the string as in this case, or could have been a
full-blown DOS executable as in the case of some other bound executables
such as XDFCOPY.  In either case it is executing.
 
> > Code is executed from inside of the executable.
> 
> The program doesn't run, Marty.

The program does in fact run.

> > That's what I call running.
> 
> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
> responses to me.
> 
> >> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS
session.
> 
> > No.  I said the executable would.
> 
> Balderdash, Marty:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence of a
> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it will
> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the 
> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick, Marty.  
> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two subjects is 
> a logical choice.

Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
executable in question?

> >> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.
> 
> > Right.
> 
> Glad you agree, Marty.
> 
> > DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
> > ^
> > |---- Incorrect statement.
> 
> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the program,
> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?

There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.  A stub is <executing>. 
Code is being run from inside of the executable to display the string
you saw.  If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
MOV DX, [address of string]
INT 21
MOV AH, 0
INT 21

> >>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> >>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
> 
> >>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
format
> >>>>>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.
> 
> >>>>> The archive format is portable.
> 
> >>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
"InfoZip"?
> 
> >>> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
> >>> format is portable.
> 
> >> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood the
> >> difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.
> 
> > Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me how
> > this makes a difference.
>
> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

So we both agree that the archive format, as present inside the
executable, is portable then?
 
> >>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> >>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> >>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
> >>>>> How is that irrelevant?
> 
> >>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
> 
> >>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
> >>> could view the archive.
> 
> >> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?
> 
> > DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> > DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> > DT] file?
> >
> > DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> >
> > DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't represent
> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.

You are questioning the fact that he could read it.  That constitutes a
challenge in my book.  He, in fact, can read it.  Do you accept this
fact?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 20:51:26
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
> >>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the *SELF-EXTRACTION
> >>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
> >> that claim?
> 
> > Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
> > You even verified that for me.
> 
> I did no such thing, Marty.

DT] Here's the output, Marty:
DT]
DT] E:\>javainuf
DT] This program must be run under OS/2.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 20:55:05
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 23:32:08, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
> > Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
> >
> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software. I like it. I like it a
> lot.
> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)

Drop me an email about it, including a Debug.Log file after you scan
your quick list.

> (*) ROMs that I don't have, of course. Because that would be illegal,
> especially if they were on a CDROM that was bought.
> A CDROM that I don't own.

Tsk tsk tsk.  You know there are some freely available legal arcade ROMs
out there?  There is also a deal going on between MAMEDev and Capcom to
license their ROMs for free distribution.  Tell me one thing, Karel...
was MAME itself distributed on this CD?  If so then its makers are not
only violating the copyrights of the various ROMs, but that of MAME
itself as well.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             31-Oct-99 15:49:08
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <7varr0$4bc$6@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

-- snip --

> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

Which only proves that the string exists, and that the *SELF-EXTRACTION
UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.  It does *NOT* prove that one needs
OS/2 to extract the contents of the archive. One only needs the proper
tool, such as WinZip.

> Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>
>   ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>
>   ]
> MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>   ] >
> DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>   ]
> MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
> on an OS/2 system to boot!  So, I must again ask the question:

And I must again point out that you are WRONG!

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Deal with it. Then move on.

> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

For crying out loud, Dave, Mike isn't claiming to be running the actual
JDK.  And you are always accusing others of "reading comprehension
problems."

-- snip --

> >> Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.
>
> > And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.
>
> And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>
> ] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>
> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

(sigh) Dave, you are being stubborn, and stupid.  WinZip allows one to
view -- AND EXTRACT -- the contents of a self-extracting archive like
JAVAINUF.EXE.

Deal with it.

Quit trying to deny/avoid it.

-- snip --


Curtis



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 08:41:15
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Dale Ross wrote:

> About the only place that I sign as an MVP is in the
> microsoft.public.* newsgroups.
> 

Doesn't this support the point that MVPs frequent public newsgroups to
advocate Microsoft without identifying themselves?  Or admitting that
Microsoft pays them?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            31-Oct-99 16:45:25
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 05:42:43, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes [to Bennie Nelson]:
> 
> > This is an extremely interesting observation. I've often wondered why 
> > quite a few intelligent and reasonable posters (that should rule out 
> > the obvious other group - although Brad Wardell remains somewhat of a 
> > mystery then) have such an aversion vs Dave Tholen.
> 
> It may be interesting, but as you should note in my response to Bennie,
> I think he's way off base with regard to the recent discussions.  His
> hypothesis may be applicable to some previous discussions, however.
> 
Like I mentioned previously, I've stopped following closely the newest
threads. His "theory" does seem to be valid for the ones I did follow.

> > My view of him was that of a very intelligent person gifted with a
> > somewhat strange (and therefore strikingly familiar) sense of humour,
> 
> Different.  That doesn't make it "strange".  I don't know if you get
> the program over there, but over here, I've heard several people in
> my age group comment on how "Saturday Night Live" isn't as funny as
> it used to be.  I think that's more a reflection on what could be
> called "The Generation Gap".  The show has a target age group.  As we
> get older, we move out of the age group to which the show (and its
> humor) is targeted.  What's missing from USENET is often the age
> information, although Timbol revealed his age when he commented that
> he's "a relative newbie with limited experience" some time back.  I
> wouldn't be surprised if Lucien and Marty are also considerably
> younger than I am.
> 
I used the term "strange" because I was in part describing my own 
sense of humour (or lack thereof) and I tend to be somewhat "British" 
(as in: understatementing) when attributing qualities to myself. You 
got caught in the verbal crossfire <G>.

As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.

And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
38, BTW.

> > and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> >
> > What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
> > are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> 
> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> 
Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 08:46:23
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> 
> Sorry, David, but on this one you're wrong. There are ISVs for whom
> I'm convinced that Microsoft pressure played a part, but all evidence,
> in the matter of WP for OS/2, points to WPCorp's concern about making
> the company look as profitable as possible for the Novell buyout. They
> were just about to start the expensive part of the process -- beta
> testing and then marketing it -- and they got off the freeway at the
> exit where the sign said, "Toll booth ahead."
> 
Why do you think WordPerfect was even looking for a Novell buyout in the
first place?  They knew they were otherwise dead as a vendor of non-MS
word processing software.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          31-Oct-99 16:56:04
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>cbass2112@my-deja.com

>In article <7vgfkg$i61$2@news.hawaii.edu>,
>  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
>> Marty writes:
>
>-- snip --
>
>> > He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
>> > How is that irrelevant?
>>
>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
>
>It can also be done under Windows, Dave. Why do you refuse to accept
>this aspect of reality?

Answer: Because he's stupid.

Haven't you people figured this out by *now* after reading some of the
brain-damaged idiocy that Tholen has consistently posted for years????

He is *not* an intelligent man. He simply repeatedly insists that he's
so while constantly dodging any and all issues with some of the most
pathetically dumb and pedantic nonsense ever posted to the Internet.
Honestly, have you ever seen him post *anything* that you could look
at and say "Boy, that's really, really clever". (If anyone can answer
"yes" to that, I strongly suggest that he get off of the internet,
visit the library, and read some books to "upgrade" his intellect)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 09:03:11
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
[snip]
> 
> The evidence in the antitrust trial is real -- at least so far as I
> can tell -- but it's not the whole story. Microsoft acted like bad
> boys, but IBM shot itself in the foot time after time.

Esther, the antitrust trial evidence clearly showed that Microsoft had a
monopoly in desktop operating systems and they used this monopoly to
crush competing products, repeatedly.  What is there about this simple
truth that you do not understand?  You are taking the 'Everybody was an
idiot except Microsoft' line when in fact Microsoft used their monopoly
position to quietly and effectively target every company selling
products which competed with something they were doing.

So go ahead and tell us:  'Netscape was an idiot, that's why Internet
Explorer won' etc. etc.  Personally I think that a freaking genius
company would have lost given what Microsoft did:  1) Gave their
competing Internet Explorer product away free, 2) Tightly integrated it
right into the Windows operating system which ships on almost every new
computer,  3) Pressured OEMs to not ship Netscape.  Any one of these
three actions would have probably been fatal to Netscape,  Together,
these are the epitamy of 'knifed, stabbed, and beaten.'

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 09:11:04
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Kim Cheung wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:19:41 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Kim Cheung wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 08:36:19 -0400, David T. Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >> >On current hardware, these things occur essentially instantaneosly with
> >> >the applications I have implemented with it.
> >>
> >> Yep - because there shouldn't be any trouble doing these things with a
386/16
> >> processor over ISA bus.    123 walked the dependency tree on the original
> >> floppy based 4.77MHZ PC.
> >
> >ObjectVision for OS/2 v2.0 is a 32-bit application and required a 386
> >minimum which would have run at 16 Mhz or more.
> 
> That's not the point.   Anyway.

Then why are you mentioning Lotus 123 and floppy-based 4.77 Mhz PCs
which have not been sold since about 1985 and have nothing to do with
OS/2, 32-bit applications, or ObjectVision?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 09:14:12
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 13:04:15, "David T. Johnson"
> <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
> | What about "ObjectVision" for OS/2?  That was certainly a serious OS/2
> | product and IBM did not pay them to do it, AFAIK.
> 
> Borland's ObjectVision failed as a product... its OS/2ness had nothing
> to do with the product failure. It was a great start at a visual
> development environment, but for a bunch of reasons (which I no longer
> recall) it wasn't a success. They killed the Windows version as well
> as the OS/2 version.

I don't see the relevance.  I was only responding to your point that IBM
paid Borland to do OS/2 products and that Borland did not have serious
OS/2 products other than those IBM paid them to do.  I would suggest
that the biggest problem ObjectVision had was NFM or "not from
Microsoft."  

> 
> | I don't see where I am directing any "ire" at vendors, here.  This
> | certainly was not my intent.
> 
> That was a general comment, not directed specifically at you. <smile>
> 
> --Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 09:36:20
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:38:31, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
> | There is AutoDesk. Of course with Microsoft's purchase of Visio; that
could
> | change real fast.
> |
> | There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of WordPerfect
> | for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
> | Microsoft.
> 
> I'm afraid you have some of the facts wrong.
> 
> WordPerfect Corp dropped WP for OS/2 before they sold the company to
> Novell. By the time Corel got the remnants of WPCorp, the OS/2
> version(s) were history.

What does that mean?  That they burned the code on a bonfire?  They
could have released an OS/2 version at any time but chose not to.  I
wonder if Microsoft had anything to do with that?  

> 
> Corel is, however, another example on the stack. Corel published
> CorelDraw 2.5 for OS/2 (which I still have here, somewhere). Their
> reason for not publishing a version 3 was "we'll come out with v4
> simultaneously," but that plan got dropped. Corel's Cowpland promised
> a new native OS/2 version as late as Comdex 1995 (or was it 1996? at
> any rate, it was at the Corel presentation to the user group officers
> of the Association of PC User Groups), to a standing ovation -- but
> they later disavowed themselves of any such announcement. (I do hold
> quite a grudge against them for this.)

Again, you are missing the point, here.  You are holding grudges against
companies who were facing monopoly-driven pressure from Microsoft. 
Microsoft even successfully pressured IBM to drop OS/2 as was revealed
at the antitrust trial.  Why do you think Corel would have been able to
withstand Microsoft pressure?  Corel obviously was pressured to
discontinue every OS/2-related activity.  The fact that they announced
OS/2 products and then disavowed the announcements should be instructive
to you regarding behind-the-scenes timing.  You can say Corel (or
whoever) dropped OS/2 products for market reasons but the real reason
(in that timeframe, anyway) was Microsoft who was obviously determined
to eliminate any threat to its desktop operating system monopoly. 

> 
> Corel did do quite well for some time thereafter, presenting
> themselves as another example for David's original question, though
> they aren't quite so healthy nowadays.

Microsoft support for Corel Draw was probably their reward.  


> 
> With no data whatsoever, I'm personally convinced that Cowpland used
> the "OS/2 version" as a bargaining chip with Microsoft. "We'll do a
> new OS/2 version unless you give us _this_..." -- and Microsoft was
> likely to cave in, right about then. Bullying goes both ways.
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               31-Oct-99 10:13:17
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:11:08 -0500, David T. Johnson wrote:

>> >> Yep - because there shouldn't be any trouble doing these things with a
386/16
>> >> processor over ISA bus.    123 walked the dependency tree on the
original
>> >> floppy based 4.77MHZ PC.
>> >
>> >ObjectVision for OS/2 v2.0 is a 32-bit application and required a 386
>> >minimum which would have run at 16 Mhz or more.
>> 
>> That's not the point.   Anyway.
>
>Then why are you mentioning Lotus 123 and floppy-based 4.77 Mhz PCs
>which have not been sold since about 1985 and have nothing to do with
>OS/2, 32-bit applications, or ObjectVision?

Because walking a dependency tree doesn't need a  500MHZ Pentium III to do.  
The fact that OV needs such computing power to do something as basic as this
demonstrates clearly the quality of the package itself.

Com'on, David.   I was a big fan of OV (at one time) and I told you I did
some significant work with it.   When Borland canned it, I even tried to
mobilize the OV User Group in Los Angeles (yes, there was one) to convince
Borland otherwise.    

So, let's get off the subject, okay?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 15:49:04
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> > > and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> > >
> > > What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
> > > are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> >
> > Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> >
> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.  Dave may have misunderstood my
intention to play an infantile game.  Oh brother.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 16:14:09
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> > Instead of addressing the issues raised,
> 
> According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue,

As I have said several times now, this is an issue but you have not
treated it as such.  It is completely unnecessary to repost this
paragraph umpteen more times after I addressed it already.  How
infantile to do so.

> > once again Dave has chosen to avoid them and pontificate that I am
> > again playing an infantile game.
> 
> I've not pontificated, Marty.  I've presented evidence.

You've also presented evidence of your own infantile game, and continue
to do so.
 
> > How infantile, further proving my statements correct.
> 
> Illogical, Marty, given the evidence I've presented that you are
> indeed playing an "infantile game".

By repeatedly stating so without proof.  But then again, who cares what
I'm "playing" or doing.  Try addressing the issues raised and give up
your irksome diversion.

> Notice how you posted several items yesterday after claiming that you 
> didn't have time to reply to the rest of one of my articles.  Not once did 
> you address that inconsistency.

How is that inconsistent?  My time allotment is my business alone.  You
have no knowledge of it and can draw no conclusions about it based on my
posting tendancies.

> > He did manage to sneak in a few valid responses in between his
> > repetition of dodging the issue, so I'll address these areas.
> 
> To continue playing your "infantile game".  For example, here you are
> clearly calling it an "issue", yet you accused me of never discussing
> the issues.

Correct.  You still aren't discussing the issue.  You've dodged it to
continually pontificate that I'm playing an infantile game.

> Another inconsistency on your part, one that you've
> continued to ignore by deleting my references to your inconsistency.

I deleted your unnecessary repeated use of the same paragraph, which I
did respond to once already.  No inconsistency to be seen on my part.
 
> >>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
> 
> >>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend it
> >>>>>>> the first time:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."
> 
> >>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>> I already told you, moron.
> >>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract its
> >>> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
> >>> in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >> Here's the output, Marty:
> >>
> >> ] E:\>javainuf
> >> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
> >>> but it executes under DOS.
> 
> >> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.
> 
> > It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
> > message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
> > address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then calls
> > INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
> > inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.
> 
> That's what you call "running" the program, Marty?

Yes.  Code is executed from inside of the executable.  That's what I
call running.

> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS session.

No.  I said the executable would.

> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.

Right.

> So, naturally, you try to divert attention away from that by talking about 
> the details of how a stub works.  Typical.

Not really.

DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
^
|---- Incorrect statement.


> >>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> >>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
> 
> >>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
format
> >>>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.
> 
> >>> The archive format is portable.
> 
> >> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
> 
> > I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
> > format is portable.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood the
> difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.

Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me how
this makes a difference.

> >>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> >>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> >>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
> >>> How is that irrelevant?
> 
> >> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
> 
> > That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
> > could view the archive.
> 
> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?

DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
DT] file?
 
DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

> > And now, so that you don't complain:
> 
> >> According to you, Marty, this isn't an issue, so why are you bothering
> >> to get involved?  Oh yeah; it's to continue playing the "infantile game"
> >> that you insist you're not playing.
> 
> > I already stated that it was an issue, but that you have failed to
> > address it in your argument.
> 
> You didn't retract your claim that I never discuss issues, Marty.
> When you finally (after deleting it once) acknowledged my evidence
> that I have, in fact, admitted to mistakes, you didn't apologize
> for the error.  You simply reworded your claim.

I apologize for the error, and stand by my reworded claim.

> Now you're doing the same thing.  I have addressed the current 
> issue in my responses to Timbol.  He's the one who claimed that 
> Joseph's statement was "bullshit".  If you want to get involved, 

I can get involved in any way I choose Dave.

> then either agree with Timbol that Joseph's statement is "bullshit" 
> and try to explain why it is so, in the light of the evidence I've 
> presented, or agree with me (in which case I don't understand why 
> you'd be responding to me rather than Timbol).

I've entered the discussion to convice you that the archive can be
viewed and extracted without using OS/2.  Do you accept this fact?

> > Infantile games have nothing to do with my end of this argument.
> 
> They have everything to do with your recent round of responses to me.

Incorrect.

> > I've noticed that you used the above paragraph as your escape route
> > to several points you didn't feel like addressing.
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person who has used various escape routes
> to avoid discussing several points that proved you to be wrong.

Ironic indeed that you should point that out, seeing as how you have yet
to admit that you are wrong in this discussion, after having been proven
wrong.

> > How convenient.
> 
> Too emabrassing for you, Marty?

Not at all Dave.  Your convenience should embarass you, not me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             31-Oct-99 20:41:25
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <MPG.1282cad08a3c013a989a85@news1.mnsinc.com|, David H. McCoy
<forgitaboutit@fake.com| writes:

|They left because they couldn't survive writing for OS/2. Heck, almost no one 

|here now in c.o.o.a codes for OS/2 for a living.

Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living. If you are not coding Java
then you must be planing on going into marketing or retiring. Many left OS/2
because of Microsoft's plan to cut them off from advanced Microsoft
technology.
That is the testimony about to be made fact by the judge's ruling in the
antitrust case.

But remember that OS/2 is just another flavor of Windows. If you remember,
OS/2 was developed by Microsoft to replace Windows 3.1. So if you are
currently a Windows developer you should not fear OS/2. It is a relative.
You might be more fearfull of Windows 2000, which may be a real bastard.
There is only one product that has been certified as Windows 2000 ready.
That says something about how hard it might be to survive writing for
Window 2000.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             31-Oct-99 20:52:20
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: 1999 Warp OS/2 vs Windows 2000

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <3819a0f0_4@news1.prserv.net, flmighe@attglobal.net writes:
In <7v7uos$k93@enews4.newsguy.com|, "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com|
writes:

The fact that there is a 1999 edition of OS/2 Warp is significant. I
Do not think IBM planned that. It was forced on them by the banks
and other large OS/2 users IMO. In fact, portions of the 1999 OS/2
had likely been reserved for 64 bit and non Intel processors,
like the new file system.

Does Win2000 have JFS?
Does Win2000 have TCP/IP stacks so superior that a VPN can be
created?

On that last item. Is the IBM Internet Phone OS/2 based? I know that
IBM had been working in France replacing the Mintel telephone system.

Win2000 does not have WorkSpace on Demand which is important for
IBM Internet Phone concepts.

Win2000 does not have voice control. That is very important for
phone related products. I believe Microsoft just purchased a company
that may be able to fix that.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
has some information on the IBM Internet Phone

|Well that java's got me sold. (not, java is still nowhere near ready for
|mainstream use, even Win2000 itself is much more suited for the task!)
|
|If you ask me, any IT professional worth a damn ain't gonna upgrade to
|nuttin' until at least mid-2000 when the Y2K crisis is over with.
|
|Anyone changing things or upgrading right now is playing with fire.
|
|More amusingly, you keep copying Microsoft's date-code as a revision number.
|Unless IBM's stupid enough to do that and you're lemming enough to
|mynah-bird them.  (they've copied MS business tactics before but, as always,
|end up doing them too late and looking dumb...)

 In the 25 August 1997 Infoworld, Ed Scannell, on page one,
 stated that the WorkSpace on Demand implementation of OS/2
  "could give IBM significant technical advantages over rival
 Windows NT and Unix server architectures, which will not
 deliver this capability until the later half of 1998 at the earliest."

 The capability has yet to be delivered. But will Windows 2000
 have them? We know that the 1999 Warp OS/2 is priced similarly
 to Windows 2000 and is targeted for the same group of business
 users. I would like to compile a list of deficiencies in the Windows 2000
 offering, using 1999 Warp as the standard for comparison. Perhaps
 others can expand the list. I do not have enough information on
 Windows 2000 yet to know if more that the following are missing.

 load balancing/ SMP support
 compatibility with Novell 5.1's webshere/visual age
 100% Pure Java
 need for new versions of office software
 security
 Sun approved JVM

 http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm



|

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 14:26:24
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Kim Cheung wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 09:11:08 -0500, David T. Johnson wrote:
> 
> >> >> Yep - because there shouldn't be any trouble doing these things with a 
386/16
> >> >> processor over ISA bus.    123 walked the dependency tree on the
original
> >> >> floppy based 4.77MHZ PC.
> >> >
> >> >ObjectVision for OS/2 v2.0 is a 32-bit application and required a 386
> >> >minimum which would have run at 16 Mhz or more.
> >>
> >> That's not the point.   Anyway.
> >
> >Then why are you mentioning Lotus 123 and floppy-based 4.77 Mhz PCs
> >which have not been sold since about 1985 and have nothing to do with
> >OS/2, 32-bit applications, or ObjectVision?
> 
> Because walking a dependency tree doesn't need a  500MHZ Pentium III to do.
> The fact that OV needs such computing power to do something as basic as this
> demonstrates clearly the quality of the package itself.
> 
> Com'on, David.   I was a big fan of OV (at one time) and I told you I did
> some significant work with it.   When Borland canned it, I even tried to
> mobilize the OV User Group in Los Angeles (yes, there was one) to convince
> Borland otherwise.
> 
> So, let's get off the subject, okay?

Well, I'm glad you didn't dislike the product.  But now you are
suggesting that ObjectVision needs a 500 Mhz Pentium III to 'walk a
dependency tree.'  And you have repeatedly made the claim that the
product was slow and poorly written.  I don't know why it matters
anymore but my response is simply that, as a current user of this,  I
don't find either to be true.  And Borland listed the hardware
requirement as a 386 with 4MB of RAM.  Presumably, it ran with this
though I don't recall ever actually using it with a 386.  I don't know
why you now bring up a 500 Mhz PIII but that is definitely a step up
from the 4.77 Mhz floppy-disk PC.

I do recall using OS/2 v3 on a 386 with 4MB of RAM.  IBM listed that as
a minimum hardware requirement for v3 and that is exactly what it was. 
OS/2 ran but it was S-L-O-W.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 14:33:00
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Dale Ross wrote:
> 
> "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:381AF79E.92A1A514@isomedia.com...
> > Dale Ross wrote:
> > > The PSS folks that head up the MVP program keep the list updated.
> > > MVPs can access the list
> > > Non-MVPs cannot access the list.
> >
> > Well, you didn't answer my question but I guess we can assume that the
> > list is on a server owned and maintained by Microsoft Corporation.
> 
> I am not sure why I would have to even say it. It is after all a Microsoft
> run program.

Well sure, as I now understand the program, MVPs are paid some sort of
non-specific compensation for performing some sort of non-specific
online support activity and there is a secret list of MVPs maintained by
Microsoft.  Sounds like motherhood and apple pie american to me...Does
Microsoft report the compensation given to MVPs to the IRS?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             31-Oct-99 14:41:26
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> IBM To Adopt Win 2000 Companywide
> (10/28/99, 2:00 p.m. ET)
> By Madeleine Acey, TechWeb
> IBM is set to become one of the biggest early adopters of Windows 2000 and
> plans to standardize its many desktops on the long-awaited Microsoft
operating
> system worldwide.
> 
> Big Blue's integrated solutions marketing manager Dick Sullivan told
> journalists in London this week that Windows 2000 Professional would be the
> company's desktop OS of choice across the enterprise when it becomes
available
> next year. The company will buy 300,000 copies, he said.
> 
> "We have a standard desktop across the corporation and ours will be Windows
> 2000, with Notes and Lotus Smartsuite," Sullivan said.
> 
> However IBM's confidence in Microsoft's new baby was not unwavering. Asked
how
> many service packs Win 2000 would require before it was stable and trusted,
> Sullivan said "probably two."
> 
> "On the server side, people are going to be very cautious," he said.
> 
> Sullivan added that the client would be the first thing to roll out in big
> numbers as there was a lot of pent-up demand from people who had been
waiting
> to upgrade from NT 4.0.
> 
> Win 2000 is a complex operating system -- not just the next version of NT,
he
> said. IBM is working to integrate the OS with its own applications, he said.
> 
> "Windows 2000 is going to be a very successful OS, so we want it to work
right
> for our customers for the applications they want to use," Sullivan said.
"It's
> not going to be a heterogeneous environment, they still have a lot to learn.
> There's a long way to go for heterogeneous integration."
> 
> E-commerce -- specifically transaction applications -- would be some of the
> crucial software packages to integrate, he said.
> 
> Microsoft Windows product marketing manager Nick McGrath said he was pleased
> with the news of IBM's adoption of Win 2000.
> 
> "It's exciting to see that a company as diverse in its operations as IBM is
> embracing Windows 2000 Professional across its desktops," McGrath said.
"It's a
> clear endorsement of how Windows 2000 Professional is the best OS for
> businesses of all sizes."
> 
> He said he isn't sure if IBM is the OS's biggest customer so far, but he
looks
> forward to more contracts of a similar size.
> 
>
*******************************************************************************

> 
> Well folks, even the makers of OS/2 know a good thing. See you on the other
> side...
> --
Are you suggesting that IBM is changing their desktops from OS/2 to
Windows 2000?   Haven't you maintained that IBM did not use OS/2
anymore?  Since IBM does not use OS/2, this means that IBM is upgrading
from Windows 9x or NT4 to Windows 2K, probably in the desperate hope
that they can find something halfway workable.  Maybe that, more than
anything else, will force Gerstner to cut loose some money for an OS/2
update.  Heh, heh, heh.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 22:08:24
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>> Karel Jansens writes [to Bennie Nelson]:

>>> This is an extremely interesting observation. I've often wondered why 
>>> quite a few intelligent and reasonable posters (that should rule out 
>>> the obvious other group - although Brad Wardell remains somewhat of a 
>>> mystery then) have such an aversion vs Dave Tholen.
 
>> It may be interesting, but as you should note in my response to Bennie,
>> I think he's way off base with regard to the recent discussions.  His
>> hypothesis may be applicable to some previous discussions, however.

> Like I mentioned previously, I've stopped following closely the newest
> threads. His "theory" does seem to be valid for the ones I did follow.

But those aren't the "newest threads".

>>> My view of him was that of a very intelligent person gifted with a
>>> somewhat strange (and therefore strikingly familiar) sense of humour,
 
>> Different.  That doesn't make it "strange".  I don't know if you get
>> the program over there, but over here, I've heard several people in
>> my age group comment on how "Saturday Night Live" isn't as funny as
>> it used to be.  I think that's more a reflection on what could be
>> called "The Generation Gap".  The show has a target age group.  As we
>> get older, we move out of the age group to which the show (and its
>> humor) is targeted.  What's missing from USENET is often the age
>> information, although Timbol revealed his age when he commented that
>> he's "a relative newbie with limited experience" some time back.  I
>> wouldn't be surprised if Lucien and Marty are also considerably
>> younger than I am.

> I used the term "strange" because I was in part describing my own 
> sense of humour (or lack thereof) and I tend to be somewhat "British" 
> (as in: understatementing) when attributing qualities to myself. You 
> got caught in the verbal crossfire <G>.

Unfortunate.

> As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
> doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
> the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
> do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.

Or it might have to do with you aging.

> And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
> least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
> 38, BTW.

You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.

>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>
>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
 
>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he complained
about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tzs@halcyon.com                                   31-Oct-99 14:00:09
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: tzs@halcyon.com (Tim Smith)

Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:
>>> > Are you suggesting that these so-called easy-to-spot MVPs are the ONLY
>>> > MVPs?
>>> 
>>> Yes I am suggesting that these easy to spot Microsft MVPs are the only
MVPs.
>>
>>Do you have any basis for this?  HOW do you know?
>
>Careful, Dave.  You're putting hime in the position of disproving a
>negative assertion, which is a logical impossibility.  The MVP program is

You need to retake your course in logic.  There is nothing hard about
disproving a negative assertion.

-- 
--Tim Smith
 +----G----D--------G---D-----G-----D----------Em---A7------+-Cat Stevens--+
 |And if I ever lose my eyes, if my colour all runs dry...   \"Moonshadow"/|
 |yes if I ever lose my eyes, oh if..........., I won't have to cry no more|
 +----G----D--------G---D--------Em-A7-D-F#m-Bm---Em------------A------D---+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Archimedes Plutonium Grepping Society (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 31-Oct-99 22:10:06
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vdqcd$gs4$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>
>> Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.
>
>LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
>comprehensible to a human.

WinZip can extract the contents of the archive, just as if you had
run the self-extraction program.  The point of a self-extracting archive
is to be able to uncompress the archive without an archive tool.  If
you have an archive tool that understands the format, such as WinZip, 
then you can use that tool.

That's what I did.  That's what everyone else involved in this thread
understands that I did.  Several people even verified it themselves.

You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
these simple facts.

>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
>
>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
>
>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.
>
>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>
>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>Irrelevant, Mike.

It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.
I am able to give you much more information about the archive and the
files in it than if I had run the archive on OS/2.

>> Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?
>
>Such as OS/2?

Obviously WinZip is better than the tools which you use on OS/2, since
WinZip can extract the files from the archive, whereas the archive
tool you use on OS/2 cannot.

>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.
>
>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
>> don't bother to test that evidence at all.
>
>I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
>doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.

Your comparison of using LIST vs. using WinZip demonstrates your
ignorance of the subject once again.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 22:10:10
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
 
>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>>
>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

> I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.

Trying to speak for me, Marty?

> Dave may have misunderstood my intention to play an infantile game.

Incorrect, Marty.

> Oh brother.

Ambiguous.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            31-Oct-99 22:22:12
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:49:08, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
> > > > and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> > > >
> > > > What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
> > > > are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> > >
> > > Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> > >
> > Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
> > based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?
> 
> I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.  Dave may have misunderstood my
> intention to play an infantile game.  Oh brother.

OK, this one I don't get. So did you have the intention of playing "an
infantile game"? Or were you doing something else that got mistaken 
for "an infantile game"?

Anyway, how old are you, Marty? We're trying to get this theory tested
that if we know each other's age, we could have a go at more sensible 
(but probably also more boring <G>) discussions. Although in the case 
of J-E-F-F G-L-A-T-T (I'll spell it, so he won't notice),...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            31-Oct-99 22:22:14
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:41:30, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:

> Dale Ross wrote:
> 
> > About the only place that I sign as an MVP is in the
> > microsoft.public.* newsgroups.
> > 
> 
> Doesn't this support the point that MVPs frequent public newsgroups to
> advocate Microsoft without identifying themselves?  Or admitting that
> Microsoft pays them?

There's a guy posting over on comp.os.linux.misc, Brett I. Holcomb, 
who has "Microsoft MVP" in his sig-line (it's followed by "AKA Grunt 
<><", which makes sense for an MSV, I guess).

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dross1@carolina.rr.com                            31-Oct-99 22:20:16
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com>

"David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:381C996C.B72A6F4C@isomedia.com...
> >
> > I am not sure why I would have to even say it. It is after all a
Microsoft
> > run program.
>
> Well sure, as I now understand the program, MVPs are paid some sort of
> non-specific compensation for performing some sort of non-specific
> online support activity and there is a secret list of MVPs maintained by
> Microsoft.  Sounds like motherhood and apple pie american to me...Does
> Microsoft report the compensation given to MVPs to the IRS?

No you do not understand the program. There is no compensation. David it is
very obvious to me that you have no desire to understand what the program
is.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 22:38:25
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> -- snip --

>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the *SELF-EXTRACTION
> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.

Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
that claim?

> It does *NOT* prove that one needs OS/2 to extract the contents of the
> archive. One only needs the proper tool, such as WinZip.

Such as OS/2.

>> Yet Mike also clearly wrote:
>>
>>   ] Message-ID: <7umhkp$qg6$1@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>
>>   ]
>> MT] >> My evidence is the actual contents of IBM OS/2 JDK 1.1.8.
>>   ] >
>> DT] >Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?
>>   ]
>> MT] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>
>> Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
>> on an OS/2 system to boot!  So, I must again ask the question:

> And I must again point out that you are WRONG!

Why haven't you pointed out to Timbol that he was wrong when he called
Joseph's statement "bullshit"?

> WRONG,

Why haven't you pointed out to Timbol that he was wrong when he called
Joseph's statement "bullshit"?

> WRONG,

Why haven't you pointed out to Timbol that he was wrong when he called
Joseph's statement "bullshit"?

> WRONG!

Why haven't you pointed out to Timbol that he was wrong when he called
Joseph's statement "bullshit"?

> Deal with it.

I am dealing with it, by asking why haven't you pointed out to Timbol
that he was wrong when he called Joseph's statement "bullshit"?

> Then move on.

I'm still waiting for Timbol to retract his "bullshit" claim.

>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

> For crying out loud, Dave, Mike isn't claiming to be running the actual
> JDK.  And you are always accusing others of "reading comprehension
> problems."

Mike is claiming that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".  Where have
you been?

> -- snip --

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.  I want to know where *you* saw the contents.

>>> And I told you -- it's part of IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Duh.

>> And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>> ] I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents.
>>
>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

> (sigh) Dave, you are being stubborn, and stupid.

Timbol is the one being stubborn and stupid, by refusing to retract
his "bullshit" claim.

> WinZip allows one to view -- AND EXTRACT -- the contents of a
> self-extracting archive like JAVAINUF.EXE.

Then why would Timbol claim that Joseph's statement is "bullshit"?

> Deal with it.

I am dealing with it, by asking why haven't you pointed out to Timbol
that he was wrong when he called Joseph's statement "bullshit"?

> Quit trying to deny/avoid it.

How ironic, coming from someone who has avoided challenging Timbol's
"bullshit" claim.

> -- snip --

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 22:32:05
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>> Marty writes:

> -- snip --

>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
>>> How is that irrelevant?

>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

> It can also be done under Windows, Dave. Why do you refuse to accept
> this aspect of reality?

Why do you "refuse" to ask Timbol why he "refuses" to accept the
aspect of reality involving the Java 1.2 functionality that IBM
implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 22:30:04
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> ...and, going over this yet again, in case the additional
>>> information is lacking, what do we have?

>> Irrelevant, given that the additional information is not lacking in
>> the present situation.

> .....but if it were, what would we have?

A situation irrelevant to the present one.

> The answer is provided by your statement:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[[[either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality]]]]], in the absence of any other
> information."

There is no absence of any other information in the present situation,
therefore you cannot use that statement to determine the presence of
ambiguity in the present situation, Lucien.

>> Here's the revised version:

> The "revised version" still (correctly) presupposes an ambiguity
> (emphasis mine):

Incorrect.  The "revised version" notes the resolution provided by
the additional information.

>>>> But there is presence of other information,
>>>> [[[[which resolves ---->>>>the ambiguity<<<<----]]]], Lucien.
>>>> Incorrect, Lucien.  How can ambiguity exist if it's been resolved?

>>> And, going over this yet again, it would have to exist in the first
>>> place before resolving it would ever become possible, right?

>> You're erroneously presupposing some chronology, Lucien.

> Wrong.

Balderdash, Lucien, as I clearly explained.

> We are presupposing an underlying ambiguity,

Trying to speak for me with your "we", Lucien?  Rather, a resolution is
noted, thanks to the presence of additional information.

> no chronology is involved.

Balderdash, Lucien, as I clearly explained.

> You unwittingly continue to provide proof of your agreement that
> there is an underlying ambiguity in the JDK sentence. See below.

Incorrect, Lucien, as you continue to ignore what I've written, while
also deleting the simple tests I provided that proof that you are wrong.

>> It's not as
>> if the statement started out as an ambiguous phrase that later became
>> unambiguous after additional information was provided.

> On the contrary, this multi-level situation is precisely what is
> suggested by the data

On what basis do you call the situation "multi-level", Lucien?  There
is only one chronological level.

> (and what was proved to be the case for the "prevents costly mistakes"
> situation in the "costly mistakes" thread).

What was proved in the previous situation is that the statement is not
ambiguous, thanks to the definition of the word "prevent".

> Your very own statement supports this view for the JDK sentence:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

Incorrect, Lucien, given that the JDK sentence features the presence
of other information.

>> The additional
>> information was there all along, so there never was any ambiguity.
>> When I wrote that "the ambiguity is resolved", it's clear that it
>> means "-->>the ambiguity<<-- of the stand-alone phrase is resolved by

> (emphasis mine)

Once again, you're providing the wrong emphasis, Lucien.  Here's the
revised version:

>> The additional
>> information was there all along, so there never was any ambiguity.
>> When I wrote that "the ambiguity is resolved", it's clear that it
>> means "the ambiguity of the stand-alone phrase -->>is resolved<<-- by

>> the fact that the phrase doesn't stand alone".

> And you once again agree that there is an underlying ambiguity,

Still having reading comprehension problems, Lucien?  I'm not indicating
any such agreement.

> which is correct.

Balderdash, Lucien, given that additional information is present that
resolves the alleged ambiguity.

> And, as it is impossible to resolve an ambiguity that
> didn't exist underlyingly in the first place,

The phrase didn't exist by itself in the first place, Lucien, therefore
the ambiguity of that nonexistent stand-alone phrase also didn't exist.

> your claim of "the ambiguity of the stand-alone phrase" indicates
> agreement with my claim of an ambiguity.

Ambiguity of what, Lucien?  No such stand-alone phrase exists in the
present situation.

> Very good.

On the contrary, it's very bad for you, Lucien.

>>> - it details the underlying ambiguity (WRT quantification):

>> On the contrary, it details the underlying lack of ambiguity, thanks
>> to the presence of additional information.

> Wrong. Let's review it again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.  However, you should review the two simple tests
that you continue to delete.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

Fortunately, there is no absence of any other information in the
present situation.

> Your statement indicates an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification in
> the 'implements' case, in the absence of other information.

Fortunately, there is no absence of any other information in the
present situation.

> Let's review my thesis statement again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.  However, you should review the two simple tests
that you continue to delete.

> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.

Amazing that your alleged "thesis" doesn't apply to the situations
being discussed.  Do you always use irrelevant theses when arguing,
Lucien?

> Thus, we are in agreement.

Incorrect, Lucien, given that your thesis doesn't even apply to the
situation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

] Here's another little test for you, Lucien:
] 
] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            31-Oct-99 22:41:06
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 22:08:49, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >> Karel Jansens writes [to Bennie Nelson]:
> 
> >>> This is an extremely interesting observation. I've often wondered why 
> >>> quite a few intelligent and reasonable posters (that should rule out 
> >>> the obvious other group - although Brad Wardell remains somewhat of a 
> >>> mystery then) have such an aversion vs Dave Tholen.
>  
> >> It may be interesting, but as you should note in my response to Bennie,
> >> I think he's way off base with regard to the recent discussions.  His
> >> hypothesis may be applicable to some previous discussions, however.
> 
> > Like I mentioned previously, I've stopped following closely the newest
> > threads. His "theory" does seem to be valid for the ones I did follow.
> 
> But those aren't the "newest threads".
> 
Well... indeed. Otherwise I might have come to your conclusion. But I 
didn't, so I haven't.
..
I think.

> >>> My view of him was that of a very intelligent person gifted with a
> >>> somewhat strange (and therefore strikingly familiar) sense of humour,
>  
> >> Different.  That doesn't make it "strange".  I don't know if you get
> >> the program over there, but over here, I've heard several people in
> >> my age group comment on how "Saturday Night Live" isn't as funny as
> >> it used to be.  I think that's more a reflection on what could be
> >> called "The Generation Gap".  The show has a target age group.  As we
> >> get older, we move out of the age group to which the show (and its
> >> humor) is targeted.  What's missing from USENET is often the age
> >> information, although Timbol revealed his age when he commented that
> >> he's "a relative newbie with limited experience" some time back.  I
> >> wouldn't be surprised if Lucien and Marty are also considerably
> >> younger than I am.
> 
> > I used the term "strange" because I was in part describing my own 
> > sense of humour (or lack thereof) and I tend to be somewhat "British" 
> > (as in: understatementing) when attributing qualities to myself. You 
> > got caught in the verbal crossfire <G>.
> 
> Unfortunate.
> 
You'll live, soldier.

> > As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
> > doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
> > the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
> > do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.
> 
> Or it might have to do with you aging.
> 
Never!
No way!
It's the shows, you see! They've gotten dummer, you see!
It's not me!
You see!

> > And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
> > least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
> > 38, BTW.
> 
> You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.
> 
Which is...?

> >>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> >>>
> >>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
> >>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
>  
> >> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> 
> > Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
> > based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?
> 
> Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he complained
> about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
> to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?
> 
Without getting into something I haven't been following: I've never 
quite understood the use of a kill-file. I don't filter out anything; 
if I don't want to read a certain post or poster, I just don't read 
it. A simple <CTRL>-<ALT>-<R> in ProNews will mark all articles read, 
whether I've actually sniffled them or not. When the counter reaches 
1,500, they're all history.

I can understand why some might want to filter out spam, but it's no 
big problem in the groups I follow and anyway, spammers aren't very 
well caught by killfilters. Frankly, I suspect that post people who 
"put someone in their killfile" only wrote this to p*ss said person 
off and will continue to read the posts, reveling in the increasing 
levels of frustration and anger of the victim when nobody answers 
back. There's nothing worse than a one-sided discussion.

Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 19:00:00
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> > -- snip --
> 
> >> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
> >> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> > Which only proves that the string exists, and that the *SELF-EXTRACTION
> > UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
> 
> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
> that claim?

Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.  You even verified
that for me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 19:06:17
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:49:08, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > > > and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
> > > > > are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> > > >
> > > > Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> > > >
> > > Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
> > > based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?
> >
> > I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.  Dave may have misunderstood my
> > intention to play an infantile game.  Oh brother.
> 
> OK, this one I don't get. So did you have the intention of playing "an
> infantile game"? Or were you doing something else that got mistaken
> for "an infantile game"?

No infantile game exists on my part.  Dave assumes that since I admitted
to "playing" one in the past (when I was mimicking him) that he can
write off anything I say in the future as an infantile game.  This in
itself, is infantile on his part as I have pointed out repeatedly.
 
> Anyway, how old are you, Marty?

Old enough to have a degree in Computer Engineering and a full time job
with IBM supporting myself after having 5 previous years of work
experience.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         31-Oct-99 22:51:10
  To: All                                               31-Oct-99 22:05:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>> Karel Jansens writes [to Bennie Nelson]:

>>>>> This is an extremely interesting observation. I've often wondered why 
>>>>> quite a few intelligent and reasonable posters (that should rule out 
>>>>> the obvious other group - although Brad Wardell remains somewhat of a 
>>>>> mystery then) have such an aversion vs Dave Tholen.

>>>> It may be interesting, but as you should note in my response to Bennie,
>>>> I think he's way off base with regard to the recent discussions.  His
>>>> hypothesis may be applicable to some previous discussions, however.

>>> Like I mentioned previously, I've stopped following closely the newest
>>> threads. His "theory" does seem to be valid for the ones I did follow.

>> But those aren't the "newest threads".

> Well... indeed. Otherwise I might have come to your conclusion. But I 
> didn't, so I haven't.
> ...
> I think.

You're not sure?

>>>>> My view of him was that of a very intelligent person gifted with a
>>>>> somewhat strange (and therefore strikingly familiar) sense of humour,

>>>> Different.  That doesn't make it "strange".  I don't know if you get
>>>> the program over there, but over here, I've heard several people in
>>>> my age group comment on how "Saturday Night Live" isn't as funny as
>>>> it used to be.  I think that's more a reflection on what could be
>>>> called "The Generation Gap".  The show has a target age group.  As we
>>>> get older, we move out of the age group to which the show (and its
>>>> humor) is targeted.  What's missing from USENET is often the age
>>>> information, although Timbol revealed his age when he commented that
>>>> he's "a relative newbie with limited experience" some time back.  I
>>>> wouldn't be surprised if Lucien and Marty are also considerably
>>>> younger than I am.

>>> I used the term "strange" because I was in part describing my own 
>>> sense of humour (or lack thereof) and I tend to be somewhat "British" 
>>> (as in: understatementing) when attributing qualities to myself. You 
>>> got caught in the verbal crossfire <G>.

>> Unfortunate.

> You'll live, soldier.

Never said I wouldn't.

>>> As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
>>> doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
>>> the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
>>> do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.

>> Or it might have to do with you aging.

> Never!
> No way!
> It's the shows, you see! They've gotten dummer, you see!
> It's not me!
> You see!

You mean "dumber"?

>>> And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
>>> least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
>>> 38, BTW.

>> You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.

> Which is...?

There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.  Let's
put it this way:  I watched the original run of "The Prisoner".

>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

>> Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he complained
>> about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
>> to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?

> Without getting into something I haven't been following: I've never 
> quite understood the use of a kill-file. I don't filter out anything; 
> if I don't want to read a certain post or poster, I just don't read 
> it. A simple <CTRL>-<ALT>-<R> in ProNews will mark all articles read, 
> whether I've actually sniffled them or not. When the counter reaches 
> 1,500, they're all history.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that Marty didn't
claim to make use of a killfile.

> I can understand why some might want to filter out spam, but it's no 
> big problem in the groups I follow and anyway, spammers aren't very 
> well caught by killfilters. Frankly, I suspect that post people who 
> "put someone in their killfile" only wrote this to p*ss said person 
> off and will continue to read the posts, reveling in the increasing 
> levels of frustration and anger of the victim when nobody answers 
> back. There's nothing worse than a one-sided discussion.

Which is consistent with the fact that some of the people who made the
most boisterous claims of putting me in their killfile did wind up
responding to me later on, including Mike Timbol, David Leblanc, and
now Marty.

However, the increased level of frustration was on their part, not
mine, because they couldn't resist responding any longer.

> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               01-Nov-99 01:58:27
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:41:51, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
| Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living. If you are not coding
Java
| then you must be planing on going into marketing or retiring.

What color is the sky on your planet?

Java is a tool. It's a good tool, for some things, but it's not a 
golden bullet that solves all problems or is suitable for all 
purposes. There are any number of reasons not to write in Java, 
including

* application performance
* a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
* willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or 
niche

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               01-Nov-99 02:01:29
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:46:47, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
| Why do you think WordPerfect was even looking for a Novell buyout in the
| first place?  They knew they were otherwise dead as a vendor of non-MS
| word processing software.

Well, among other things, I know they were looking to be purchased 
because they _were_ purchased. Novell didn't buy WPCorp in an 
unfriendly takeover.

Nor did they believe they were dead. They knew they were in trouble, 
for sure, but the Powers That Be didn't think that the fat lady had 
sung. If you want to take the time to learn the details, you can read 
Pete Petersen's "Almost Perfect" book online. (I don't recall the URL,
sorry.)

I remember other factoids about the period, but I can't for the life 
of me remember if I was told those things under NDA, so I'm safer to 
shut up now. 

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               01-Nov-99 02:04:05
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Microsoft monopolies and computer industry history 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

David,

It takes two to tango.

Microsoft may cheat. Other companies may make dreadful mistakes. These
are not mutually exclusive events.

Stupidity is rarely a single-user exercise.

--Esther

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:03:22, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:

| Esther Schindler wrote:
| > 
| [snip]
| > 
| > The evidence in the antitrust trial is real -- at least so far as I
| > can tell -- but it's not the whole story. Microsoft acted like bad
| > boys, but IBM shot itself in the foot time after time.
| 
| Esther, the antitrust trial evidence clearly showed that Microsoft had a
| monopoly in desktop operating systems and they used this monopoly to
| crush competing products, repeatedly.  What is there about this simple
| truth that you do not understand?  You are taking the 'Everybody was an
| idiot except Microsoft' line when in fact Microsoft used their monopoly
| position to quietly and effectively target every company selling
| products which competed with something they were doing.
| 
| So go ahead and tell us:  'Netscape was an idiot, that's why Internet
| Explorer won' etc. etc.  Personally I think that a freaking genius
| company would have lost given what Microsoft did:  1) Gave their
| competing Internet Explorer product away free, 2) Tightly integrated it
| right into the Windows operating system which ships on almost every new
| computer,  3) Pressured OEMs to not ship Netscape.  Any one of these
| three actions would have probably been fatal to Netscape,  Together,
| these are the epitamy of 'knifed, stabbed, and beaten.'


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               01-Nov-99 02:07:07
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:14:25, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
| I was only responding to your point that IBM
| paid Borland to do OS/2 products and that Borland did not have serious
| OS/2 products other than those IBM paid them to do.  I would suggest
| that the biggest problem ObjectVision had was NFM or "not from
| Microsoft."  

Well, the assumption is that ObjectVision is or was ever a "serious 
product." That judgement, like so many other things, is in the eye of 
the beholder.

I saw a preview of ObjectVision before it was released, along with 
about 100 other user group officers. We were generally excited about 
its direction without being enthusiastic about the product itself. (As
I recall, there were serious concerns about application 
documentability.) Like a lot of other products over the years, it was 
a good 1.0 but it didn't follow up with an awesome 2.0.

But I don't want to speak authoritatively on this... I no longer 
remember enough about it to have an opinion.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                31-Oct-99 21:15:12
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7v446f$8d8$2@news.hawaii.edu>, Dave "Bennet" Tholen
(tholenantispam@hawaii.edu) wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:
> 
> >> Marty writes:
> 
> >>> Joe Malloy wrote:
>   
> >>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something
akin to
> >>>> an Eliza program and tholened:
>  
> >>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>   
> >>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you
respond
> >>>> like Eliza?
>  
> >>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.
>  
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.
> 
> > What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

What makes you say that?

> >>> How hypocritical.
>  
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile game",
> >> Marty.
> 
> > Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g* in
> > an infantile game.
> 
> What makes you believe that?

Can you elaborate on that?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                31-Oct-99 21:20:06
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7v6fm3$3dp$1@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>> Why do you say that?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

What makes you say that?

> >>> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> What makes you believe that?

Can you elaborate?
 
> >>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Are you sure this is the real reason?
 
> >>> Are you positive that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?

> >>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Are you sure that those are mine?

Does it bother you that those are yours?
 
> >>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Are you sure that is the real reason?
 
> >>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

When did you first know that those are eliza's?
 
> >>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
> >>> with this.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?
 
> >>> Go on, don't be afraid.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> What makes you believe that?

Don't you know?

> >>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Are you sure that is the real reason?
 
> >>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Illogical.
 
> >>> I need a little more detail please.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Are you sure that those are mine?

When did you first know that those were yours?
 
> >>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

Are you sure that is the real reason?
 
> >>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

When did you first know that those are eliza's?

> >>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> > Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> > right back at you?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Are you sure that this is the real reason?

> >>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that you
say
> >>> I do not approve phrases either?
> 
> >> Don't ask me.
> 
> > Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your plans
> > have something to do with this.
> 
> What makes you believe that?

I would appreciate it if you would continue.

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               01-Nov-99 02:21:24
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:36:40, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:

| > | There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of
WordPerfect
| > | for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
| > | Microsoft.
| > 
| > I'm afraid you have some of the facts wrong.
| > 
| > WordPerfect Corp dropped WP for OS/2 before they sold the company to
| > Novell. By the time Corel got the remnants of WPCorp, the OS/2
| > version(s) were history.
| 
| What does that mean?  That they burned the code on a bonfire?  They
| could have released an OS/2 version at any time but chose not to.  I
| wonder if Microsoft had anything to do with that?  

It means that the decision to drop WordPerfect for OS/2 was committed 
long before Corel owned the company... at least a year beforehand, and
probably more than that. (I'm vague on how long Novell actually owned 
WPCorp, and I don't care about the matter enough to look it up.)

Neither you nor I have any idea what happened to the source code, or 
what shape it was really in... but I've seen plenty of software 
projects inside large corporations, and code gets lost a lot more 
often than you'd expect -- even when the company isn't sold. In any 
case, version 6 wasn't ready for prime time -- it was a few weeks away
from beta, but by definition beta code has bugs. (If it didn't, they'd
release it.) WPCorp, at least, earned a good reputation by shipping 
quality code, and I used several WP6DOS beta versions during the 
months when I was writing my part of the WordPerfect 6.0 DOS 
SuperBook. So even with enthusiasm behind it, the code wasn't ready to
ship "at any time" -- and you haven't even taken marketing expenses 
into account.

David, you keep trying to present this debate as if I'm defending 
Microsoft's (alleged) actions, or as though I'm implying that 
Microsoft has never brought pressure to bear upon any ISV. That's not 
so. However, not everybody who develops for Windows wears a black hat 
or is a Microsoft zombie. In this particular case, I think that 
WordPerfect made its own choices -- though they turned out to be bad 
choices for OS/2 users.

That doesn't mean that Microsoft hasn't influenced anybody, or hasn't 
at least *tried* to influence anybody. (Hell, I get calls from WaggEd 
too, and I have plenty of Microsoft stuff arrive at my door. Just 
because they want my attention doesn't mean they get it, any more than
a guy gets laid just because he keeps asking one girl for a date.) 
I've had a lot of conversations with ISV marketing managers over the 
years, and I have a pretty good insight into the pressures that were 
and weren't applied... and believe me, a company's own idiocy can 
account for a lot more stupid actions than Microsoft could ever dream 
of. 

|You are holding grudges against
| companies who were facing monopoly-driven pressure from Microsoft. 

You don't know that it was Microsoft pressure that caused Corel (or 
anyone) to make the choices they did. You weren't there. You don't 
know what other facts they had to deal with, or whose personal 
preference held sway, or anything else. You can *suppose* anything you
like, but you don't know -- and neither do I.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            31-Oct-99 21:41:10
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-kOFnX9dfXyE8@agave.bitranch.com>, 
esther@bitranch.com says...
>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:41:51, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
>| Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living. If you are not coding
Java
>| then you must be planing on going into marketing or retiring.
>
>What color is the sky on your planet?
>
>Java is a tool. It's a good tool, for some things, but it's not a 
>golden bullet that solves all problems or is suitable for all 
>purposes. There are any number of reasons not to write in Java, 
>including
>
>* application performance
>* a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
>* willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or 
>niche
>
>--Esther
>
>

I would throw tool availability into this. C++, for example, currently has
more 
dev tools available than Java.



-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                31-Oct-99 21:25:10
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7v5nt1$eeq$7@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:


> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 

I don't understand.

> But
> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
> screwed up the correct attributions. 

Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem as Marty
also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?

> Note that the URL and
> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
> you wrote one and I wrote the other.

Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain anything
else?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: possum@tree.branch                                01-Nov-99 02:17:14
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: possum@tree.branch (Mike Trettel)

On 31 Oct 1999 14:00:19 -0800, Tim Smith <tzs@halcyon.com> wrote:
>Mike Trettel <Y'all have to fix this@nowhere> wrote:

>
>You need to retake your course in logic.  There is nothing hard about
>disproving a negative assertion.

Yeah, you're right.  I realized that after I posted that I hadn't really
said what I meant, but was hoping to get away with it.  Got me!

>
>-- 
>--Tim Smith
> +----G----D--------G---D-----G-----D----------Em---A7------+-Cat Stevens--+
> |And if I ever lose my eyes, if my colour all runs dry...   \"Moonshadow"/|
> |yes if I ever lose my eyes, oh if..........., I won't have to cry no more|
> +----G----D--------G---D--------Em-A7-D-F#m-Bm---Em------------A------D---+


-- 
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 01-Nov-99 02:24:26
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vihnm$7tc$2@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>>>>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>>>>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
>>>>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>
>>>> Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.
>
>>> LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
>>> comprehensible to a human.
>
>> WinZip can extract the contents of the archive, just as if you had
>> run the self-extraction program.  The point of a self-extracting archive
>> is to be able to uncompress the archive without an archive tool.  If
>> you have an archive tool that understands the format, such as WinZip, 
>> then you can use that tool.
>
>I used OS/2 as my "tool", Mike.  It understands LX format executables.

You did not use OS/2 as your archive tool, you simply ran the self-
extracting archive.  I see you have nothing to counter what I wrote.

>> That's what I did.  That's what everyone else involved in this thread
>> understands that I did.  Several people even verified it themselves.
>
>On what basis do you claim to know what "everyone else involved in this
>thread" did, Mike?

I didn't say that at all; I said they understand what I did.  I know
that because they've said so, and several people were able to duplicate
the relatively easy feat.

>> You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
>> these simple facts.
>
>You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
>the simple fact that Joseph's statement is not "bullshit", contrary to
>your claim.

I've already addressed this point -- you are bringing it up again merely
as a diversion, because you cannot accept the fact that your stupid
little "trap" backfired on you.  

I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
example, is not included.

>>>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
>
>>>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
>
>>>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.
>
>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>
>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
>
>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.
>
>I can read the file as well, Mike.

You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.

>Does that prove that I ran WinZip?

It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?  No, since
other tools allow one to get than information, despite the string that
says "This program must be run on OS/2".

In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already.  Curtis
Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.  Why is this such
a difficult thing for you to accept?

>> I am able to give you much more information about the archive and the
>> files in it than if I had run the archive on OS/2.
>
>On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

The basis of seeing the output of a self-extracting archive.  It does
not provide similar information.

>>>> Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?
>
>>> Such as OS/2?
>
>> Obviously WinZip is better than the tools which you use on OS/2, since
>> WinZip can extract the files from the archive, whereas the archive
>> tool you use on OS/2 cannot.
>
>Marty claimed otherwise, Mike.

And you disagreed with him.  Thus, one of three things is true:

  a) Marty is lying (I don't believe this).
  b) You are lying.
  c) You are incompetent, because you are unable to accomplish a simple
      task with the same tool that Marty used to accomplish that task.

I'm leaning towards b) or c).  Further, if you can use InfoZip to extract
the contents of the file yourself, then you have your own proof that
one is not required to run the archive to extract the files.

>>>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.
>
>>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>>>>> Mike.
>
>>>> Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
>>>> don't bother to test that evidence at all.
>
>>> I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
>>> doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.
>
>> Your comparison of using LIST vs. using WinZip demonstrates your
>> ignorance of the subject once again.
>
>It does no such thing, Mike. 

Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.

If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
why bring up LIST at all?  Either:

  a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
     contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
     are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.
  b) You *did* know that WinZip could be used to extract the files
     from the archive, but you brought up LIST in a pathetic attempt
     to try to salvage your argument and confuse the readers. 

Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               31-Oct-99 22:46:06
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Mike Timbol wrote:
> 
> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already.  Curtis
> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.  Why is this such
> a difficult thing for you to accept?

He may not have been able to see that article.  I saw it at work, but my
RR news server does not seem to carry it (perhaps because the attachment
is of a certain size or somesuch reason).  I don't see it in Deja News
either.  I will put the JPG in question on my web server tomorrow and
provide a link so that anyone who wants to see it may do so.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          31-Oct-99 21:49:16
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :

> On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 13:58:49, Hobbyist 
> <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:
> 
> > > So? Why do you think they invented 'regclean'?
> > 
> > And why do you think they invented Unimaint for OS/2? :))
> > 
> In my experience Unimaint was very necessary for OS/2 v2 and
> 3 but Warp 4 has almost no need for it (sure its handy 
> sometimes and nice to have but I can/could operate without 
> it - and couldn't under 2 or 3). Warp 4 was and is very 
> stable re ini file's for me

For *you*. My only acquaintance with OS/2 was with warp4 and I had ini
file problems from very early in it's use. I was having queer problems
with the WPS and was about to drop OS/2 in frustration when I was
advised to get Unimaint and use it. On the first ini repair, my
problems literally disappeared. It was amazing actually. It became my
close friend and this was the same for many of my OS/2 buddies.

I found my ini files to be most vulnerable when using my zip drive as
well. The ini files would become packed with unknown file handles as
my zip drive contents would change. 

Quite a few application installs hosed my WPS as well, and Unimaints
ini file backup utility saved my ass on these few occasions. The
version I used was for OS/2 Warp 4 BTW, and a best seller at that. You
guys can certainly spout misinformation.

OS/2's ini file stability reminds me of the windows registry
instability. It's minimised by not modifying it frequently. If you
install a few apps and leave the system alone, not fiddling too much
with the system settings, then you should be fine. If you are
frequently making configuration changes, installing and uninstalling
many apps then Unimaint is good to have around and so is Regclean, and
there's no doubt about that.

-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
         <remove _nospam_>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          01-Nov-99 03:20:27
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
>We're trying to get this theory tested
>that if we know each other's age, we could have a go at more sensible 
>(but probably also more boring <G>) discussions.

There's a problem with your theory. It doesn't explain why a 38 year
old man such as yourself is so clueless, (not to mention incompetent
as evidenced by your recent, repeated bumbling reposting of messages.
And you're the person who has the nerve to talk about "ignorant
Windows users"???)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:23:19
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>> Why do you say that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> What makes you say that?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> What makes you believe that?

> Can you elaborate?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Are you sure this is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Are you sure that those are mine?

> Does it bother you that those are yours?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Are you sure that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
>>>>> with this.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> What makes you believe that?

> Don't you know?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Are you sure that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> Illogical.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I need a little more detail please.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Are you sure that those are mine?

> When did you first know that those were yours?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> Are you sure that is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>> right back at you?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Are you sure that this is the real reason?

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that you
say
>>>>> I do not approve phrases either?

>>>> Don't ask me.

>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your plans
>>> have something to do with this.

>> What makes you believe that?

> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:25:19
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 

> I don't understand.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>> But
>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
>> screwed up the correct attributions. 

> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem as Marty
> also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>> Note that the URL and
>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.

> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain anything
> else?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:21:24
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:

>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:

>>>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something
>>>>>> akin to an Eliza program and tholened:

>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you
respond
>>>>>> like Eliza?

>>>>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.

>>> What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> What makes you say that?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> How hypocritical.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile game",
>>>> Marty.

>>> Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g* in
>>> an infantile game.

>> What makes you believe that?

> Can you elaborate on that?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:29:01
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

> I like it. I like it a lot.

Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)

Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:35:26
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>> But those aren't the "newest threads".

>>> Well... indeed. Otherwise I might have come to your conclusion. But I 
>>> didn't, so I haven't.
>>> ...
>>> I think.

>> You're not sure?

> The auxiliaries are getting me confused.

"Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
I do?"
   --Nick Danger

>>>>> As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
>>>>> doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
>>>>> the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
>>>>> do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.

>>>> Or it might have to do with you aging.

>>> Never!
>>> No way!
>>> It's the shows, you see! They've gotten dummer, you see!
>>> It's not me!
>>> You see!

>> You mean "dumber"?

> Damn these new-fangled keyboards!
> Back in them olden days when we had quills and proper ink, this kind 
> of thing didn't happen.

If by "this kind of thing" you mean misspellings, I disagree.

> Anyway, we were talking about getting old, right?

Among other things.

>>>>> And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
>>>>> least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
>>>>> 38, BTW.

>>>> You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.

>>> Which is...?

>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.  Let's
>> put it this way:  I watched the original run of "The Prisoner".

> Dude! You're *ancient*!

That depends on your definition of "ancient".

> I've met people who considered me a dinosaur, 
> just because I saw Armstrong taking his first step live...

So did I.

> But I was really asking for the address of your page...

There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.

>>>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 
>>>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

>>>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
>>>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

>>>> Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he complained
>>>> about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
>>>> to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?

>>> Without getting into something I haven't been following: I've never 
>>> quite understood the use of a kill-file. I don't filter out anything; 
>>> if I don't want to read a certain post or poster, I just don't read 
>>> it. A simple <CTRL>-<ALT>-<R> in ProNews will mark all articles read, 
>>> whether I've actually sniffled them or not. When the counter reaches 
>>> 1,500, they're all history.

>> Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that Marty didn't
>> claim to make use of a killfile.

> Oh, I know for a fact that he claimed it. I read the post. This was 
> just a casual observation on my part. In any case, his explanation 
> that your changed ID futzed up his killfilter sounds valid. If I 
> learned one thing on UseNet, it's to be careful with the supposed 
> intentions behind the facts. It's easier to ask than to speculate.

Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
the complaint in the first place.

>>> I can understand why some might want to filter out spam, but it's no 
>>> big problem in the groups I follow and anyway, spammers aren't very 
>>> well caught by killfilters. Frankly, I suspect that post people who 
>>> "put someone in their killfile" only wrote this to p*ss said person 
>>> off and will continue to read the posts, reveling in the increasing 
>>> levels of frustration and anger of the victim when nobody answers 
>>> back. There's nothing worse than a one-sided discussion.

>> Which is consistent with the fact that some of the people who made the
>> most boisterous claims of putting me in their killfile did wind up
>> responding to me later on, including Mike Timbol, David Leblanc, and
>> now Marty.
>>
>> However, the increased level of frustration was on their part, not
>> mine, because they couldn't resist responding any longer.

> Which is very interesting. Some of them said they would rather stick 
> their genitals in a meat-grinder than ever talk to you again (well, 
> maybe not in those words...). Yet they all come back. Hmmm...

Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
Marty's "infantile game".

>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.

> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
> mind". So: thanks.

I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.

> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
> replies)

They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of references.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:38:16
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
 
>>>>> -- snip --
 
>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
>>>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
 
>>>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the *SELF-EXTRACTION
>>>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
 
>>>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
>>>> that claim?
 
>>> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
>>> You even verified that for me.
 
>> I did no such thing, Marty.

> DT] Here's the output, Marty:
> DT]
> DT] E:\>javainuf
> DT] This program must be run under OS/2.

That's not an indication that it can be run under DOS, Marty.  Indeed,
the message is not "This program just ran under DOS."  Obviously the
program itself doesn't agree with your definition of "run", Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 04:46:04
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>> Karel Jansens wrote:

>>>>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some
>>>>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

>>>>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

>>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be
>>>>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

>>>>> I'll save Dave the trouble... Yes.  Dave may have misunderstood my
>>>>> intention to play an infantile game.  Oh brother.

>>>> OK, this one I don't get. So did you have the intention of playing "an
>>>> infantile game"? Or were you doing something else that got mistaken
>>>> for "an infantile game"?

>>> No infantile game exists on my part.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I've reproduced actual quotations of yours that can
>> be logically explained only by the existence of your "infantile game".

> Absolutely incorrect Dave.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> Dave assumes that since I admitted to "playing" one in the past (when
>>> I was mimicking him) that he can write off anything I say in the future
>>> as an infantile game.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm not relying on any assumption.  I'm relying on
>> your actual statements and your actual behavior.

>>> This in itself, is infantile on his part as I have pointed out
>>> repeatedly.

>> Your repeated pontification doesn't prove any "infantile" behavior on
>> my part, Marty.

> You've repeatedly declared that I am playing an infantile game
> regardless of what I post.

Incorrect, Marty.  I have not claimed that your responses to others are
part of an "infantile game".

> This is infantile on your part.

You're erroneously presupposing that I've declared you are playing an
"infantile game" regardless of what you post.

> No pontification necessary.

A factual statement is necessary, Marty.  You didn't write one.

>> I did not have you in a killfile, for example.

> How would that be proof of an infantile game?

Still having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I'm showing
the difference between your behavior and mine, which shows why you
can NOT conclude that I am playing an "infantile game".  That is, I
wasn't even trying to prove an "infantile game" on my part.

>> I did not jump into a thread to respond to a posting of yours that was in
>> response to someone else, for another example.

> You certainly have Dave.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>> Anyway, how old are you, Marty?

>>> Old enough to have a degree in Computer Engineering and a full time job
>>> with IBM supporting myself after having 5 previous years of work
>>> experience.

>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.

> I guess I should be fired then, because I haven't insulted any people
> here.

Incorrect, Marty.  Witness your claim that I'm not a normal person.

>> And don't forget MAME, Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

> What does my work on a new audio system and advanced graphics animation
> applications for OS/2

Otherwise known as games, Marty.  Arcade games.

> have to do with being infantile Dave?

It shows your attraction to games, Marty.

> Is it infantile to contribute to the OS/2 community?

It is "infantile" to follow people around, insulting them, Marty.

> All I did is write the system upon which MAME can be run natively
> in OS/2.  I am not responsible for the games themselves.

Irrelevant, Marty.  You obviously have an interest in those games.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 00:09:16
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
> >>>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the
*SELF-EXTRACTION
> >>>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
> >>>> that claim?
> 
> >>> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
> >>> You even verified that for me.
> 
> >> I did no such thing, Marty.
> 
> > DT] Here's the output, Marty:
> > DT]
> > DT] E:\>javainuf
> > DT] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> That's not an indication that it can be run under DOS, Marty.  Indeed,
> the message is not "This program just ran under DOS."  Obviously the
> program itself doesn't agree with your definition of "run", Marty.

Create a file called Test.CMD with the following contents Dave [the
first line (comment) is necessary to tell it that it is a REXX script]:

/* REXX program */
say "This program cannot be run in OS/2."
exit

Then run this program.  Did it run?  Did the string it displayed agree
with reality?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 00:13:13
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is playing the
game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.  I have a
high degree of confidence that the readers will decide correctly.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 05:04:15
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Time for a new approach...

How about an old approach, Marty, namely putting me back in your
killfile?

> I'm no longer going to respond to your baby-talk tripe accusing me
> of an infantile game.

That won't prove that you're not playing an "infantile game", Marty.
Remember, actions speak louder than words (or lack of words).

> I will only respond to your attempt to address issues.

But you claimed that I don't address issues, Marty, which means that
you won't respond to me at all.  Or if you do, then you are tacitly
admitted that I do address issues, thereby contradicting your earlier
claim.

> This should save us both a lot of bandwidth.

Leaving me in your killfile would save even more, Marty.  You have yet
to explain your motivation for responding to the thread with Mr.
"134 articles a day", for example.  You accomplished nothing as far as
I am concerned.  You may have entertained yourself, but that would only
support the claim that you're simply playing an "infantile game".

>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 JDK?

>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend
it
>>>>>>>>>>> the first time:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."

>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
>>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract
its
>>>>>>> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting
archive
>>>>>>> in a DOS session, it will run.

>>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
>>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

>>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and exit,
>>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.

>>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

>>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
>>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
>>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then calls
>>>>> INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
>>>>> inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.

>>>> That's what you call "running" the program, Marty?

>>> Yes.

>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
>> responses to me.

> It runs code from inside of the executable.

Why do you think the program issues the error message it does, Marty?
Obviously the program itself doesn't think it can be run under DOS.

> It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
> case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the case
> of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.

Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question is
a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't, otherwise it would have self
extracted the archive.  It didn't.

> In either case it is executing.

The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
that it MUST be run under OS/2?
 
>>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.

>> The program doesn't run, Marty.

> The program does in fact run.

No archive was extracted, Marty.

>>> That's what I call running.

>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
>> responses to me.

>>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS
session.

>>> No.  I said the executable would.

>> Balderdash, Marty:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.
>>
>> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence of a
>> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it will
>> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the 
>> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick, Marty.  
>> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two subjects is 
>> a logical choice.

> Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
> executable in question?

Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You claimed
that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run in a
DOS session.  It does not.

The fact that you're arguing about what you said, when it's quite clear
that what I quoted is exactly what you you said, is yet more evidence
that you're continuing your "infantile game".  Remember, actions speak
louder than words.

>>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.

>>> Right.

>> Glad you agree, Marty.

>>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
>>> ^
>>> |---- Incorrect statement.

>> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the program,
>> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?

> There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.

> A stub is <executing>. 

A stub is not a self-extracting archive, Marty.

> Code is being run from inside of the executable to display the string
> you saw.

Code is not being run to self-extract the archive, Marty.

> If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
> MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
> MOV DX, [address of string]
> INT 21
> MOV AH, 0
> INT 21

I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
is.  Yet more evidence that you're simply playing an "infantile game".
Or are you trying to hide your embarassment over the fact that you
claimed the self-extracting archive would run in a DOS session?

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>>>>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
format
>>>>>>>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

>>>>>>> The archive format is portable.

>>>>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
"InfoZip"?

>>>>> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
>>>>> format is portable.

>>>> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood the
>>>> difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.

>>> Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me how
>>> this makes a difference.

>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

> So we both agree that the archive format, as present inside the
> executable, is portable then?

Ask Timbol if you and he both agree, Marty.  He's the one who brought
it up.

>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
>>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?

>>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

>>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
>>>>> could view the archive.

>>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?

>>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>> DT] file?
>>>
>>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
>>>
>>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't represent
>> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.

> You are questioning the fact that he could read it.

Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran the
self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.

> That constitutes a challenge in my book.

That constitutes as a reading comprehension problem on your part in my
book, Marty.

> He, in fact, can read it.

So can I, Marty.

> Do you accept this fact?

I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't
include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 05:09:28
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
 
>>>>>>> -- snip --
 
>>>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
>>>>>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
 
>>>>>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the
*SELF-EXTRACTION
>>>>>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
 
>>>>>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you challenge
>>>>>> that claim?
 
>>>>> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
>>>>> You even verified that for me.
 
>>>> I did no such thing, Marty.
 
>>> DT] Here's the output, Marty:
>>> DT]
>>> DT] E:\>javainuf
>>> DT] This program must be run under OS/2.
 
>> That's not an indication that it can be run under DOS, Marty.  Indeed,
>> the message is not "This program just ran under DOS."  Obviously the
>> program itself doesn't agree with your definition of "run", Marty.

> Create a file called Test.CMD with the following contents Dave [the
> first line (comment) is necessary to tell it that it is a REXX script]:
>
> /* REXX program */
> say "This program cannot be run in OS/2."
> exit
>
> Then run this program.  Did it run?

Typical inappropriate analogy.  The above REXX script is not a
self-extracting archive, Marty.  When you run it, it does what it's
supposed to do and everything it's supposed to do.  When you run
javainuf.exe on DOS, it does NOT self extract the archive.

> Did the string it displayed agree with reality?

Typical inappropriate analogy.  Programmers can make programs issue all
sorts of illogical strings.  The fact of the matter is that the archive
did NOT self-extract under DOS, contrary to your claim.  You can argue
semantics all you want while trying to save face, Marty, but that would
just add to the evidence that you are playing an "infantile game'.

Or is the above REXX script an example of your programming style, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 05:14:23
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is playing the
> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.

Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT run
under DOS, Marty?

Does the above "no longer respond" mean you're putting me back in your
killfile?  Or do you now intend to play a semantic game over what
constitutes an accusation?

> I have a high degree of confidence that the readers will decide
> correctly.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, Marty.  The fact of
the matter is that not too many days ago, you complained about my
antispammed ID, which didn't allow your killfile to filter out my
alleged "drivel".  Suddenly you can't get enough of my alleged "drivel".
You've posted thousands of lines of responses, mostly making personal
attacks.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             01-Nov-99 05:34:25
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <7vbqs7$sen$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

-- snip --

> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> file?

Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
self-extracting archive, your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.


> > I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
>
> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>
> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.
> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility). Where
is the logic, here? Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip
cannot read the contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving
that no other tool can?

Are you really that stupid, Dave?

Are you trying to make OS/2 look bad? You're doing a fine job of it on
at least two counts: 1) showing the world that an OS/2 ZIP archive tool
is weaker than a Windows ZIP archive tool, and 2) showing the world that
a certain OS/2 user is technically inept, yet stubborn beyond reason.

-- snip --

> Here's the output, Mike:
>
> ] PKSFX(R)  Version 2.50  FAST!  Self Extract Utility for OS/2
> ] 5-1-1997 Copyright 1989-1997 PKWARE Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
> ] Shareware Version PKSFX Reg. U.S. Pat. and Tm. Off.
>
> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
> Mike.

Try to notice that Mike never claimed to have run the self-extraction,
Dave.  Try to stop your stupidity.

If you can.

-- snip --

> You're presupposing that I've reached incorrect conclusions regarding
> the file in question, Mike.

No. He is observing that you have reached an incorrect conclusion that
one needs OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, but you
are too blind with obstinate stupidity to comprehend this.

> > You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
>
> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

No need to "prove" it, any more than there is a need to "prove" that the
sky is blue on a clear day.

> > Good show.
>
> You're providing the entertainment, Mike.

I'm sure that this delusion makes you feel all warm'n'toasty inside, but
it's hardly the truth. You are providing entertainment through your
buffoonery.

> >> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
> >> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
> >> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.
>
> > It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.
>
> What alleged ignorance, Mike?

Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance of WinZip's capabilities, Dave.

> > I could read the contents of the file from Linux, Solaris, Windows
> > NT, even DOS.
>
> DOS responds with:
>
> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
>
> > I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT.
>
> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

-- [repeat of InfoZip's choking snipped] --

Repeating your ineptness proves nothing but your ineptness.

-- snip --


Curtis



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         01-Nov-99 05:36:13
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>>>>>> ]   a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>>>>>> ]   latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found 
on
>>>>>> ]   the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>>>> Bummer for you, then.  WinZip can read the file just fine.

>>>> LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything
>>>> comprehensible to a human.

>>> WinZip can extract the contents of the archive, just as if you had
>>> run the self-extraction program.  The point of a self-extracting archive
>>> is to be able to uncompress the archive without an archive tool.  If
>>> you have an archive tool that understands the format, such as WinZip, 
>>> then you can use that tool.

>> I used OS/2 as my "tool", Mike.  It understands LX format executables.

> You did not use OS/2 as your archive tool,

Irrelevant, Mike, given that I didn't say I did.

> you simply ran the self-extracting archive.

Thereby following the instructions on IBM's web site, Mike.

> I see you have nothing to counter what I wrote.

On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.

>>> That's what I did.  That's what everyone else involved in this thread
>>> understands that I did.  Several people even verified it themselves.

>> On what basis do you claim to know what "everyone else involved in this
>> thread" did, Mike?

> I didn't say that at all;

Incorrect, Mike.  You wrote:

MT] That's what everyone else involved in this thread understands
MT] that I did.

> I said they understand what I did.

On what basis do you claim to know what "everyone else" understands,
Mike?

> I know that because they've said so,

Oh really?  Where did Joseph say so, Mike?  Where did Karel say so,
Mike?

> and several people were able to duplicate the relatively easy feat.

Oh really?  Were they able to confirm that the contents prove that no
Java 2 security classes were included in the JDK, Mike?

>>> You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
>>> these simple facts.

>> You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
>> the simple fact that Joseph's statement is not "bullshit", contrary to
>> your claim.

> I've already addressed this point

You haven't retracted it, Mike.

> -- you are bringing it up again merely as a diversion,

Balderdash, Mike.  It's the original issue, from which everything else
stems.

> because you cannot accept the fact that your stupid little "trap"
> backfired on you.  

It did no such thing, Mike.

> I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
> example, is not included.

You claimed that Java 2 security classes are not included, Mike.
Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.

>>>>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.

>>>>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.

>>>>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>
>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.

>> I can read the file as well, Mike.

> You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.

Fortunately, I have more tools available to me than just the LIST
command, Mike.

>> Does that prove that I ran WinZip?

> It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
> archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?

Does that prove that I ran WinZip?

> No, since other tools allow one to get than information, despite the
> string that says "This program must be run on OS/2".

Don't try the Marty approach of a REXX script that is purposely
designed to lie, Mike.

> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already.  Curtis
> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.

Where is this alleged post, Mike?

> Why is this such a difficult thing for you to accept?

Why is the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
OS/2 such a difficult thing for you to accept, Mike?  Why is the
shortness of my original reply to you due to *your* deletion of
Joseph's text such a difficult thing for you to admit?  Why do you
continue to delete the evidence, Mike?  I just keep reinserting it.

>>> I am able to give you much more information about the archive and the
>>> files in it than if I had run the archive on OS/2.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> The basis of seeing the output of a self-extracting archive.

How did you see the output of this particular self-extracting
archive, Mike?

> It does not provide similar information.

How can you be sure, Mike?

>>>>> Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?

>>>> Such as OS/2?

>>> Obviously WinZip is better than the tools which you use on OS/2, since
>>> WinZip can extract the files from the archive, whereas the archive
>>> tool you use on OS/2 cannot.

>> Marty claimed otherwise, Mike.

> And you disagreed with him.

I simply posted the output from my run, Mike.

> Thus, one of three things is true:
>
>  a) Marty is lying (I don't believe this).

Why not, Mike?  Marty's been proven to lie on several other occasions.

>  b) You are lying.

The output I posted is genuine, Mike.

>  c) You are incompetent, because you are unable to accomplish a simple
>      task with the same tool that Marty used to accomplish that task.

Illogical, Mike.

> I'm leaning towards b) or c).

Perhaps you'd like to list the possible reasons for you claiming that
Joseph's statement is "bullshit", Mike.

> Further, if you can use InfoZip to extract the contents of the file
> yourself, then you have your own proof that one is not required to
> run the archive to extract the files.

I followed IBM's instructions, Mike.

>>>>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your logic is.

>>>>>> Once again, you've demonstrated just how useless your evidence is,
>>>>>> Mike.

>>>>> Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
>>>>> don't bother to test that evidence at all.

>>>> I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
>>>> doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.

>>> Your comparison of using LIST vs. using WinZip demonstrates your
>>> ignorance of the subject once again.

>> It does no such thing, Mike. 

> Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.

How ironic, coming from the person who really has no argument, which
explains the frequent deletions.

> If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
> why bring up LIST at all?

It's a way to "read" the file, Mike.  Knowing you, I'd wouldn't be
surprised if you used that definition of "read" to avoid admitting
that the usual definition doesn't apply.

> Either:
>
>   a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
>      contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
>      are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.

How ironic, coming from someone who displayed his "ignrance" [sic] when
he claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".

>   b) You *did* know that WinZip could be used to extract the files
>      from the archive, but you brought up LIST in a pathetic attempt
>      to try to salvage your argument and confuse the readers. 

How ironic, coming from someone who deletes text in a pathetic attempt
to try to salvave his argument and confuse the readers.

> Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
> be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).

Nothing "backfired" on me, Mike.  However, your attempt to get readers
to believe that Joseph's statement is "bullshit" backfired on you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 01:08:04
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> > I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is playing the
> > game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.
> 
> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT run
> under DOS, Marty?

You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have shown.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 01:29:22
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2
JDK?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not comprehend 
it
> >>>>>>>>>>> the first time:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the contents."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
> >>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to extract
its
> >>>>>>> contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting
archive
> >>>>>>> in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
> >>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and
exit,
> >>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.
> 
> >>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.
> 
> >>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
> >>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with the
> >>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then
calls
> >>>>> INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This program stub is
> >>>>> inside the executable file, hence the program is executed under DOS.
> 
> >>>> That's what you call "running" the program, Marty?
> 
> >>> Yes.
> 
> >> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
> >> responses to me.
> 
> > It runs code from inside of the executable.
> 
> Why do you think the program issues the error message it does, Marty?
> Obviously the program itself doesn't think it can be run under DOS.

See my REXX example code.  The program is certainly executed, regardless
of what it does or says.
 
> > It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
> > case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the case
> > of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.
> 
> Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question is
> a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't,

Quite incorrect again.  Do you know what a "bound executable" is?  The
DOS and OS/2 programs are bound together into a single EXE file.  In the
case of JAVAINUF.EXE the DOS part of the file displays the message you
quoted and exits.

> otherwise it would have self extracted the archive.  It didn't.

That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.

> > In either case it is executing.
> 
> The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
> that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> >>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.
> 
> >> The program doesn't run, Marty.
> 
> > The program does in fact run.
> 
> No archive was extracted, Marty.

That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
executable was run.

> >>> That's what I call running.
> 
> >> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like your
> >> responses to me.
> 
> >>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS
session.
> 
> >>> No.  I said the executable would.
> 
> >> Balderdash, Marty:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> >>
> >> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence of a
> >> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it will
> >> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the
> >> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick, Marty.
> >> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two subjects is
> >> a logical choice.
> 
> > Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
> > executable in question?
> 
> Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You claimed
> that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
> said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run in a
> DOS session.  It does not.

It does because the self-extracting archive is JAVAINUF.EXE.

> >>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.
> 
> >>> Right.
> 
> >> Glad you agree, Marty.
> 
> >>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
> >>> ^
> >>> |---- Incorrect statement.
> 
> >> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the program,
> >> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?
> 
> > There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Stubs do not get displayed Dave.  They get executed.
 
> > A stub is <executing>.
> 
> A stub is not a self-extracting archive, Marty.

The EXE file is.  The EXE file can be executed under DOS.

> > Code is being run from inside of the executable to display the string
> > you saw.
> 
> Code is not being run to self-extract the archive, Marty.
> 
> > If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
> > MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
> > MOV DX, [address of string]
> > INT 21
> > MOV AH, 0
> > INT 21
> 
> I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
> is.

On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.  You seem to
think it can be displayed in a meaningful way.  Unless one knows machine
opcodes, it cannot.

> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Nothing is untrue about this statement.
 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
format
> >>>>>>>> portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

[where I entered the thread]
> >>>>>>> The archive format is portable.
> 
> >>>>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
"InfoZip"?
> 
> >>>>> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the archive
> >>>>> format is portable.
> 
> >>>> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood the
> >>>> difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.
> 
> >>> Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me how
> >>> this makes a difference.
> 
> >> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> > So we both agree that the archive format, as present inside the
> > executable, is portable then?
> 
> Ask Timbol if you and he both agree, Marty.  He's the one who brought
> it up.

And you bring the point up into our discussion.  Did you have a point in
doing so?  Do you agree that the archive format is portable?  A simple
"yes" or "no" will suffice quite nicely.

> >>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> >>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> >>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
> >>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?
> 
> >>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that he
> >>>>> could view the archive.
> 
> >>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?
> 
> >>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >>> DT] file?
> >>>
> >>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> >>>
> >>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't represent
> >> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.
> 
> > You are questioning the fact that he could read it.
> 
> Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran the
> self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.

What point would that prove?  You were questioning the validity of his
reasoning based on his availability to verify his own claims.

> > He, in fact, can read it.
> 
> So can I, Marty.
> 
> > Do you accept this fact?
> 
> I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't
> include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?

This is a different issue.  It does not seem to include them in such a
way that standard Java 1.2 programs would be able to access them.  They
are included as implementation specific plugins which are not guaranteed
to conform to Java 1.2 standards, and as such seem to be fairly
useless.  If I were a Java programmer, I would be quite hesitant to use
these functions.  If portability was a concern I could not use these
functions at all.

You still have no answered the question I posed:  Do you accept the fact
that Mike can read the archive's contents in a meaningful way and
extract them if he chooses?  Again, a simple "yes" or "no" will suffice
quite nicely.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             01-Nov-99 06:15:14
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <7vgfkg$i61$2@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Marty writes:
>

-- snip --

> >>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
>
> >> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
> >> format portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.
>
> > The archive format is portable.
>
> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
> "InfoZip"?

He was probably just testing the depths of your ignorance, Dave.

BTW, *DO* you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
You seem quite interested in *NOT* answering the question.

-- snip --

> > He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its contents.
> > How is that irrelevant?
>
> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

And how, pray tell, does that make it "irrelevant?"  After all, it can
also be done ***WITHOUT*** OS/2.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 01:42:12
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see, quite
> >>>>>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the
*SELF-EXTRACTION
> >>>>>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you
challenge
> >>>>>> that claim?
> 
> >>>>> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
> >>>>> You even verified that for me.
> 
> >>>> I did no such thing, Marty.
> 
> >>> DT] Here's the output, Marty:
> >>> DT]
> >>> DT] E:\>javainuf
> >>> DT] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >> That's not an indication that it can be run under DOS, Marty.  Indeed,
> >> the message is not "This program just ran under DOS."  Obviously the
> >> program itself doesn't agree with your definition of "run", Marty.
> 
> > Create a file called Test.CMD with the following contents Dave [the
> > first line (comment) is necessary to tell it that it is a REXX script]:
> >
> > /* REXX program */
> > say "This program cannot be run in OS/2."
> > exit
> >
> > Then run this program.  Did it run?
> 
> Typical inappropriate analogy.  The above REXX script is not a
> self-extracting archive, Marty.  When you run it, it does what it's
> supposed to do and everything it's supposed to do.  When you run
> javainuf.exe on DOS, it does NOT self extract the archive.

The DOS stub does what it's supposed to do and everything it's supposed
to do.
 
> > Did the string it displayed agree with reality?
> 
> Typical inappropriate analogy.  Programmers can make programs issue all
> sorts of illogical strings.

As is true with JAVAINUF.EXE.

> The fact of the matter is that the archive did NOT self-extract under DOS,
> contrary to your claim.

I claimed it ran.  And it does.

> Or is the above REXX script an example of your programming style, Marty?

For a good example of my programming style download the source code to
MAME for OS/2. 
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/mameos2_source_36b7.zip.  I
wrote frontend.c, os2.c, and everything comprising GPMIXER.DLL in their
entirety, as well as having my hands in fixing several CPU cores and
usrintrf.c.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          01-Nov-99 06:53:29
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Marty
>> Create a file called Test.CMD with the following contents Dave [the
>> first line (comment) is necessary to tell it that it is a REXX script]:

>> /* REXX program */
>> say "This program cannot be run in OS/2."
>> exit

>> Then run this program.  Did it run?

>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>Typical inappropriate analogy.  The above REXX script is not a
>self-extracting archive, Marty.  When you run it, it does what it's
>supposed to do and everything it's supposed to do.  When you run
>javainuf.exe on DOS, it does NOT self extract the archive.

Ian apparently is too stupid to realize what a stub routine is
supposed to do when it runs. He doesn't realize that the stub did
"what it's supposed to do, and everything it's supposed to do" when he
ran it.

That's yet more proof that Tholen is technically illiterate.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          01-Nov-99 06:57:17
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Marty
>>In either case it is executing.

>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
>that it MUST be run under OS/2?

None of my Windows 3.1 software indicates that it runs under OS/2. In
fact, the requirements on the software box explicitly state that I
must have Windows 3.1.

What a moron.

Yet more proof that Tholen is technically illiterate.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: meilinger@wiesbaden.netsurf.de                    01-Nov-99 07:06:16
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Large OS/2 Customers List (LOS2CL) updated

From: meilinger@wiesbaden.netsurf.de

Hi,

http://rover.wiesbaden.netsurf.de/~meile/los2cl.html

LOS2CL has been updated.

Thank you for your help to improve the LOS2CL

greetings/2
 Frank

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                01-Nov-99 02:09:17
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vj4kb$m6v$2@news.hawaii.edu>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
(tholenantispam@hawaii.edu) wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>>>> Why do you say that?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > What makes you say that?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

> >>>>> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > Can you elaborate?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Are you sure this is the real reason?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

> >>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> > Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

> >>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> > Does it bother you that those are yours?
>
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> > When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

> >>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
> >>>>> with this.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > Don't you know?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> > Illogical.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> I need a little more detail please.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> > When did you first know that those were yours?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> > When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

> >>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
> >>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
> >>> right back at you?
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Are you sure that this is the real reason?
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

> >>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that
you say
> >>>>> I do not approve phrases either?
> 
> >>>> Don't ask me.
> 
> >>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your plans
> >>> have something to do with this.
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                01-Nov-99 02:10:03
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vj4gs$m6v$1@news.hawaii.edu>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
(tholenantispam@hawaii.edu) wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:
> 
> >>>> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something
> >>>>>> akin to an Eliza program and tholened:
> 
> >>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you
respond
> >>>>>> like Eliza?
> 
> >>>>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.
> 
> >>> What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > What makes you say that?
> 
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >>>>> How hypocritical.
> 
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile
game",
> >>>> Marty.
> 
> >>> Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g* in
> >>> an infantile game.
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                01-Nov-99 02:11:13
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vj4o2$m6v$3@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
> >> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
> >> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 
> 
> > I don't understand.
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >> But
> >> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
> >> screwed up the correct attributions. 
> 
> > Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem as Marty
> > also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
 
> >> Note that the URL and
> >> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
> >> you wrote one and I wrote the other.
> 
> > Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
> > indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain anything
> > else?
> 
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 01-Nov-99 08:28:02
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 05:45:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vj8sr$ofn$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>
>>>> WinZip can extract the contents of the archive, just as if you had
>>>> run the self-extraction program.  The point of a self-extracting archive
>>>> is to be able to uncompress the archive without an archive tool.  If
>>>> you have an archive tool that understands the format, such as WinZip, 
>>>> then you can use that tool.
>
>>> I used OS/2 as my "tool", Mike.  It understands LX format executables.
>
>> You did not use OS/2 as your archive tool, you simply ran the 
>> self-extracting archive.  I see you have nothing to counter what I wrote.
>
>On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
>contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.

Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 
that are actually included.

>>>> You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
>>>> these simple facts.
>
>>> You are the only person who has demonstrated an inability to understand
>>> the simple fact that Joseph's statement is not "bullshit", contrary to
>>> your claim.
>
>> I've already addressed this point -- you are bringing it up again 
>> merely as a diversion, because you cannot accept the fact that your 
>> stupid little "trap" backfired on you.  
>
>It did no such thing, Mike.

Of course it did.  You led me down a twistly little path in order to
spring your surprise proclamation that I must be running OS/2 to know
what's in the JDK.  Yet it backfired because because your assumptions were
wrong.  Your assumptions were wrong because you don't understand much
about self-extracting archives.

>> I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
>> example, is not included.
>
>You claimed that Java 2 security classes are not included, Mike.

And they're not.

>Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.

Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.

>>>>>>>>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
>
>>>>>>>> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
>>>>>>>> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
>
>>>>>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.
>
>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
>
>>>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.
>
>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.
>
>> You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.
>
>Fortunately, I have more tools available to me than just the LIST
>command, Mike.

Then tell me, Dave, other than running the file, are you able to read it
in a meaningful fashion?

>>> Does that prove that I ran WinZip?
>
>> It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
>> archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?  No, since 
>> other tools allow one to get than information, despite the string 
>> that says "This program must be run on OS/2".
>
>Don't try the Marty approach of a REXX script that is purposely
>designed to lie, Mike.

I'm taking the approach of telling you I used WinZip on Windows NT.
Why don't you try verifying the approach I actually used?  Or try
reading the file on a Unix box.  Instead, all you're doing is denying
reality with your idiotic and incorrect speculation.

>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already.  Curtis
>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.
>
>Where is this alleged post, Mike?

I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.

>> Why is this such a difficult thing for you to accept?
>
>Why is the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for
>OS/2 such a difficult thing for you to accept, Mike?  Why is the
>shortness of my original reply to you due to *your* deletion of
>Joseph's text such a difficult thing for you to admit?  Why do you
>continue to delete the evidence, Mike? 

I notice that you completely dodge the question.  As for your questions,
I've already addressed them.

>I just keep reinserting it.

And you're wasting bandwith every time.

>>>> I am able to give you much more information about the archive and the
>>>> files in it than if I had run the archive on OS/2.
>
>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?
>
>> The basis of seeing the output of a self-extracting archive.
>> It does not provide similar information.
>
>How can you be sure, Mike?

Dave, if you wish to claim that you can get the same information by
running the archive, then do so, and I will demonstrate why you are
wrong.  Otherwise, you have no argument.

>>>>>> Amazing what you can do with a good tool, eh?
>
>>>>> Such as OS/2?
>
>>>> Obviously WinZip is better than the tools which you use on OS/2, since
>>>> WinZip can extract the files from the archive, whereas the archive
>>>> tool you use on OS/2 cannot.
>
>>> Marty claimed otherwise, Mike.
>
>> And you disagreed with him.  Thus, one of three things is true:
>>
>>  a) Marty is lying (I don't believe this).
>>  b) You are lying.
>>  c) You are incompetent, because you are unable to accomplish a simple
>>      task with the same tool that Marty used to accomplish that task.
>
>Illogical, Mike.

Quite logical.  You were unable to accomplish the same task that Marty
did, and you claim you are using the same version of the same tool.

>> I'm leaning towards b) or c).
>
>Perhaps you'd like to list the possible reasons for you claiming that
>Joseph's statement is "bullshit", Mike.

I already addressed this, Dave.

>> Further, if you can use InfoZip to extract the contents of the file
>> yourself, then you have your own proof that one is not required to
>> run the archive to extract the files.
>
>I followed IBM's instructions, Mike.

And I demonstrated that that isn't required.

>>>>>> Astounding.  I tell you that I used WinZip under Windows NT, but you
>>>>>> don't bother to test that evidence at all.
>
>>>>> I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
>>>>> doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.
>
>>>> Your comparison of using LIST vs. using WinZip demonstrates your
>>>> ignorance of the subject once again.
>
>>> It does no such thing, Mike. 
>
>> Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.
>
>> If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
>> why bring up LIST at all?
>>
>>   a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
>>      contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
>>      are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who displayed his "ignrance" [sic] when
>he claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".

On the contrary, I know much more about OS/2's version of the JDK than
either you or Joseph.  I'll note that, once again, you completely fail
to address the point.

>>   b) You *did* know that WinZip could be used to extract the files
>>      from the archive, but you brought up LIST in a pathetic attempt
>>      to try to salvage your argument and confuse the readers. 
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who deletes text in a pathetic attempt
>to try to salvave his argument and confuse the readers.

Dave, you present your misinterpretation and cobbled together posts 
incessantly, though I've explained why you are wrong several times.
You refuse to address my argument at all.

>> Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
>> be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).
>
>Nothing "backfired" on me, Mike. 

Ah, so you deliberately planned to make yourself look stupid.  I see.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       01-Nov-99 11:07:08
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 10:23:23
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Dale Ross wrote:
>>But nowhere in your From line (or any header line) or your signature (what
>>signature, "Dale" ?) is there *any* mention of MVP.
>It most certainly is. But not here. Being an MVP has NOTHING to do with
>this echo. About the only place that I sign as an MVP is in the
>microsoft.public.* newsgroups.

Like I saw coming in advance, this "reason" (below).

>>Or should we assume that you use two signatures, one for MS groups and one
>>for advocacy? That would corroborate the secrecy of MVP-advocacy for MS.
>Sorry I do not do advocacy any more.

Then what are you doing now?
Just reacting, eh? But why would you be here to see the things to react to?
IOW, a non-reason.

>I've not posted in these groups for ~4 years now. I am simply addressing
>the MVP issues here.

That's "doing advocacy". In fact, it's quite the same as how you were
previously acting on this group, so if that _was_ "doing advocacy"...
 
>>Either way, you misrepresent yourself (yourselves).
>>Go away, liar(s).
>This is exactly one of the reasons I dropped playing in these groups. Such
>childish attitudes...

Holding you accountable for your conduct and statements here (out of your own
free will) is childish?
Anyway, something enticed you to come back snooping around here, *before* you
could have seen the MVP "issue" mentioned here, so one has to wonder why. Is
it strange, then, that some people say "a (new) MVP offensive"?

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       01-Nov-99 11:21:07
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 10:23:23
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Dale Ross wrote:
>>>These "MVP Bucks" are then applied towards a purchase in the Microsoft
>>>company store. You cannot use an "MVP buck" to pay your rent, you cannot
>>>use it to buy food.
>>But you can spend the money it saves you when buying that book on your
>>rent or food. It's still payment, whether you like the term or not.
>What money? There is no money. This "money" is about nothing more than
>monoply money.

Trouble reading?
The _real_ money that you would have to spend on Microsoft stuff an MS
supporter wants if you could not "pay" them with "credits" from the MVP
program.
You yourself use the term "purchase" in conjunction with these MVP credits and
say the "Bucks" are used to lower the actual real money amount payable for
this purchase.
You're trying to term-redefinition your way out of this.
 
>>>People come here and the Windows advocacy groups to argue about their
>>>choice of OS. Debating these kinds of issues simply isn't in the game
>>>plan for an MVP. An MVP works the microsoft.public.* groups and that is
>>>it.
>>Even if you were saying this in good faith, you cannot tell what's in the
>>"game plan" of other individuals, and neither can you stop any MVP with a
>>name known to you from using some anonymous mailing account.
>No I cannot. Now show ONE MVP that has done this. Evidence please.

I'm not that interested in showing MVPs are/have been actually doing this. I'm
just showing your "arguments" of how they _cannot_ / _will not_ (have) be(en)
doing this to be fallacious.
You just act like you speak for all MVP, and we have to take your word for it,
but you don't and we won't.
 
>>>Anything outside of those groups is not recognized by Microsoft.
>>"Steve Barkto" wasn't "recognized by Microsoft" (initially) either.
>>Hell, "Watergate" wasn't "recognized" (initially) by Nixon.
>>So what?
>Exactly SO?

So the being (*officially*) recognized by Microsoft doesn't say diddly-squat
about what is actually happening.
 
>>>Outside of those groups they are on their own.
>>Which even if true doesn't necessarily stops them. In fact, didn't you
>>just state that anyone posting here was "on his own" anyway?
>That is exactly right. Anyone that decides to post here is on their own.
>They are not under any control from anyone but themselves to do so.

So the statement "Outside of those groups they are on their own." is
superfluous and says nothing.
 
>>>And yes you will find MVPs outside the microsoft.public groups. You will
>>>find them in places like comp.os.ms-windows.misc for example. Microsoft
>>>MVPs help users with problems using Microsoft software. That's what we
>>>do.
>>That's nice of those MVPs. It's sure a whole lot more than what all those
>>Winvocates did/do in Windows groups, after urging people to leave OS/2.
>>Helping people with problems? "Windows ain't got no problems, it's the
>>best"
>And I suppose OS/2 doesn't have problems? I guess that no other OS in use 
>or applications in use have problems except Microsoft's. Yea right... Wake
>up and walk outside your glass house before you throw rocks.

Don't be daft. Ofcourse other OSes have problems.
The problem with the MS advocates we see here is that they invariably poo-pooh
or outright deny problems with MS stuff and are _never_ to be found in the
groups where their own statements are continually proven wrong.
OTOH, lots of the OS/2 and/or Linux and/or Mac advocates can be found on eg.
misc and apps groups actually helping people.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jasper_de_keijzer@nl.compuware.com                01-Nov-99 12:38:01
  To: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               01-Nov-99 10:23:23
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

To: Kim Cheung <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>
From: Jasper de Keijzer <jasper_de_keijzer@nl.compuware.com>

Kim Cheung,

UNIFACE is a true 4GL development environment which runs on several
platforms: Solaris, RS6000, HP-UX, Digital UNIX, Apple(!), Windows and
OS/2 Warp.
The development environment allows you to create very rapidly an
database application. Databases supported are: DB2, Sybase, Oracle,
Ingres, DB3, RMS, Solid etc. 

The forms/windows can be drawn in a graphical form painter and directly
be tested against the database. UNIFACE hides all the complexity of the
underlying platform and database. So you don't need any knowledge of the
underlying platform to create the application.

Have a look at http://www.compuware.com

Be aware that they removed the word OS/2 in conjunction with UNIFACE.
Only version six of UNIFACE seems to be available on OS/2, although v7
for OS/2 is send to a large customer. I'm sure if a customer wants to
have an OS/2 version and pays for it, that it will be delivered.

Jasper de Keijzer.


Kim Cheung wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 10:57:38 -0500, jasper wrote:
> 
> >I've been working for six years to get an OS/2 version of UNIFACE out of
the
> >doors.
> 
> What does your program do?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Compuware Uniface Amsterdam (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  01-Nov-99 07:06:21
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 10:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Aw, gee, Marty, you've just a fine job in making Tholen demonstrate his
ineptitude and general stupidity of all things (specifically, computer
related; more generally, everything!) and showing how stubborn he is in not
accepting the words of others.  Don't give up -- you've got him on the run!

- Joe


Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:381D2177.63C3D995@stny.rr.com...
> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is playing the
> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.  I have a
> high degree of confidence that the readers will decide correctly.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: centus@coqui.net                                  01-Nov-99 12:12:29
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 10:23:24
Subj: OS/2 BMP's 4 e-commerce conference....

From: centus@coqui.net

Hi

I have a conference tomorow about e-commerce and will use my OS/2 v4 
System and Freelance/2 .  Need some COOL OS/2 BMP's ...to add to my 
screen saver.
Any refernce will be appreciated...Just want to show biz people what 
is OS/2 v4 about...

Sure, the system is running pretty good here with FP#12.... any reco 
to avoid any crash with NS4.61? 

Thanks

Prof. Edfel J. Rivera

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            01-Nov-99 12:54:13
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 10:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:35:53, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>> But those aren't the "newest threads".
> 
> >>> Well... indeed. Otherwise I might have come to your conclusion. But I 
> >>> didn't, so I haven't.
> >>> ...
> >>> I think.
> 
> >> You're not sure?
> 
> > The auxiliaries are getting me confused.
> 
> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
> I do?"
>    --Nick Danger
> 
LOL! I should have seen that one coming.

> >>>>> As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
> >>>>> doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
> >>>>> the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
> >>>>> do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.
> 
> >>>> Or it might have to do with you aging.
> 
> >>> Never!
> >>> No way!
> >>> It's the shows, you see! They've gotten dummer, you see!
> >>> It's not me!
> >>> You see!
> 
> >> You mean "dumber"?
> 
> > Damn these new-fangled keyboards!
> > Back in them olden days when we had quills and proper ink, this kind 
> > of thing didn't happen.
> 
> If by "this kind of thing" you mean misspellings, I disagree.
> 
> > Anyway, we were talking about getting old, right?
> 
> Among other things.
> 
> >>>>> And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
> >>>>> least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
> >>>>> 38, BTW.
> 
> >>>> You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.
> 
> >>> Which is...?
> 
> >> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.  Let's
> >> put it this way:  I watched the original run of "The Prisoner".
> 
> > Dude! You're *ancient*!
> 
> That depends on your definition of "ancient".
> 
> > I've met people who considered me a dinosaur, 
> > just because I saw Armstrong taking his first step live...
> 
> So did I.
> 
> > But I was really asking for the address of your page...
> 
> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.
> 
Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.

> >>>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 

> >>>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".
> 
> >>>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.
> 
> >>>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
> >>>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?
> 
> >>>> Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he
complained
> >>>> about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
> >>>> to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?
> 
> >>> Without getting into something I haven't been following: I've never 
> >>> quite understood the use of a kill-file. I don't filter out anything; 
> >>> if I don't want to read a certain post or poster, I just don't read 
> >>> it. A simple <CTRL>-<ALT>-<R> in ProNews will mark all articles read, 
> >>> whether I've actually sniffled them or not. When the counter reaches 
> >>> 1,500, they're all history.
> 
> >> Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that Marty didn't
> >> claim to make use of a killfile.
> 
> > Oh, I know for a fact that he claimed it. I read the post. This was 
> > just a casual observation on my part. In any case, his explanation 
> > that your changed ID futzed up his killfilter sounds valid. If I 
> > learned one thing on UseNet, it's to be careful with the supposed 
> > intentions behind the facts. It's easier to ask than to speculate.
> 
> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
> the complaint in the first place.
> 
Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.

> >>> I can understand why some might want to filter out spam, but it's no 
> >>> big problem in the groups I follow and anyway, spammers aren't very 
> >>> well caught by killfilters. Frankly, I suspect that post people who 
> >>> "put someone in their killfile" only wrote this to p*ss said person 
> >>> off and will continue to read the posts, reveling in the increasing 
> >>> levels of frustration and anger of the victim when nobody answers 
> >>> back. There's nothing worse than a one-sided discussion.
> 
> >> Which is consistent with the fact that some of the people who made the
> >> most boisterous claims of putting me in their killfile did wind up
> >> responding to me later on, including Mike Timbol, David Leblanc, and
> >> now Marty.
> >>
> >> However, the increased level of frustration was on their part, not
> >> mine, because they couldn't resist responding any longer.
> 
> > Which is very interesting. Some of them said they would rather stick 
> > their genitals in a meat-grinder than ever talk to you again (well, 
> > maybe not in those words...). Yet they all come back. Hmmm...
> 
> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
> Marty's "infantile game".
> 
I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
cells, and yet...

> >>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...
> 
> >> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
> >> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.
> 
> > I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
> > mind". So: thanks.
> 
> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.
> 
You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 
proves my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 
is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
different reasons then.

> > (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
> > replies)
> 
> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of references.
> 
Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            01-Nov-99 12:54:11
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 10:23:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 04:29:03, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
> >> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
> 
> > Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.
> 
> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
Indeed.

> > I like it. I like it a lot.
> 
> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
Indeed also.

> > (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)
> 
> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
>
Indeed once more.


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

"So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
"That depends, if you just want to look good,
 you're OK. If you want to get work done,
 stay away from it".

(Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 09:20:05
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:55:10, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > > (*) ROMs that I don't have, of course. Because that would be illegal,
> > > especially if they were on a CDROM that was bought.
> > > A CDROM that I don't own.
> >
> > Tsk tsk tsk.  You know there are some freely available legal arcade ROMs
> > out there?  There is also a deal going on between MAMEDev and Capcom to
> > license their ROMs for free distribution.  Tell me one thing, Karel...
> > was MAME itself distributed on this CD?  If so then its makers are not
> > only violating the copyrights of the various ROMs, but that of MAME
> > itself as well.
> 
> Errr... it might have been <eyes swiveling wildly, looking for a way
> out>.
> 
> Seriously now. It was a homemade CD I bought at a local computer fair.
> I've always been a huge fan of the old arcades and after seeing
> "Asteroids" and "Galaxian" play on the screen, I was sold. I didn't
> know anything about proprietary ROMs or MAME at the time of purchase,
> and that's about the only excuse I have.

FYI: I believe there is a CD for the Sony Playstation which carries
these ROMs and an emulator as well.  The purchase of this CD grants you
the license to use those ROMs, be it on the Playstation's emulator or on
MAME.
 
> On the CD were versions of MAME for DOS and - presumably - for Win32,
> as well as close to 1,000 ROMs (many of them are just different
> versions of the same game - some are even pirate ROMs of the
> originals, which is kinda funny - who are *they* going to sue?)

Now this is quite bad.  The MAME team asks one thing out of courtesy of
its users that this not be done.  When such a CD is discovered by
anti-piracy organizations, it is a direct implication back to the MAME
team, increasing the pressure to shut us down.  The person who made this
CD obviously either didn't read MAME's license agreement or doesn't give
a hoot about arcade emulation and is just in it for a few bucks.  The
MAME team can do without such leeches.

> Oh, before I forget: I have to ask you why you no longer have Dave in
> your killfile and why you made the complaint (I suppose it's about
> Dave's anti-spam ID) in the first place.
>
> Actually, I'm intrigued to know that myself. I mean, you had Dave
> killfiled, so even if his posts did show up again (which can happen:
> people are allowed to change their ID strings AFAIK), all you had to
> do was keep quiet and change your killfile - or just not read or
> respond to his posts.
> 
> Now, don't misunderstand me please. I'm just curious why you
> apparently chose to take the hard way. No inferring, implying or
> alluding.

I've already addressed that point elsewhere.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dpeterso@halcyon.com                              31-Oct-99 18:51:22
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Dennis Peterson <dpeterso@halcyon.com>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> 
> Can anyone think of an ISV that formerly developed and sold a
> substantial OS/2 product and then stopped selling it "cold turkey" in
> favor a Windows version?  You know the story:  OS/2 is a dying
> platform.  There are hardly any OS/2 users.  The OS/2 marketplace is
> dead.  There are hundreds of millions of Windows users who throw money
> at software like sailors do at naked women.  Etc.  Etc.  So what has
> happened to these OS/2 ISVs?


[snip]

> 
> So can anyone think of some former OS/2 software companies who dumped
> their OS/2 products and found real success with Windows?

Microsoft comes to mind.

-- 
dp

Support Eddie Kieger III at http://eddiekieger.com
Got a home page? Please add a link to Eddie's site!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: I'm not organized at all (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             01-Nov-99 15:12:01
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vifth$67e$3@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> >> It's not as
> >> if the statement started out as an ambiguous phrase that later
became
> >> unambiguous after additional information was provided.
>
> > On the contrary, this multi-level situation is precisely what is
> > suggested by the data
>
> On what basis do you call the situation "multi-level", Lucien?  There
> is only one chronological level.

Gotcha.
You, _didn't_ read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
thread, just as I suspected (typical of "F" students like yourself).
You need to review those references, esp. Baker and Chomsky, for the
explanation of "multi-level" as used here and in the "costly mistakes"
thread.

Meanwhile, let's review our situation again:

Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Your statement correctly indicates an underlying ambiguity WRT
quantification in the 'implements' case, in the absence of other
information.

Here is my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Thus, we agree.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          01-Nov-99 16:09:19
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>"Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>
>Aw, gee, Marty, you've just a fine job in making Tholen demonstrate his
>ineptitude and general stupidity of all things (specifically, computer
>related; more generally, everything!) and showing how stubborn he is in not
>accepting the words of others.  Don't give up -- you've got him on the run!

And yet, Joe, despite the fact that Tholen is so clearly shown to be
woefully ignorant of such matters, and apparently proud of it, people
like Karel and Bennie seem to be quite impressed with Tholen's
"performance" here.

That's good proof that they can legitimately be described as
"clueless".

And not coincidentally, both happen to be gungho OS/2 zealots as
evidenced by their comments about OS/2 versus their very naive and
irrationally paranoid extremist views about all matters relating to
Microsoft. That's no coincidence among Tholen's few "supporters". It
forms the foundation for their foolish admiration of a notorious, and
easily-proven-to-be-dumb nutcase like Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               01-Nov-99 12:00:15
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
[...snip...]
> There are any number of reasons not to write in Java,
> including
> 
> * application performance
> * a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
> * willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or
> niche

	All three of which can be acomplished in Java via the JNI (Java Native
Interface).  Just encapsulate platform-specific or high-performence code
within a native method wrapper, and you can accomplish any and all of
the above (although if you've done this, limiting yourself to one
platform is silly, as it's easy to port the native bit to other
platforms, or make its source available for others to do so).

	Jus as C programmers who need high-end performence use Assembly exits,
Java can do the same (be it with C, or any other native language).

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               01-Nov-99 12:11:28
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
> Are you suggesting that IBM is changing their desktops from OS/2 to
> Windows 2000?   Haven't you maintained that IBM did not use OS/2
> anymore?  Since IBM does not use OS/2, this means that IBM is upgrading
> from Windows 9x or NT4 to Windows 2K, probably in the desperate hope
> that they can find something halfway workable.  Maybe that, more than
> anything else, will force Gerstner to cut loose some money for an OS/2
> update.  Heh, heh, heh.

	My desktop will still be running OS/2 well into the new millenium.  W2K
may be a "standard desktop" configuration, but that's far from saying
that there is some sort of mandate that everyone must use it and only
it.

	Almost anyone within IBM who is currently using OS/2 will probably
continue to use OS/2, long after W2K comes to (eventually) pass.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             01-Nov-99 09:33:19
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Dale Ross wrote:
> 
> "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:381C996C.B72A6F4C@isomedia.com...
> > >
> > > I am not sure why I would have to even say it. It is after all a
> Microsoft
> > > run program.
> >
> > Well sure, as I now understand the program, MVPs are paid some sort of
> > non-specific compensation for performing some sort of non-specific
> > online support activity and there is a secret list of MVPs maintained by
> > Microsoft.  Sounds like motherhood and apple pie american to me...Does
> > Microsoft report the compensation given to MVPs to the IRS?
> 
> No you do not understand the program. There is no compensation. David it is
> very obvious to me that you have no desire to understand what the program
> is.

Those "MVP Bucks" sound a lot like compensation to me.  I wonder if the
IRS would agree?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             01-Nov-99 09:36:29
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 13:41:30, "David T. Johnson"
> <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dale Ross wrote:
> >
> > > About the only place that I sign as an MVP is in the
> > > microsoft.public.* newsgroups.
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't this support the point that MVPs frequent public newsgroups to
> > advocate Microsoft without identifying themselves?  Or admitting that
> > Microsoft pays them?
> 
> There's a guy posting over on comp.os.linux.misc, Brett I. Holcomb,
> who has "Microsoft MVP" in his sig-line (it's followed by "AKA Grunt
> <><", which makes sense for an MSV, I guess).

You bring up an interesting point.  Can anyone use "MVP" in their sig? 
I wonder if Microsoft has copyrighted this acronym?  And does Microsoft
have internal guidelines on when the MVP sig MUST be used?  


> 
> Karel Jansens
> jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
> 
> "So, this NT thing... Is it any good?"
> "That depends, if you just want to look good,
>  you're OK. If you want to get work done,
>  stay away from it".
> 
> (Actual conversation caught in a commuter train)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             01-Nov-99 09:42:15
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:14:25, "David T. Johnson"
> <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
> | I was only responding to your point that IBM
> | paid Borland to do OS/2 products and that Borland did not have serious
> | OS/2 products other than those IBM paid them to do.  I would suggest
> | that the biggest problem ObjectVision had was NFM or "not from
> | Microsoft."
> 
> Well, the assumption is that ObjectVision is or was ever a "serious
> product." That judgement, like so many other things, is in the eye of
> the beholder.

I think that in any group of 100 beholders, 99 would consider
ObjectVision a serious product.

> 
> I saw a preview of ObjectVision before it was released, along with
> about 100 other user group officers. We were generally excited about
> its direction without being enthusiastic about the product itself. (As
> I recall, there were serious concerns about application
> documentability.) Like a lot of other products over the years, it was
> a good 1.0 but it didn't follow up with an awesome 2.0.

I hate to nitpick (honest!) but I have ObjectVision for OS/2 v2.0
published in 1992.  I don't know if it was *awesone* but it was pretty
good.  And thanks for replying to my posts.  It's a lot of fun to see
different opinions.



> 
> But I don't want to speak authoritatively on this... I no longer
> remember enough about it to have an opinion.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             01-Nov-99 09:53:23
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 14:36:40, "David T. Johnson"
> <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
> 
> | > | There is also Corel. Corel was very close to a new version of
WordPerfect
> | > | for OS/2 before going 100% windows. They have since moved away from
> | > | Microsoft.
> | >
> | > I'm afraid you have some of the facts wrong.
> | >
> | > WordPerfect Corp dropped WP for OS/2 before they sold the company to
> | > Novell. By the time Corel got the remnants of WPCorp, the OS/2
> | > version(s) were history.
> |
> | What does that mean?  That they burned the code on a bonfire?  They
> | could have released an OS/2 version at any time but chose not to.  I
> | wonder if Microsoft had anything to do with that?
> 
> It means that the decision to drop WordPerfect for OS/2 was committed
> long before Corel owned the company... at least a year beforehand, and
> probably more than that. (I'm vague on how long Novell actually owned
> WPCorp, and I don't care about the matter enough to look it up.)
> 
> Neither you nor I have any idea what happened to the source code, or
> what shape it was really in... but I've seen plenty of software
> projects inside large corporations, and code gets lost a lot more
> often than you'd expect -- even when the company isn't sold. In any
> case, version 6 wasn't ready for prime time -- it was a few weeks away
> from beta, but by definition beta code has bugs. (If it didn't, they'd
> release it.) WPCorp, at least, earned a good reputation by shipping
> quality code, and I used several WP6DOS beta versions during the
> months when I was writing my part of the WordPerfect 6.0 DOS
> SuperBook. So even with enthusiasm behind it, the code wasn't ready to
> ship "at any time" -- and you haven't even taken marketing expenses
> into account.

I appreciate your viewpoint but you haven't mentioned anything that
would have prevented an OS/2 version from being released.  Given
reasonable care, the code would have been expected to be available if
such a project were to be undertaken.  Yes, the code could have been
lost but this is highly unlikely and is not what we should automatically
assume unless you have evidence to the contrary.



> 
> David, you keep trying to present this debate as if I'm defending
> Microsoft's (alleged) actions, or as though I'm implying that
> Microsoft has never brought pressure to bear upon any ISV. That's not
> so. However, not everybody who develops for Windows wears a black hat
> or is a Microsoft zombie. In this particular case, I think that
> WordPerfect made its own choices -- though they turned out to be bad
> choices for OS/2 users.

Well, I might have agreed with you before the MS antitrust trial wrapped
up but after seeing MS business practices exposed, it is extremely hard
to believe that Microsoft did NOT whump on Wordperfect until their OS/2
projects were dead or disabled.  Do you REALLY believe that MS didn't do
that?    

> 
> That doesn't mean that Microsoft hasn't influenced anybody, or hasn't
> at least *tried* to influence anybody. (Hell, I get calls from WaggEd
> too, and I have plenty of Microsoft stuff arrive at my door. Just
> because they want my attention doesn't mean they get it, any more than
> a guy gets laid just because he keeps asking one girl for a date.)
> I've had a lot of conversations with ISV marketing managers over the
> years, and I have a pretty good insight into the pressures that were
> and weren't applied... and believe me, a company's own idiocy can
> account for a lot more stupid actions than Microsoft could ever dream
> of.
> 
> |You are holding grudges against
> | companies who were facing monopoly-driven pressure from Microsoft.
> 
> You don't know that it was Microsoft pressure that caused Corel (or
> anyone) to make the choices they did. You weren't there. You don't
> know what other facts they had to deal with, or whose personal
> preference held sway, or anything else. You can *suppose* anything you
> like, but you don't know -- and neither do I.
> 
Well, you are right, this cannot be known without more subpoenaed
depositions, emails, and supporting documents and my guess is that,
after their antitrust debacle, Microsoft is getting rid of emails just
as fast as they can.  But based on similar MS activities against other
companies that ARE known, it looks pretty likely that Microsoft did this
kind of stuff with EVERY company which was doing something that competed
with something Microsoft was doing.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     01-Nov-99 08:55:19
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 14:27:20
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-1-99, 5:00:30 PM, Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com> wrote 
regarding Re: Java, OS/2's savior? (was: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with 
Windows?):


> Esther Schindler wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > There are any number of reasons not to write in Java,
> > including
> >
> > * application performance
> > * a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
> > * willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or
> > niche

>       All three of which can be acomplished in Java via the JNI (Java 
Native
> Interface).  Just encapsulate platform-specific or high-performence 
code
> within a native method wrapper, and you can accomplish any and all of
> the above (although if you've done this, limiting yourself to one
> platform is silly, as it's easy to port the native bit to other
> platforms, or make its source available for others to do so).

>       Jus as C programmers who need high-end performence use Assembly 
exits,
> Java can do the same (be it with C, or any other native language).

HDF is a file format which is used for scientific data.  The fast, 
portable, cross platform library was authored in C. It would be too 
costly and really pointless to recode this library into Java.  A Java 
programmer uses the existing libraries via JNI.  They can read and 
write complex HDF files.  

High performance (computing) programmers can use C and link to older, 
proven Fortran based libraries rather than rewrite the libraries.  It 
makes no sense to recode software when you can reuse software.  JNI 
not only allows for native, optimized code, it allows for access to 
existing, optimized code. 




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           01-Nov-99 13:43:06
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 17:33:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <381DA4C2.AA0A713A@isomedia.com>, on 11/01/99 at 09:33 AM,
   "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> said:

> Those "MVP Bucks" sound a lot like compensation to me.  I wonder if the
> IRS would agree?

Good thought! I will report this possible fraud to IRS immediately. I then
will get 10% of whatever IRS collects from those phonies.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             01-Nov-99 18:43:20
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 17:33:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <381D0D05.BB341FE4@stny.rr.com>,
  Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> Mike Timbol wrote:
> >
> > In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already.
> > Curtis Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.  Why is
> > this such a difficult thing for you to accept?
>
> He may not have been able to see that article.  I saw it at work, but
> my RR news server does not seem to carry it (perhaps because the
> attachment is of a certain size or somesuch reason).  I don't see it
> in Deja News either.  I will put the JPG in question on my web server
> tomorrow and provide a link so that anyone who wants to see it may do
> so.

I was beginning to wonder if it made it out at all. Actually, I posted
it twice, once from JPS Net and once from BESTNet. I was unable to see
the JPS posting on BESTNet, nor was I able to see the BESTNet posting on
JPS, and neither one showed up on Deja News.

I didn't think the JPEG would be that much of a problem. Bummer.

At least it did make it out -- thanks for the verification.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               25-Oct-99 23:27:27
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 19:58:09
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> > Joe Malloy wrote:
> 
> >> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something akin
to
> >> an Eliza program and tholened:
> 
> >>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> What makes you believe that?
> >>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you respond
> >> like Eliza?
> 
> > Because he is engaging in an infantile game.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.

That doesn't make it any less infantile of a game.
 
> > How hypocritical.
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile game",
> Marty.

I didn't presuppose, erroneously or otherwise that you were "engagin" in
anything Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 18:16:23
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

cbass2112@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <381D0D05.BB341FE4@stny.rr.com>,
>   Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > Mike Timbol wrote:
> > >
> > > In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already.
> > > Curtis Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.  Why is
> > > this such a difficult thing for you to accept?
> >
> > He may not have been able to see that article.  I saw it at work, but
> > my RR news server does not seem to carry it (perhaps because the
> > attachment is of a certain size or somesuch reason).  I don't see it
> > in Deja News either.  I will put the JPG in question on my web server
> > tomorrow and provide a link so that anyone who wants to see it may do
> > so.
> 
> I was beginning to wonder if it made it out at all. Actually, I posted
> it twice, once from JPS Net and once from BESTNet. I was unable to see
> the JPS posting on BESTNet, nor was I able to see the BESTNet posting on
> JPS, and neither one showed up on Deja News.
> 
> I didn't think the JPEG would be that much of a problem. Bummer.
> 
> At least it did make it out -- thanks for the verification.

Well.. now I can't find the article at work either.  E-mail it to me and
I'll put it up on my web server.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               01-Nov-99 18:41:20
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:20:11, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 01:55:10, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > (*) ROMs that I don't have, of course. Because that would be
illegal,
> > > > > especially if they were on a CDROM that was bought.
> > > > > A CDROM that I don't own.
> > > >
> > > > Tsk tsk tsk.  You know there are some freely available legal arcade
ROMs
> > > > out there?  There is also a deal going on between MAMEDev and Capcom
to
> > > > license their ROMs for free distribution.  Tell me one thing, Karel...
> > > > was MAME itself distributed on this CD?  If so then its makers are not
> > > > only violating the copyrights of the various ROMs, but that of MAME
> > > > itself as well.
> > >
> > > Errr... it might have been <eyes swiveling wildly, looking for a way
> > > out>.
> > >
> > > Seriously now. It was a homemade CD I bought at a local computer fair.
> > > I've always been a huge fan of the old arcades and after seeing
> > > "Asteroids" and "Galaxian" play on the screen, I was sold. I didn't
> > > know anything about proprietary ROMs or MAME at the time of purchase,
> > > and that's about the only excuse I have.
> >
> > FYI: I believe there is a CD for the Sony Playstation which carries
> > these ROMs and an emulator as well.  The purchase of this CD grants you
> > the license to use those ROMs, be it on the Playstation's emulator or on
> > MAME.
> >
> > > On the CD were versions of MAME for DOS and - presumably - for Win32,
> > > as well as close to 1,000 ROMs (many of them are just different
> > > versions of the same game - some are even pirate ROMs of the
> > > originals, which is kinda funny - who are *they* going to sue?)
> >
> > Now this is quite bad.  The MAME team asks one thing out of courtesy of
> > its users that this not be done.  When such a CD is discovered by
> > anti-piracy organizations, it is a direct implication back to the MAME
> > team, increasing the pressure to shut us down.  The person who made this
> > CD obviously either didn't read MAME's license agreement or doesn't give
> > a hoot about arcade emulation and is just in it for a few bucks.  The
> > MAME team can do without such leeches.
> >
> Like I said: the only excuse I have was pure ignorance. I learned
> about all that stuff after playing some games, when I started out
> looking for an OS/2 version of the emulator. I found it... and got
> scared witless! I've always tried to be as fair as possible regarding
> use of software, so this came as quite a shock. You could consider
> these posts as my coming out as a software pirate <G - sort of>.
> 
> What should I do? I guess I can dig up the guy's coordinates for you
> if I dig deep enough, but where does that put me crimewise, so to
> speak? Do I have to burn the CD? Do hard time? Community arcade sevice
> maybe?

I'm not here to play international software cop.  You do whatever you
like with your software.  I just ask that you humbly and kindly ask this
gentleman to not distribute the MAME executable(s) on the same CD as his
illegal ROMs, as a favor to those who make MAME.  He is clearly
violating MAME's own license agreement.  Although no one on the MAME
team has the wherewithall or desire to sue him over it, taking advantage
of the developers in this way only serves to harm the project's
integrity and the developers' desire to continue it.

> > > Oh, before I forget: I have to ask you why you no longer have Dave in
> > > your killfile and why you made the complaint (I suppose it's about
> > > Dave's anti-spam ID) in the first place.
> > >
> > > Actually, I'm intrigued to know that myself. I mean, you had Dave
> > > killfiled, so even if his posts did show up again (which can happen:
> > > people are allowed to change their ID strings AFAIK), all you had to
> > > do was keep quiet and change your killfile - or just not read or
> > > respond to his posts.
> > >
> > > Now, don't misunderstand me please. I'm just curious why you
> > > apparently chose to take the hard way. No inferring, implying or
> > > alluding.
> >
> > I've already addressed that point elsewhere.
> 
> Oh.
> Where?

I'll save both of us the trouble of looking it up.  I used the message
filter feature of Netscape.  This doesn't remove the messages from my
display, but merely marks them as "read".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 00:46:07
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
>>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
 
>>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.
 
>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.

> Indeed.

Then why bring up that you think it's cool?

>>> I like it. I like it a lot.
 
>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

> Indeed also.

Then why bring up that you like it?

>>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)
 
>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

> Indeed once more.

Then why bring it up?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 00:52:10
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>> But those aren't the "newest threads".

>>>>> Well... indeed. Otherwise I might have come to your conclusion. But I 
>>>>> didn't, so I haven't.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> I think.

>>>> You're not sure?

>>> The auxiliaries are getting me confused.

>> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
>> I do?"
>>    --Nick Danger

> LOL! I should have seen that one coming.

Are you familiar with Nicky and Nancy?

>>>>>>> As for "Saturday Night Live", we get the occasional show, but it 
>>>>>>> doesn't run regularly on any channel I can get. I have to admit that 
>>>>>>> the older shows appear to be funnier, but that might have something to
>>>>>>> do with the overall seventies and early-eighties atmosphere.

>>>>>> Or it might have to do with you aging.

>>>>> Never!
>>>>> No way!
>>>>> It's the shows, you see! They've gotten dummer, you see!
>>>>> It's not me!
>>>>> You see!

>>>> You mean "dumber"?

>>> Damn these new-fangled keyboards!
>>> Back in them olden days when we had quills and proper ink, this kind 
>>> of thing didn't happen.

>> If by "this kind of thing" you mean misspellings, I disagree.

>>> Anyway, we were talking about getting old, right?

>> Among other things.

>>>>>>> And I totally agree on the age thing: it would IMHO prevent or at 
>>>>>>> least end a lot of heated discussions. So how old are you then? I'm 
>>>>>>> 38, BTW.

>>>>>> You can derive a reasonable estimate from my web page.

>>>>> Which is...?

>>>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.  Let's
>>>> put it this way:  I watched the original run of "The Prisoner".

>>> Dude! You're *ancient*!

>> That depends on your definition of "ancient".

>>> I've met people who considered me a dinosaur, 
>>> just because I saw Armstrong taking his first step live...

>> So did I.

>>> But I was really asking for the address of your page...

>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.

> Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.

You mean browser?

>>>>>>>>> and my UseNet conversations with him have only confirmed that view.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What you write below could very well be an explanation for what some 

>>>>>>>>> are starting to refer to as the "Tholen-phenomenon".

>>>>>>>> Not for the current discussions.  See my reply to Bennie for why.

>>>>>>> Did it ever occur to you that your whole exchange with Marty might be 
>>>>>>> based on mutual misunderstanding of intentions?

>>>>>> Why should it?  Marty made his intentions quite clear when he
complained
>>>>>> about the inconsistency of the antispammed ID.  That is, he didn't want
>>>>>> to see my postings.  Interesting inconsistency, no?

>>>>> Without getting into something I haven't been following: I've never 
>>>>> quite understood the use of a kill-file. I don't filter out anything; 
>>>>> if I don't want to read a certain post or poster, I just don't read 
>>>>> it. A simple <CTRL>-<ALT>-<R> in ProNews will mark all articles read, 
>>>>> whether I've actually sniffled them or not. When the counter reaches 
>>>>> 1,500, they're all history.

>>>> Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that Marty didn't
>>>> claim to make use of a killfile.

>>> Oh, I know for a fact that he claimed it. I read the post. This was 
>>> just a casual observation on my part. In any case, his explanation 
>>> that your changed ID futzed up his killfilter sounds valid. If I 
>>> learned one thing on UseNet, it's to be careful with the supposed 
>>> intentions behind the facts. It's easier to ask than to speculate.

>> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
>> the complaint in the first place.

> Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
> yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.

I already have.  I haven't received an answer.

>>>>> I can understand why some might want to filter out spam, but it's no 
>>>>> big problem in the groups I follow and anyway, spammers aren't very 
>>>>> well caught by killfilters. Frankly, I suspect that post people who 
>>>>> "put someone in their killfile" only wrote this to p*ss said person 
>>>>> off and will continue to read the posts, reveling in the increasing 
>>>>> levels of frustration and anger of the victim when nobody answers 
>>>>> back. There's nothing worse than a one-sided discussion.

>>>> Which is consistent with the fact that some of the people who made the
>>>> most boisterous claims of putting me in their killfile did wind up
>>>> responding to me later on, including Mike Timbol, David Leblanc, and
>>>> now Marty.
>>>
>>>> However, the increased level of frustration was on their part, not
>>>> mine, because they couldn't resist responding any longer.

>>> Which is very interesting. Some of them said they would rather stick 
>>> their genitals in a meat-grinder than ever talk to you again (well, 
>>> maybe not in those words...). Yet they all come back. Hmmm...

>> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
>> Marty's "infantile game".

> I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
> fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
> even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
> of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
> cells, and yet...

..people like Marty use those brain cells to play "infantile games".

>>>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

>>>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
>>>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.

>>> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
>>> mind". So: thanks.

>> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.

> You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 

Supports?

> proves my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 
> is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
> out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
> different reasons then.

And also irrelevant to the issue of people reading that which has been
allegedly killfiled.

>>> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
>>> replies)

>> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of references.

> Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
> always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.

He's making direct references now, as is Mike Timbol.  So did David
Leblanc.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 01:06:18
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>>> Why do you say that?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> What makes you say that?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> Can you elaborate?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Are you sure this is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> Does it bother you that those are yours?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
>>>>>>> with this.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> Don't you know?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> Illogical.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>> I need a little more detail please.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> When did you first know that those were yours?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza clone,
>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being thrown
>>>>> right back at you?

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Are you sure that this is the real reason?

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that
>>>>>>> you say I do not approve phrases either?

>>>>>> Don't ask me.

>>>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your plans
>>>>> have something to do with this.

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

What makes you believe that?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 01:07:13
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:

>>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:

>>>>>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something
>>>>>>>> akin to an Eliza program and tholened:

>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you
>>>>>>>> respond like Eliza?

>>>>>>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.

>>>>> What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> What makes you say that?

>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> How hypocritical.

>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile
game",
>>>>>> Marty.

>>>>> Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g* in
>>>>> an infantile game.

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

What makes you believe that?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 01:08:10
  To: All                                               01-Nov-99 21:31:00
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
>>>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
>>>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 

>>> I don't understand.

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>> But
>>>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
>>>> screwed up the correct attributions. 

>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem as Marty
>>> also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>> Note that the URL and
>>>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.

>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
>>> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain anything
>>> else?

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 02-Nov-99 07:17:24
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 05:18:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vlkqa$j4d$4@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
>>> contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.
>
>> Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
>> are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 
>> that are actually included.
>
>Read the corresponding file, Mike.  

I had already read it, Dave.  Notice that it says nothing about "Java 2 
security classes".

>Here's the first paragraph from the Introduction:
>
>] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
>] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>] by following links to other helpful documentation. 
>
>Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
>preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
>something was removed from the preview before actual release.

I never claimed that anything was removed from the preview before
the actual release.

>By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip, or anything
>else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on classes.zip
>is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.

On the contrary, I claimed that I looked at several files to determine
what the JDK included, including classes.zip.  I merely focused on
classes.zip because it contains the majority of classes in the JDK.

>Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
>
>] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
>] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
>] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
>] creates the security policy for the application created at this time. 
>
>Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
>sun.misc.Launcher class.

Note the reference to "com.ibm." before "security12", which indicates
that the class is part of a proprietary IBM package; it is not a
"Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.  Thus, the IBM 
claim that they implement functionality based on the 1.2 security model, 
not that they include "Java 2 security classes".  

Dave, you don't understand what you're arguing about and you don't 
understand what you're looking at.

>>>> I've already addressed this point -- you are bringing it up again 
>>>> merely as a diversion, because you cannot accept the fact that your 
>>>> stupid little "trap" backfired on you.  
>
>>> It did no such thing, Mike.
>
>> Of course it did.  You led me down a twistly little path in order to
>> spring your surprise proclamation that I must be running OS/2 to know
>> what's in the JDK.
>
>I did not lead you down any "twistly [sic] little path", Mike.  I just
>watched you stumble all over yourself, trying to answer my questions.
>Tell me, exactly why did you refer to the contents of the JDK, and
>classes.zip specifically, when trying to prove what was *not* in the
>JDK?

Doesn't it make sense to refer to the contents of the JDK to prove
that something isn't in it?  If you claim that a certain object
exists in a box, doesn't it make sense to look in the box and
see if it's in there?

>> Yet it backfired because because your assumptions were wrong.
>> Your assumptions were wrong because you don't understand much
>> about self-extracting archives.
>
>Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike.  I'm prepared
>to explain everything, but not until you admit that you're wrong
>about your "bullshit" response to Joseph, and that the reason my
>response was so short is because *you* deleted all but one line from
>Joseph's article.

You know I won't admit that because it's a lie, which I've already
countered several times.  As for being "prepared to explain everything",
you've already been doing that -- you've just been doing a pathetic job.

>>>> I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
>>>> example, is not included.
>
>>> You claimed that Java 2 security classes are not included, Mike.
>
>> And they're not.
>
>] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application.
>
>Now, why would IBM say that you can use security enhancements from
>Java(tm)2 if they are not included, Mike?  Once again, that text came
>from the released JDK, not the preview.

Do you understand the difference between "security enhancements from
Java 2" and "Java 2 security classes"?  As I told you earlier, the 
JDK includes "security enhancements based on the Java 2 security model".
It does not include "Java 2 security classes".

>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.
>
>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.
>
>"Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>browsing.  

"Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

>The development package is another file, while the security
>enhancements are in yet another file.  

Dave, the JRE plus the development package comprise the JDK.  The
proprietary security classes actually *ARE* in the JDK.  Swing is not.

>Swing is in yet another file.

That other file is one of the "Java extensions for OS/2", as clearly 
indicated on the download site.  It is not part of the JDK.

>>>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
>
>>>>>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.
>
>>>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.
>
>>>> You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.
>
>>> Fortunately, I have more tools available to me than just the LIST
>>> command, Mike.
>
>> Then tell me, Dave, other than running the file, are you able to read it
>> in a meaningful fashion?
>
>Why exclude running the file, Mike?

To demonstrate that the file can be read in a meaningful fashion
without running the file.  Tell me, can you do it or not?

>>>>> Does that prove that I ran WinZip?
>
>>>> It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
>>>> archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?  No, since 
>>>> other tools allow one to get than information, despite the string 
>>>> that says "This program must be run on OS/2".
>
>>> Don't try the Marty approach of a REXX script that is purposely
>>> designed to lie, Mike.
>
>> I'm taking the approach of telling you I used WinZip on Windows NT.
>> Why don't you try verifying the approach I actually used?
>
>Why do you think I tried using an unzipper, Mike?

You didn't use the one that I used.  If you're going to claim that
what I did was impossible, then prove it.  Otherwise, especially in
the face of overwhelming evidence, simply admit that I could
extract the contents of the file without running OS/2.

>> I notice that you completely dodge the question.  As for your 
>> questions, I've already addressed them.
>
>By lying about Java 2 security classes not being implemented.  But
>what I'm really asking is why the truth that they are implemented
>is such a difficult thing for you to accept.  You haven't addressed
>that question, Mike.  You simply keep denying the truth.

All of the claims you make in the preceding paragraph are incorrect, 
as I've already proven.

>>>> Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.
>>>>
>>>> If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
>>>> why bring up LIST at all?
>>>>
>>>>   a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
>>>>      contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
>>>>      are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.
>
>>> How ironic, coming from someone who displayed his "ignrance" [sic] when
>>> he claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".
>
>> On the contrary, I know much more about OS/2's version of the JDK than
>> either you or Joseph.
>
>Obviously not, given your claim that Java 2 security classes aren't
>included in the JDK.  

They aren't.  As I told you days ago, they are proprietary IBM classes,
not "Java 2 security classes".

>You even indicated that javainuf.exe constitutes
>the JDK, by claiming that Swing isn't in the JDK, after I noted that
>it is in a separate file.

It is available as an extension, just as it is for implementations of
JDK 1.1.8 on other platforms.  I've told you this before.  Just
because it is available does not mean it is part of the JDK.

>> I'll note that, once again, you completely fail to address the point.
>
>I'll note that, once again, you lied.

Except that in all of the instances where your opinion differs from what
I've stated, your opinion is incorrect.

>>>> Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
>>>> be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).
>
>>> Nothing "backfired" on me, Mike. 
>
>> Ah, so you deliberately planned to make yourself look stupid.  I see.
>
>Yet another illogical conclusion.  

You claimed it did not "backfire", so you must have planned it.  Quite 
logical.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               01-Nov-99 23:18:04
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 05:18:28
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 12:38:02 +0100, Jasper de Keijzer wrote:

>Be aware that they removed the word OS/2 in conjunction with UNIFACE.
>Only version six of UNIFACE seems to be available on OS/2, although v7
>for OS/2 is send to a large customer. I'm sure if a customer wants to
>have an OS/2 version and pays for it, that it will be delivered.

It's interesting that they list FedX and Maytag as reference account.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: julienp@my-deja.com                               02-Nov-99 07:20:14
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 05:18:28
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta: Attendance

From: julienp@my-deja.com

Cornel,

We certainly have products, we even released two of them recently :
WarpCharge in August and MMPack in September.  We even sold a good
number of them at both Warp Expo West and Warpstock'99.

You might want to check http://www.thetaband.com for more details.

In article <slrn80te46.44.uno@sage.40th.com>,
  reply@only.n.news.40th.com wrote:

>
>                                                               Come as
you are
>                                                                   As
you were
>                                                           As I want
you to be
>
> >were a vendor at Warpstock-- you could fight it out (with Sound
Software tha
> >with Julien P. of Theta Band. In fact, I mentioned in an upcoming
OS/2 e-Zin
>
>                                                         Ha-ha!  Theta
wins by
>                                                             default,
and they
>                                                               don't
even have
>                                                                 any
software.
>
>

--
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Julien Pierre               http://www.madbrain.com
Theta Band Software LLC     http://www.thetaband.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Theta Band Software LLC (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 08:46:18
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 05:18:28
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
>>>> contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.

>>> Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
>>> are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 
>>> that are actually included.

>> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  

> I had already read it, Dave.

Obviously not, given how you kept blathering about the difference between
the preview and the actual release.

> Notice that it says nothing about "Java 2 security classes".

Notice that it says "security enhancements from Java(tm)2", Mike.

>> Here's the first paragraph from the Introduction:
>>
>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
>> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>> ] by following links to other helpful documentation. 
>>
>> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
>> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
>> something was removed from the preview before actual release.

> I never claimed that anything was removed from the preview before
> the actual release.

Then why did you keep blathering about the difference between the
preview and the actual release, Mike?

>> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip, or anything
>> else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on classes.zip
>> is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.

> On the contrary, I claimed that I looked at several files to determine
> what the JDK included, including classes.zip.

Then why didn't you mention the file that includes the Java 2 security
classes, Mike?

> I merely focused on classes.zip because it contains the majority of
> classes in the JDK.

But not all of them, Mike, conveniently omitting the relevant ones.

>> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
>>
>> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
>> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
>> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
>> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time. 
>>
>> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
>> sun.misc.Launcher class.

> Note the reference to "com.ibm." before "security12", which indicates
> that the class is part of a proprietary IBM package;

The way the Java 2 security classes were implemented is irrelevant,
Mike.  What is relevant is that they were implemented, something that
you claimed was "bullshit".

> it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.

Oh really?  Then why does the name include "security12", Mike?
Notice that the introduction says "security enhancements from
Java(tm)2", Mike.  Now, if they're not in Java 2, then how could
they have been taken from it, Mike?

> Thus, the IBM claim that they implement functionality based on the
> 1.2 security model, not that they include "Java 2 security classes".

Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?  Here's the relevant
quotation again:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> Dave, you don't understand what you're arguing about and you don't 
> understand what you're looking at.

Mike, I do understand what I'm arguing about.  The way you keep relying
on semantic arguments ("included" versus "add on") and things that
Joseph didn't say ("consistent interface") demonstrates that you do not
know what you're talking about.  You're trying to wriggle and squirm
your way out of another one of your lies.

>>>>> I've already addressed this point -- you are bringing it up again 
>>>>> merely as a diversion, because you cannot accept the fact that your 
>>>>> stupid little "trap" backfired on you.  

>>>> It did no such thing, Mike.

>>> Of course it did.  You led me down a twistly little path in order to
>>> spring your surprise proclamation that I must be running OS/2 to know
>>> what's in the JDK.

>> I did not lead you down any "twistly [sic] little path", Mike.  I just
>> watched you stumble all over yourself, trying to answer my questions.
>> Tell me, exactly why did you refer to the contents of the JDK, and
>> classes.zip specifically, when trying to prove what was *not* in the
>> JDK?

> Doesn't it make sense to refer to the contents of the JDK to prove
> that something isn't in it?

Not if you refer to the wrong part, Mike.

> If you claim that a certain object exists in a box, doesn't it make
> sense to look in the box and see if it's in there?

Typical inappropriate analogy, given that you looked in the wrong
box.  Do you often look for T-shirts in the sock drawer and, upon
not finding any T-shirts there, claim that there are no T-shirts
in the dresser?

>>> Yet it backfired because because your assumptions were wrong.
>>> Your assumptions were wrong because you don't understand much
>>> about self-extracting archives.

>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike.  I'm prepared
>> to explain everything, but not until you admit that you're wrong
>> about your "bullshit" response to Joseph, and that the reason my
>> response was so short is because *you* deleted all but one line from
>> Joseph's article.

> You know I won't admit that because it's a lie,

Balderdash, Mike.  See below for the evidence, which you keep deleting.

> which I've already countered several times.

Which you've already lied about several times.

> As for being "prepared to explain everything", you've already been
> doing that

On the contrary, Mike, I haven't explained everything yet.

> -- you've just been doing a pathetic job.

Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone doing a
pathetic job defending his "bullshit" claim.  You even admitted
that some functionality was implemented, yet for some peculiar
reason, you still haven't retracted your "bullshit" claim.

>>>>> I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
>>>>> example, is not included.

>>>> You claimed that Java 2 security classes are not included, Mike.

>>> And they're not.

>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application.
>>
>> Now, why would IBM say that you can use security enhancements from
>> Java(tm)2 if they are not included, Mike?  Once again, that text came
>> from the released JDK, not the preview.

> Do you understand the difference between "security enhancements from
> Java 2" and "Java 2 security classes"?

Yeah; one uses four words and a number, while the other uses three words
and a number.  Care to explain a significant difference, without relying
on a semantic argument, Mike?

> As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
> on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
> classes".

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.

>>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.

>> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>> browsing.  

> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

Having more reading comprehension problems, Mike?  It means exactly
what it says.  To enable Netscape to handle certain Java applications
when browsing the web, one needs to install the corresponding runtime
support.  The entire development kit isn't needed by those not doing
development work.

In IBM's words:

] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
] applets.

Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
browsing, Mike.

>> The development package is another file, while the security
>> enhancements are in yet another file.  

> Dave, the JRE plus the development package comprise the JDK.

You do realize that the development package is not in javainuf.exe,
don't you, Mike?

> The proprietary security classes actually *ARE* in the JDK.

You mean the Java 2 security classes, Mike?  Glad you agree.
Why did you claim they are not?

> Swing is not.

On what basis do you make that claim?  Because IBM put them in a
separate file?

>> Swing is in yet another file.

> That other file is one of the "Java extensions for OS/2", as clearly 
> indicated on the download site.  It is not part of the JDK.

Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>>>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>>>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the file.

>>>>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.

>>>>> You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.

>>>> Fortunately, I have more tools available to me than just the LIST
>>>> command, Mike.

>>> Then tell me, Dave, other than running the file, are you able to read it
>>> in a meaningful fashion?

>> Why exclude running the file, Mike?

> To demonstrate that the file can be read in a meaningful fashion
> without running the file.  Tell me, can you do it or not?

I had no trouble running it, per IBM's instructions, Mike.  Why should
I need to try a different way?

>>>>>> Does that prove that I ran WinZip?

>>>>> It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
>>>>> archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?  No, since 
>>>>> other tools allow one to get than information, despite the string 
>>>>> that says "This program must be run on OS/2".

>>>> Don't try the Marty approach of a REXX script that is purposely
>>>> designed to lie, Mike.

>>> I'm taking the approach of telling you I used WinZip on Windows NT.
>>> Why don't you try verifying the approach I actually used?

>> Why do you think I tried using an unzipper, Mike?

> You didn't use the one that I used.

So what?

> If you're going to claim that what I did was impossible, then prove it.

The key word here is "if".

> Otherwise, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence, simply admit
> that I could extract the contents of the file without running OS/2.

How ironic, given that in the face of overwhelming evidence, you have
yet to admit that what Joseph wrote is not "bullshit".

>>> I notice that you completely dodge the question.  As for your 
>>> questions, I've already addressed them.

>> By lying about Java 2 security classes not being implemented.  But
>> what I'm really asking is why the truth that they are implemented
>> is such a difficult thing for you to accept.  You haven't addressed
>> that question, Mike.  You simply keep denying the truth.

> All of the claims you make in the preceding paragraph are incorrect, 
> as I've already proven.

>>>>> Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
>>>>> why bring up LIST at all?
>>>>>
>>>>>   a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
>>>>>      contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
>>>>>      are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.

>>>> How ironic, coming from someone who displayed his "ignrance" [sic] when
>>>> he claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".

>>> On the contrary, I know much more about OS/2's version of the JDK than
>>> either you or Joseph.

>> Obviously not, given your claim that Java 2 security classes aren't
>> included in the JDK.  

> They aren't.

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> As I told you days ago, they are proprietary IBM classes,
> not "Java 2 security classes".

Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Mike?

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>> You even indicated that javainuf.exe constitutes the JDK, by claiming
>> that Swing isn't in the JDK, after I noted that it is in a separate
>> file.

> It is available as an extension, just as it is for implementations of
> JDK 1.1.8 on other platforms.

Not the same implementation, Mike.  Nor does that change the fact that
javainuf.exe does not constitute the JDK.

> I've told you this before.

You also admitted that Swing has new stuff in Java 2.

> Just because it is available does not mean it is part of the JDK.

Just because you claim that it doesn't have any Java 2 functionality
doesn't mean that it doesn't have that functionality, Mike.

>>> I'll note that, once again, you completely fail to address the point.

>> I'll note that, once again, you lied.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         02-Nov-99 08:46:18
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 05:18:28
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> Except that in all of the instances where your opinion differs from what
> I've stated, your opinion is incorrect.

I'm not talking about opinions, Mike.

>>>>> Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
>>>>> be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).

>>>> Nothing "backfired" on me, Mike. 

>>> Ah, so you deliberately planned to make yourself look stupid.  I see.

>> Yet another illogical conclusion.  

> You claimed it did not "backfire", so you must have planned it.  Quite 
> logical.

Jumping to erroneous conclusions once again, I see.  Quite illogical.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Nov-99 10:13:16
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 10:31:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:46:14, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
> >>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
>  
> >>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.
>  
> >> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> > Indeed.
> 
> Then why bring up that you think it's cool?
> 
> >>> I like it. I like it a lot.
>  
> >> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> > Indeed also.
> 
> Then why bring up that you like it?
> 
> >>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)
>  
> >> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> > Indeed once more.
> 
> Then why bring it up?
> 

I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of 
the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it (I already 
knew it, but it had kinda slipped to the background). Now, like I 
said, I like MAME, and I simply wanted to avoid people getting the 
wrong idea about it. You see, others reading these threads who are 
aware of the nature of your "exchanges" with Marty might get the 
impression that you were putting down MAME. I'm pretty sure you 
weren't, but I wanted to play safe.

After that, one thing led to another and now I've publically admitted 
to owning pirated software. Oh well...

"Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
Europan!"
(Let's see who'll get that one.)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Nov-99 10:13:17
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 10:31:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:52:21, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> 
> >> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
> >> I do?"
> >>    --Nick Danger
> 
> > LOL! I should have seen that one coming.
> 
> Are you familiar with Nicky and Nancy?
> 
All I have is the Nick Danger readout you once force-fed me <G>. It 
was enough to make me momentarily wish I lived on another continent. 
You Americans sure have some good comedy stuff - sometimes...

[snip]
> 
> >> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.
> 
> > Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.
> 
> You mean browser?
> 
browser > Yahoo > search engine > David Tholen

[snip]
> 
> >> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
> >> the complaint in the first place.
> 
> > Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
> > yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.
> 
> I already have.  I haven't received an answer.
> 
Apparently it's got something to do with Netscape's filter. I don't 
use Netscape for news, so don't ask me for further explanations.

[snip] 
> >> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
> >> Marty's "infantile game".
> 
> > I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
> > fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
> > even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
> > of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
> > cells, and yet...
> 
> ...people like Marty use those brain cells to play "infantile games".
> 
Allow me to play "Johnny Little Bastard" here for a moment: It usually
takes two to play. So, even if Marty had started playing a game (which
he sort of admitted already), you've given him plenty of ammo to 
continue...

Back to my old cowardly self: No comment...

> >>>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...
> 
> >>>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
> >>>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.
> 
> >>> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
> >>> mind". So: thanks.
> 
> >> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.
> 
> > You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 
> 
> Supports?
> 
thanks

> > supports my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 
> > is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
> > out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
> > different reasons then.
> 
> And also irrelevant to the issue of people reading that which has been
> allegedly killfiled.
> 
I cannot be helt responsible for the mental problems of other people.

> >>> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
> >>> replies)
> 
> >> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of references.
> 
> > Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
> > always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.
> 
> He's making direct references now, as is Mike Timbol.  So did David
> Leblanc.
> 
Indeed, but in Marty's case, preceded by the "announcement" that his 
killfile was broken, so at least he's consequent. I don't know about 
the others.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Nov-99 10:13:20
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 10:31:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 23:41:40, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

[snip]
> 
> I'm not here to play international software cop.  You do whatever you
> like with your software.  I just ask that you humbly and kindly ask this
> gentleman to not distribute the MAME executable(s) on the same CD as his
> illegal ROMs, as a favor to those who make MAME.  He is clearly
> violating MAME's own license agreement.  Although no one on the MAME
> team has the wherewithall or desire to sue him over it, taking advantage
> of the developers in this way only serves to harm the project's
> integrity and the developers' desire to continue it.
> 
I tried to contact the guy who sold me the CD. Still nothing, but it's
November 2 and in Belgium that's half a holiday, so I'll keep it up.

FWIW, I made some calculations on the cost of dwonloading the stuff 
and burning the CD and I think he didn't make much money on it (unless
he had a T1 hookup to the Net, that is).

[snip]
> 
> I'll save both of us the trouble of looking it up.  I used the message
> filter feature of Netscape.  This doesn't remove the messages from my
> display, but merely marks them as "read".

Thanks for the reply. I don't use Netscape for news, so I can't 
comment on it.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             02-Nov-99 12:27:24
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 10:31:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vle26$iaj$4@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> > You, _didn't_ read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
> > thread,
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?

You're mystified by a basic concept covered in those references.

> > You need to review those references, esp. Baker and Chomsky, for the
> > explanation of "multi-level" as used here and in the "costly
mistakes"
> > thread.
>
> I asked you, Lucien, not Baker or Chomsky.

The meaning of the term "multi-level" as used here is discussed in
those references. You need to read them.

> > Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:
> >
> > "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> > 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> > information."
>
> Incorrect, Lucien.  That is *not* my assertion concerning the JDK
> sentence.

Yes, it is your statement. It is correct, and is in complete agreement
with my thesis.

Let's review again:

Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Here is my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  02-Nov-99 07:41:13
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 10:31:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

> Ok.  Further proof of Dave's incorrectness is available at:
> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

Hah!  As if *further* proof of Tholen's idiocy were needed; he proved that
about seven years ago, by my reckoning!  But thanks for that proof, Marty,
it'll be fun to watch Tholen continue to attempt to wriggle out of the
situation he's put him [that mean the same thing as "himself," according to
one grammatically-challenged Tholen!] in.

- Joe


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ispy@groovyshow.com                               26-Oct-99 15:45:04
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com>

I do hope they print mine.  You know the name.  Kelly Robinson.  And, yes,
it's not Microsoft friendly.  Even Tim Martin (I hope his health is
improving) should appreciate it.

David T. Johnson <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:3815BDC7.D6EFF1A6@isomedia.com...
> Columnist John Dvorak has posted a provocative analysis of Microsoft's
> MVP online advocacy program which states:
>
> "The MVP (Most Valuable Professional) program paid many of
> these "volunteers" with something called MVP Bucks. The
> concept, which is kinda sorta described on the MVP home page
> seems to be discounts of some sort."
>
> Read more at:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/stories/opinions/0,7802,2380951,00.html
>
> So...who were the Microsoft MVPs who hung out at COOA?????


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au                               02-Nov-99 14:04:23
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane)

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 02:49:33, Hobbyist 
<alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :
[snip] 
> > In my experience Unimaint was very necessary for OS/2 v2 and
> > 3 but Warp 4 has almost no need for it (sure its handy 
> > sometimes and nice to have but I can/could operate without 
> > it - and couldn't under 2 or 3). Warp 4 was and is very 
> > stable re ini file's for me
> 
[snip]
> Quite a few application installs hosed my WPS as well, and Unimaints
> ini file backup utility saved my ass on these few occasions. The
> version I used was for OS/2 Warp 4 BTW, and a best seller at that. You
> guys can certainly spout misinformation.
> 
Just what is the "misinformation" I sprouted? My post 
clearly indicated the information I gave was personal 
experience. Are you alleging that I am misinformed about 
what my experience has been or is the allegation that I am 
misinformed about the stability of my Warp 4 ini files? 
Please explain.
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT 
octa4.net.au 
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 10:29:03
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >>>>>> file?
> 
> >>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
> >>>>> self-extracting archive,
> 
> >>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.
> 
> >>> With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of an executable
> >>> file.
> 
> >> Like the LIST tool.
> 
> > That's not a proper tool for such a purpose.
> 
> What purpose are you referring to, Marty?  I was referring to examining
> the contents of an executable file.  I often find LIST to be a proper
> tool for such a purpose.

On how many occasions have you had to view the contents of an executable
and found "LIST" a useful view thereof?  Personally, I prefer to look at
disassembly or a debugger view if the executable has symbollic
information as I find it quite a bit more useful.

> >>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.
> 
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".
> 
> >>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file
is
> >>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
> >>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
> >>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> >>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> >>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility).
Where
> >>>>> is the logic, here?
> 
> >>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
> >>>> able to do it.
> 
> >>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities.  For
> >>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your logic is
> >>> flawed.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar file,
> >> Marty.
> 
> > Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to InfoZip
> > and is thus more capable.
> 
> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.
 
> > javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> > wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
> this fact?

I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised. 
Take another look at the URL: 
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
 
> >>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> >>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> >>>>> other tool can?
> 
> >>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> >>>> file as argument.
> 
> >>> You would be sorely disappointed.
> 
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?

Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
been shattered into tiny little pieces.
 
> > Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,
> 
> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
> in the same way, Marty.

Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
 
> > just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
> > behave the same is.
> 
> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.

You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
decompression tools.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          02-Nov-99 10:58:18
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :

> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 02:49:33, Hobbyist 
> <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:
> 
> > On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :
> [snip] 
> > > In my experience Unimaint was very necessary for OS/2 v2 and
> > > 3 but Warp 4 has almost no need for it (sure its handy 
> > > sometimes and nice to have but I can/could operate without 
> > > it - and couldn't under 2 or 3). Warp 4 was and is very 
> > > stable re ini file's for me
> > 
> [snip]
> > Quite a few application installs hosed my WPS as well, and Unimaints
> > ini file backup utility saved my ass on these few occasions. The
> > version I used was for OS/2 Warp 4 BTW, and a best seller at that. You
> > guys can certainly spout misinformation.
> > 
> Just what is the "misinformation" I sprouted? My post 
> clearly indicated the information I gave was personal 
> experience. Are you alleging that I am misinformed about 
> what my experience has been or is the allegation that I am 
> misinformed about the stability of my Warp 4 ini files? 

Hmmm. You *did* say 'in my experience'. I take the sprouting
misinformation rant back then.

The warp4  ini files are just as volatile and prone to problems as the
windows registry. This is my and many other OS/2 users that I knew and
discussed the matter with's experience.

-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          02-Nov-99 11:26:29
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
the points, as I see them.

1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2

JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
It is not clear whether this functionality involves
changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided 
by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes 
executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the 
classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.  

2) The self-extracting archive

a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread 
is in an OS/2 native format.
b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE 
format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms 
that have archive utilities that implement support for 
the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
for execution on non-OS2 systems.
e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools, 
such as editors, viewers, etc. 


Many posts containing some or all of these points are 
confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.  

For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as 
if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c 
are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       02-Nov-99 16:22:22
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>Please. I've used Partition Magic from 1 to 4 and no version takes up 100 
>megs.

The newest version is 5, so you might not have disproven that PM has ballooned
to 100MB.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               02-Nov-99 11:39:22
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Brad BARCLAY
> >Open32 is just as valid (and native) as an API set
> >as is, say, MFC on Windows.
> 
> Microsoft Foundation Classes are not an API. They are C++ classes to
> be used by Object-oriented C programs during compilation of the
> program.

	Do you have any clue about what you're talking about?  An API is an
Application Programming Interface.  A C++ class is an interface.  All
APIs are bound to the application at compile time (wether the calls are
in dynamic link libraries, or they're statically bound).

	MFC is just as much an API as is Win32, Open32, the OS/2 API, or the
standard Java classes.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               02-Nov-99 11:51:20
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 14:32:22
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> Sorry, Brad, I don't buy it. I've never seen a Java application that
> runs as well as native code.

	Grab yourself a PalmPilot an install the jSyncManager v1.1 beta
(http://yaztromo.idirect.com/java-pilot-dev.html).  It's a pure Java
application which can do Palm synchronization on any Java-enabled
platform faster than Palm's native Windows software.  It's also less
than 200k in size, and has a variety of plug-in jConduits (including one
for Lotus Notes for OS/2).

	And if that one isn't good enough for you, I can send you the source
for a distributed graph connectivity application I wrote in Java as part
of a contest, which beat the second place native code solution by a
factor of 10.

	Any Java applications which are IO bound are going to be at least as
fast as their native code counterparts (how fast do you have to be to
wait for input? :).

	The problem isn't Java - it's Java programmers who don't know how to
optimize their code and algorithms.  The above-mentioned graph
connectivity code I wrote does 100 000 Monte Carlo simulations for 50
different sample sets across the same graph, for each simulation
checking the connectivity of each of the 25 arcs, and then testing for
graph connectivity.  In short, it's a rather heavy-duty mathematical
simulation.  And it won because it was extremely heavily optimized for
the task (although it can be memory intensive, as it's using a recursive
algorithm to test for connectivity).  It also made excellent use of
available resources.

	I know of several Java applications wihch are at least as fast as their
native code counterparts - I'd be more than happy to point more out to
you if you'd like :).

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     02-Nov-99 09:14:09
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-2-99, 3:58:37 PM, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote 
regarding Re: Reality check:


> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :

> > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 02:49:33, Hobbyist
> > <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :
> > [snip]
> > > > In my experience Unimaint was very necessary for OS/2 v2 and
> > > > 3 but Warp 4 has almost no need for it (sure its handy
> > > > sometimes and nice to have but I can/could operate without
> > > > it - and couldn't under 2 or 3). Warp 4 was and is very
> > > > stable re ini file's for me
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > Quite a few application installs hosed my WPS as well, and Unimaints
> > > ini file backup utility saved my ass on these few occasions. The
> > > version I used was for OS/2 Warp 4 BTW, and a best seller at that. You
> > > guys can certainly spout misinformation.
> > >
> > Just what is the "misinformation" I sprouted? My post
> > clearly indicated the information I gave was personal
> > experience. Are you alleging that I am misinformed about
> > what my experience has been or is the allegation that I am
> > misinformed about the stability of my Warp 4 ini files?

> Hmmm. You *did* say 'in my experience'. I take the sprouting
> misinformation rant back then.

> The warp4  ini files are just as volatile and prone to problems as the
> windows registry. This is my and many other OS/2 users that I knew and
> discussed the matter with's experience.

Now you are spouting misinformation.  

I think your opinion is BS and childishly posed as fact.  I'd be 
interested in an guidance as to how you determined the two were equal 
in volatility.        I can't find any.

Given my years of experience with Windows from v2 to V4 (aka Win95) 
and OS/2 v1.0 to v 4.0.  I think you're overrating the quality and 
usability of the windows registry and the volatility of OS/2's ini 
files.

Now if you have some study or analysis of the two which lead you to 
believe they were equally volatile I'd be interested.

Oddly, OS/2 allows for multiple, time stamped archives of the desktop 
and ini files where as windows does not.  If the Windows and OS/2's 
technology are equally volatile as you claim then clearly MS's 
decision to not allow automated registry archives is a disadvantage.  




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               02-Nov-99 09:18:29
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Large OS/2 Customers List (LOS2CL) updated

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On 2 Nov 1999 01:59:03 GMT, Esther Schindler wrote:

>On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:40:19, "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com> 
>wrote:
>
>| I'm so happy for them.  But considering the fact most people here aren't
>| related to big businesses, your information is pointless.
>|  
>| Show us some real-life examples.
>
>No problem.
>
>A recent issue of extended attributes, the monthly print magazine 
>published by the Phoenix OS/2 Society, described the use of OS/2 in a 
>small business. OS/2 runs everything at Lumature, a high-end furniture
>and lighting store in Scottsdale, from printing the pricing labels to 
>automating the lighting displays.
>
>Or, if that isn't a good enough example for you, another issue of 
>extended attributes described how National Public Radio uses OS/2 to 
>distibute its radio shows via satellite.
>

And next time you go to the Kingdom of Tonga, any phone you picked up might
very well be connected to an OS/2 machine.

If you lost your car in Peru, don't worry, OS/2 has you covered.   Just call
your security company and the horn on your car will start calling the police.

Now, on to France.

p.s. Incidentally, any call you make to South America has a good probability
that it goes through an OS/2 machine.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          02-Nov-99 18:10:19
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson
>2) The self-extracting archive

>a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread 
>is in an OS/2 native format.
>b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
>c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE 
>format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms 
>that have archive utilities that implement support for 
>the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
>the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
>d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
>for execution on non-OS2 systems.
>e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
>viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools, 
>such as editors, viewers, etc. 


>Many posts containing some or all of these points are 
>confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.  

>For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as 
>if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c 
>are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
>OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.

Yet another alleged "programmer" who doesn't understand that when a
piece of machine code is executed, that "process" (as Bennie refers to
it) is an actual instance of "running the program".

No wonder why OS/2 doesn't have much software. These alleged
"programmers" who use it don't know crap about programming. They'd
have to struggle just to put together a "Hello World" program, and
even if they COULD get it up and actually running, they wouldn't even
understand how and why they suddenly saw that string, just as they
obviously don't understand how and why that self-executing Zip file
was able to display its strings.

Pathetic, really. These OS/2 "programmers" are about the worst and
most incompetent I've ever seen. No one should hire them. It appears
that everything they "know" is just material that they've collected
from surfing the internet, which they don't understand, but spew forth
anyway in a vain attempt to appear as if they're "technically adept"
computer users. The truth is that they appear to truly understand no
more about technical issues than mom and dad Windows users surfing the
internet. The only real difference is that mom and dad Windows users
aren't pompous, self-deluded know-nothings who mistakenly think that
they're more technically adept and "logical" than all of those
"emotionally blocked" (as Bennie calls them) mainstream users.

Typical behavior from religiously zealous, fanatical, promoters of
oddball niche products that attract what are very clearly people prone
to exhibiting cult-like tendencies (not to mention psychological
neuroses like Tholen shows)...

...and *quite* pathetic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             02-Nov-99 17:52:00
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <7vlgc9$j4d$2@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> >> Marty writes:
>
> > -- snip --
>
> >>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?
>
> >>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
> >>>> format portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.
>
> >>> The archive format is portable.
>
> >> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
> >> "InfoZip"?
>
> > He was probably just testing the depths of your ignorance, Dave.
>
> What alleged ignorance, Curtis?

Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance regarding WinZip's capabilities,
as well as your factual ignorance regarding whether one needs to run
OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

> > BTW, *DO* you understand the difference between "WinZip"
and "InfoZip"?
>
> Irrelevant, as I'm not the one who brought it up, Curtis.

Actually, whether or not you are the one who brought it up is what's
irrelevant.  The question above is quite relevant, your whines to the
contrary notwithstanding.

> > You seem quite interested in *NOT* answering the question.
>
> You seem quite interested in irrelevant questions.

"Irrelevant?" Or just "uncomfortable?" I mean, really, dismissing
questions such as these is as cowardly as hiding behind the alleged
errors of others.

Last year, I accused you of having an "I am NOMAD! I am PERFECT"
syndrome.  You are simply supporting my earlier observations.  I
pointed out an obvious error you made, giving you a golden opportunity
to prove my earlier hypothesis wrong, yet, rather that own up to your
error, you continue these typical diversionary tactics.

> > -- snip --
>
> >>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
> >>> contents. How is that irrelevant?
>
> >> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
>
> > And how, pray tell, does that make it "irrelevant?"
>
> Because there is a way to do it using OS/2.

That is a non-answer, Dave. Nobody is claiming that there *isn't* a way
to do it in OS/2. You claim that the questions are "irrelevant," then
turn around a post a completely vacuous and irrelevant "answer."

> > After all, it can also be done ***WITHOUT*** OS/2.
>
> Do you also agree with Marty that the self-extracting archive can
> run on DOS?

Have I ever said as much, Dave?


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          02-Nov-99 13:35:23
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Joseph posted :

<snip>
> Oddly, OS/2 allows for multiple, time stamped archives of the desktop 
> and ini files where as windows does not.

Oddly indeed. One of the main purposes for these time stamped archives
is for WPS backup. I wonder why it needs backing up so much? The
success of Unimaint and WPSBackup adds testimony to this fact. 

> If the Windows and OS/2's technology are equally volatile as you claim
> then clearly MS's decision to not allow automated registry archives is
> a disadvantage.

My aim is not to wave the MS flag over OS/2 which you OS/2 guys so
knee-jerkingly think when something negative is brought up or claimed
about your beloved OS.

I very much acknowledge the weakness with the windows registry and
that MS should bundle effective registry backup utilities with their
OS and also provide an easy means of restoring from a number of
backups. NT has a similar function, i.e., startup with the last
working configuration, but it's far from as well done as OS/2's
method. Many registry backup and restore utilities are available as
3rd party products pretty much like OS/2's unimaint and WPSBackup. :)

-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             02-Nov-99 18:33:03
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <7vlg70$j4d$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Marty writes:

-- snip --

> > That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> > executable was run.
>
> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.  Why do you think it says
> that it MUST be run under OS/2?

Because the self-extraction module must be run under OS/2. However, the
JAVAINUF.EXE executable can, indeed, be run under DOS.  When one does
so, it displays a message indicating that the self-extraction module
requires OS/2 in order to execute.

However, there is a difference between JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an
executable file, and the self-extraction module contained therein.

> Continue to deny your error, Marty, and you'll develop a reputation
> for "never" admitting to making mistakes.

This is sound advice, Marty, considering that it comes from the master
of denial himself, the one who does have such a reputation.

-- snip --

> > And you bring the point up into our discussion.
>
> On what basis do you call it "our" discussion, Marty?  I was having a
> discussion with Timbol when you jumped in.

Do you seriously consider an exchange in USENET to be a private affair?
No, USENET is a public forum; if you want a private conversation, use e-
mail.

-- snip --

> > Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
>
> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

And you are the one who keeps implying that one cannot view the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows.

-- snip --

> Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the contents
> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip, somehow
> proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.

Mike Timbol made his claims based on an examination of the contents of
classes.zip (and other files), not based on the fact that he *can*
examine them.

Karel, if you are reading this, the above is a classic example of why
threads involving Tholen go south.

-- snip --


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      02-Nov-99 18:56:17
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Warpstock 1999/Atlanta: Attendance

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Yes, I know.  But it was about midi as I recall, and you don't
have any midi apps.  I am aware that you did a mmos2.ini (the text
ini file) checker/validator, and ... something else.  I am aware of
your port of a popular DOS mod player (can't recall much about mods,
but I did a player about 10 years ago -- seems like), and offering up
the interface.  Good going!  I'm glad someone's keeping mmos2 moving
(as I tried two-three years ago, which was already too late I found
out).

julienp@my-deja.com? (julienp@my-deja.com?) wrote (Tue, 02 Nov 1999 07:20:29 G
>We certainly have products, we even released two of them recently :
>>                                                         Ha-ha!  Theta
>wins by
>>                                                             default,
>and they
>>                                                               don't
>even have
>>                                                                 any
>software.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          02-Nov-99 14:03:11
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff,

Did you read my post before recycling your useless
blather?

The self-extraction code is different from the code
that executes in DOS to display the message that the
program must run in OS/2.  This "DOS stub" is totally
unnecessary vis-a-vis the archive extraction process
and is distinct and separate from the function of the 
OS/2 extraction code.  The extraction code will run 
perfectly and completely without the "DOS stub."  But,
the OS/2 extraction code will only execute in OS/2.

These two separate programs are merged with the 
archive data to create an executable.  The executable
will "run" in DOS, but the SELF-EXTRACTION code will
not.  Since the purpose of the program is to extract
the archived data, it is erroneous to say that the
executable works in DOS.  If you wish to say that
the executable runs in DOS, then you are quite 
correct.  If you equate running with working, you
are quite incorrect.  The program may execute in DOS, 
but, since it is a SELF-EXTRACTION program and the 
SELF-EXTRACTION program imbedded in the executable
will not work in DOS, it is correct to say that the
SELF-EXTRACTION archive will not work in DOS.

Bennie Nelson

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Bennie Nelson
> >2) The self-extracting archive
> 
> >a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> >is in an OS/2 native format.
> >b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> >c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> >format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> >that have archive utilities that implement support for
> >the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> >the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> >d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> >for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> >e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> >viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> >such as editors, viewers, etc.
> 
> >Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> >confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> 
> >For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> >if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> >are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> >OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> 
> Yet another alleged "programmer" who doesn't understand that when a
> piece of machine code is executed, that "process" (as Bennie refers to
> it) is an actual instance of "running the program".
> 
> No wonder why OS/2 doesn't have much software. These alleged
> "programmers" who use it don't know crap about programming. They'd
> have to struggle just to put together a "Hello World" program, and
> even if they COULD get it up and actually running, they wouldn't even
> understand how and why they suddenly saw that string, just as they
> obviously don't understand how and why that self-executing Zip file
> was able to display its strings.
> 
> Pathetic, really. These OS/2 "programmers" are about the worst and
> most incompetent I've ever seen. No one should hire them. It appears
> that everything they "know" is just material that they've collected
> from surfing the internet, which they don't understand, but spew forth
> anyway in a vain attempt to appear as if they're "technically adept"
> computer users. The truth is that they appear to truly understand no
> more about technical issues than mom and dad Windows users surfing the
> internet. The only real difference is that mom and dad Windows users
> aren't pompous, self-deluded know-nothings who mistakenly think that
> they're more technically adept and "logical" than all of those
> "emotionally blocked" (as Bennie calls them) mainstream users.
> 
> Typical behavior from religiously zealous, fanatical, promoters of
> oddball niche products that attract what are very clearly people prone
> to exhibiting cult-like tendencies (not to mention psychological
> neuroses like Tholen shows)...
> 
> ...and *quite* pathetic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 02-Nov-99 19:47:26
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > -- snip --
>
> >> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >> file?
>
> > Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
> > self-extracting archive,
>
> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

And the "executable file" in question, namely, JAVAINUF.EXE, happens to be a
self-extracting archive, the contents of which can indeed be examined without
running the self-extraction module, using the proper tool(s).


> > your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

On the contrary, I am correctly observing that you are self-deluded,
considering that you still appear to believe that one needs OS/2 in order to
examine the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.


> >>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
>
> >> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> >>
> >> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
> >> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.
> >> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
> >> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> >> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>
> > Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility). Where
> > is the logic, here?
>
> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
> able to do it.

Why do you use OS/2, Dave? After all, both OS/2 and Window NT are tools, and
they are both Operating Systems. Based on your logic, if OS/2 can do any
particular thing, then the other (i.e., NT) should also be able to do it, so
there is no reason to prefer OS/2 over NT.

OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools are
created equal. And you are illogical in the extreme if you think that one
tool's failure to do a particular thing necessarily implies that all such
tools must fail in a similar manner.


> > Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> > contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> > other tool can?
>
> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> file as argument.

Why? Are you really that naive? You are admitting technical ineptitude here.


> > Are you really that stupid, Dave?
>
> What's allegedly "stupid" about expecting other unzip tools to behave
> similarly with the same file as argument?

Maybe "stupid" is too strong a word. How about "naive" instead?

For example, are you aware that InfoZip cannot handle multi-part archives?
Just how ignorant/naive are you?


> > Are you trying to make OS/2 look bad?
>
> Illogical.  How does the output of unzip make OS/2 look bad?

Was I talking about the output of unzip? No, I was talking about *you.*

Talk about "illogical" . . .


>  "Are you really that stupid, Curtis?"  Do your postings here make USENET
> look bad?

"Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery . . ."


> > You're doing a fine job of it on at least two counts: 1) showing the
> > world that an OS/2 ZIP archive tool is weaker than a Windows ZIP
> > archive tool,
>
> I've done no such thing, Curtis.

Perhaps, according to a blind man (or illiterate one).


> > and 2) showing the world that a certain OS/2 user is technically
> > inept, yet stubborn beyond reason.
>
> Typical invective.

Actually, it isn't "invective" at all, but accurate, level-headed observation
and description of said observation.


>  And you think that one OS/2 user can make OS/2
> look bad?  Well, using that sort of illogic, then you just made
> whatever operating system you use look bad.

Perhaps, to you  I did, but that doesn't concern me, considering that I use a
variety of OSes (check my headers. I am using NT currently, but I use OS/2 and
Linux as well).


> >> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
> >> Mike.
>
> > Try to notice that Mike never claimed to have run the self-extraction,
> > Dave.  Try to stop your stupidity.
>
> Why did you delete the text of his to which I was responding?

Uh, to save bandwidth? I have perused many threads involving you, and notice
that many, perhaps most of them contains several levels of chevrons. I choose
not to repeat that which can be interrogated on Deja News, or previous posts
on one's given news server.


> > If you can.
>
> Typical invective.  The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

Well, I suppose it gives you a warm'n'fuzzy to believe that. Far be it from me
to deny you your simple pleasures . . . but it does support my belief that you
are self-deluded.


> > -- snip --
>
> >> You're presupposing that I've reached incorrect conclusions regarding
> >> the file in question, Mike.
>
> > No. He is observing that you have reached an incorrect conclusion that
> > one needs OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, but you
> > are too blind with obstinate stupidity to comprehend this.
>
> Typical invective.  The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

Again, it's simple observation, not "invective."

But believe what you will . . .


> >>> You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
>
> >> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.
>
> > No need to "prove" it, any more than there is a need to "prove" that the
> > sky is blue on a clear day.
>
> The sky didn't make a claim, Curtis.  Timbol did.

Hmm. You are always using the ultra-nerdy phrase "non-sequitor" in cases like
this. I never said that "the sky made a claim." I would try to explain the
analogy, but it would be like teaching a pig to dance -- it would make me look
foolish, and it would annoy the pig.


> >>> Good show.
>
> >> You're providing the entertainment, Mike.
>
> > I'm sure that this delusion makes you feel all warm'n'toasty inside, but
> > it's hardly the truth. You are providing entertainment through your
> > buffoonery.
>
> Typical invective.  The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
> logical argument.

Well, it appears that this is your latest battle cry, but, again, it's simple
observation. When someone holds up a large ball, a buffoon would insist that
there is no large ball.  If you don't like my observations, you do have the
option of changing how I (and others) perceive you.


> >>>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
> >>>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
> >>>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.
>
> >>> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.
> >
> >> What alleged ignorance, Mike?
>
> > Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance of WinZip's capabilities, Dave.
>
> I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
> you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?

You have yet to acknowledge that the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined
with WinZip, but, instead, stubbornly insist on perpetrating the implication
that, since InfoZip cannot read the contents, WinZip must not be able to
either.


> >> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>
> > -- [repeat of InfoZip's choking snipped] --
> >
> > Repeating your ineptness proves nothing but your ineptness.
>
> I posted the output from InfoZip, Curtis.  Nothing inept about my use
> of InfoZip.

There is much ineptness in not choosing a better tool when it's available, one
that many people have told you about, namely, WinZip. There is much ineptness
in stubbornly clinging to a failed line of reasoning.

Seriously, if you really want to "prove" that one has to run OS/2 in order to
extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, it stands to reason that a strong tactic
would be to use the tool that "everyone else" is allegedly using, and prove
that the tool in question does indeed fail.


>  Do you call yourself "inept" when a light bulb burns out
> after you flip the light switch?

How is this relevant, pray tell?


> > -- snip --
>
> It figures.  Why not address the real issue, Curtis?  Timbol claimed
> that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".  Joseph stated that Java 1.1.8
> for OS/2 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Now, is that statement
> "bullshit", as Mike claimed?

I have already answered that. You have even responded to my answer.


Curtis


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Nov-99 20:09:04
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

Bennie,

Nobody'll like this. You've made it all look too simple. <G>


On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:26:58, Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> 
wrote:

> This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> the points, as I see them.
> 
> 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> 
> JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided 
> by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes 
> executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the 
> classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.  
> 
> 2) The self-extracting archive
> 
> a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread 
> is in an OS/2 native format.
> b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE 
> format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms 
> that have archive utilities that implement support for 
> the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools, 
> such as editors, viewers, etc. 
> 
> 
> Many posts containing some or all of these points are 
> confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.  
> 
> For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as 
> if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c 
> are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> 
> Bennie Nelson

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Nov-99 20:09:05
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:33:07, cbass2112@my-deja.com wrote:

> In article <7vlg70$j4d$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
>   tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> > Marty writes:
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > > That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> > > executable was run.
> >
> > That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.  Why do you think it says
> > that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> Because the self-extraction module must be run under OS/2. However, the
> JAVAINUF.EXE executable can, indeed, be run under DOS.  When one does
> so, it displays a message indicating that the self-extraction module
> requires OS/2 in order to execute.
> 
> However, there is a difference between JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an
> executable file, and the self-extraction module contained therein.
> 
> > Continue to deny your error, Marty, and you'll develop a reputation
> > for "never" admitting to making mistakes.
> 
> This is sound advice, Marty, considering that it comes from the master
> of denial himself, the one who does have such a reputation.
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > > And you bring the point up into our discussion.
> >
> > On what basis do you call it "our" discussion, Marty?  I was having a
> > discussion with Timbol when you jumped in.
> 
> Do you seriously consider an exchange in USENET to be a private affair?
> No, USENET is a public forum; if you want a private conversation, use e-
> mail.
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > > Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
> >
> > Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> And you are the one who keeps implying that one cannot view the
> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows.
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the contents
> > of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip, somehow
> > proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.
> 
> Mike Timbol made his claims based on an examination of the contents of
> classes.zip (and other files), not based on the fact that he *can*
> examine them.
> 
> Karel, if you are reading this, the above is a classic example of why
> threads involving Tholen go south.
> 
OK, I confess: I'm reading it.

One question (I haven't been following the thread, and it's just pure 
luck my iddy biddy eye fell on this): did Dave say that Mike couldn't 
view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows, or did he say that Mike 
couldn't execute JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows?

Also, like I said about a zillion times already, I'm no programmer, so
this is like stabbing for olives with a maypole in the dark, but is it
*really* possible, by looking at the contents of a *.zip file, to 
determine that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does not have any Java 2 features 
(which was, IINM, Joseph's original claim)?

BTW, I like "Due South". It's whacky.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     02-Nov-99 12:07:10
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 11-2-99, 6:35:46 PM, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote 
regarding Re: Reality check:


> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Joseph posted :

> <snip>
> > Oddly, OS/2 allows for multiple, time stamped archives of the desktop
> > and ini files where as windows does not.

> Oddly indeed. One of the main purposes for these time stamped archives
> is for WPS backup. I wonder why it needs backing up so much? The
> success of Unimaint and WPSBackup adds testimony to this fact.

Backing up data is NOT a metric for measuring the volatility of a OS's 
file system or integrity of the system information.   What computers 
are NOT backed up?  The feature does NOT imply anything about the 
volatility of the data just it's importance and the design decision to 
not hide the feature - assuming that backups would increase the 
systems' reliability.

But you also said Windows and OS/2 are equally volatile.  Why doesn't 
Windows offer me a start-up screen to restore the registry?  It's a 
design decision, and IMHO a flaw.


> > If the Windows and OS/2's technology are equally volatile as you claim
> > then clearly MS's decision to not allow automated registry archives is
> > a disadvantage.

> My aim is not to wave the MS flag over OS/2 which you OS/2 guys so
> knee-jerkingly think when something negative is brought up or claimed
> about your beloved OS.
I think you made an out of line comparison and did so with a uncanny 
aura of authority.  OS/2 INI files can get corrupted when I lose power 
during a shut down.  I use the archive feature at boot time to restore 
the INI files to a previous state.  Windows registry problems (or 
general instability) have arisen over time - something I have not 
experienced with OS/2.  IMHO they are more violate as it has taken my 
admins more time and effort to maintain one OS over the other.  Also 
Moving files to a new fat32 file systems (18 gig disk added) was a 
disaster on the Windows95 OSr2.  It required extensive editing of the 
registry and in one case a plain reinstall of everything to save time. 
 I just do not have these kinds of problems with OS/2 - it is not as 
brittle.  


> I very much acknowledge the weakness with the windows registry and
> that MS should bundle effective registry backup utilities with their
> OS and also provide an easy means of restoring from a number of
> backups. NT has a similar function, i.e., startup with the last
> working configuration, but it's far from as well done as OS/2's
> method. Many registry backup and restore utilities are available as
> 3rd party products pretty much like OS/2's unimaint and WPSBackup. :)





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 02-Nov-99 20:01:28
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>

--------------D7013A557A05068114342440
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



Dave Tholen wrote:

> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --


> > If I see fit to challange a claim made by Mike Timbol, I will do so
> > in my time and on my terms.
>
> Why haven't you seen fit to challenge Timbol?
>
> > You don't enter into it, so keep your nose out of it.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't been keeping his nose out of
> the discussion between me and Mike.

When someone posts a blatant error on a public forum such as USENET, it's
hardly a
case of "nosiness" to correct said error. OTOH, you are questioning/judging my
decision-making process, my psyche, which is nosy to extremes, and dragging
other
individuals into discussion to boot. Do I ask you why you choose to deal or
not deal
with Mike Timbol or Marty in a given certain way? No, because that's your
business,
not mine. However, if you post a blatently wrong statement, I will take you to 
task on
it, and would have no problem with your taking me to task on a blatant error I 
may
make.

Like I said, I expect something more mature from a university professor.

-- snip --


>
> >
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537879114&CONTEXT=941504762.1516240931&hitnum=
8
> >
> > Note that the article was posted in response to a statement made by Mr.
> > Timbol.

-- snip --


> > OTOH, your being wrong about needing to run OS/2 in order to extract the
> > contents of JAVAINUF.EXE is not something that is open to debate.
>
> Then you should agree that the Java 1.2 functionality that IBM implemented
> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is also not something that is open to debate.

If you read the article referenced by the url above, you will see my position
quite
plainly. IOW, I have already addressed this.

-- snip --


Curtis


--------------D7013A557A05068114342440
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
&nbsp;
<p>Dave Tholen wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Curtis Bass writes:</blockquote>

<p><br>-- snip --
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>> If I see fit to challange a claim made by Mike
Timbol, I will do so
<br>> in my time and on my terms.
<p>Why haven't you seen fit to challenge Timbol?
<p>> You don't enter into it, so keep your nose out of it.
<p>How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't been keeping his nose out
of
<br>the discussion between me and Mike.</blockquote>

<p><br>When someone posts a blatant error on a public forum such as USENET,
it's hardly a case of "nosiness" to correct said error. OTOH, you are
questioning/judging
my decision-making process, my psyche, which is nosy to extremes, and dragging
other individuals into discussion to boot. Do I ask you why you choose
to deal or not deal with Mike Timbol or Marty in a given certain way? No,
because that's your business, not mine. However, if you post a blatently
wrong statement, I will take you to task on it, and would have no problem
with your taking me to task on a blatant error I may make.
<p>Like I said, I expect something more mature from a university professor.
<p>-- snip --
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>&nbsp;
<br>> <a
href="http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537879114&CONTEXT=941504762.1516240931&h
itnum=8">http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537879114&amp;CONTEXT=941504762.15162
40931&amp;hitnum=8</a>
<br>>
<br>> Note that the article was posted in response to a statement made
by Mr.
<br>> Timbol.</blockquote>

<p><br>-- snip --
<br>&nbsp;
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>> OTOH, your being wrong about needing to run OS/2
in order to extract the
<br>> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE is not something that is open to debate.
<p>Then you should agree that the Java 1.2 functionality that IBM implemented
<br>in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is also not something that is open to
debate.</blockquote>

<p><br>If you read the article referenced by the url above, you will see
my position quite plainly. IOW, I have already addressed this.
<p>-- snip --
<br>&nbsp;
<p>Curtis
<br>&nbsp;</html>

--------------D7013A557A05068114342440--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            02-Nov-99 20:09:06
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

I've removed the NT-crosspost. Just a precaution.

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:35:46, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> 
wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Joseph posted :
> 
> <snip>
> > Oddly, OS/2 allows for multiple, time stamped archives of the desktop 
> > and ini files where as windows does not.
> 
> Oddly indeed. One of the main purposes for these time stamped archives
> is for WPS backup. I wonder why it needs backing up so much? The
> success of Unimaint and WPSBackup adds testimony to this fact. 
> 
As far as I can see, it's mainly for comfort. If you make a mess of 
your desktop and want to go back to the tidy, clean version, all you 
have to do is call up the latest backup (provided you had the brains 
to actually *make* a backup, that is. Nothing in computerworld is 
completely moron-proof).

> > If the Windows and OS/2's technology are equally volatile as you claim
> > then clearly MS's decision to not allow automated registry archives is
> > a disadvantage.
> 
> My aim is not to wave the MS flag over OS/2 which you OS/2 guys so
> knee-jerkingly think when something negative is brought up or claimed
> about your beloved OS.
> 
> I very much acknowledge the weakness with the windows registry and
> that MS should bundle effective registry backup utilities with their
> OS and also provide an easy means of restoring from a number of
> backups. NT has a similar function, i.e., startup with the last
> working configuration, but it's far from as well done as OS/2's
> method. Many registry backup and restore utilities are available as
> 3rd party products pretty much like OS/2's unimaint and WPSBackup. :)
> 
I've experienced the occasional WPS reboot, both on Warp 3 and 4, but 
until today, I've never had the WPS bring down my entire computer 
<touches head>. That honour is still reserved for NutScrape (on 
exactly two occasions, not-reproduceable).

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: centus@coqui.net                                  02-Nov-99 20:33:23
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: OS/2 BMP's 4 e-commerce conference....

From: centus@coqui.net

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 00:06:50, Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:

> I mailed him this reply   I'll post it for your sake.
> 
> Tired of your old Screen Saver?
> If you would like a new screen saver that has state-of-the-art graphics,
> come to http://www.ibm.com/software/os/warp/warp-server/screens/. There
> you will find 6 screen savers with "out of this world" graphics on an
> OS/2 Warp Server for e-business theme. Be the first on your block to
> have one, or collect all 6!

Thanks, they are really cool with EscageGL v3. The magic carpet is 
really
impressive....

 
> Kelly Robinson wrote:
> 
> > Can't you make one?
> >
> > It's obvious IBM isn't going to make another one - as if their previous
ones
> > are any good anyway.
> >
> > <centus@coqui.net> wrote in message
> > news:xJTd10owzofN-pn2-B8dhdnLz8KrE@ppp-196-42-34-157.coqui.net...
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I have a conference tomorow about e-commerce and will use my OS/2 v4
> > > System and Freelance/2 .  Need some COOL OS/2 BMP's ...to add to my
> > > screen saver.
> > > Any refernce will be appreciated...Just want to show biz people what
> > > is OS/2 v4 about...
> > >
> > > Sure, the system is running pretty good here with FP#12.... any reco
> > > to avoid any crash with NS4.61?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Prof. Edfel J. Rivera
> > >
> 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 02-Nov-99 20:32:00
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Karel Jansens wrote:

-- snip --


> > > Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the contents
> > > of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip, somehow
> > > proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.
> >
> > Mike Timbol made his claims based on an examination of the contents of
> > classes.zip (and other files), not based on the fact that he *can*
> > examine them.
> >
> > Karel, if you are reading this, the above is a classic example of why
> > threads involving Tholen go south.
> >
> OK, I confess: I'm reading it.
>
> One question (I haven't been following the thread, and it's just pure
> luck my iddy biddy eye fell on this): did Dave say that Mike couldn't
> view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows, or did he say that Mike
> couldn't execute JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows?

The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, one must
have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The statement is
clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge. The
article in which he made the erroneous statement is:

http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541873689&CONTEXT=941573786.409272323&hitnum=8




> Also, like I said about a zillion times already, I'm no programmer, so
> this is like stabbing for olives with a maypole in the dark, but is it
> *really* possible, by looking at the contents of a *.zip file, to
> determine that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does not have any Java 2 features
> (which was, IINM, Joseph's original claim)?

I must admit ignorance, here, which is one reason why I haven't addressed this
aspect of the thread/discussion. However, based on my ignorance, I am not
willing to suggest that it *isn't* possible.

-- snip --


Curtis


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 02-Nov-99 20:48:02
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 16:47:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:

> Marty writes:
>
> > Ok.  Further proof of Dave's incorrectness is available at:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
> What alleged incorrectness, Marty?

The factual incorrectness of the statement, "Yet to look at the
contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to
boot!" which you made in the following USENET article:

http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541873689&CONTEXT=941573786.409272323&hitnum=8




>  Java 1.2 functionality is indeed implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2,
> regardless of Timbol's
> ability to look at classes.zip.

So, are you admitting that Mike Timbol can examine classes.zip in
Windows, or are you still insisting that he must be running OS/2?

A side note to all interested (or bored-to-tears) parties: regardless of
whether Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 implements *some* or *none* of Java 1.2's
functionality, one issue that warrants further discussion is that, if
Java 1.1.8 only implements *some* of 1.2's functionality, it's hardly
useful to a Java 1.2 application expecting *all* of 1.2's funtionality,
so one must question just how valuable implementing *some* of the
funtionality really is. Can Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 run any 1.2-level
program that you throw at it? No? Then just how useful is the "1.2
functionality" it implements?


Curtis


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@hamilton.edu                              02-Nov-99 16:59:12
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 19:59:28
Subj: Re: Tholen and error 

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@hamilton.edu>

Tholen tholened:

> > Continue to deny your error, Marty, and you'll develop a reputation
> > for "never" admitting to making mistakes.

and was thusly rebuffed by Curtis:

> This is sound advice, Marty, considering that it comes from the master
> of denial himself, the one who does have such a reputation.

<irony> Oh, Curtis, c'mon now, we all know that Tholen is able to admit to
errors of *great* significance: he once, some years ago, admitted to an
error in quoting something and attributing it to the wrong Star Trek
movie/episode/something or other.  See?  That was an "error" to which Tholen
owned up. </irony>

[Chortle!]

Of course, if the subject matter *is* something of significance, well, you
can be sure that Tholen NEVER admits to his many, many errors of fact.

- Joe


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            02-Nov-99 19:19:18
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <381F13D0.EEA40350@ca.ibm.com>, bbarclay@ca.ibm.com says...
>Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> 
>> >Brad BARCLAY
>> >Open32 is just as valid (and native) as an API set
>> >as is, say, MFC on Windows.
>> 
>> Microsoft Foundation Classes are not an API. They are C++ classes to
>> be used by Object-oriented C programs during compilation of the
>> program.
>
>	Do you have any clue about what you're talking about?  An API is an
>Application Programming Interface.  A C++ class is an interface.  All
>APIs are bound to the application at compile time (wether the calls are
>in dynamic link libraries, or they're statically bound).
>
>	MFC is just as much an API as is Win32, Open32, the OS/2 API, or the
>standard Java classes.
>
>Brad BARCLAY
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
>E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs
>

MFC is not an API. It is a framework that encapsulates the Win32 API.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 03-Nov-99 00:06:18
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Karel Jansens wrote:

-- snip --


> Also, like I said about a zillion times already, I'm no programmer, so
> this is like stabbing for olives with a maypole in the dark, but is it
> *really* possible, by looking at the contents of a *.zip file, to
> determine that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does not have any Java 2 features
> (which was, IINM, Joseph's original claim)?

I've gone back and perused the thread a bit, and it appears that the
contention between Tholen and Timbol is over whether Java 2 Security Classes
exist in the 1.1.8 JDK for OS/2.  Dave Tholen claims that there are Java 2
Security Classes contained in the JDK, while Mike Timbol says no, there are
proprietary IBM classes in the JDK which implement some (or maybe all, I
didn't study the thread in that great of detail) of the functionality provided
by the Java 2 Security Classes, but the actual Java 2 Security Classes
provided by Sun are not in the 1.1.8 JDK, and Mike bases this assessment on
his study of the classes contained in classes.zip as well as other files which
comprise the JDK.


It doesn't appear that Mike is denying whether "Java 2 features" or "Java 2
functionality" exists in the 1.1.8 JDK, but only whether "Java 2 Security
Classes" exist therein. My understanding is that Mike is a Java programmer,
so, based on my own ignorance, I would tend to defer to his observations,
rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of Astronomy
by trade.


Curtis


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dross1@carolina.rr.com                            02-Nov-99 23:47:14
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com>

"David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:381DA4C2.AA0A713A@isomedia.com...
> > No you do not understand the program. There is no compensation. David it
is
> > very obvious to me that you have no desire to understand what the
program
> > is.
>
> Those "MVP Bucks" sound a lot like compensation to me.  I wonder if the
> IRS would agree?

The IRS is one of the reasons it was setup as an "awards" program. You can
believe it or discount it or try to find some twist in it. I am not going to
argue the point with you.

Dale




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 00:25:21
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

I may be the last geek on the planet who doesn't have a PalmPilot. I 
don't really want one. Or, more rigorously, I don't want one any more 
than I yearn for any gizmo with blinking lights. I just don't _need_ a
PalmPilot and I don't work the way they do. (I also write most of my 
articles in longhand. Go figure.)

As a result, I can't take you up on the first offer, and I wouldn't 
know a Monte Carlo simulation if one fell on me.

However, I've reviewed several Java applications for which the 
developers charge real money, and I've never seen one that worked as 
well as a native app. And, in particular, I've encountered a large 
number of Java apps that needed to be installed with Windows, or -- 
more commonly -- which were tested only on Windows. (One of them 
crashed both the Mac *and* OS/2, which is an accomplishment of sorts. 
Let's just say I didn't give it a rave review.)

While I'm sure you can give me examples of good Java code, the fact 
that it's so easy to write *bad* Java code almost proves my point.

Java's a great tool. But it's not a savior for OS/2.

--Esther

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:51:40, Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com> wrote:

| Esther Schindler wrote:
| > 
| > Sorry, Brad, I don't buy it. I've never seen a Java application that
| > runs as well as native code.
| 
| 	Grab yourself a PalmPilot an install the jSyncManager v1.1 beta
| (http://yaztromo.idirect.com/java-pilot-dev.html).  It's a pure Java
| application which can do Palm synchronization on any Java-enabled
| platform faster than Palm's native Windows software.  It's also less
| than 200k in size, and has a variety of plug-in jConduits (including one
| for Lotus Notes for OS/2).
| 
| 	And if that one isn't good enough for you, I can send you the source
| for a distributed graph connectivity application I wrote in Java as part
| of a contest, which beat the second place native code solution by a
| factor of 10.
| 
| 	Any Java applications which are IO bound are going to be at least as
| fast as their native code counterparts (how fast do you have to be to
| wait for input? :).
| 
| 	The problem isn't Java - it's Java programmers who don't know how to
| optimize their code and algorithms.  The above-mentioned graph
| connectivity code I wrote does 100 000 Monte Carlo simulations for 50
| different sample sets across the same graph, for each simulation
| checking the connectivity of each of the 25 arcs, and then testing for
| graph connectivity.  In short, it's a rather heavy-duty mathematical
| simulation.  And it won because it was extremely heavily optimized for
| the task (although it can be memory intensive, as it's using a recursive
| algorithm to test for connectivity).  It also made excellent use of
| available resources.
| 
| 	I know of several Java applications wihch are at least as fast as their
| native code counterparts - I'd be more than happy to point more out to
| you if you'd like :).
| 
| Brad BARCLAY
| 
| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
| Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
| E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                03-Nov-99 00:24:01
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 19:47:52, Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools are
created equal. And you are illogical in the extreme if you think that one
tool's failure to do a particular thing necessarily implies that all such
tools must fail in a similar manner.
 

And the best part of all is that I have had no problems with this file
ever using Info-Zip to unzip it for install.  I prefer to use info-zip
on the java files because I can redirect the target wherever I want, 
and the command line is actually simpler than the one that you have to
use to unpack this archive properly using its self-extractor.  I have 
unpacked javainuf many many times (albeit not always the same 
version;) over the last two or three years after downloading from IBM.
 It's always worked for me...

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                03-Nov-99 00:29:24
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:48:04, Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com> wrote:



Dave Tholen wrote:

> Marty writes:
>
> > Ok.  Further proof of Dave's incorrectness is available at:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
> What alleged incorrectness, Marty?

The factual incorrectness of the statement, "Yet to look at the
contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to
boot!" which you made in the following USENET article:

http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541873689&CONTEXT=941573786.40927232
3&hitnum=8



>  Java 1.2 functionality is indeed implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2,
> regardless of Timbol's
> ability to look at classes.zip.

So, are you admitting that Mike Timbol can examine classes.zip in
Windows, or are you still insisting that he must be running OS/2?

A side note to all interested (or bored-to-tears) parties: regardless of
whether Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 implements *some* or *none* of Java 1.2's
functionality, one issue that warrants further discussion is that, if
Java 1.1.8 only implements *some* of 1.2's functionality, it's hardly
useful to a Java 1.2 application expecting *all* of 1.2's funtionality,
so one must question just how valuable implementing *some* of the
funtionality really is. Can Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 run any 1.2-level
program that you throw at it? No? Then just how useful is the "1.2
functionality" it implements?

I would imagine that for people developing a custom in-house vertical 
app it could be very useful to have some but not all of the 
functionality available now.  They can code the to the API that is 
available now now, and to the rest of it later when IBM is ready to 
roll it out.

Considering OS/2's strength in the financial sector, I'm not surprised
that one of the first set of features to be released (and released 
early) would be the security APIs.

OTOH, IBM is not attempting to insult anyone's intelligence by calling
a partial feature list some kind of kludged name; they are sticking to
the version number of the complete feature list -- ie - 1.1.8 
functions are completely implemented, 1.2 not, so they're calling it 
1.1.8, and not 1.1.9, or 1.2a, or something like that.

Seems reasonable to me <shrug>.

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu                     03-Nov-99 00:58:06
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget MAME,
>>>>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

>>>>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.

>>>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>> Indeed.

>> Then why bring up that you think it's cool?

>>>>> I like it. I like it a lot.

>>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>> Indeed also.

>> Then why bring up that you like it?

>>>>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)

>>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>> Indeed once more.

>> Then why bring it up?

> I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of 
> the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it

Which demonstrates his attraction to games.

> (I already knew it, but it had kinda slipped to the background). Now,
> like I said, I like MAME,

Irrelevant to the point I was making.

> and I simply wanted to avoid people getting the wrong idea about it.

How does a comment about you liking it keep people from getting the
wrong idea about it?

> You see, others reading these threads who are aware of the nature
> of your "exchanges" with Marty might get the impression that you
> were putting down MAME.

Illogical, given that I only noted his attraction to games.

> I'm pretty sure you weren't, but I wanted to play safe.

If people are going to illogically conclude that I was putting down
MAME, commenting that you like it won't keep that from happening.

> After that, one thing led to another and now I've publically admitted 
> to owning pirated software. Oh well...
>
> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
> Europan!"
> (Let's see who'll get that one.)

From Io or Ganymede?

Oops, I gave it away.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 00:26:20
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:23
Subj: Re: Large OS/2 Customers List (LOS2CL) updated

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:03:02, "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net> 
wrote:

| If you've flown on any American Airline in the last ten years you've used
OS/2.

David, are you *sure* about that? I was under the impression that they
switched to Windows about 5 years ago, but I could be wrong.

--Esther 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: huffd@nls.net                                     02-Nov-99 23:03:01
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:24
Subj: Re: Large OS/2 Customers List (LOS2CL) updated

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>

If you've flown on any American Airline in the last ten years you've used
OS/2.
How about ATM machines?

Kim Cheung wrote:

> On 2 Nov 1999 01:59:03 GMT, Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 19:40:19, "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >| I'm so happy for them.  But considering the fact most people here aren't
> >| related to big businesses, your information is pointless.
> >|
> >| Show us some real-life examples.
> >
> >No problem.
> >
> >A recent issue of extended attributes, the monthly print magazine
> >published by the Phoenix OS/2 Society, described the use of OS/2 in a
> >small business. OS/2 runs everything at Lumature, a high-end furniture
> >and lighting store in Scottsdale, from printing the pricing labels to
> >automating the lighting displays.
> >
> >Or, if that isn't a good enough example for you, another issue of
> >extended attributes described how National Public Radio uses OS/2 to
> >distibute its radio shows via satellite.
> >
>
> And next time you go to the Kingdom of Tonga, any phone you picked up might
> very well be connected to an OS/2 machine.
>
> If you lost your car in Peru, don't worry, OS/2 has you covered.   Just call
> your security company and the horn on your car will start calling the
police.
>
> Now, on to France.
>
> p.s. Incidentally, any call you make to South America has a good probability
> that it goes through an OS/2 machine.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 02-Nov-99 23:20:22
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:

> Marty writes:
>
> >>> Ok.  Further proof of Dave's incorrectness is available at:
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
> >> What alleged incorrectness, Marty?
>
> > Your refusal to accept or admit that Mike could have viewed the
> > archive's contents.
>
> Where did I claim he couldn't, Marty?

Marty didn't say that you claimed Mike *couldn't* view the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE (in Windows), he simply said that you refuse to accept or
admit that Mike *could* do so.

-- snip --


Curtis


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 19:05:02
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:24
Subj: (1/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 
JDK?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not
comprehend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the first time:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the
contents."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to
extract
> >>>>>>>>>>> its contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that
self-extracting
> >>>>>>>>>>> archive in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
> >>>>>>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and
exit,
> >>>>>>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
> >>>>>>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with 
the
> >>>>>>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then
> >>>>>>>>> calls INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This
program
> >>>>>>>>> stub is inside the executable file, hence the program is executed
> >>>>>>>>> under DOS.

> >>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.
> 
> >> The self-extracting archive does not self-extract on DOS, regardless of
> >> what you say about it "running" on DOS, Marty.
> 
> > The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.
> 
> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.  Do you call that "running"?

Yes.  I call the display of a string and execution of code from within
the EXE file "running".  Don't you?
 
> > I notice you see fit to change the wording of my claim from "run" to
> > "self-extract".
> 
> I'm just being consistent with your own usage, Marty:

Incorrect.

> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.
                          ^^^

And run, it does.

> > How convenient.
> 
> Being consistent with your usage is for your convenience, Marty.

Yes it would be convenient if you would do so.
 
> > The two are obviously not equivalent and my original statement holds.
> 
> Your original statement:
> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.

But it runs, so my statement holds.
 
> >>>>> It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
> >>>>> case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the case
> >>>>> of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question is
> >>>> a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't,
> 
> >>> Quite incorrect again.
> 
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> 
> > On what basis do you claim that it is not a bound executable.
> 
> On the basis of the absence of DOS code to do the self extraction, Marty.

That does not mean it is not a bound executable Dave.  Being a bound
executable only means that the EXE file can run on more than one
platform.  It does not mean that it must run the same way on said
platforms.  Of course, I've explained this already.

> > I've already explained below why it is.
> 
> I've already explained below why it isn't, Marty.

Incorrectly, as usual.

> >>> Do you know what a "bound executable" is?
> 
> >> Of course.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way, Marty.
> 
> > Evidence, please.
> 
> Are you placing an order, Marty?

I'm requesting evidence for your unsupported assertion.  I've noted that
you failed to provide any in your response.

> >>> The DOS and OS/2 programs are bound together into a single EXE file.
> 
> >> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code, Marty?
> 
> > Who said anything about self-extracting code?  I said the self
> > extracting archive executes in DOS.
> 
> It doesn't.  Nothing gets extracted.

That doesn't mean it doesn't run in DOS Dave.  Your own quote of its
output proves that it runs.

> >>> In the case of JAVAINUF.EXE the DOS part of the file displays the
> >>> message you quoted and exits.
> 
> >> Which means there is no self-extracting code for DOS, thus that code
> >> was not bound into the executable, Marty.
> 
> > There was DOS code bound into the EXE file and it executes.  My
> > statement holds.
> 
> Your original statement:
> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.

Incorrect as noted above.  You seem to not know what a bound executable
is.
 
> >>>> otherwise it would have self extracted the archive.  It didn't.
> 
> >>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.
> 
> >> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code bound into the
> >> executable, Marty?
> 
> > That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.  A bound executable need
> > not execute the same operation in both DOS and OS/2 to be a bound
> > executable.
> 
> What good is it then, Marty?

[the DOS stub?] To inform the user that to use its intended function,
the EXE needs to be run in OS/2.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't run
in DOS, nor that it is not a bound executable.  Quite the opposite.

> > You are quite incorrect to assume that it must.
> 
> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.

That doesn't change the fact that you are quite incorrect to assume that
it must.

> >>>>> In either case it is executing.
> 
> >>>> The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
> >>>> that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> >> Note:  no response.
> 
> > I've already addressed this with my REXX example.
> 
> Your REXX script is inappropriate, Marty.

Typical unsubstantiated erroneous claim.

> > Code can do or say whatever it wants,
> 
> Even start World War III, as they say.

Irrelevant.

> > no matter how far from reality it is.
> 
> In this case, however, the reality is that the file won't self-extract
> in a DOS session.

Correct.  That doesn't mean it isn't running.

> > To blindly believe anything a program says, especially in this day and
> > age, is quite a silly thing to do.
> 
> Well, if you want to believe that the file really did self-extract in a
> DOS session, you are certainly welcome to do so, Marty.

And if you want to believe that it is not a bound executable and that
stubs can be "displayed" you are welcome to do so.

> >>>>>>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.
> 
> >>>>>> The program doesn't run, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> The program does in fact run.
> 
> >>>> No archive was extracted, Marty.
> 
> >>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> >>> executable was run.
> 
> >> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.
> 
> > That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> > executable was run.
> 
> It does contradict your claim, Marty:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

In what way?

> > If I had worded my claim differently, you'd be correct,
> 
> I'm correct even with the wording you chose, Marty.

Would that it were so, Dave.

> > however I never implied in any way what the code was doing.
> 
> You did write, however:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Which, if read correctly, the reader would notice that I never implied
in any way what the code was doing.

> > I merely stated that it executed.
> 
> There's that "it" again.  As I explained once before, the "it" can
> refer to only one of two subjects, namely the self-extracting archive
> or the DOS session.  Now, unless you really want to argue that you
> meant the latter, then we are forced to accept the former.

And I've already responded to this.  The self extracting archive is the
EXE file.  The EXE file can be run in DOS as your own posts have proven.

> >> Why do you think it says that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> > Already addressed numerous times.
> 
> Incorrect.  Rather, you've avoided it numerous times.

How is a direct response avoidance?

> >>>>>>> That's what I call running.
> 
> >>>>>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like
your
> >>>>>> responses to me.
> 
> >>>>>>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS 
session.
> 
> >>>>>>> No.  I said the executable would.
> 
> >>>>>> Balderdash, Marty:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence
of a
> >>>>>> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it will
> >>>>>> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the
> >>>>>> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick,
Marty.
> >>>>>> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two
subjects is
> >>>>>> a logical choice.
> 
> >>>>> Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
> >>>>> executable in question?
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You claimed
> >>>> that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
> >>>> said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run in a
> >>>> DOS session.  It does not.
> 
> >>> It does because the self-extracting archive is JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> >> It doesn't self-extract on DOS, Marty.
> 
> > Never claimed it would.
> 
> Incorrect:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
archive when run in DOS.

> >> It doesn't run.
> 
> > Absolutely incorrect again.
> 
> Nothings gets extracted, Marty.

Correct.  But it runs, nonetheless.

> >> Your semantic argument won't help you to save face, Marty.
> 
> > No need.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

No need on my part.

> >> It will support my claim that you're responding simply to continue
playing
> >> your "infantile game".
> 
> > You will reap what you sow.
> 
> Illogical, given that I'm not sowing any "infantile game", Marty.

I know you are, but what am I?

> >>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.
> 
> >>>>>>> Right.
> 
> >>>>>> Glad you agree, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
> >>>>>>> ^
> >>>>>>> |---- Incorrect statement.
> 
> >>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the program,
> >>>>>> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?
> 
> >>>>> There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> >>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.  They get executed.
> 
> >> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
> >> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".
> 
> > I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> Non sequitur.

I'm rubber and you're glue.  Whatever you say bounces off of me and
sticks to you.

> > Stubs do not get displayed Dave.
> 
> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".

Nothing semantic about it Dave.  If I displayed you is that not
something entirely different than if I executed you?  You used an
incorrect term to describe the situation.  Admit it you coward.

> > They get executed.  That's not sematics.
> 
> Balderdash, Marty.

Do you "display" your newsreader to write these postings?  Do you
"display" Netscape when you want to browse the World Wide Web?  This is
obviously an incorrect usage of the word "display", as is your use of it
with respect to the stub executable.

> > There's a world of difference between executing code and displaying
> > something.
> 
> There's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
> displaying a stub.

No argument there, however irrelevant the statement may be.  However,
you have yet to own up to the fact that there's a world of difference
between executing code and displaying something.

> > You used incorrect terminology
> 
> Balderdash, Marty.  You're simply engaging in a semantic argument to
> divert attention away from the issue.

If I were to use a term incorrectly, you'd call me on it just the same. 
Don't expect any less from your opponents.

> > and now refuse to acknowledge your error.
> 
> What alleged error, Marty?

Your misuse of the word "display".

> >>>>> A stub is <executing>.
> 
> >>>> A stub is not a self-extracting archive, Marty.
> 
> >>> The EXE file is.  The EXE file can be executed under DOS.
> 
> >> Nothing gets extracted from the archive under DOS, Marty, thus your
> >> claim:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> >>
> >> is incorrect.
> 
> > Wrong, as usual.  See above for why.
> 
> Balderdash, Marty.  See above for my response.
>
> >> Continue to deny your error,
> 
> > No need.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

No need to deny what does not exist.
 
> >> Marty, and you'll develop a reputation for "never" admitting to making
> >> mistakes.  Then some day you may have to deal with someone the way I've
> >> dealt with you.
> 
> > And how have you allegedly "dealt" with me, Dave?
> 
> By putting up with your lies, Marty.

Have you determined this to be an effective way of "dealing" with me?

> >>>>> Code is being run from inside of the executable to display the string
> >>>>> you saw.
> 
> >>>> Code is not being run to self-extract the archive, Marty.
> 
> >> Note:  no response.
> 
> > I don't feel the need to repeat myself as often as you seem to.
> 
> You do feel the need to respond, despite allegedly having me in your
> killfile, Marty.

Now why should I let you make erroneous statements as you have been?

> >>>>> If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
> >>>>> MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
> >>>>> MOV DX, [address of string]
> >>>>> INT 21
> >>>>> MOV AH, 0
> >>>>> INT 21
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 19:05:02
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:24
Subj: (2/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> >>>> I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
> >>>> is.
> 
> >>> On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.
> 
> >> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > No semantics involved.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

No semantics involved on my end.

> > I'm correcting your misconception of what a stub is and what can be
> > done with it.
> 
> What alleged misconception, Marty,

Pointed out numerous times.

> and how will that advance your argument in support of your erroneous 
> claim:

It won't, because I do not advance or support any erroneous claim. 
However, my statement still stands.

> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > A stub cannot be displayed in a meaningful way.
> 
> There is obvious meaning to the one displayed by javainuf.exe, Marty.

You are again misusing the word "display".  That stub code was not
displayed in your output.  It was executed.

> >>> You seem to think it can be displayed in a meaningful way.
> 
> >> The error message is quite meaningful, Marty.
> 
> > The error message is not a "stub" Dave.
> 
> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

No semantics involved.  I'm correcting your misuse of a word.  The stub
is the kicker code for the operating system in question.  It is not a
static text string.  If I were heretofore going to refer to the word
"you" as if it meant "sausage", would you not feel the need to correct
me?

> > It's a "string".
> 
> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

None present to continue.

> > It is displayed by the execution of the code present in the "stub".
> 
> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

None present to continue.
 
> >>> Unless one knows machine opcodes, it cannot.
> 
> >> Irrelevant to the issue, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect, as machine opcodes or interpreted x86 assembly are the only
> > way to display the already compiled stub.  You used the term
> > incorrectly.
> 
> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

Continuing to postpone your admitting to an obvious error?
 
> > Admit your error and I will move on.
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't admitted several of his
> own errors.

I've admitted to all errors that have been proven to me beyond the
shadow of a doubt, and several that haven't.
 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and
"InfoZip"?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard
archive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> format portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.
> 
> >>> [where I entered the thread]
> 
> >> Why not leave the attributions intact?  Then you wouldn't have to make
> >> such a notation, Marty.
> 
> > Pardon my attempt to alleviate confusion.
> 
> I'm not the one who removed the attributions, Marty.

Hence my clarification.
 
> >>>>>>>>>>> The archive format is portable.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
"InfoZip"?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the
archive
> >>>>>>>>> format is portable.
> 
> >>>>>>>> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood
the
> >>>>>>>> difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me
how
> >>>>>>> this makes a difference.
> 
> >>>>>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> So we both agree that the archive format, as present inside the
> >>>>> executable, is portable then?
> 
> >>>> Ask Timbol if you and he both agree, Marty.  He's the one who brought
> >>>> it up.
> 
> >>> And you bring the point up into our discussion.
> 
> >> On what basis do you call it "our" discussion, Marty?  I was having a
> >> discussion with Timbol when you jumped in.
> 
> > And now you are having a discussion with myself and Mike.
> 
> Why did you jump in, Marty?

To correct your errors.

> > They have taken divergent paths,
> 
> That is, you're diverting attention away from the issue.

It takes 2 to tango.

> > thus this branch of the thread I refer to as "our discussion".
> 
> How about referring to it as your "diversion"?  Or perhaps even your
> "infantile game"?

I'm rubber and you're glue.  Whatever you say bounces off of me and
sticks to you.

> > If you didn't want me to call it "our" discussion then you could
> > have not responded to me so it would have been "my" discussion,
> > which would have fizzled quickly.
> 
> If you did not want to read my alleged "drivel", you could have left
> me in your killfile, and it would have never happened.

Irrelevant.  How ironic that you speak above of diversions.

> >>> Did you have a point in doing so?
> 
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I brought it up, Marty.
> 
> > You brought it into this branch of the thread.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Then who did?  Timbol right?  Then why have you not ceased referring to
it if it is of no interest to you?

> > If there was no point in doing so, then you may remove it if you
> > like.
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing that I brought it into this branch
> of the thread, Marty.

Then why have you not ceased referring to it if it is of no interest to
you?

> > I have no objections.
> 
> You had objections to my antispammed ID, Marty.  Do try to be more
> consistent.

Irrelevant.  How ironic that you speak above of diversions.

> >>> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
> 
> >> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> > He has already affirmed that he believes the archive format is
> > portable.  I agree with him.  Do you agree that the archive format is
> > portable?
> 
> Irrelevant, given that Timbol is the one who brought it up, Marty.

I'm bringing it up, now answer the question, you coward.

> >>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice quite nicely.
> 
> >> "Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?"
> >> "A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice quite nicely."
> 
> > What's allegedly irrelevant and inappropriate about my question Dave?
> 
> That's not the reasoning behind the wife beating example, Marty.

Incorrect.

> > If a "yes" or "no" won't do, then how about explaining your position
> > instead of dodging the issue?
> 
> I already have explained my position, Marty.

Illogically.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
contents.
> >>>>>>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that
he
> >>>>>>>>> could view the archive.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>>>>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
> >>>>>>> DT] file?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't
represent
> >>>>>> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.
> 
> >>>>> You are questioning the fact that he could read it.
> 
> >>>> Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran the
> >>>> self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.
> 
> >>> What point would that prove?
> 
> >> Good question.  Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the
contents
> >> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip,
> 
> > Which they are, as anyone with the JDK can verify.
> 
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

On the basis that viewing the contents of classes.zip will show a
listing of *.class files, containing the implementation of all of the
base component classes of said version of Java.

> >> somehow proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.
> 
> > That wasn't the whole of his line of reasoning, but I'll leave that for
> > you two to explore.
> 
> Indeed, Timbol also used the reasoning that the article I referenced
> referred to a preview release, suggesting that the Java 2 security
> classes were removed before actual release.  Despite that, the actual
> release still has the Java 2 security classes.
> 
> >>> You were questioning the validity of his reasoning based on his
> >>> availability to verify his own claims.
> 
> >> I never said anything about his availability, Marty.
> 
> > Then why bother questioning him on how he was able to read the contents
> > of the archive?
> 
> What does that have to do with his availability, Marty?

You FUD'ed that he could not verify his own facts.

> >>>>> He, in fact, can read it.
> 
> >>>> So can I, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Do you accept this fact?
> 
> >>>> I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't
> >>>> include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?
> 
> >>> This is a different issue.
> 
> >> On the contrary, it's a part of the original issue, Marty.
> 
> > In what way?
> 
> It represents some of the Java 1.2 functionality that was implemented
> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty.  Haven't you been following the issue?

That is not an issue in this branch of the thread, otherwise I would
have quoted it and responded to it.

> >>> It does not seem to include them in such a way that standard Java 1.2
> >>> programs would be able to access them.
> 
> >> Did IBM claim to include them in that way, Marty?  IBM simply said that
> >> functions from Java 2 are included in 1.1.8, thereby justifying Joseph's
> >> statement and contradicting Timbol's "bullshit" response.
> 
> > If there is no guarantee that the functions are implemented to
> > completion
> 
> Completion isn't required to make the statement, Marty.

Completion is required to implement the functionality Dave.  Do you
often half-ass implementation yourself?

> > and no guarantee that the interfaces are the same,
> 
> Nothing was said about the interfaces being the same, Marty.

Glad you agree.

> > and the function names themselves are different, as seems to be the
> > case after a cursory examination of the class libraries,
> 
> Are you referring to the classes.zip file again, Marty?

My words say what they say, Dave.

> > then how is this even vaguely reminiscent of Java 2 functionality?
> 
> Try reading the appropriate file, Marty, rather than classes.zip.
> No wonder Timbol thinks he can get away with his lies.  There's
> readers like you out there.

And who exactly is "like me" out there Dave?

Archive:  SecMA.jar
 Length  Method   Size  Ratio   Date    Time   CRC-32     Name
 ------  ------   ----  -----   ----    ----   ------     ----
  82070  Stored   82070   0%  07-28-99  03:30  f5766547  
META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
      0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/
      0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/ibm/
      0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000  
com/ibm/security12/
... etc.
 
As I have stated, the function names themselves are different, as seems
to be the case after a cursory examination of the class libraries.

> >>> They are included as implementation specific plugins which are not
> >>> guaranteed to conform to Java 1.2 standards,
> 
> >> What's non-standard about them, Marty?
> 
> > The classes are under a different inheritance tree.
> 
> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> classes, Marty?

It automatically means they are not Java 2 compatible, which means that
Java 2 functionality is not implemented in this version of Java.

> > The interfaces to them are different.
> 
> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> classes, Marty?

Absolutely.

> > Though I have not used them, I would also wager that the
> > functionality is not 100% accurate.
> 
> Wagers are not proof, Marty.

Nor are unsupported statements, but that never stopped you before.

> > If a Java 2 program which utilized the new classes were to attempt
> > to execute on an OS/2 system with Java 1.1.8, it would, and does
> > exit with an exception error.
> 
> The security classes are for developers, Marty, not clients.

And are therefore, useless.  Why would a developer embrace something
that isn't standard that no clients were meant to run?

> > That's what's non-standard about them.
> 
> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> classes, Marty?

Absolutely.

> >>> and as such seem to be fairly useless.
> 
> >> Then why would IBM include them, Marty?
> 
> > Technology preview?  Perhaps specific applications for specific
> > customers that are tied to OS/2.
> 
> Did you even bother to read the excerpt I provided, Marty?
> 
> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
> ] platform.

Yup.  As I stated, technology preview.  As such, however, no Java 2
functionality is implemented.

> >> Perhaps you simply don't understand their usefulness?
> 
> > It's hard to understand the usefulness of a platform independent
> > language being tied to one platform through non-conformity.
> 
> Try to understand Microsoft's Java, Marty.  However, you haven't
> proven non-conformity.

The inheritance tree of the classes already proves non-conformity.

> >>> If I were a Java programmer, I would be quite hesitant to use
> >>> these functions.
> 
> >> Why not let Java programmers tell you what they find useful or not
> >> about the inclusion of Java 2 security classes in the JDK, Marty?
> 
> > Because I like to take matters into my own hands when I make a
> > decision.
> 
> Even if your hands aren't qualified to do so.

On what basis do you make this claim, Mr. "Display the Stub"?

> > As a seasoned programmer myself who worked in Java for a time
> > I feel qualified to make such a statement.
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 19:05:02
  To: All                                               02-Nov-99 21:24:24
Subj: (3/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> Your feelings are irrelevant, Marty.

My feelings in this matter have weight in light of my experience.

> > The basis of Java is its portability.
> 
> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
> for OS/2, will not be portable?

Reading comprehension problems?  My words say what they say, Dave.

> > If one throws in platform-specific code, that tenant is
> > destroyed.
> 
> Illogical.

There is nothing illogical about that statement.

> IBM is simply giving Java developers on OS/2 a head start on the use of 
> those security classes.

Then why not give Java developers on OS/2 the real thing, rather than a
partial, incompatible, platform specific implementation?  Using such a
thing could do more harm than good.

> >>> If portability was a concern I could not use these functions at all.
> 
> >> Perhaps you should comprehend IBM's intentions, Marty:
> >>
> >> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
> >> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
> >> ] platform.
> 
> > Exactly as I stated above:  Technology preview.  Not useful for anything
> > but evaluation.
> 
> And migration, Marty.

Why migrate to an "in-between" step when you can migrate to the real
thing in one step?

> > Not equivalent implementation by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Irrelevant, given that "equivalent" was never stated, Marty.

Since it is not an equivalent implementation, then Java 2 functionality
is not implemented therein.

> >>> You still have no answered the question I posed:  Do you accept the fact
> >>> that Mike can read the archive's contents in a meaningful way and
> >>> extract them if he chooses?
> 
> >> You still have no [sic] answered the question I posed:  I don't accept
> >> his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't include Java 2
> >> security classes, Marty.  Do you?
> 
> > Yes.
> 
> Why?

Explained elsewhere.

> > Now answer my question, though I'm certain you won't.
> 
> You haven't finished answering my question, Marty.

That does not impede you from answering mine.  Note that I am more than
willing to grant you an indulgence to answer your off-topic question,
yet the same courtesy is not reciprocated.  It's all "take" and no
"give" with you Dave.  It's quite tiresome and speaks of your disturbed
nature.

> > Do you accept the fact that Mike can read the archive's contents in a
> > meaningful way and extract them if he chooses?
> 
> You haven't finished answering my question, Marty.

Note: no response.  Test grade: F

Here's the retake:
Do you accept the fact that Mike can read the archive's contents in a
meaningful way and extract them if he chooses?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 20:28:28
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> the points, as I see them.
> 
> 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> 
> JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.

This has not been shown to be true.

> It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> 
> 2) The self-extracting archive
> 
> a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> is in an OS/2 native format.

Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.

> b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.

Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The archive
as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.

> c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> that have archive utilities that implement support for
> the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> for execution on non-OS2 systems.

This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.

> e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> such as editors, viewers, etc.
> 
> Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> 
> For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org                     03-Nov-99 01:49:14
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org>

On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 11:51:40 -0500, Brad BARCLAY wrote:

>	Grab yourself a PalmPilot an install the jSyncManager v1.1 beta
>(http://yaztromo.idirect.com/java-pilot-dev.html).  It's a pure Java
>application which can do Palm synchronization on any Java-enabled
>platform faster than Palm's native Windows software.  It's also less
>than 200k in size, and has a variety of plug-in jConduits (including one
>for Lotus Notes for OS/2).

I'd be wary about telling anyone the size of a Java app ... because us cynics
like to point out that you're not including the JRE...

---
Disclaimer: unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, I do not speak
for the company I work for.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 21:40:29
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,

Also meaning besides you Dave?

> > rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
> > Astronomy by trade.
> 
> I'm also a programmer.

And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 21:27:25
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  Here's the first paragraph from the
> >> Introduction:
> >>
> >> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
> >> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
> >> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
> >> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
> >> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
> >> ] by following links to other helpful documentation.
> >>
> >> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
> >> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
> >> something was removed from the preview before actual release.
> 
> > I see you've chosen to comprehend only part of what you've quoted.
> 
> On what basis do you make that erroneous claim, Marty?
> 
> > Here's the part you missed in other discussions:
> 
> On what basis do you claim that I missed it, Marty?  Timbol is the one
> who missed it, by referring to classes.zip.

Incorrect.
 
> >> ] Configuration and
> >> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
> >> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
> >> ] by following links to other helpful documentation.
> 
> > Hmm... sounds a bit non-standard to me.
> 
> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

Very well.  It is non-standard, based on that description.

> > Sounds like it would require some platform specific intervention to use.
> 
> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

Very well.  It requires some platform specific intervention to use.

> > Sounds like it takes some work to get Java 2 code working with this kit
> > that supposedly implement Java 2 functionality.
> 
> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

Very well.  It takes some work to get Java 2 code working with this kit
that supposedly implement Java 2 functionality.

> >> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip,
> 
> > Nor will you find the standard Java 1.2 classes their either.
> 
> Whose either, Marty?

Very well.  Nor will you find the standard Java 1.2 classes there
either.

> >> or anything else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on
> >> classes.zip is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.
> 
> > classes.zip is where the actual implementation resides,
> 
> Prove it, Marty.

Take a look at the file, Dave.

> > not text describing it.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the text is wrong, Marty?

My words say what they say, Dave.

> > As such evidence contained therein carries more weight
> > than anything which describes it.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the text is wrong, Marty?

My words say what they say, Dave.
 
> >> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
> >>
> >> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
> >> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
> >> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
> >> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time.
> >>
> >> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
> >> sun.misc.Launcher class.
> 
> > Note the com.ibm prefix, instituting platform dependence.
> 
> How does that change the fact that Java 1.2 functionality was
> implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty?

Do you enjoy beating your wife Dave?
 
> > No Java 1.2 app will run on 1.1.8 for OS/2 out-of-the-box.
> 
> How does that change the fact that Java 1.2 functionality was
> implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty?

Do you enjoy beating your wife Dave?
 
> > That's pretty non-standard.
> 
> Did Joseph claim that the implementation is standard, Marty?

Irrelevant.
 
> >>>>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already. 
Curtis
> >>>>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.
> 
> >>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
> 
> >>> I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.
> 
> >> It hasn't shown up here, Mike, and apparently hasn't shown up on
> >> deja.com either, based on what others have written.
> 
> > Check again, or don't bother.  Here's the URL for the JPG itself:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> What would that prove, Marty?

That's the evidence you requested!  Remember??
> >>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?

This is the picture contained in "this alleged post" to which you
referred.

> The text I quoted above isn't in javainuf.exe.

Irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 21:36:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >>>>>>>> file?
> 
> >>>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
> >>>>>>> self-extracting archive,
> 
> >>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.
> 
> >>>>> With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of an executable
> >>>>> file.
> 
> >>>> Like the LIST tool.
> 
> >>> That's not a proper tool for such a purpose.
> 
> >> What purpose are you referring to, Marty?  I was referring to examining
> >> the contents of an executable file.  I often find LIST to be a proper
> >> tool for such a purpose.
> 
> > On how many occasions have you had to view the contents of an executable
> > and found "LIST" a useful view thereof?
> 
> Several.  I haven't tried to count them.  I never anticipated such a
> question from you.

Ballpark figure... 1? 5? 10? 100?
 
> > Personally, I prefer to look at disassembly or a debugger view if the
> > executable has symbollic information as I find it quite a bit more
> > useful.
> 
> Your preferences are irrelevant, Marty.

Incorrect.

> >>>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.
> 
> >>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >>>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file 
is
> >>>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
> >>>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment
will
> >>>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> >>>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >>>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> >>>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility).
Where
> >>>>>>> is the logic, here?
> 
> >>>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
> >>>>>> able to do it.
> 
> >>>>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities.  For
> >>>>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your logic is
> >>>>> flawed.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar file,
> >>>> Marty.
> 
> >>> Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to InfoZip
> >>> and is thus more capable.
> 
> >> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
> >> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.
> 
> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

LOL!  Are you implying that your version is any different than the one
Curtis viewed in WinZip?  This just gets better and better!

> >>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> >>> wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> >> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
> >> this fact?
> 
> > I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.
> 
> I see you're still not read to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.

I haven't read any mistake on my part Dave.  Here's the issue you're
supposedly discussing again, after you attempted to deflect it again:

javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
wish to keep challenging this fact?

> > Take another look at the URL:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Why not try it in WinZip yourself then?  How laughable for you to think
your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is different than what Curtis downloaded and
viewed.  How about this... we ask Curtis to get a time and date stamp as
well as file size from "his version" of the file, post it here, and then
compare it to "your version" of the file.  Would that satisfy you?
 
> >>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> >>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> >>>>>>> other tool can?
> 
> >>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> >>>>>> file as argument.
> 
> >>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.
> 
> >>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?
> 
> > Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
> > been shattered into tiny little pieces.
> 
> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
> javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Please stop embarassing yourself.

> >>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,
> 
> >> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
> >> in the same way, Marty.
> 
> > Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Please stop embarassing yourself.
 
> >>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
> >>> behave the same is.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.
> 
> > You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
> > decompression tools.
> 
> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

So therefore they are all identical?  Illogical.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 01:21:05
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>> Marty writes:

>>>>> Ok.  Further proof of Dave's incorrectness is available at:
>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>> What alleged incorrectness, Marty?

>>> Your refusal to accept or admit that Mike could have viewed the
>>> archive's contents.

>> Where did I claim he couldn't, Marty?

> Marty didn't say that you claimed Mike *couldn't* view the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE (in Windows), he simply said that you refuse to accept or
> admit that Mike *could* do so.

Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

> -- snip --

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      03-Nov-99 01:32:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (3 Nov 1999 00:25:43 GMT):
>I may be the last geek on the planet who doesn't have a PalmPilot. I 
>don't really want one. Or, more rigorously, I don't want one any more 
>than I yearn for any gizmo with blinking lights. I just don't _need_ a
>PalmPilot and I don't work the way they do. (I also write most of my 
>articles in longhand. Go figure.)

Get an HP J680.  It's got a keyboard (decent, considering the whole
thing weighs in at 1.1 lbs:  640x240x64k, 133MHz SH3, 16MB, 10 hrs
battery life, includes "56k" modem, both CF and PCMCIA (extra memory+
ether card), touchscreen, cool, and so very, very small.  Palm-sized
jobs, like say a Casio E100, are even smaller, but not quite as ver-
satile.  I've got a J680, and an E15 (somewhat like an E100 but lasts
much longer on batts, about 20+ hrs, only a 69MHz MIPS 4111, 16MB,
320x240x16greys).  The E15 is  also plugged into an ethernet.  Contrary
to what some may say, these things are very, very fast (for sure when
running my code).  Or, yeah, get a Palm (yawn, 16MHz Moto Dragonball,
2 to 4MB, no ether, 160x160x4greys, not much future there...).  Small-
and-fast is so very cool.

(You write articles longhand?  There's no way I could keep up.  Why
don't dictate to your computer if you can't type that well/fast?  BTW,
and don't take this the wrong way, I've never read an article of yours
-- have any URLs so I can see how it comes out when you write ala Andy
Rooney?)

FWIW, there's Linux action, supposedly, to interface to these devices
(no, not the Palm, the "unnamed" devices).  Might be, once that gets
going, an OS2 edition will follow along.  See, these things work well
only because they have a home base (your desktop machine) to come
back to and sync with.  Without that sync ability, these devices aren't
all that useful (might as well just by a $50 rex pim, because these
things are obscenely expensive:  E100 is $500 list, J680 about $900;
discounted maybe $400 and 700).

[corrected copy]

 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
 Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 20:44:29
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see,
quite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the
*SELF-EXTRACTION
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you
challenge
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that claim?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You even verified that for me.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> I did no such thing, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> DT] Here's the output, Marty:
> >>>>>>>>> DT]
> >>>>>>>>> DT] E:\>javainuf
> >>>>>>>>> DT] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>> That's not an indication that it can be run under DOS, Marty. 
Indeed,
> >>>>>>>> the message is not "This program just ran under DOS."  Obviously
the
> >>>>>>>> program itself doesn't agree with your definition of "run", Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Create a file called Test.CMD with the following contents Dave [the
> >>>>>>> first line (comment) is necessary to tell it that it is a REXX
script]:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /* REXX program */
> >>>>>>> say "This program cannot be run in OS/2."
> >>>>>>> exit
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then run this program.  Did it run?
> 
> >>>>>> Typical inappropriate analogy.  The above REXX script is not a
> >>>>>> self-extracting archive, Marty.  When you run it, it does what it's
> >>>>>> supposed to do and everything it's supposed to do.  When you run
> >>>>>> javainuf.exe on DOS, it does NOT self extract the archive.
> 
> >>>>> The DOS stub does what it's supposed to do and everything it's
supposed
> >>>>> to do.
> 
> >>>> The program does not do everything it's supposed to do.  Why ignore
> >>>> that simple fact?
> 
> >>> What exactly is the DOS stub supposed to do Dave?
> 
> >> The DOS stub is not the program, Marty.  I see you're making irrelevant
> >> comments again.
> 
> > It is a program which resides in the executable.
> 
> Which doesn't extract any archive, Marty.

Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.
 
> > According to DOS, it is the program.
> 
> Which doesn't extract any archive, Marty.

Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.
 
> > I see you're missing the point again.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone missing the point, again.

Takes one to know one.
 
> >>>>>>> Did the string it displayed agree with reality?
> 
> >>>>>> Typical inappropriate analogy.  Programmers can make programs issue
all
> >>>>>> sorts of illogical strings.
> 
> >>>>> As is true with JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> >>>> What's allegedly illogical about the string issued by javainuf.exe,
Marty?
> 
> >>> The fact that it is issued by running code in DOS, hence it can be run
> >>> in operating systems other than OS/2.
> 
> >> Incorrect, as nothing gets extracted, Marty.
> 
> > What does anything getting extracted have to do with the execution of
> > the DOS code?
> 
> That's the intent, Marty.

The intent of the DOS code is to display an error message and exit.  It
does so.

> > The fact that it is issued by running code in DOS, hence
> > it can be run in operating systems other than OS/2.
> 
> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

> >>>>>> The fact of the matter is that the archive did NOT self-extract under 
DOS,
> >>>>>> contrary to your claim.
> 
> >>>>> I claimed it ran.
> 
> >>>> Here's your claim, Marty:
> >>>>
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> Right.  I claimed it ran.
> 
> >> With "it" being the "self-extracting archive".
> 
> > Which is JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> Yet nothing gets extracted when run in a DOS session.

Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.
 
> >>> Thank you for backing up my point.
> 
> >> Why are you thanking me for pointing out something that should be
> >> embarassing to you, Marty?
> 
> > Because instead of embarassing me, it serves to further back my point.
> 
> It does no such thing, Marty.

Incorrect.
 
> >>>>> And it does.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, as it does not self-extract in a DOS session.
> 
> >>> I never claimed what the stub was supposed to do Dave.
> 
> >> You claimed that the self-extracting archive would run in a DOS session,
> >> Marty.
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Right.  And it does, as you have shown by quoting its output in the
> > past.
> 
> The output shows no evidence of anything being extracted, Marty.

Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

> >>> You're eagerly stuffing words in my mouth for your own benefit.
> 
> >> I'm doing no such thing, Marty.  I'm reproducing an actual quotation
> >> of yours.
> 
> > I never claimed what the stub was supposed to do Dave,
> 
> You've claimed that the self-extracting archive would run in a DOS
> session.

Correct.
 
> > though you insist that I claimed it is supposed to extract the archive.
> 
> Isn't that what a self-extracting archive is supposed to do, Marty?

Not the DOS stub of this particular one.
 
> > That constitutes stuffing words in my mouth.
> 
> Reproducing an actual quotation of yours is not stuffing words in your
> mouth, Marty.

True.  It's what you do with it afterwards that constitutes stuffing
words in my mouth.

> That's rather ironic, however, coming from someone who has stuffed plenty 
> of words into my mouth.

That which you sow, so shall you reap.

> >>> How convenient.
> 
> >> Nothing convenient about it, Marty.
> 
> > Then why do it?
> 
> Because reproducing an actual quotation from you proves what you really
> wrote, as opposed to what you've claimed I stuffed into your mouth.

I have no objection to accurately reproducing my quote (or than a slight
annoyance that bandwidth was wasted).

> >>>>>> Or is the above REXX script an example of your programming style,
Marty?
> 
> >>>>> For a good example of my programming style download the source code to
> >>>>> MAME for OS/2.
> >>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/mameos2_source_36b7.zip.  I
> >>>>> wrote frontend.c, os2.c, and everything comprising GPMIXER.DLL in
their
> >>>>> entirety, as well as having my hands in fixing several CPU cores and
> >>>>> usrintrf.c.
> 
> >>>> And do you have the program issuing false statements, Marty?
> 
> >>> Not if I can help it.
> 
> >> Apparently you also can help writing incorrect things like:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > My news server must have gotten cut off in this transmission before it
> > received the alleged "incorrect thing" you were about to quote.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Typical pontification.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 00:51:06
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> You, _didn't_ read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
>>> thread,

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?

> You're mystified by a basic concept covered in those references.

Obviously I'm not mystified by a basic concept, Lucien, thus your
conclusion is invalid.  I do find it rather ironic that you would
talk about me being allegedly mystified by a basic concept, considering
how mystified you are by such a basic concept.  If you disagree, try
taking my two simple tests.  You've deleted them over a half dozen
times now.  Too embarassed to admit that you're wrong, Lucien?

>>> You need to review those references, esp. Baker and Chomsky, for the
>>> explanation of "multi-level" as used here and in the "costly
>>> mistakes" thread.

>> I asked you, Lucien, not Baker or Chomsky.

> The meaning of the term "multi-level" as used here is discussed in
> those references.

I'm interested in your meaning, Lucien, not theirs.

> You need to read them.

What makes you think I haven't, Lucien?

>>> Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:
>>>
>>> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
>>> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
>>> information."

>> Incorrect, Lucien.  That is *not* my assertion concerning the JDK
>> sentence.

> Yes, it is your statement.

It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> It is correct,

It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> and is in complete agreement with my thesis.

Your thesis is irrelevant to the present situation, Lucien, given
the presence of additional information.

> Let's review again:

How ironic, coming from the person who continues to ignore the
corrections I keep making to the so-called "review".

> Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

Incorrect, Lucien.  That statement does not concern the JDK sentence.
I've told you that already, which demonstrates your reading comprehension
problem.

> Here is my thesis statement again:
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.

Your thesis is irrelevant to the present situation, Lucien, given
the presence of additional information.  Your thesis is irrelevant
to the previous situation, Lucien, given the definition of the word
"prevent".

You can't win an argument using irrelevant theses, Lucien.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 01:19:29
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> It doesn't appear that Mike is denying whether "Java 2 features" or "Java 2
> functionality" exists in the 1.1.8 JDK,

What appears to you is irrelevant.  The fact is that Timbol is denying
the implementation of Java 1.2 functionality in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
Here's the relevant quotation, showing Timbol's response to Joseph
Coughlan:

  ] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
  ] 
JC] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
  ] 
MT] It's also bullshit.

> but only whether "Java 2 Security Classes" exist therein. My understanding
> is that Mike is a Java programmer, so, based on my own ignorance, I would
> tend to defer to his observations,

Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes, particularly threads
involving me.  Didn't you ever wonder why he never responded to you,
when you also noted the illogic of using 1.1.8 to refer to something
that implements all of 1.2?  Yet, Timbol has responded to me extensively.

> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
> Astronomy by trade.

I'm also a programmer.

Your deference is misplaced.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 20:51:10
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is playing
the
> >>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.
> 
> >>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT run
> >>>>>> under DOS, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have shown.
> 
> >>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
proves.
> 
> >>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.
> 
> >> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
> >> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?
> 
> > How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
> > DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
> > proves.
> 
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking about
> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.

Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you to
understand.  I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself
proves" is completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message
can be made to state anything that its author desires.
 
> > The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.
> 
> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.

I never claimed it could Dave.  Do read a bit more carefully next time.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 01:05:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
>>>> I do?"
>>>>    --Nick Danger

>>> LOL! I should have seen that one coming.

>> Are you familiar with Nicky and Nancy?

> All I have is the Nick Danger readout you once force-fed me <G>.

Force-fed?!

> It was enough to make me momentarily wish I lived on another continent.

Surely you can find the recordings somewhere in Europe, maybe even
on Europa.

> You Americans sure have some good comedy stuff - sometimes...

Hasn't rubbed off on some of the newsgroup participants.

> [snip]

>>>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.

>>> Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.

>> You mean browser?

> browser > Yahoo > search engine > David Tholen

And the connection to "'bot"?

> [snip]

>>>> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
>>>> the complaint in the first place.

>>> Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
>>> yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.

>> I already have.  I haven't received an answer.

> Apparently it's got something to do with Netscape's filter. I don't 
> use Netscape for news, so don't ask me for further explanations.

I don't use Netscape for news either.

> [snip] 

>>>> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
>>>> Marty's "infantile game".

>>> I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
>>> fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
>>> even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
>>> of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
>>> cells, and yet...

>> ...people like Marty use those brain cells to play "infantile games".

> Allow me to play "Johnny Little Bastard" here for a moment: It usually
> takes two to play.

Not in this case.

> So, even if Marty had started playing a game (which he sort of admitted
> already), you've given him plenty of ammo to continue...

Like some facts?

> Back to my old cowardly self: No comment...

Aww...

>>>>>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

>>>>>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
>>>>>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.

>>>>> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
>>>>> mind". So: thanks.

>>>> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.

>>> You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 

>> Supports?

> thanks

You're welcome.

>>> supports my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 
>>> is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
>>> out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
>>> different reasons then.

>> And also irrelevant to the issue of people reading that which has been
>> allegedly killfiled.

> I cannot be helt responsible for the mental problems of other people.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you should be.  Unless, of course, you
played the Medusan ambassador on that Star Trek episode with the same
actress who played Dr. Pulaski in the Next Generation's second season.
Her name slips my mind at the moment...

>>>>> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
>>>>> replies)

>>>> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of references.

>>> Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
>>> always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.

>> He's making direct references now, as is Mike Timbol.  So did David
>> Leblanc.

> Indeed, but in Marty's case, preceded by the "announcement" that his 
> killfile was broken, so at least he's consequent. I don't know about 
> the others.

Now, how do you break a killfile?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 20:48:09
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget
MAME,
> >>>>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
> 
> >>>>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> Indeed.
> 
> >> Then why bring up that you think it's cool?
> 
> >>>>> I like it. I like it a lot.
> 
> >>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> Indeed also.
> 
> >> Then why bring up that you like it?
> 
> >>>>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)
> 
> >>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> Indeed once more.
> 
> >> Then why bring it up?
> 
> > I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of
> > the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it
> 
> Which demonstrates his attraction to games.

Lock me up and throw away the key.  I guess because I like things that I
find fun and rewarding, that means I can't be taken seriously in any
aspect of my life.  That's incredibly logical Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 01:12:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>> -- snip --

>>>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>>>>>>> file?

>>>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
>>>>>>> self-extracting archive,

>>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

>>>>> With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of an executable
>>>>> file.

>>>> Like the LIST tool.

>>> That's not a proper tool for such a purpose.

>> What purpose are you referring to, Marty?  I was referring to examining
>> the contents of an executable file.  I often find LIST to be a proper
>> tool for such a purpose.

> On how many occasions have you had to view the contents of an executable
> and found "LIST" a useful view thereof?

Several.  I haven't tried to count them.  I never anticipated such a
question from you.

> Personally, I prefer to look at disassembly or a debugger view if the
> executable has symbollic information as I find it quite a bit more
> useful.

Your preferences are irrelevant, Marty.

>>>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.

>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file
is
>>>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
>>>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
>>>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility).
Where
>>>>>>> is the logic, here?

>>>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
>>>>>> able to do it.

>>>>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities.  For
>>>>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your logic is
>>>>> flawed.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar file,
>>>> Marty.

>>> Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to InfoZip
>>> and is thus more capable.

>> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
>> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.

Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
>>> wish to keep challenging this fact?

>> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
>> this fact?

> I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised. 

I see you're still not read to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.

> Take another look at the URL: 
> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
>>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
>>>>>>> other tool can?

>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>>>>>> file as argument.

>>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?

> Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
> been shattered into tiny little pieces.

Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,

>> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
>> in the same way, Marty.

> Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
>>> behave the same is.

>> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.

> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
> decompression tools.

Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 03:28:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,

> Also meaning besides you Dave?

Nope.

>>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
>>> Astronomy by trade.
 
>> I'm also a programmer.

> And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.

How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 03:31:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is playing
the
>>>>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.
 
>>>>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT run
>>>>>>>> under DOS, Marty?
 
>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have shown.
 
>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
proves.
 
>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.
 
>>>> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
>>>> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?
 
>>> How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
>>> DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
>>> proves.
 
>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking about
>> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.

> Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you to
> understand.

Incorrect, Marty.  In reality, your code wasn't complex enough to extract
any archive.

> I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself proves" is
> completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message can be made
> to state anything that its author desires.

That doesn't mean the javainuf.exe error message is in error itself,
Marty.

>>> The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.

>> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.

> I never claimed it could Dave.

Incorrect, Marty:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

> Do read a bit more carefully next time.

I read it carefully enough the first time, Marty.  How ironic, coming
from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize that I have
admitted to mistakes.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 03:33:27
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget
MAME,
>>>>>>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

>>>>>>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.

>>>>>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>>>> Indeed.

>>>> Then why bring up that you think it's cool?

>>>>>>> I like it. I like it a lot.

>>>>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>>>> Indeed also.

>>>> Then why bring up that you like it?

>>>>>>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)

>>>>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>>>> Indeed once more.

>>>> Then why bring it up?

>>> I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of
>>> the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it
 
>> Which demonstrates his attraction to games.

> Lock me up and throw away the key.

Illogical, Marty, given that there is nothing illegal about playing
games, even "infantile" ones.

> I guess because I like things that I find fun and rewarding, that
> means I can't be taken seriously in any aspect of my life.

You guessed wrong again, Marty.  But you're obviously not being
serious in most of your responses to me.

> That's incredibly logical Dave.

It's incredibly illogical on your part, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 03:36:27
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:
 
>> This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
>> posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
>> the points, as I see them.
>> 
>> 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
>> 
>> JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.

> This has not been shown to be true.

Incorrect, Marty.  Why do you continue to ignore the evidence
that I've provided?

>> It is not clear whether this functionality involves
>> changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
>> Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
>> not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
>> by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
>> executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
>> classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
>> 
>> 2) The self-extracting archive
>> 
>> a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
>> is in an OS/2 native format.

> Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.

But that's what the executable is supposed to do, Marty.

>> b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.

> Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.

But that's what the executable is supposed to do, Marty.

> The archive as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will
> execute in DOS.

Nothing gets extracted, Marty.  Hardly very useful.  Then
again, one who likes to play "infantile games" isn't
necessarily going to be interested in useful arguments.

>> c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
>> format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
>> that have archive utilities that implement support for
>> the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
>> the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
>> d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
>> for execution on non-OS2 systems.

> This code is known as a stub.

And it doesn't extract any archive.

> It is executed, not displayed.

What do you think the error message comes from, Marty?

>> e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
>> viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
>> such as editors, viewers, etc.
>> 
>> Many posts containing some or all of these points are
>> confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
>> 
>> For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
>> if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
>> are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
>> OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 03:47:12
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

It's not that I object to the PalmPilot. Not at all. I don't like any 
of the wince er WinCE systems either. I just don't need another gizmo 
to hang on my belt. (Only recently did I get a cell phone, and that's 
because I began to travel every so often.) I don't use day timers 
(except Relish, which is appropriately unobtrusive).

Pens and papers, that's for me. And I rarely take notes... it's a 
reaction to all the guys who *expected* the girl to take notes. If I 
acted like a secretary, they'd treat me that way.

Regarding speaking to a computer... uno, you may not be aware of it, 
but I'm the author of The Computer Speech Book (AP Professional, 
1996). I'm also the sysop of the Voicetype forum on Compuserve. 
<smile> I began using VoiceType back before it was cool. I like a lot 
of things about speech recognition... except using it for my own work.
For me, writing and speaking are very different things. I'm not at all
articulate "live," but my fingers and brain have a clear connection. 
And I type about 100wpm so I can usually keep up with my thoughts 
reasonably well.

For samples of my articles... well, you can look at 
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/column/0,4712,2353788,00.html if you 
want an example of a column (ie an opinion piece), 
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2176543,00.html for a 
how-to, http://www.netpress.org/careandfeeding.html for a *different* 
how-to, http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,,381684,00.html for a 
comparison of online discussion servers, and 
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/business/opportunity/muffin.html for a case 
study. (Yeah, that'll keep him occupied for a couple of minutes....)

--Esther

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 01:32:36, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:

| 
| Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (3 Nov 1999 00:25:43 GMT):
| >I may be the last geek on the planet who doesn't have a PalmPilot. I 
| >don't really want one. Or, more rigorously, I don't want one any more 
| >than I yearn for any gizmo with blinking lights. I just don't _need_ a
| >PalmPilot and I don't work the way they do. (I also write most of my 
| >articles in longhand. Go figure.)
| 
| Get an HP J680.  It's got a keyboard (decent, considering the whole
| thing weighs in at 1.1 lbs:  640x240x64k, 133MHz SH3, 16MB, 10 hrs
| battery life, includes "56k" modem, both CF and PCMCIA (extra memory+
| ether card), touchscreen, cool, and so very, very small.  Palm-sized
| jobs, like say a Casio E100, are even smaller, but not quite as ver-
| satile.  I've got a J680, and an E15 (somewhat like an E100 but lasts
| much longer on batts, about 20+ hrs, only a 69MHz MIPS 4111, 16MB,
| 320x240x16greys).  The E15 is  also plugged into an ethernet.  Contrary
| to what some may say, these things are very, very fast (for sure when
| running my code).  Or, yeah, get a Palm (yawn, 16MHz Moto Dragonball,
| 2 to 4MB, no ether, 160x160x4greys, not much future there...).  Small-
| and-fast is so very cool.
| 
| (You write articles longhand?  There's no way I could keep up.  Why
| don't dictate to your computer if you can't type that well/fast?  BTW,
| and don't take this the wrong way, I've never read an article of yours
| -- have any URLs so I can see how it comes out when you write ala Andy
| Rooney?)
| 
| FWIW, there's Linux action, supposedly, to interface to these devices
| (no, not the Palm, the "unnamed" devices).  Might be, once that gets
| going, an OS2 edition will follow along.  See, these things work well
| only because they have a home base (your desktop machine) to come
| back to and sync with.  Without that sync ability, these devices aren't
| all that useful (might as well just by a $50 rex pim, because these
| things are obscenely expensive:  E100 is $500 list, J680 about $900;
| discounted maybe $400 and 700).
| 
| [corrected copy]
| 
|  '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
|  Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
|  Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               02-Nov-99 23:24:20
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is
playing the
> >>>>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT
run
> >>>>>>>> under DOS, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have shown.
> 
> >>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
proves.
> 
> >>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.
> 
> >>>> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
> >>>> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?
> 
> >>> How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
> >>> DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
> >>> proves.
> 
> >> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking about
> >> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.
> 
> > Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you to
> > understand.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  In reality, your code wasn't complex enough to extract
> any archive.

Irrelevant.
 
> > I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself proves" is
> > completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message can be made
> > to state anything that its author desires.
> 
> That doesn't mean the javainuf.exe error message is in error itself,
> Marty.

Never claimed it was.  Nor does it mean that anything can be proven
using it as evidence.

> >>> The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.
> 
> >> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.
> 
> > I never claimed it could Dave.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

No part of that statement claims that running the executable in DOS will
extract the archive.

> > Do read a bit more carefully next time.
> 
> I read it carefully enough the first time, Marty.

Not carefully enough, as you seem to have missed the fact that I never
said what the program would do, merely that it would run.

> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize 
> that I have admitted to mistakes.

How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.  Still wish to claim
that a stub is being "displayed"?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          03-Nov-99 06:48:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:28
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Brad BARCLAY
>>>Open32 is just as valid (and native) as an API set
>>>as is, say, MFC on Windows.

>>jglatt
>>Microsoft Foundation Classes are not an API. They are C++ classes to
>>be used by Object-oriented C programs during compilation of the
>>program.

>Do you have any clue about what you're talking about?

Sure, unlike you, I actually use MFC at least once every week. You're
just some IBM employee hawking stale IBM products, who doesn't really
know what his competitors' stuff is all about, but you have to knock
it anyway because that's your job.

>An API is an Application Programming Interface.

MFC are really libraries, not an API. Essentially, they're C++
wrappers for the Windows API. You'd know that if you actually used
them, like I do.

>A C++ class is an interface.  All
>APIs are bound to the application at compile time (wether the calls are
>in dynamic link libraries, or they're statically bound).

>MFC is just as much an API as is Win32, Open32, the OS/2 API, or the
>standard Java classes.

No, it isn't. And neither are things like the C standard library
either, even though fopen(), fclose(), chdir(), malloc(), free(),
system(), etc, are API wrappers for C programs, much like MFC are API
wrappers for C++ programs.

Go around calling the C Standard Library an API and see if other
programmers don't wonder whether you really know anything about
programming

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          03-Nov-99 07:10:02
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 03:33:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>
>Did you read my post before recycling your useless
>blather?

Did you read the thread before offering yet more irrelevancy?

>The self-extraction code is different from the code
>that executes in DOS to display the message that the
>program must run in OS/2. This "DOS stub" is totally
>unnecessary vis-a-vis the archive extraction process
>and is distinct and separate from the function of the 
>OS/2 extraction code.  The extraction code will run 
>perfectly and completely without the "DOS stub."  But,
>the OS/2 extraction code will only execute in OS/2.

None of this has any relevancy to Marty's point that the file contains
a stub, and it does indeed run under DOS. This is the point that
Tholen has been foolishly arguing against. Obviously, like your
dim-witted "champion", you've failed to grasp the very simple, true,
logical statements Marty has made.

It's ironic that you fancy yourself to be so "logical". In fact,
you're not all that swift, and Marty's point has sailed right over
your head at 100 MPH. No wonder why your wife and son have a hard time
communicating with you.

But if it wasn't bad enough that you can't seem to grasp even that
one, simple concept, you drop the ball again:

>These two separate programs are merged with the 
>archive data to create an executable.  The executable
>will "run" in DOS, but the SELF-EXTRACTION code will
>not. Since the purpose of the program is to extract
>the archived data

No, the purpose of the stub is not to extract the archived data.
Again, your "logic" fails, and you plunge into irrelevant issues that
have nothing whatsoever to do with Marty's statements.

Try to focus. I know that it must be hard for you.

>it is erroneous to say that the
>executable works in DOS.

No, it isn't. As Marty has explained, and you "fail to comprehend" (as
your mentally-ill mentor would point out), the stub did indeed execute
in DOS. It even displayed a message. That's not magic. That's
executing software.

>If you wish to say that
>the executable runs in DOS, then you are quite 
>correct.

Duh. We already know that Marty is correct, and that Tholen is wrong
and dumb to be arguing with Marty's statements and Mike Timbol's
statements, both of which have been proven to be true.

It seems to me that you simply don't like when anyone except Tholen
focusses on "the branch". When Tholen does it, it apparently equates
to "logic" in your mind, but when those other "emotionally blocked
people" (as you put it) do it, then they're "unskilled at logic".
Perhaps you're just emotionally blocked, and that's why you run
interference for Tholen, and make yourself look like a silly, naive,
foolish hypocrite when you argue against the same sort of logic that
you praise when he spews it out.

Furthering this theory, I believe that people like you become
hypocrites because you're "emotionally blocked" over a niche, pet
product.

>If you equate running with working, you
>are quite incorrect.  The program may execute in DOS, 
>but, since it is a SELF-EXTRACTION program and the 
>SELF-EXTRACTION program imbedded in the executable
>will not work in DOS, it is correct to say that the
>SELF-EXTRACTION archive will not work in DOS.

None of this has any relevancy to Mike's point that he was able to
examine the contents of the archive without needing to run the
self-extracting code within that file. This is other point that Tholen
has been foolishly arguing against. Again, you obviously emulate your
witless "buddy", and fail to grasp the very simple, true, logical
statements Mike has made.

Frankly, you don't seem to know much about either programming, *or*
logic. You're certainly telling us nothing we don't already know about
programming, and otherwise, you're simply demonstrating that you're
incapable of understanding the points that Marty and Mike have made
when you resort to defending, endorsing, and/or promoting the same
lack of comprehension of those points, and irrelevant/illogical
responses to those points that Tholen has already exhibited

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 03-Nov-99 07:12:08
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vm8dc$6ij$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
>>>>> contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.
>
>>>> Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
>>>> are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 
>>>> that are actually included.
>
>>> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  
>
>> I had already read it, Dave.  Notice that it says nothing about 
>> "Java 2 security classes".
>
>Notice that it says "security enhancements from Java(tm)2", Mike.

Irrelevent.  You could claim to provide "security enhancements from
Java 2" without using Java 2 security classes.  In fact, what IBM did
was provide security functionality based on the Java 2 security model.

>>> Here's the first paragraph from the Introduction:
>>>
>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
>>> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>>> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>>> ] by following links to other helpful documentation. 
>>>
>>> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
>>> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
>>> something was removed from the preview before actual release.
>
>> I never claimed that anything was removed from the preview before
>> the actual release.
>
>Then why did you keep blathering about the difference between the
>preview and the actual release, Mike?

Because my evidence came from the actual release, whereas your "evidence"
came from a newsgroup article posted at the time of the preview release.

>>> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip, or anything
>>> else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on classes.zip
>>> is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.
>
>> On the contrary, I claimed that I looked at several files to determine
>> what the JDK included, including classes.zip.
>
>Then why didn't you mention the file that includes the Java 2 security
>classes, Mike?

There is no such file, Dave.  If you think there is, please name it.

>> I merely focused on classes.zip because it contains the majority of
>> classes in the JDK.
>
>But not all of them, Mike, conveniently omitting the relevant ones.

True, not all of them.  However, none of the files in the JDK contain
"Java 2 security classes", thus none of them are "the relevant ones".

>>> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
>>>
>>> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
>>> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
>>> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
>>> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time. 
>>>
>>> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
>>> sun.misc.Launcher class.
>
>> Note the reference to "com.ibm." before "security12", which indicates
>> that the class is part of a proprietary IBM package;
>
>The way the Java 2 security classes were implemented is irrelevant,
>Mike. 

They are not implemented at all, which is very relevent.

>What is relevant is that they were implemented, something that
>you claimed was "bullshit".

It is bullshit -- they aren't implemented.

>> it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.
>
>Oh really?  

Yes, really.  Look at any reference implementation of Java 2 and you'll
see those classes are not included.

>Then why does the name include "security12", Mike?

Because IBM wrote them to implement a security model based on the 
security model from JDK 1.2.

>Notice that the introduction says "security enhancements from
>Java(tm)2", Mike.  Now, if they're not in Java 2, then how could
>they have been taken from it, Mike?

As I said earlier, IBM refers to them as security enhancements based
on the Java 2 security model.  They are not "Java 2 security classes".

>> Thus, the IBM claim that they implement functionality based on the
>> 1.2 security model, not that they include "Java 2 security classes".
>
>Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?  Here's the relevant
>quotation again:
>
>] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

Again, you refer to outdated and incorrect information, which has been 
superceded by the correct information.  IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 does
*not* include Java 2 security classes.

>> Dave, you don't understand what you're arguing about and you don't 
>> understand what you're looking at.
>
>Mike, I do understand what I'm arguing about.  The way you keep relying
>on semantic arguments ("included" versus "add on") 

That's not a semantic argument, Dave.  Ask any Java programmer what the
difference is between something included in the JDK vs. something that's
an extension.

>and things that Joseph didn't say ("consistent interface") 

You're inventing phrases now, Dave.

>demonstrates that you do not
>know what you're talking about.  You're trying to wriggle and squirm
>your way out of another one of your lies.

The only reason it seems to be wriggling and squirming is that you don't
understand the topic.  

You see no difference between the classes "com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main" 
and "sun.misc.Main", though any Java programmer easily recognizes that they
are not the same classes.

You see no difference between using Swing in your JDK 1.1.8 application
vs. using Swing in your JDK 1.2 application, though most Java programmers
realize that it affects what they must deliver with their application in
order for it to run.

You accuse me of lying because you don't understand the subject.

>> Doesn't it make sense to refer to the contents of the JDK to prove
>> that something isn't in it?  If you claim that a certain object 
>> exists in a box, doesn't it make sense to look in the box and see
>> if it's in there?
>
>Typical inappropriate analogy, given that you looked in the wrong
>box.  Do you often look for T-shirts in the sock drawer and, upon
>not finding any T-shirts there, claim that there are no T-shirts
>in the dresser?

I looked in the correct boxes, Dave, and the Java 2 security classes
are nowhere to be found.   You named a class that you think is a
Java 2 security class, though I have explained why it is not.

>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application.
>>>
>>> Now, why would IBM say that you can use security enhancements from
>>> Java(tm)2 if they are not included, Mike?  Once again, that text came
>>> from the released JDK, not the preview.
>
>> Do you understand the difference between "security enhancements from
>> Java 2" and "Java 2 security classes"?
>
>Yeah; one uses four words and a number, while the other uses three words
>and a number.  Care to explain a significant difference, without relying
>on a semantic argument, Mike?

It is similar to the difference between "turbochargers based on the 
Porsche 911 design" and "Porsche 911 turbochargers".  In the first case,
they might emulate the Porsche 911 turbochargers, and might provide
similar functionality.  But they are still not Porsche 911 turbochargers.

>> As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
>> on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
>> classes".
>
>IBM disagrees, Mike:
>
>] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The
newer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer
description several times.  I'll do so again here:

  http://techsupport.services.ibm.com/asd-bin/doc/en_us/catalog.htm

  IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 
  incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler technology with MMI 
  function. New to this release are security enhancements based on the 
  Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported by 
  IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2 providing serial and parallel device 
  support and enabling JavaPOS and JavaXFS. 
  Updated 07/30/99

Note: "security enhancements based on the Java 2 security model".
This supercedes your earlier description, which is from a newsgroup 
article.

>>>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.
>
>>>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.
>
>>> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>>> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>>> browsing.  
>
>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?
>
>In IBM's words:
>
>] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>] applets.
>
>Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>browsing, Mike.

Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.

Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
is repeating your incorrect claims.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 03-Nov-99 07:37:05
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-NrLIt6UdodmH@localhost>,
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 18:33:07, cbass2112@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> In article <7vlg70$j4d$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
>>   tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
>> > Marty writes:
>> 
>> -- snip --
>> 
>> > > That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
>> > > executable was run.
>> >
>> > That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.  Why do you think it says
>> > that it MUST be run under OS/2?
>> 
>> Because the self-extraction module must be run under OS/2. However, the
>> JAVAINUF.EXE executable can, indeed, be run under DOS.  When one does
>> so, it displays a message indicating that the self-extraction module
>> requires OS/2 in order to execute.
>> 
>> However, there is a difference between JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an
>> executable file, and the self-extraction module contained therein.
>> 
>> > Continue to deny your error, Marty, and you'll develop a reputation
>> > for "never" admitting to making mistakes.
>> 
>> This is sound advice, Marty, considering that it comes from the master
>> of denial himself, the one who does have such a reputation.
>> 
>> -- snip --
>> 
>> > > And you bring the point up into our discussion.
>> >
>> > On what basis do you call it "our" discussion, Marty?  I was having a
>> > discussion with Timbol when you jumped in.
>> 
>> Do you seriously consider an exchange in USENET to be a private affair?
>> No, USENET is a public forum; if you want a private conversation, use e-
>> mail.
>> 
>> -- snip --
>> 
>> > > Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
>> >
>> > Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
>> 
>> And you are the one who keeps implying that one cannot view the
>> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows.
>> 
>> -- snip --
>> 
>> > Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the contents
>> > of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip, somehow
>> > proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.
>> 
>> Mike Timbol made his claims based on an examination of the contents of
>> classes.zip (and other files), not based on the fact that he *can*
>> examine them.
>> 
>> Karel, if you are reading this, the above is a classic example of why
>> threads involving Tholen go south.
>> 
>OK, I confess: I'm reading it.
>
>One question (I haven't been following the thread, and it's just pure 
>luck my iddy biddy eye fell on this): did Dave say that Mike couldn't 
>view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows, or did he say that Mike 
>couldn't execute JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows?

Dave claimed the only way I could examine the contents of the file
in question is by running OS/2.

>Also, like I said about a zillion times already, I'm no programmer, so
>this is like stabbing for olives with a maypole in the dark, but is it
>*really* possible, by looking at the contents of a *.zip file, to 
>determine that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does not have any Java 2 features 
>(which was, IINM, Joseph's original claim)?

Java 2 has so many features that it would be nearly impossible to
determine that a particular JDK implementation contained none of them.
Thus, I ask which Java 2 features it is alleged to contain.  Dave claimed
four items:

  1. Java 2 security classes
  2. RMI-IIOP
  3. the Java COMM API
  4. Swing

The first one is easy to determine, because the classes must exist
in a .zip or .jar archive (both standard formats) in order to be run
in the Virtual Machine.  By looking at the archives included in the
JDK, one can determine whether or not the classes exist (they don't).

All of the other items are not included in the JDK at all, but are
available as extensions.  What this means is that the particular
extension must be installed on the target machine in order for a
program utilizing those extensions to work.  The support for those
extensions is not in the JDK.

(In a sense, it's like Adobe Acrobat.  You can send someone a PDF
file, and there are viewers available for most platforms, but the
viewer isn't part of the platform.  Unless the viewer is installed,
the recipient can't read the file.)

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jasper_de_keijzer@nl.compuware.com                03-Nov-99 08:32:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: DrawIt homepage

From: Jasper de Keijzer <jasper_de_keijzer@nl.compuware.com>

Dear OS/2 User

Finally "Difficult Muse" has delivered the new DrawIt homepage.
It looks very good but in its current state it cannot be viewed with the
MS-IE (java script error). The designer Paul Evenbleij works on it.

Have a look at 

http://home-5.worldonline.nl/~jdekeij


By the way, The development of DrawIt still continuus. Current project
is the support for Windows Metafiles. 

Please keep on coming with wishes, remarks etc.


Thanks for all input so far,

Jasper de Keijzer.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Compuware Uniface Amsterdam (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                03-Nov-99 03:55:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vldes$iaj$1@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>>>>>> Why do you say that?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> What makes you say that?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
  
> >>>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> Can you elaborate?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> What makes you believe that?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Are you sure this is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>> Does it bother you that those are yours?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Are you sure that those are mine?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
> >>>>>>> with this.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> Don't you know?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> What makes you believe that?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>> Illogical.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> I need a little more detail please.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>> When did you first know that those were yours?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Are you sure that those are mine?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
> >>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
> >>>>> right back at you?
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> Are you sure that this is the real reason?
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that
> >>>>>>> you say I do not approve phrases either?
> 
> >>>>>> Don't ask me.
> 
> >>>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your
plans
> >>>>> have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> What makes you believe that?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                03-Nov-99 03:56:01
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vldgf$iaj$2@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:
> 
> >>>>>> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:
> 
> >>>>>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something
> >>>>>>>> akin to an Eliza program and tholened:
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you
> >>>>>>>> respond like Eliza?
> 
> >>>>>>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.
> 
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.
> 
> >>>>> What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> What makes you say that?
> 
> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>> How hypocritical.
> 
> >>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile
game",
> >>>>>> Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g*
in
> >>>>> an infantile game.
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> What makes you believe that?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                03-Nov-99 03:56:13
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vldi5$iaj$3@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
> >>>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
> >>>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 
> 
> >>> I don't understand.
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>> But
> >>>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
> >>>> screwed up the correct attributions. 
> 
> >>> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem as
Marty
> >>> also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?
> 
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> > Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>> Note that the URL and
> >>>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
> >>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.
> 
> >>> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
> >>> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain anything
> >>> else?
> 
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                03-Nov-99 03:59:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <7vm8dc$6ij$1@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Mike Timbol writes:
> 
> >>>> On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
> >>>> contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.
> 
> >>> Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
> >>> are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 

> >>> that are actually included.
> 
> >> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  
> 
> > I had already read it, Dave.
> 
> Obviously not, given how you kept blathering about the difference between
> the preview and the actual release.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> > Notice that it says nothing about "Java 2 security classes".
> 
> Notice that it says "security enhancements from Java(tm)2", Mike.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> >> Here's the first paragraph from the Introduction:
> >>
> >> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
> >> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
> >> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
> >> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
> >> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
> >> ] by following links to other helpful documentation. 
> >>
> >> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
> >> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
> >> something was removed from the preview before actual release.
> 
> > I never claimed that anything was removed from the preview before
> > the actual release.
> 
> Then why did you keep blathering about the difference between the
> preview and the actual release, Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?


> >> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip, or anything
> >> else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on classes.zip
> >> is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.
> 
> > On the contrary, I claimed that I looked at several files to determine
> > what the JDK included, including classes.zip.
> 
> Then why didn't you mention the file that includes the Java 2 security
> classes, Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> > I merely focused on classes.zip because it contains the majority of
> > classes in the JDK.
> 
> But not all of them, Mike, conveniently omitting the relevant ones.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> >> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
> >>
> >> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
> >> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
> >> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
> >> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time. 
> >>
> >> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
> >> sun.misc.Launcher class.
> 
> > Note the reference to "com.ibm." before "security12", which indicates
> > that the class is part of a proprietary IBM package;
> 
> The way the Java 2 security classes were implemented is irrelevant,
> Mike.  What is relevant is that they were implemented, something that
> you claimed was "bullshit".

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.
> 
> Oh really?  Then why does the name include "security12", Mike?
> Notice that the introduction says "security enhancements from
> Java(tm)2", Mike.  Now, if they're not in Java 2, then how could
> they have been taken from it, Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > Thus, the IBM claim that they implement functionality based on the
> > 1.2 security model, not that they include "Java 2 security classes".
> 
> Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?  Here's the relevant
> quotation again:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     
> 
> > Dave, you don't understand what you're arguing about and you don't 
> > understand what you're looking at.
> 
> Mike, I do understand what I'm arguing about.  The way you keep relying
> on semantic arguments ("included" versus "add on") and things that
> Joseph didn't say ("consistent interface") demonstrates that you do not
> know what you're talking about.  You're trying to wriggle and squirm
> your way out of another one of your lies.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> >>>>> I've already addressed this point -- you are bringing it up again 
> >>>>> merely as a diversion, because you cannot accept the fact that your 
> >>>>> stupid little "trap" backfired on you.  
> 
> >>>> It did no such thing, Mike.
> 
> >>> Of course it did.  You led me down a twistly little path in order to
> >>> spring your surprise proclamation that I must be running OS/2 to know
> >>> what's in the JDK.
> 
> >> I did not lead you down any "twistly [sic] little path", Mike.  I just
> >> watched you stumble all over yourself, trying to answer my questions.
> >> Tell me, exactly why did you refer to the contents of the JDK, and
> >> classes.zip specifically, when trying to prove what was *not* in the
> >> JDK?
> 
> > Doesn't it make sense to refer to the contents of the JDK to prove
> > that something isn't in it?
> 
> Not if you refer to the wrong part, Mike.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > If you claim that a certain object exists in a box, doesn't it make
> > sense to look in the box and see if it's in there?
> 
> Typical inappropriate analogy, given that you looked in the wrong
> box.  Do you often look for T-shirts in the sock drawer and, upon
> not finding any T-shirts there, claim that there are no T-shirts
> in the dresser?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> >>> Yet it backfired because because your assumptions were wrong.
> >>> Your assumptions were wrong because you don't understand much
> >>> about self-extracting archives.
> 
> >> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike.  I'm prepared
> >> to explain everything, but not until you admit that you're wrong
> >> about your "bullshit" response to Joseph, and that the reason my
> >> response was so short is because *you* deleted all but one line from
> >> Joseph's article.
> 
> > You know I won't admit that because it's a lie,
> 
> Balderdash, Mike.  See below for the evidence, which you keep deleting.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > which I've already countered several times.
> 
> Which you've already lied about several times.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > As for being "prepared to explain everything", you've already been
> > doing that
> 
> On the contrary, Mike, I haven't explained everything yet.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > -- you've just been doing a pathetic job.
> 
> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone doing a
> pathetic job defending his "bullshit" claim.  You even admitted
> that some functionality was implemented, yet for some peculiar
> reason, you still haven't retracted your "bullshit" claim.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> >>>>> I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
> >>>>> example, is not included.
> 
> >>>> You claimed that Java 2 security classes are not included, Mike.
> 
> >>> And they're not.
> 
> >> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
> >> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
> >> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application.
> >>
> >> Now, why would IBM say that you can use security enhancements from
> >> Java(tm)2 if they are not included, Mike?  Once again, that text came
> >> from the released JDK, not the preview.
> 
> > Do you understand the difference between "security enhancements from
> > Java 2" and "Java 2 security classes"?
> 
> Yeah; one uses four words and a number, while the other uses three words
> and a number.  Care to explain a significant difference, without relying
> on a semantic argument, Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
> > on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
> > classes".
> 
> IBM disagrees, Mike:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     
> 
> >>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.
> 
> >>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.
> 
> >> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
> >> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
> >> browsing.  
> 
> > "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?
> 
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Mike?  It means exactly
> what it says.  To enable Netscape to handle certain Java applications
> when browsing the web, one needs to install the corresponding runtime
> support.  The entire development kit isn't needed by those not doing
> development work.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> In IBM's words:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
> ] applets.
> 
> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
> browsing, Mike.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> >> The development package is another file, while the security
> >> enhancements are in yet another file.  
> 
> > Dave, the JRE plus the development package comprise the JDK.
> 
> You do realize that the development package is not in javainuf.exe,
> don't you, Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> > The proprietary security classes actually *ARE* in the JDK.
> 
> You mean the Java 2 security classes, Mike?  Glad you agree.
> Why did you claim they are not?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > Swing is not.
> 
> On what basis do you make that claim?  Because IBM put them in a
> separate file?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> >> Swing is in yet another file.
> 
> > That other file is one of the "Java extensions for OS/2", as clearly 
> > indicated on the download site.  It is not part of the JDK.
> 
> Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
> >>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
> >>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>>>>>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the
file.
> 
> >>>>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.
> 
> >>>>> You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.
> 
> >>>> Fortunately, I have more tools available to me than just the LIST
> >>>> command, Mike.
> 
> >>> Then tell me, Dave, other than running the file, are you able to read it
> >>> in a meaningful fashion?
> 
> >> Why exclude running the file, Mike?
> 
> > To demonstrate that the file can be read in a meaningful fashion
> > without running the file.  Tell me, can you do it or not?
> 
> I had no trouble running it, per IBM's instructions, Mike.  Why should
> I need to try a different way?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> >>>>>> Does that prove that I ran WinZip?
> 
> >>>>> It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
> >>>>> archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?  No, since 
> >>>>> other tools allow one to get than information, despite the string 
> >>>>> that says "This program must be run on OS/2".
> 
> >>>> Don't try the Marty approach of a REXX script that is purposely
> >>>> designed to lie, Mike.
> 
> >>> I'm taking the approach of telling you I used WinZip on Windows NT.
> >>> Why don't you try verifying the approach I actually used?
> 
> >> Why do you think I tried using an unzipper, Mike?
> 
> > You didn't use the one that I used.
> 
> So what?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > If you're going to claim that what I did was impossible, then prove it.
> 
> The key word here is "if".

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > Otherwise, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence, simply admit
> > that I could extract the contents of the file without running OS/2.
> 
> How ironic, given that in the face of overwhelming evidence, you have
> yet to admit that what Joseph wrote is not "bullshit".

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> >>> I notice that you completely dodge the question.  As for your 
> >>> questions, I've already addressed them.
> 
> >> By lying about Java 2 security classes not being implemented.  But
> >> what I'm really asking is why the truth that they are implemented
> >> is such a difficult thing for you to accept.  You haven't addressed
> >> that question, Mike.  You simply keep denying the truth.
> 
> > All of the claims you make in the preceding paragraph are incorrect, 
> > as I've already proven.

Note: no response.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                03-Nov-99 03:59:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 06:18:16
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> >>>>> Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
> >>>>> why bring up LIST at all?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
> >>>>>      contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
> >>>>>      are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.
> 
> >>>> How ironic, coming from someone who displayed his "ignrance" [sic] when
> >>>> he claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".
> 
> >>> On the contrary, I know much more about OS/2's version of the JDK than
> >>> either you or Joseph.
> 
> >> Obviously not, given your claim that Java 2 security classes aren't
> >> included in the JDK.  
> 
> > They aren't.
> 
> IBM disagrees, Mike:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     
> 
> > As I told you days ago, they are proprietary IBM classes,
> > not "Java 2 security classes".
> 
> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Mike?

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     
> 
> >> You even indicated that javainuf.exe constitutes the JDK, by claiming
> >> that Swing isn't in the JDK, after I noted that it is in a separate
> >> file.
> 
> > It is available as an extension, just as it is for implementations of
> > JDK 1.1.8 on other platforms.
> 
> Not the same implementation, Mike.  Nor does that change the fact that
> javainuf.exe does not constitute the JDK.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> > I've told you this before.
> 
> You also admitted that Swing has new stuff in Java 2.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > Just because it is available does not mean it is part of the JDK.
> 
> Just because you claim that it doesn't have any Java 2 functionality
> doesn't mean that it doesn't have that functionality, Mike.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> >>> I'll note that, once again, you completely fail to address the point.
> 
> >> I'll note that, once again, you lied.
> 
> > Except that in all of the instances where your opinion differs from what
> > I've stated, your opinion is incorrect.
> 
> I'm not talking about opinions, Mike.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> >>>>> Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
> >>>>> be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).
> 
> >>>> Nothing "backfired" on me, Mike. 
> 
> >>> Ah, so you deliberately planned to make yourself look stupid.  I see.
> 
> >> Yet another illogical conclusion.  
> 
> > You claimed it did not "backfire", so you must have planned it.  Quite 
> > logical.
> 
> Jumping to erroneous conclusions once again, I see.  Quite illogical.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
> MT] you deleted it,
> 
> DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
> 
> MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
> MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
> 
> Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
> its entirety:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
> ] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
> ] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
> ] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
> ] 
> ] Mike Timbol writes:
> ] 
> ] > Joseph wrote:
> ] 
> ] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
> ] 
> ] > It's also bullshit.
> ] 
> ] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
> ] 
> ] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
> ] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
> ] 
> ] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> ] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
> ] of it, however.
> 
> Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
> in its entirety:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> ] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
> ] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
> ] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
> ] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
> ] 
> ] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
> ] >
> ] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
> ] 
> ] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
> ] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
> ] 
> ] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
> ] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
> ] 
> ]      - Mike
> 
> And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
> quoted in its entirety.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> ] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
> ] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
> ] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
> ] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
> ] 
> ] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> ] 
> ] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> ] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by
now.
> ] > >> >
> ] > >> >- Marty
> ] > >>
> ] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
> ] > >
> ] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
> ] > >
> ] > >- Marty
> ] > >
> ] > >
> ] >
> ] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM
has ported
> ] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an
indepedent OS/2
> ] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
> ] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
> ] 
> ] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS
or
> ] Netscape.
> ] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No. 
That's a metric
> ] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going
on.  No
> ] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours
-- let's
> ] play software pokeman. "
> ] 
> ] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer. 
OS/2 Java
> ] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't
playing your
> ] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
> ] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you
then we'll
> ] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
> ] understanding.
> ] 
> ] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61
for OS/2.
> 
> As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
> because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
> because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
> for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
> shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
> blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> > Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above
> 
> Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
> appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
> another one of your lies.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?
 
> > because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> > responding to
> 
> On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
> archive of my posting at deja.com:

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

> ] > Joseph wrote:
> ] 
> ] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
> 
> > -- you deleted everything I was responding to,
> 
> The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
> I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.
> 
> Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 10:12:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is
playing the
>>>>>>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.

>>>>>>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT
run
>>>>>>>>>> under DOS, Marty?

>>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have shown.

>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
proves.

>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.

>>>>>> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
>>>>>> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?

>>>>> How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
>>>>> DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
>>>>> proves.

>>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking about
>>>> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.

>>> Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you to
>>> understand.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  In reality, your code wasn't complex enough to extract
>> any archive.

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

>>> I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself proves" is
>>> completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message can be made
>>> to state anything that its author desires.

>> That doesn't mean the javainuf.exe error message is in error itself,
>> Marty.

> Never claimed it was.

But you claimed that the program "runs" in a DOS session, whereas the
message states that it must be run on OS/2.

> Nor does it mean that anything can be proven using it as evidence.

The fact that nothing was extracted can be used as evidence, Marty.

>>>>> The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.

>>>> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.

>>> I never claimed it could Dave.

>> Incorrect, Marty:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> No part of that statement claims that running the executable in DOS will
> extract the archive.

Then why is it called a "self-extracting archive", Marty?

>>> Do read a bit more carefully next time.

>> I read it carefully enough the first time, Marty.

> Not carefully enough, as you seem to have missed the fact that I never
> said what the program would do, merely that it would run.

On the contrary, you mentioned what it would do by referring to it as
a self-extracting archive.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize 

>> that I have admitted to mistakes.

> How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
> mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.

How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize 
that I have admitted to mistakes.

> Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?

Still relying on a semantic argument, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 10:13:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:06
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
>>>>>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
>>>>>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 

>>>>> I don't understand.

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>> But
>>>>>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
>>>>>> screwed up the correct attributions. 

>>>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem as
Marty
>>>>> also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?

>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>> Note that the URL and
>>>>>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
>>>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.

>>>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
>>>>> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain anything
>>>>> else?

>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 10:16:17
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:06
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>>>>> Why do you say that?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> What makes you say that?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
 
>>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> Can you elaborate?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> What makes you believe that?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Are you sure this is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>> Does it bother you that those are yours?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Are you sure that those are mine?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have something to do
>>>>>>>>> with this.

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> Don't you know?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> What makes you believe that?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> Illogical.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> I need a little more detail please.

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>> When did you first know that those were yours?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Are you sure that those are mine?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp Eliza
clone,
>>>>>>> Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot nonsense is being
thrown
>>>>>>> right back at you?

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> Are you sure that this is the real reason?

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all this that
>>>>>>>>> you say I do not approve phrases either?

>>>>>>>> Don't ask me.

>>>>>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe your
plans
>>>>>>> have something to do with this.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>> What makes you believe that?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 10:14:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:06
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes [using a pseudonym again]:

>>>>>>>> Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>> Joe Malloy wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used something
>>>>>>>>>> akin to an Eliza program and tholened:

>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>>>> But Tholen, you forgot the most basic question of all: Why do you
>>>>>>>>>> respond like Eliza?

>>>>>>>>> Because he is engaging in an infantile game.

>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  I'm substantiating a claim.

>>>>>>> What alleged claim were you allegedly substantiating?

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> What makes you say that?

>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> How hypocritical.

>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm engagin in an "infantile
>>>>>>>> game", Marty.

>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that he correctly realized that you were engagin*g*
in
>>>>>>> an infantile game.

>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>> What makes you believe that?

> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 10:30:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:06
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>> Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
>>>>>> contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.

>>>>> Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
>>>>> are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 

>>>>> that are actually included.

>>>> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  

>>> I had already read it, Dave.

>> Obviously not, given how you kept blathering about the difference between
>> the preview and the actual release.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> Notice that it says nothing about "Java 2 security classes".

>> Notice that it says "security enhancements from Java(tm)2", Mike.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>> Here's the first paragraph from the Introduction:
>>>>
>>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
>>>> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>>>> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>>>> ] by following links to other helpful documentation. 
>>>>
>>>> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
>>>> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
>>>> something was removed from the preview before actual release.

>>> I never claimed that anything was removed from the preview before
>>> the actual release.

>> Then why did you keep blathering about the difference between the
>> preview and the actual release, Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>>>> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip, or anything
>>>> else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on classes.zip
>>>> is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.

>>> On the contrary, I claimed that I looked at several files to determine
>>> what the JDK included, including classes.zip.

>> Then why didn't you mention the file that includes the Java 2 security
>> classes, Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> I merely focused on classes.zip because it contains the majority of
>>> classes in the JDK.

>> But not all of them, Mike, conveniently omitting the relevant ones.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
>>>>
>>>> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
>>>> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
>>>> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
>>>> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time. 
>>>>
>>>> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
>>>> sun.misc.Launcher class.

>>> Note the reference to "com.ibm." before "security12", which indicates
>>> that the class is part of a proprietary IBM package;

>> The way the Java 2 security classes were implemented is irrelevant,
>> Mike.  What is relevant is that they were implemented, something that
>> you claimed was "bullshit".

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.

>> Oh really?  Then why does the name include "security12", Mike?
>> Notice that the introduction says "security enhancements from
>> Java(tm)2", Mike.  Now, if they're not in Java 2, then how could
>> they have been taken from it, Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> Thus, the IBM claim that they implement functionality based on the
>>> 1.2 security model, not that they include "Java 2 security classes".

>> Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?  Here's the relevant
>> quotation again:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>> Dave, you don't understand what you're arguing about and you don't 
>>> understand what you're looking at.

>> Mike, I do understand what I'm arguing about.  The way you keep relying
>> on semantic arguments ("included" versus "add on") and things that
>> Joseph didn't say ("consistent interface") demonstrates that you do not
>> know what you're talking about.  You're trying to wriggle and squirm
>> your way out of another one of your lies.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> I've already addressed this point -- you are bringing it up again 
>>>>>>> merely as a diversion, because you cannot accept the fact that your 
>>>>>>> stupid little "trap" backfired on you.  

>>>>>> It did no such thing, Mike.

>>>>> Of course it did.  You led me down a twistly little path in order to
>>>>> spring your surprise proclamation that I must be running OS/2 to know
>>>>> what's in the JDK.

>>>> I did not lead you down any "twistly [sic] little path", Mike.  I just
>>>> watched you stumble all over yourself, trying to answer my questions.
>>>> Tell me, exactly why did you refer to the contents of the JDK, and
>>>> classes.zip specifically, when trying to prove what was *not* in the
>>>> JDK?

>>> Doesn't it make sense to refer to the contents of the JDK to prove
>>> that something isn't in it?

>> Not if you refer to the wrong part, Mike.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>>> If you claim that a certain object exists in a box, doesn't it make
>>> sense to look in the box and see if it's in there?

>> Typical inappropriate analogy, given that you looked in the wrong
>> box.  Do you often look for T-shirts in the sock drawer and, upon
>> not finding any T-shirts there, claim that there are no T-shirts
>> in the dresser?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> Yet it backfired because because your assumptions were wrong.
>>>>> Your assumptions were wrong because you don't understand much
>>>>> about self-extracting archives.

>>>> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike.  I'm prepared
>>>> to explain everything, but not until you admit that you're wrong
>>>> about your "bullshit" response to Joseph, and that the reason my
>>>> response was so short is because *you* deleted all but one line from
>>>> Joseph's article.

>>> You know I won't admit that because it's a lie,

>> Balderdash, Mike.  See below for the evidence, which you keep deleting.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> which I've already countered several times.

>> Which you've already lied about several times.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> As for being "prepared to explain everything", you've already been
>>> doing that

>> On the contrary, Mike, I haven't explained everything yet.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> -- you've just been doing a pathetic job.

>> Typical invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone doing a
>> pathetic job defending his "bullshit" claim.  You even admitted
>> that some functionality was implemented, yet for some peculiar
>> reason, you still haven't retracted your "bullshit" claim.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> I can extract the contents of the archive just fine, and Swing, for
>>>>>>> example, is not included.

>>>>>> You claimed that Java 2 security classes are not included, Mike.

>>>>> And they're not.

>>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application.
>>>>
>>>> Now, why would IBM say that you can use security enhancements from
>>>> Java(tm)2 if they are not included, Mike?  Once again, that text came
>>>> from the released JDK, not the preview.

>>> Do you understand the difference between "security enhancements from
>>> Java 2" and "Java 2 security classes"?

>> Yeah; one uses four words and a number, while the other uses three words
>> and a number.  Care to explain a significant difference, without relying
>> on a semantic argument, Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
>>> on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
>>> classes".

>> IBM disagrees, Mike:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>>>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.

>>>>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.

>>>> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>>>> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>>>> browsing.  

>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Mike?  It means exactly
>> what it says.  To enable Netscape to handle certain Java applications
>> when browsing the web, one needs to install the corresponding runtime
>> support.  The entire development kit isn't needed by those not doing
>> development work.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>> In IBM's words:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>> ] applets.

>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>> browsing, Mike.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>> The development package is another file, while the security
>>>> enhancements are in yet another file.  

>>> Dave, the JRE plus the development package comprise the JDK.

>> You do realize that the development package is not in javainuf.exe,
>> don't you, Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> The proprietary security classes actually *ARE* in the JDK.

>> You mean the Java 2 security classes, Mike?  Glad you agree.
>> Why did you claim they are not?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Swing is not.

>> On what basis do you make that claim?  Because IBM put them in a
>> separate file?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>>>> Swing is in yet another file.

>>> That other file is one of the "Java extensions for OS/2", as clearly 
>>> indicated on the download site.  It is not part of the JDK.

>> Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>>>>>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>>>>>> It's quite relevent.  It demonstrates that I am able to read the
file.

>>>>>>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.

>>>>>>> You can't get that information by "reading" it with the LIST command.

>>>>>> Fortunately, I have more tools available to me than just the LIST
>>>>>> command, Mike.

>>>>> Then tell me, Dave, other than running the file, are you able to read it
>>>>> in a meaningful fashion?

>>>> Why exclude running the file, Mike?

>>> To demonstrate that the file can be read in a meaningful fashion
>>> without running the file.  Tell me, can you do it or not?

>> I had no trouble running it, per IBM's instructions, Mike.  Why should
>> I need to try a different way?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>> Does that prove that I ran WinZip?

>>>>>>> It proves that you were able to get meaningful information out of the
>>>>>>> archive.  Does it prove that you ran the program on OS/2?  No, since 
>>>>>>> other tools allow one to get than information, despite the string 
>>>>>>> that says "This program must be run on OS/2".

>>>>>> Don't try the Marty approach of a REXX script that is purposely
>>>>>> designed to lie, Mike.

>>>>> I'm taking the approach of telling you I used WinZip on Windows NT.
>>>>> Why don't you try verifying the approach I actually used?

>>>> Why do you think I tried using an unzipper, Mike?

>>> You didn't use the one that I used.

>> So what?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 10:30:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:06
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> If you're going to claim that what I did was impossible, then prove it.

>> The key word here is "if".

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> Otherwise, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence, simply admit
>>> that I could extract the contents of the file without running OS/2.

>> How ironic, given that in the face of overwhelming evidence, you have
>> yet to admit that what Joseph wrote is not "bullshit".

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>> I notice that you completely dodge the question.  As for your 
>>>>> questions, I've already addressed them.

>>>> By lying about Java 2 security classes not being implemented.  But
>>>> what I'm really asking is why the truth that they are implemented
>>>> is such a difficult thing for you to accept.  You haven't addressed
>>>> that question, Mike.  You simply keep denying the truth.

>>> All of the claims you make in the preceding paragraph are incorrect, 
>>> as I've already proven.

> Note: no response.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> Your unreasoned denials demonstrate that you really have no argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you know that WinZip can extract the files in a meaningful fashion,
>>>>>>> why bring up LIST at all?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   a) You didn't know that WinZip could read the file and display its
>>>>>>>      contents in a meaningful and comprehensible fashion.  Thus, you
>>>>>>>      are demonstrating your ignrance, as I said.

>>>>>> How ironic, coming from someone who displayed his "ignrance" [sic] when
>>>>>> he claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".

>>>>> On the contrary, I know much more about OS/2's version of the JDK than
>>>>> either you or Joseph.

>>>> Obviously not, given your claim that Java 2 security classes aren't
>>>> included in the JDK.  

>>> They aren't.

>> IBM disagrees, Mike:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>> As I told you days ago, they are proprietary IBM classes,
>>> not "Java 2 security classes".

>> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Mike?

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>>> You even indicated that javainuf.exe constitutes the JDK, by claiming
>>>> that Swing isn't in the JDK, after I noted that it is in a separate
>>>> file.

>>> It is available as an extension, just as it is for implementations of
>>> JDK 1.1.8 on other platforms.

>> Not the same implementation, Mike.  Nor does that change the fact that
>> javainuf.exe does not constitute the JDK.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> I've told you this before.

>> You also admitted that Swing has new stuff in Java 2.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> Just because it is available does not mean it is part of the JDK.

>> Just because you claim that it doesn't have any Java 2 functionality
>> doesn't mean that it doesn't have that functionality, Mike.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> I'll note that, once again, you completely fail to address the point.

>>>> I'll note that, once again, you lied.

>>> Except that in all of the instances where your opinion differs from what
>>> I've stated, your opinion is incorrect.

>> I'm not talking about opinions, Mike.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> Since your "trap" backfired because you didn't know the file could
>>>>>>> be read under a non-OS/2 platform, I'm going with a).

>>>>>> Nothing "backfired" on me, Mike. 

>>>>> Ah, so you deliberately planned to make yourself look stupid.  I see.

>>>> Yet another illogical conclusion.  

>>> You claimed it did not "backfire", so you must have planned it.  Quite 
>>> logical.

>> Jumping to erroneous conclusions once again, I see.  Quite illogical.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
>> MT] you deleted it,
>>
>> DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
>>
>> MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
>> MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>>
>> Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
>> its entirety:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

What makes you believe that?

>> ] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
>> ] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
>> ] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>> ] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu
>> ] 
>> ] Mike Timbol writes:
>> ] 
>> ] > Joseph wrote:
>> ] 
>> ] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
>> ] 
>> ] > It's also bullshit.
>> ] 
>> ] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
>> ] 
>> ] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
>> ] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>> ] 
>> ] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
>> ] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
>> ] of it, however.
>>
>> Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
>> in its entirety:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>> ] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
>> ] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
>> ] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>> ] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com
>> ] 
>> ] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
>> ] 
>> ] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
>> ] 
>> ] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
>> ] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
>> ] 
>> ] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
>> ] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
>> ] 
>> ]      - Mike
>>
>> And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
>> quoted in its entirety.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>> ] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net
>> ] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
>> ] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
>> ] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net
>> ] 
>> ] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
>> ] 
>> ] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
>> ] >>>>unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
>> ] >>>
>> ] >>>>- Marty
>> ] >>
>> ] >>> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
>> ] >
>> ] >>Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
>> ] >
>> ] >>- Marty
>> ] >
>> ] >
>> ] 
>> ] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM
>> ] > has ported 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such
>> ] > an indepedent OS/2 user such as yourself, that parity is important.
>> ] > Clearly, what *isn't* important is achieving this parity in a timely
>> ] > manner.
>> ] 
>> ] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS
or
>> ] Netscape.
>> ] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No. 
>> ] That's a metric that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding
>> ] what is going on.  No wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is
>> ] higher than yours -- let's play software pokeman. "
>> ] 
>> ] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer. 
>> ] OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.
>> ] IBM isn't playing your game.  They are adding functionality based on
>> ] need and reliability and stability.
>> ] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you
>> ] then we'll have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality
>> ] of your understanding.
>> ] 
>> ] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61
>> ] for OS/2.
>>
>> As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
>> because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
>> because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
>> for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
>> shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
>> blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

>> Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
>> appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
>> another one of your lies.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
>>> responding to

>> On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
>> archive of my posting at deja.com:

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>> ] > Joseph wrote:
>> ] 
>> ] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

>>> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

>> The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
>> I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

>> Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 11:26:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: (1/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this OS/2 
JDK?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not
comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the first time:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the
contents."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>>>>>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to
extract
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that
self-extracting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> archive in a DOS session, it will run.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
>>>>>>>>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting and
exit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.

>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

>>>>>>>>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
>>>>>>>>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC) with 
the
>>>>>>>>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It then
>>>>>>>>>>> calls INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This
program
>>>>>>>>>>> stub is inside the executable file, hence the program is executed
>>>>>>>>>>> under DOS.

>>>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.

>>>> The self-extracting archive does not self-extract on DOS, regardless of
>>>> what you say about it "running" on DOS, Marty.

>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.

>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.  Do you call that "running"?

> Yes.

It figures you'd rely on a semantic argument over what constitutes
"running".  Obviously you have nothing better to do, which is further
evdience that you're playing an "infantile game".

> I call the display of a string and execution of code from within
> the EXE file "running".  Don't you?

Not when the executable is designed to extract an archive instead.

>>> I notice you see fit to change the wording of my claim from "run" to
>>> "self-extract".

>> I'm just being consistent with your own usage, Marty:

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> And run, it does.

Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

>>> How convenient.

>> Being consistent with your usage is for your convenience, Marty.

> Yes it would be convenient if you would do so.

I am, Marty.

>>> The two are obviously not equivalent and my original statement holds.

>> Your original statement:
>> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.

> But it runs, so my statement holds.

There's that "it" again.  As I explained once before, the "it" can
refer to only one of two subjects, namely the self-extracting archive
or the DOS session.  Now, unless you really want to argue that you
meant the latter, then we are forced to accept the former.

>>>>>>> It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
>>>>>>> case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the case
>>>>>>> of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question is
>>>>>> a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't,

>>>>> Quite incorrect again.

>>>> Balderdash, Marty.

>>> On what basis do you claim that it is not a bound executable.

>> On the basis of the absence of DOS code to do the self extraction, Marty.

> That does not mean it is not a bound executable Dave.

That does mean there is no DOS code to extract the archive bound into
the executable, Marty.

> Being a bound executable only means that the EXE file can run on more
> than one platform.

But as the message indicates, the program MUST be run on OS/2.  That's
a single platform, Marty.

> It does not mean that it must run the same way on said platforms.

The functionality of the extraction was not implemented, Marty.

> Of course, I've explained this already.

And I've responded to your explanation already.  So why do you persist?
Obviously to continue playing your "infantile game".

>>> I've already explained below why it is.

>> I've already explained below why it isn't, Marty.

> Incorrectly, as usual.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>> Do you know what a "bound executable" is?

>>>> Of course.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way, Marty.

>>> Evidence, please.

>> Are you placing an order, Marty?

> I'm requesting evidence for your unsupported assertion.

Are you placing an order, Marty?

> I've noted that you failed to provide any in your response.

Are you placing an order, Marty?

>>>>> The DOS and OS/2 programs are bound together into a single EXE file.

>>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code, Marty?

>>> Who said anything about self-extracting code?  I said the self
>>> extracting archive executes in DOS.

>> It doesn't.  Nothing gets extracted.

> That doesn't mean it doesn't run in DOS Dave.

It means the self-extracting archive doesn't run in DOS, Marty.

> Your own quote of its output proves that it runs.

Incorrect, given that no archive extraction took place.

>>>>> In the case of JAVAINUF.EXE the DOS part of the file displays the
>>>>> message you quoted and exits.

>>>> Which means there is no self-extracting code for DOS, thus that code
>>>> was not bound into the executable, Marty.

>>> There was DOS code bound into the EXE file and it executes.  My
>>> statement holds.

>> Your original statement:
>> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.

> Incorrect as noted above.  You seem to not know what a bound executable
> is.

Incorrect, as noted above.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way,
Marty.

>>>>>> otherwise it would have self extracted the archive.  It didn't.

>>>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.

>>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code bound into the
>>>> executable, Marty?

>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.  A bound executable need
>>> not execute the same operation in both DOS and OS/2 to be a bound
>>> executable.

>> What good is it then, Marty?

> [the DOS stub?]

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  What do you think the
subject of your sentence was?  Hint:  you didn't mention any DOS stub in
it.

> To inform the user that to use its intended function, the EXE needs to
> be run in OS/2.

So much for trying to run it in a DOS session.

> That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS,

It does mean that nothing got extracted, Marty.

> nor that it is not a bound executable.

No DOS archive extraction code was bound to the executable, Marty.

> Quite the opposite.

Quite the repetition, Marty.

>>> You are quite incorrect to assume that it must.

>> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.

> That doesn't change the fact that you are quite incorrect to assume that
> it must.

I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.

>>>>>>> In either case it is executing.

>>>>>> The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
>>>>>> that it MUST be run under OS/2?

>>>> Note:  no response.

>>> I've already addressed this with my REXX example.

>> Your REXX script is inappropriate, Marty.

> Typical unsubstantiated erroneous claim.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I already
substantiated my claim, which showed that it is not erroneous.

>>> Code can do or say whatever it wants,

>> Even start World War III, as they say.

> Irrelevant.

Incorrect, given that you referred to "whatever it wants".

>>> no matter how far from reality it is.

>> In this case, however, the reality is that the file won't self-extract
>> in a DOS session.

> Correct.

Then why did you write:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

> That doesn't mean it isn't running.

It does mean that no archive extraction took place, Marty.

>>> To blindly believe anything a program says, especially in this day and
>>> age, is quite a silly thing to do.

>> Well, if you want to believe that the file really did self-extract in a
>> DOS session, you are certainly welcome to do so, Marty.

> And if you want to believe that it is not a bound executable and that
> stubs can be "displayed" you are welcome to do so.

You've certainly not provided any reason to change my belief, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.

>>>>>>>> The program doesn't run, Marty.

>>>>>>> The program does in fact run.

>>>>>> No archive was extracted, Marty.

>>>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
>>>>> executable was run.

>>>> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.

>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
>>> executable was run.

>> It does contradict your claim, Marty:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> In what way?

The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, Marty.

>>> If I had worded my claim differently, you'd be correct,

>> I'm correct even with the wording you chose, Marty.

> Would that it were so, Dave.

It is, Marty.

>>> however I never implied in any way what the code was doing.

>> You did write, however:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> Which, if read correctly, the reader would notice that I never implied
> in any way what the code was doing.

I'm not talking about any implication, Marty.  I'm talking about what
you actually wrote.

>>> I merely stated that it executed.

>> There's that "it" again.  As I explained once before, the "it" can
>> refer to only one of two subjects, namely the self-extracting archive
>> or the DOS session.  Now, unless you really want to argue that you
>> meant the latter, then we are forced to accept the former.

> And I've already responded to this.

Illogically.

> The self extracting archive is the EXE file.

Incorrect, given that you made no reference to the EXE file in your
statement:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

> The EXE file can be run in DOS as your own posts have proven.

The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, contrary to your
claim, Marty.

>>>> Why do you think it says that it MUST be run under OS/2?

>>> Already addressed numerous times.

>> Incorrect.  Rather, you've avoided it numerous times.

> How is a direct response avoidance?

By directly using an inappropriate analogy, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> That's what I call running.

>>>>>>>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like
your
>>>>>>>> responses to me.

>>>>>>>>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a DOS
>>>>>>>>>> session.

>>>>>>>>> No.  I said the executable would.

>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>>>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence
of a
>>>>>>>> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it will
>>>>>>>> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the
>>>>>>>> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick,
Marty.
>>>>>>>> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two
subjects is
>>>>>>>> a logical choice.

>>>>>>> Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
>>>>>>> executable in question?

>>>>>> Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You claimed
>>>>>> that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
>>>>>> said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run in a
>>>>>> DOS session.  It does not.

>>>>> It does because the self-extracting archive is JAVAINUF.EXE.

>>>> It doesn't self-extract on DOS, Marty.

>>> Never claimed it would.

>> Incorrect:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
> archive when run in DOS.

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>> It doesn't run.

>>> Absolutely incorrect again.

>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

> Correct.

Glad you agree, Marty.

> But it runs, nonetheless.

Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

>>>> Your semantic argument won't help you to save face, Marty.

>>> No need.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> No need on my part.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>>> It will support my claim that you're responding simply to continue
playing
>>>> your "infantile game".

>>> You will reap what you sow.

>> Illogical, given that I'm not sowing any "infantile game", Marty.

> I know you are, but what am I?

Non sequitur.

>>>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.

>>>>>>>>> Right.

>>>>>>>> Glad you agree, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
>>>>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>>>> |---- Incorrect statement.

>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the program,
>>>>>>>> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?

>>>>>>> There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.

>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.  They get executed.

>>>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
>>>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".

>>> I know you are, but what am I?

>> Non sequitur.

> I'm rubber and you're glue.

Non sequitur.

> Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

Non sequitur.  Sounds like something from grade school.  Even more
evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.

>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 11:26:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: (2/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".

> Nothing semantic about it Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.

> If I displayed you is that not something entirely different than if
> I executed you?

Yet another inappropriate analogy.

> You used an incorrect term to describe the situation.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> Admit it you coward.

Typical invective.  Losing another argument, Marty?

>>> They get executed.  That's not sematics.

>> Balderdash, Marty.

> Do you "display" your newsreader to write these postings?

Of course, given that I need to read the articles before I respond to
them.

> Do you "display" Netscape when you want to browse the World Wide Web?

Of course, given that the interface is visual.

> This is obviously an incorrect usage of the word "display",

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> as is your use of it with respect to the stub executable.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> There's a world of difference between executing code and displaying
>>> something.

>> There's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
>> displaying a stub.

> No argument there, however irrelevant the statement may be.

It's not irrelevant, Marty.

> However, you have yet to own up to the fact that there's a world of
> difference between executing code and displaying something.

However, you have yet to own up to the relevancy of the fact that
there's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
displaying a stub.

>>> You used incorrect terminology

>> Balderdash, Marty.  You're simply engaging in a semantic argument to
>> divert attention away from the issue.

> If I were to use a term incorrectly, you'd call me on it just the same. 

There's a world of difference between using a term incorrectly and
engaging in a semantic argument, Marty.

> Don't expect any less from your opponents.

I expect you to be consistent, and to be consistent, you should not
be seeing my postings, due to your alleged use of a killfile.

>>> and now refuse to acknowledge your error.

>> What alleged error, Marty?

> Your misuse of the word "display".

What alleged misuse, Marty?

>>>>>>> A stub is <executing>.

>>>>>> A stub is not a self-extracting archive, Marty.

>>>>> The EXE file is.  The EXE file can be executed under DOS.

>>>> Nothing gets extracted from the archive under DOS, Marty, thus your
>>>> claim:
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
>>>>
>>>> is incorrect.

>>> Wrong, as usual.  See above for why.

>> Balderdash, Marty.  See above for my response.

>>>> Continue to deny your error,

>>> No need.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> No need to deny what does not exist.

But your error does exist, Marty.

>>>> Marty, and you'll develop a reputation for "never" admitting to making
>>>> mistakes.  Then some day you may have to deal with someone the way I've
>>>> dealt with you.

>>> And how have you allegedly "dealt" with me, Dave?

>> By putting up with your lies, Marty.

> Have you determined this to be an effective way of "dealing" with me?

I have determined that letting your lies go unchallenged is an
ineffective way of "dealing" with you, Marty.

>>>>>>> Code is being run from inside of the executable to display the string
>>>>>>> you saw.

>>>>>> Code is not being run to self-extract the archive, Marty.

>>>> Note:  no response.

>>> I don't feel the need to repeat myself as often as you seem to.

>> You do feel the need to respond, despite allegedly having me in your
>> killfile, Marty.

> Now why should I let you make erroneous statements as you have been?

What allegedly erroneous statements, Marty?

>>>>>>> If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
>>>>>>> MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
>>>>>>> MOV DX, [address of string]
>>>>>>> INT 21
>>>>>>> MOV AH, 0
>>>>>>> INT 21

>>>>>> I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
>>>>>> is.

>>>>> On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.

>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>> No semantics involved.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> No semantics involved on my end.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>> I'm correcting your misconception of what a stub is and what can be
>>> done with it.

>> What alleged misconception, Marty,

> Pointed out numerous times.

Where, allegedly, Marty?

>> and how will that advance your argument in support of your erroneous 
>> claim:

> It won't,

Glad you agree.  So why do you persist?  Apparently to continue playing
your "infantile game".

> because I do not advance or support any erroneous claim. 

Incorrect, Marty:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

> However, my statement still stands.

..as incorrect.

>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> A stub cannot be displayed in a meaningful way.

>> There is obvious meaning to the one displayed by javainuf.exe, Marty.

> You are again misusing the word "display".

Incorrect, Marty.

> That stub code was not displayed in your output.

Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

> It was executed.

Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>>>> You seem to think it can be displayed in a meaningful way.

>>>> The error message is quite meaningful, Marty.

>>> The error message is not a "stub" Dave.

>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

> No semantics involved.

Incorrect, Marty.

> I'm correcting your misuse of a word.

What alleged misuse, Marty?

> The stub is the kicker code for the operating system in question.
> It is not a static text string.

Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

> If I were heretofore going to refer to the word "you" as if it
> meant "sausage", would you not feel the need to correct me?

Yet another inappropriate analogy.

>>> It's a "string".

>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

> None present to continue.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>> It is displayed by the execution of the code present in the "stub".

>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

> None present to continue.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>>>> Unless one knows machine opcodes, it cannot.

>>>> Irrelevant to the issue, Marty.

>>> Incorrect, as machine opcodes or interpreted x86 assembly are the only
>>> way to display the already compiled stub.  You used the term
>>> incorrectly.

>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

> Continuing to postpone your admitting to an obvious error?

What alleged "obvious error", Marty?

>>> Admit your error and I will move on.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't admitted several of his
>> own errors.

> I've admitted to all errors that have been proven to me beyond the
> shadow of a doubt, and several that haven't.

Incorrect, Marty, but once again, I'll note that when you make the claims,
the burden of proof falls on your shoulders.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "InfoZip"?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archive format portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

>>>>> [where I entered the thread]

>>>> Why not leave the attributions intact?  Then you wouldn't have to make
>>>> such a notation, Marty.

>>> Pardon my attempt to alleviate confusion.

>> I'm not the one who removed the attributions, Marty.

> Hence my clarification.

Which would have been unnecessary if the attributions had been left intact
in the first place.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> The archive format is portable.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
>>>>>>>>>>>> "InfoZip"?

>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't tell you.  That doesn't change the fact that the
archive
>>>>>>>>>>> format is portable.

>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't change the fact that Timbol asked whether I understood
>>>>>>>>>> the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip", Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Which is immaterial to our discussion, unless you'd like to tell me
>>>>>>>>> how this makes a difference.

>>>>>>>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

>>>>>>> So we both agree that the archive format, as present inside the
>>>>>>> executable, is portable then?

>>>>>> Ask Timbol if you and he both agree, Marty.  He's the one who brought
>>>>>> it up.

>>>>> And you bring the point up into our discussion.

>>>> On what basis do you call it "our" discussion, Marty?  I was having a
>>>> discussion with Timbol when you jumped in.

>>> And now you are having a discussion with myself and Mike.

>> Why did you jump in, Marty?

> To correct your errors.

What alleged errors, Marty?

>>> They have taken divergent paths,

>> That is, you're diverting attention away from the issue.

> It takes 2 to tango.

Irrelevant, given that this discussion is not a "tango".

>>> thus this branch of the thread I refer to as "our discussion".

>> How about referring to it as your "diversion"?  Or perhaps even your
>> "infantile game"?

> I'm rubber and you're glue.

Non sequitur.

> Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

Non sequitur.  Sounds like something from grade school.  Even more
evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

>>> If you didn't want me to call it "our" discussion then you could
>>> have not responded to me so it would have been "my" discussion,
>>> which would have fizzled quickly.

>> If you did not want to read my alleged "drivel", you could have left
>> me in your killfile, and it would have never happened.

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, your inconsistency is quite relevant, Marty.

> How ironic that you speak above of diversions.

Weren't you one of the people who claimed it was illogical to respond
to Brad Wardell, because he had me in his killfile?  Well, you've
demonstrated that it's not illogical after all.

>>>>> Did you have a point in doing so?

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I brought it up, Marty.

>>> You brought it into this branch of the thread.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Then who did?

Still having reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> Timbol right?

Aren't you sure, Marty?

> Then why have you not ceased referring to it if it is of no interest
> to you?

Because you're bringing it up, accusing me of having brought it up.

>>> If there was no point in doing so, then you may remove it if you
>>> like.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I brought it into this branch
>> of the thread, Marty.

> Then why have you not ceased referring to it if it is of no interest to
> you?

Because you're bringing it up, accusing me of having brought it up.

>>> I have no objections.

>> You had objections to my antispammed ID, Marty.  Do try to be more
>> consistent.

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, your inconsistency is quite relevant, Marty.

> How ironic that you speak above of diversions.

Weren't you one of the people who claimed it was illogical to respond
to Brad Wardell, because he had me in his killfile?  Well, you've
demonstrated that it's not illogical after all.

>>>>> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

>>>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

>>> He has already affirmed that he believes the archive format is
>>> portable.  I agree with him.  Do you agree that the archive format is
>>> portable?

>> Irrelevant, given that Timbol is the one who brought it up, Marty.

> I'm bringing it up,

Why, Marty?

> now answer the question,

Why should I answer an irrelevant question, Marty?

> you coward.

Typical invective.  Losing another argument, eh Marty?

>>>>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice quite nicely.

>>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?"
>>>> "A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice quite nicely."

>>> What's allegedly irrelevant and inappropriate about my question Dave?

>> That's not the reasoning behind the wife beating example, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> If a "yes" or "no" won't do, then how about explaining your position
>>> instead of dodging the issue?

>> I already have explained my position, Marty.

> Illogically.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
contents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that
he
>>>>>>>>>>> could view the archive.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?

>>>>>>>>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>>>>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
>>>>>>>>> DT] file?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>>>>> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't
represent
>>>>>>>> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.

>>>>>>> You are questioning the fact that he could read it.

>>>>>> Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran the
>>>>>> self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.

>>>>> What point would that prove?

>>>> Good question.  Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the
contents
>>>> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip,

>>> Which they are, as anyone with the JDK can verify.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> On the basis that viewing the contents of classes.zip will show a
> listing of *.class files,

Is the listing complete, Marty?

> containing the implementation of all of the base component classes of
> said version of Java.

That's the 1.1.8 version, Marty.  Now, do you remember what the subject
of the thread is?  Hint:  it has to do with some additional functionality
that was implemented.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 11:26:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: (3/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>> somehow proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.

>>> That wasn't the whole of his line of reasoning, but I'll leave that for
>>> you two to explore.

>> Indeed, Timbol also used the reasoning that the article I referenced
>> referred to a preview release, suggesting that the Java 2 security
>> classes were removed before actual release.  Despite that, the actual
>> release still has the Java 2 security classes.

Note:  no response.

>>>>> You were questioning the validity of his reasoning based on his
>>>>> availability to verify his own claims.

>>>> I never said anything about his availability, Marty.

>>> Then why bother questioning him on how he was able to read the contents
>>> of the archive?

>> What does that have to do with his availability, Marty?

> You FUD'ed that he could not verify his own facts.

Non sequitur.  What alleged FUD, Marty?

>>>>>>> He, in fact, can read it.

>>>>>> So can I, Marty.

>>>>>>> Do you accept this fact?

>>>>>> I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't
>>>>>> include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?

>>>>> This is a different issue.

>>>> On the contrary, it's a part of the original issue, Marty.

>>> In what way?

>> It represents some of the Java 1.2 functionality that was implemented
>> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty.  Haven't you been following the issue?

> That is not an issue in this branch of the thread,

Incorrect, Marty.  Apparently you haven't been following the issue.

> otherwise I would have quoted it and responded to it.

As I said, you haven't been following the issue.

>>>>> It does not seem to include them in such a way that standard Java 1.2
>>>>> programs would be able to access them.

>>>> Did IBM claim to include them in that way, Marty?  IBM simply said that
>>>> functions from Java 2 are included in 1.1.8, thereby justifying Joseph's
>>>> statement and contradicting Timbol's "bullshit" response.

>>> If there is no guarantee that the functions are implemented to
>>> completion

>> Completion isn't required to make the statement, Marty.

> Completion is required to implement the functionality Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.

> Do you often half-ass implementation yourself?

I've never implemented myself, Marty.

>>> and no guarantee that the interfaces are the same,

>> Nothing was said about the interfaces being the same, Marty.

> Glad you agree.

That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.  Rather, it's an indication
of the irrelevancy of your remark.

>>> and the function names themselves are different, as seems to be the
>>> case after a cursory examination of the class libraries,

>> Are you referring to the classes.zip file again, Marty?

> My words say what they say, Dave.

But your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

>>> then how is this even vaguely reminiscent of Java 2 functionality?

>> Try reading the appropriate file, Marty, rather than classes.zip.
>> No wonder Timbol thinks he can get away with his lies.  There's
>> readers like you out there.

> And who exactly is "like me" out there Dave?

You are, Marty.

> Archive:  SecMA.jar
>  Length  Method   Size  Ratio   Date    Time   CRC-32     Name
>  ------  ------   ----  -----   ----    ----   ------     ----
>   82070  Stored   82070   0%  07-28-99  03:30  f5766547  
> META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/
>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/ibm/
>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000  
> com/ibm/security12/
> .... etc.
>
> As I have stated, the function names themselves are different, as seems
> to be the case after a cursory examination of the class libraries.

Irrelevant, Marty.  One does not need to have the same names to
implement the same functionality.  For example, the touch tone
keypad has a different name from a rotary dial, but the former
implements the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
telephone number, of the latter.

>>>>> They are included as implementation specific plugins which are not
>>>>> guaranteed to conform to Java 1.2 standards,

>>>> What's non-standard about them, Marty?

>>> The classes are under a different inheritance tree.

>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
>> classes, Marty?

> It automatically means they are not Java 2 compatible, which means that
> Java 2 functionality is not implemented in this version of Java.

Yet another semantic argument.  Exactly what do you think "functionality"
means, Marty?  Having the same name?  The same interface?

>>> The interfaces to them are different.

>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
>> classes, Marty?

> Absolutely.

Illogical.  The interface to the touch tone keypad is different from
the rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
telephone number, is present.

>>> Though I have not used them, I would also wager that the
>>> functionality is not 100% accurate.

>> Wagers are not proof, Marty.

> Nor are unsupported statements, but that never stopped you before.

Irrelevant, given that my statement is supported by an actual article
posted by an IBM representative, Marty.

>>> If a Java 2 program which utilized the new classes were to attempt
>>> to execute on an OS/2 system with Java 1.1.8, it would, and does
>>> exit with an exception error.

>> The security classes are for developers, Marty, not clients.

> And are therefore, useless.

Illogical, given that IBM provided them for a reason.  That you cannot
figure out that reason is your problem, Marty.

> Why would a developer embrace something that isn't standard that no
> clients were meant to run?

Read the referenced article, Marty.

>>> That's what's non-standard about them.

>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
>> classes, Marty?

> Absolutely.

Illogical.  The touch tone keypad is a different standard from the
rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
telephone number, is present.

>>>>> and as such seem to be fairly useless.

>>>> Then why would IBM include them, Marty?

>>> Technology preview?  Perhaps specific applications for specific
>>> customers that are tied to OS/2.

>> Did you even bother to read the excerpt I provided, Marty?
>>
>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
>> ] platform.

> Yup.  As I stated, technology preview.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  Do you know what
"migrate" means?

> As such, however, no Java 2 functionality is implemented.

Incorrect, Marty.  Reread the referenced article.

>>>> Perhaps you simply don't understand their usefulness?

>>> It's hard to understand the usefulness of a platform independent
>>> language being tied to one platform through non-conformity.

>> Try to understand Microsoft's Java, Marty.  However, you haven't
>> proven non-conformity.

> The inheritance tree of the classes already proves non-conformity.

How so, Marty?  And where's your understanding of Microsoft's Java?

>>>>> If I were a Java programmer, I would be quite hesitant to use
>>>>> these functions.

>>>> Why not let Java programmers tell you what they find useful or not
>>>> about the inclusion of Java 2 security classes in the JDK, Marty?

>>> Because I like to take matters into my own hands when I make a
>>> decision.

>> Even if your hands aren't qualified to do so.

> On what basis do you make this claim, Mr. "Display the Stub"?

Your illogical claims and your lies, Marty.

>>> As a seasoned programmer myself who worked in Java for a time
>>> I feel qualified to make such a statement.

>> Your feelings are irrelevant, Marty.

> My feelings in this matter have weight in light of my experience.

With whom, Marty?  Certainly not me.

>>> The basis of Java is its portability.

>> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
>> for OS/2, will not be portable?

> Reading comprehension problems?

Obviously not, Marty.

> My words say what they say, Dave.

Your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

>>> If one throws in platform-specific code, that tenant is
>>> destroyed.

>> Illogical.

> There is nothing illogical about that statement.

Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
for OS/2, will not be portable?  Is there something about IBM's
Java 1.1.8 that is not portable, Marty?

>> IBM is simply giving Java developers on OS/2 a head start on the use of 
>> those security classes.

> Then why not give Java developers on OS/2 the real thing, rather than a
> partial, incompatible, platform specific implementation?

Don't you think IBM plans to do so, Marty?

> Using such a thing could do more harm than good.

IBM obviously thinks otherwise.  Perhaps you should take up the issue
with your employer.

>>>>> If portability was a concern I could not use these functions at all.

>>>> Perhaps you should comprehend IBM's intentions, Marty:
>>>>
>>>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
>>>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
>>>> ] platform.

>>> Exactly as I stated above:  Technology preview.  Not useful for anything
>>> but evaluation.

>> And migration, Marty.

> Why migrate to an "in-between" step when you can migrate to the real
> thing in one step?

Why use the stairway when you can leap between floors?

>>> Not equivalent implementation by any stretch of the imagination.

>> Irrelevant, given that "equivalent" was never stated, Marty.

> Since it is not an equivalent implementation, then Java 2 functionality
> is not implemented therein.

Illogical, given that equivalence is not required for functionality to
be implemented, Marty.  Consider the touch tone keypad and the rotary
dial example.

>>>>> You still have no answered the question I posed:  Do you accept the fact
>>>>> that Mike can read the archive's contents in a meaningful way and
>>>>> extract them if he chooses?

>>>> You still have no [sic] answered the question I posed:  I don't accept
>>>> his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't include Java 2
>>>> security classes, Marty.  Do you?

>>> Yes.

>> Why?

> Explained elsewhere.

Where, Marty?

>>> Now answer my question, though I'm certain you won't.

>> You haven't finished answering my question, Marty.

> That does not impede you from answering mine.

Did something impede you from finishing the answer to my question, Marty?

> Note that I am more than willing to grant you an indulgence to answer
> your off-topic question, yet the same courtesy is not reciprocated.

Are you suggesting that I should reciprocate, as a courtesy, the same
sorts of lies that you told, as well as your "infantile game", Marty?

> It's all "take" and no "give" with you Dave.

Yet another lie.  See what I mean?

> It's quite tiresome

Feel free to stop at any time, Marty.

> and speaks of your disturbed nature.

Typical invective.  Losing another argument, obviously.

>>> Do you accept the fact that Mike can read the archive's contents in a
>>> meaningful way and extract them if he chooses?

>> You haven't finished answering my question, Marty.

> Note: no response.  Test grade: F

Grading yourself, eh Marty?

> Here's the retake:
> Do you accept the fact that Mike can read the archive's contents in a
> meaningful way and extract them if he chooses?

I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for why you don't think
Java 2 security classes were implemented, Marty.  Don't try to use
"standard interface" or "same name" criteria without explaining how
they prevent the functionality from being provided.  Refer to the
touch tone keypad and rotary dial for an example, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 11:33:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  Here's the first paragraph from the
>>>> Introduction:
>>>>
>>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
>>>> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>>>> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>>>> ] by following links to other helpful documentation.
>>>>
>>>> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
>>>> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
>>>> something was removed from the preview before actual release.

>>> I see you've chosen to comprehend only part of what you've quoted.

>> On what basis do you make that erroneous claim, Marty?

>>> Here's the part you missed in other discussions:

>> On what basis do you claim that I missed it, Marty?  Timbol is the one
>> who missed it, by referring to classes.zip.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>> ] Configuration and
>>>> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>>>> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>>>> ] by following links to other helpful documentation.

>>> Hmm... sounds a bit non-standard to me.

>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

> Very well.  It is non-standard, based on that description.

How does that prevent the functionality from being implemented, Marty?
The touch tone keypad is certainly not a "standard" rotary dial.  Yet
you can still enter a telephone number with it.

>>> Sounds like it would require some platform specific intervention to use.

>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

> Very well.  It requires some platform specific intervention to use.

How does that prevent the functionality from being implemented, Marty?
The touch tone keypad is certainly "platform specific" compared to a
rotary dial.  Yet you can still enter a telephone number with it.

>>> Sounds like it takes some work to get Java 2 code working with this kit
>>> that supposedly implement Java 2 functionality.

>> What sounds to you is irrelevant, Marty.

> Very well.  It takes some work to get Java 2 code working with this kit
> that supposedly implement Java 2 functionality.

IBM didn't promise that it would program itself, Marty.

>>>> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip,

>>> Nor will you find the standard Java 1.2 classes their either.

>> Whose either, Marty?

> Very well.  Nor will you find the standard Java 1.2 classes there
> either.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>>> or anything else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on
>>>> classes.zip is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.

>>> classes.zip is where the actual implementation resides,

>> Prove it, Marty.

> Take a look at the file, Dave.

How does looking at the file prove it, Marty?

>>> not text describing it.

>> Are you suggesting that the text is wrong, Marty?

> My words say what they say, Dave.

Your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

>>> As such evidence contained therein carries more weight
>>> than anything which describes it.

>> Are you suggesting that the text is wrong, Marty?

> My words say what they say, Dave.

Your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

>>>> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
>>>>
>>>> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
>>>> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
>>>> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
>>>> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time.
>>>>
>>>> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
>>>> sun.misc.Launcher class.

>>> Note the com.ibm prefix, instituting platform dependence.

>> How does that change the fact that Java 1.2 functionality was
>> implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty?

> Do you enjoy beating your wife Dave?

Non sequitur.

>>> No Java 1.2 app will run on 1.1.8 for OS/2 out-of-the-box.

>> How does that change the fact that Java 1.2 functionality was
>> implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty?

> Do you enjoy beating your wife Dave?

Non sequitur.

>>> That's pretty non-standard.

>> Did Joseph claim that the implementation is standard, Marty?

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty, as well as being another
example of your pontification.

>>>>>>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already. 
Curtis
>>>>>>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?

>>>>> I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.

>>>> It hasn't shown up here, Mike, and apparently hasn't shown up on
>>>> deja.com either, based on what others have written.

>>> Check again, or don't bother.  Here's the URL for the JPG itself:
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> What would that prove, Marty?

> That's the evidence you requested!  Remember??

That doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?

> This is the picture contained in "this alleged post" to which you
> referred.

Still doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

>> The text I quoted above isn't in javainuf.exe.

> Irrelevant.

Yet another example of your pontification.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  03-Nov-99 06:54:09
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen tholened:

> >>>>>>>>>> Sheesh! Stupid <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> obviously used
something
> >>>>>>>>>> akin to an Eliza program and tholened:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

and tholened some more:

> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

And, as is his wont, Tholen tries to sidestep the issue once again by
refusing, as usual, to answer.  Perhaps he thinks it is somehow illuminating
to answer thusly, but it wouldn't be the first -- or ten millioneth! -- time
he was wrong.  He's a hypocrite, that's for sure.  It's clear, though, that
to answer a question posed by someone else would condemn him.  How
predictable.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 11:41:12
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>>>> -- snip --

>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>>>>>>>>> file?

>>>>>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
>>>>>>>>> self-extracting archive,

>>>>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

>>>>>>> With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of an executable
>>>>>>> file.

>>>>>> Like the LIST tool.

>>>>> That's not a proper tool for such a purpose.

>>>> What purpose are you referring to, Marty?  I was referring to examining
>>>> the contents of an executable file.  I often find LIST to be a proper
>>>> tool for such a purpose.

>>> On how many occasions have you had to view the contents of an executable
>>> and found "LIST" a useful view thereof?

>> Several.  I haven't tried to count them.  I never anticipated such a
>> question from you.

> Ballpark figure... 1? 5? 10? 100?

At least 100.

>>> Personally, I prefer to look at disassembly or a debugger view if the
>>> executable has symbollic information as I find it quite a bit more
>>> useful.

>> Your preferences are irrelevant, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.

>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

>>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>>>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file 
is
>>>>>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
>>>>>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment
will
>>>>>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>>>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>>>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>>>>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility).
Where
>>>>>>>>> is the logic, here?

>>>>>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
>>>>>>>> able to do it.

>>>>>>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities.  For
>>>>>>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your logic is
>>>>>>> flawed.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar file,
>>>>>> Marty.

>>>>> Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to InfoZip
>>>>> and is thus more capable.

>>>> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
>>>> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.

>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
>> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> LOL!  Are you implying that your version is any different than the one
> Curtis viewed in WinZip?

You are inferring that, Marty.

> This just gets better and better!

What does "this" refer to, Marty?

>>>>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
>>>>> wish to keep challenging this fact?

>>>> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
>>>> this fact?

>>> I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.

>> I see you're still not read to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.

> I haven't read any mistake on my part Dave.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I keep pointing them
out to you.

> Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted
> to deflect it again:

The issue I'm discussing is your lie about me never discussing an issue,
Marty.

> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> wish to keep challenging this fact?

I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
this fact?

>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Why not try it in WinZip yourself then?

I can't run two operating systems on my PC simultaneously, Marty, and
I've got a numerical integration running in the background (687 hours
total CPU time as of this writing).

> How laughable for you to think your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is different
> than what Curtis downloaded and viewed.

What's so laughable about it, Marty?

> How about this... we ask Curtis to get a time and date stamp as
> well as file size from "his version" of the file, post it here, and
> then compare it to "your version" of the file.  Would that satisfy
> you?

I already know that his version is different, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
>>>>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
>>>>>>>>> other tool can?

>>>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>>>>>>>> file as argument.

>>>>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.

>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?

>>> Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
>>> been shattered into tiny little pieces.

>> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
>> javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
by continuing his "infantile game".

>>>>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,

>>>> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
>>>> in the same way, Marty.

>>> Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Please stop embarassing yourself.

How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
by continuing his "infantile game".

>>>>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
>>>>> behave the same is.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.

>>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
>>> decompression tools.

>> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

> So therefore they are all identical?  Illogical.

Yes, your conclusion is illogical, Marty, as I never said anything like
that.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 11:47:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- snip --

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps readers, and perhaps even Mike Timbol, will see,
quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly, the string "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which only proves that the string exists, and that the
*SELF-EXTRACTION
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTILITY* must be run under OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty claimed that it could be run under DOS.  Why didn't you
challenge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because the executable can be run under DOS Dave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You even verified that for me.

>>>>>>>>>>>> I did no such thing, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>> DT] Here's the output, Marty:
>>>>>>>>>>> DT]
>>>>>>>>>>> DT] E:\>javainuf
>>>>>>>>>>> DT] This program must be run under OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>> That's not an indication that it can be run under DOS, Marty. 
Indeed,
>>>>>>>>>> the message is not "This program just ran under DOS."  Obviously
the
>>>>>>>>>> program itself doesn't agree with your definition of "run", Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Create a file called Test.CMD with the following contents Dave [the
>>>>>>>>> first line (comment) is necessary to tell it that it is a REXX
script]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /* REXX program */
>>>>>>>>> say "This program cannot be run in OS/2."
>>>>>>>>> exit
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then run this program.  Did it run?

>>>>>>>> Typical inappropriate analogy.  The above REXX script is not a
>>>>>>>> self-extracting archive, Marty.  When you run it, it does what it's
>>>>>>>> supposed to do and everything it's supposed to do.  When you run
>>>>>>>> javainuf.exe on DOS, it does NOT self extract the archive.

>>>>>>> The DOS stub does what it's supposed to do and everything it's
supposed
>>>>>>> to do.

>>>>>> The program does not do everything it's supposed to do.  Why ignore
>>>>>> that simple fact?

>>>>> What exactly is the DOS stub supposed to do Dave?

>>>> The DOS stub is not the program, Marty.  I see you're making irrelevant
>>>> comments again.

>>> It is a program which resides in the executable.

>> Which doesn't extract any archive, Marty.

> Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

Incorrect:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> According to DOS, it is the program.

>> Which doesn't extract any archive, Marty.

> Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

Incorrect:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> I see you're missing the point again.

>> How ironic, coming from someone missing the point, again.

> Takes one to know one.

Incorrect, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Did the string it displayed agree with reality?

>>>>>>>> Typical inappropriate analogy.  Programmers can make programs issue
all
>>>>>>>> sorts of illogical strings.

>>>>>>> As is true with JAVAINUF.EXE.

>>>>>> What's allegedly illogical about the string issued by javainuf.exe,
Marty?

>>>>> The fact that it is issued by running code in DOS, hence it can be run
>>>>> in operating systems other than OS/2.

>>>> Incorrect, as nothing gets extracted, Marty.

>>> What does anything getting extracted have to do with the execution of
>>> the DOS code?

>> That's the intent, Marty.

> The intent of the DOS code is to display an error message and exit.  It
> does so.

The intent of the program is to extract an archive, Marty.

>>> The fact that it is issued by running code in DOS, hence
>>> it can be run in operating systems other than OS/2.

>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

> Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

Incorrect:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>>>>>> The fact of the matter is that the archive did NOT self-extract under 
DOS,
>>>>>>>> contrary to your claim.

>>>>>>> I claimed it ran.

>>>>>> Here's your claim, Marty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>>> Right.  I claimed it ran.

>>>> With "it" being the "self-extracting archive".

>>> Which is JAVAINUF.EXE.

>> Yet nothing gets extracted when run in a DOS session.

> Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

Incorrect:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>>> Thank you for backing up my point.

>>>> Why are you thanking me for pointing out something that should be
>>>> embarassing to you, Marty?

>>> Because instead of embarassing me, it serves to further back my point.

>> It does no such thing, Marty.

> Incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>>>> And it does.

>>>>>> Incorrect, as it does not self-extract in a DOS session.

>>>>> I never claimed what the stub was supposed to do Dave.

>>>> You claimed that the self-extracting archive would run in a DOS session,
>>>> Marty.
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> Right.  And it does, as you have shown by quoting its output in the
>>> past.

>> The output shows no evidence of anything being extracted, Marty.

> Irrelevant.  I never claimed it did.

Incorrect:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>>> You're eagerly stuffing words in my mouth for your own benefit.

>>>> I'm doing no such thing, Marty.  I'm reproducing an actual quotation
>>>> of yours.

>>> I never claimed what the stub was supposed to do Dave,

>> You've claimed that the self-extracting archive would run in a DOS
>> session.

> Correct.

Glad you agree, Marty.

>>> though you insist that I claimed it is supposed to extract the archive.

>> Isn't that what a self-extracting archive is supposed to do, Marty?

> Not the DOS stub of this particular one.

We're talking about the self-extracting archive, Marty, not the stub.
The file is not described as a stub, but rather as a self-extracting
archive.

>>> That constitutes stuffing words in my mouth.

>> Reproducing an actual quotation of yours is not stuffing words in your
>> mouth, Marty.

> True.

Glad you agree, Marty.

> It's what you do with it afterwards that constitutes stuffing
> words in my mouth.

What have I allegedly done with it afterwards, Marty?

>> That's rather ironic, however, coming from someone who has stuffed plenty 
>> of words into my mouth.

> That which you sow, so shall you reap.

Where have I alleged sowed "stuffed words in your mouth", Marty?

>>>>> How convenient.

>>>> Nothing convenient about it, Marty.

>>> Then why do it?

>> Because reproducing an actual quotation from you proves what you really
>> wrote, as opposed to what you've claimed I stuffed into your mouth.

> I have no objection to accurately reproducing my quote (or than a slight
> annoyance that bandwidth was wasted).

Why do you call such evidence "wasted" bandwidth, Marty?

>>>>>>>> Or is the above REXX script an example of your programming style,
Marty?

>>>>>>> For a good example of my programming style download the source code to
>>>>>>> MAME for OS/2.
>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/mameos2_source_36b7.zip.  I
>>>>>>> wrote frontend.c, os2.c, and everything comprising GPMIXER.DLL in
their
>>>>>>> entirety, as well as having my hands in fixing several CPU cores and
>>>>>>> usrintrf.c.

>>>>>> And do you have the program issuing false statements, Marty?

>>>>> Not if I can help it.

>>>> Apparently you also can help writing incorrect things like:
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> My news server must have gotten cut off in this transmission before it
>>> received the alleged "incorrect thing" you were about to quote.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Typical pontification.

On the contrary, typical reading comprehension problem on your part, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:00:17
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes [to Karel Jansens]:

> Java 2 has so many features that it would be nearly impossible to
> determine that a particular JDK implementation contained none of them.

Didn't stop you from responding "bullshit" to Joseph's statement that
"OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality".  Apparently you
made that determination, and only two days after Joseph made his
statement.  That's pretty quick work for something "nearly impossible"
to do, Mike.

> Thus, I ask which Java 2 features it is alleged to contain.

On the contrary, you claimed "bullshit" before I even got involved,
Mike, thus you had already made the determination.  Don't try to
confuse the chronology for Karel.

> Dave claimed four items:

That was *after* you claimed "bullshit", Mike.

>  1. Java 2 security classes
>  2. RMI-IIOP
>  3. the Java COMM API
>  4. Swing

And I reproduced an actual quotation mentioning those four items,
Mike.

> The first one is easy to determine, because the classes must exist
> in a .zip or .jar archive (both standard formats) in order to be run
> in the Virtual Machine.

Are you calling IBM a liar, Mike?

> By looking at the archives included in the JDK, one can determine
> whether or not the classes exist (they don't).

You looked at javainuf.exe, Mike, which is not the entire JDK.

> All of the other items are not included in the JDK at all, but are
> available as extensions.

Still trying to rely on a semantic argument over what constitutes
being "included" in the JDK, eh Mike?

> What this means is that the particular extension must be installed
> on the target machine in order for a program utilizing those
> extensions to work.

Otherwise known as functionality.

> The support for those extensions is not in the JDK.

Still trying to rely on a semantic argument over what constitutes
being "in" the JDK, eh Mike?

> (In a sense, it's like Adobe Acrobat.  You can send someone a PDF
> file, and there are viewers available for most platforms, but the
> viewer isn't part of the platform.  Unless the viewer is installed,
> the recipient can't read the file.)

Suppose IBM had included Acrobat on the distribution CD along with
the operating system, and by default installed it.  Does that
suddenly make it part of the operating system, Mike?

We've seen arguments over what is consider a part of the operating
system in this newsgroup before, and that debate was never resolved.
Amazing that you think you can use the same argument and hope it
resolves this issue.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  03-Nov-99 07:12:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen tholened:

> >> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,
>
> > Also meaning besides you Dave?
>
> Nope.

Simply because Tholen's a anhedonic prig; in fact, that priggishness is the
only source of anything on uselessnet that he "likes."  Typical.

> >>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
> >>> Astronomy by trade.
>
> >> I'm also a programmer.
>
> > And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.
>
> How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?

How much income have *you* derived from your programming non-skills, Tholen?
And, while you're at it, how much income does your work as an astrologer
bring in?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  03-Nov-99 07:20:03
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:381F9463.DBAAD34E@stny.rr.com...

> > Which demonstrates his attraction to games.
>
> Lock me up and throw away the key.  I guess because I like things that I
> find fun and rewarding, that means I can't be taken seriously in any
> aspect of my life.  That's incredibly logical Dave.

Hey, you can't help it if Tholen's too stupid to understand that games tend
to contribute towards pushing the envelope of what is done with computers,
heck, Tholen understands virtually nothing of computing except what it takes
to write a simple and simplistic DOS program (EPHLEGM).  Expecting logical
thinking from Tholen is like expecting your toaster to meow.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:21:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> On the contrary, I have plenty to counter what you wrote about the
>>>>>> contents not including Java 2 security classes, Mike.

>>>>> Then feel free to demonstrate your proof that "Java 2 security classes"
>>>>> are actually included in the JDK by naming the "Java 2 security classes" 

>>>>> that are actually included.

>>>> Read the corresponding file, Mike.  

>>> I had already read it, Dave.  Notice that it says nothing about 
>>> "Java 2 security classes".

>> Notice that it says "security enhancements from Java(tm)2", Mike.

> Irrelevent. 

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Mike.

> You could claim to provide "security enhancements from
> Java 2" without using Java 2 security classes.  In fact, what IBM did
> was provide security functionality based on the Java 2 security model.

Ah, Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Too
bad you called that "bullshit".

>>>> Here's the first paragraph from the Introduction:
>>>>
>>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application. Configuration and
>>>> ] usage of the security enhancements requires knowledge of policy files
>>>> ] and policy permissions that you can gain by reading this guide and also
>>>> ] by following links to other helpful documentation. 
>>>>
>>>> Note that the above was extracted from the actual released JDK, not the
>>>> preview.  So much for your attempt to mislead readers into thinking that
>>>> something was removed from the preview before actual release.

>>> I never claimed that anything was removed from the preview before
>>> the actual release.

>> Then why did you keep blathering about the difference between the
>> preview and the actual release, Mike?

> Because my evidence came from the actual release, whereas your "evidence"
> came from a newsgroup article posted at the time of the preview release.

What has changed regarding the contents of the JDK, Mike?

>>>> By the way, you won't find the above text in classes.zip, or anything
>>>> else in javainuf.exe for that matter.  So, your focus on classes.zip
>>>> is something that Curtis Bass can call "inept" on your part.

>>> On the contrary, I claimed that I looked at several files to determine
>>> what the JDK included, including classes.zip.

>> Then why didn't you mention the file that includes the Java 2 security
>> classes, Mike?

> There is no such file, Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> If you think there is, please name it.

You're the one who claimed that there is no such file, Mike.

>>> I merely focused on classes.zip because it contains the majority of
>>> classes in the JDK.

>> But not all of them, Mike, conveniently omitting the relevant ones.

> True, not all of them.  However, none of the files in the JDK contain
> "Java 2 security classes", thus none of them are "the relevant ones".

Apparently you're once again relying on a semantic argument over what
is "in" the JDK.  Apparently you think that anything not mentioned in
javainuf.exe isn't "in" the JDK.

>>>> Here's another quotation from the file to whet your appetite:
>>>>
>>>> ] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's
>>>> ] version of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class which then creates an
>>>> ] instance of the security manager set in user.security. This also
>>>> ] creates the security policy for the application created at this time. 
>>>>
>>>> Note the reference to security12.  Note the reference to the 1.2
>>>> sun.misc.Launcher class.

>>> Note the reference to "com.ibm." before "security12", which indicates
>>> that the class is part of a proprietary IBM package;

>> The way the Java 2 security classes were implemented is irrelevant,
>> Mike. 

> They are not implemented at all, which is very relevent.

IBM says otherwise, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>> What is relevant is that they were implemented, something that
>> you claimed was "bullshit".

> It is bullshit -- they aren't implemented.

IBM says otherwise, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>> it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.

>> Oh really?  

> Yes, really.  Look at any reference implementation of Java 2 and you'll
> see those classes are not included.

Illogical.  How can Java 2 security classes not be included in Java 2,
Mike?

>> Then why does the name include "security12", Mike?

> Because IBM wrote them to implement a security model based on the 
> security model from JDK 1.2.

Ah, Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Too
bad you called that "bullshit".

>> Notice that the introduction says "security enhancements from
>> Java(tm)2", Mike.  Now, if they're not in Java 2, then how could
>> they have been taken from it, Mike?

> As I said earlier, IBM refers to them as security enhancements based
> on the Java 2 security model.  They are not "Java 2 security classes".

IBM referred to them as Java 2 security classes, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>> Thus, the IBM claim that they implement functionality based on the
>>> 1.2 security model, not that they include "Java 2 security classes".

>> Back to the old semantic argument, eh Mike?  Here's the relevant
>> quotation again:
>>
>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> Again, you refer to outdated and incorrect information,

On what basis do you call it incorrect, Mike?

> which has been superceded by the correct information.  IBM's JDK 1.1.8
> for OS/2 does *not* include Java 2 security classes.

Back to the old semantic argument about what the JDK "includes", eh
Mike?  Here's the relevant quotation again:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>> Dave, you don't understand what you're arguing about and you don't 
>>> understand what you're looking at.

>> Mike, I do understand what I'm arguing about.  The way you keep relying
>> on semantic arguments ("included" versus "add on") 

> That's not a semantic argument, Dave.  Ask any Java programmer what the
> difference is between something included in the JDK vs. something that's
> an extension.

The DO/END DO construct is an extension in WATCOM's FORTRAN 77 compiler,
Mike, but it's definitely included in the development kit.

>> and things that Joseph didn't say ("consistent interface") 

> You're inventing phrases now, Dave.

Incorrect, Mike.

>> demonstrates that you do not
>> know what you're talking about.  You're trying to wriggle and squirm
>> your way out of another one of your lies.

> The only reason it seems to be wriggling and squirming is that you don't
> understand the topic.  

Typical pontification.

> You see no difference between the classes "com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main" 

> and "sun.misc.Main", though any Java programmer easily recognizes that they
> are not the same classes.

Those classes implement the functionality, Mike.  Any other difference
that I see is irrelevant.

> You see no difference between using Swing in your JDK 1.1.8 application
> vs. using Swing in your JDK 1.2 application, though most Java programmers
> realize that it affects what they must deliver with their application in
> order for it to run.

On the contrary, I do see a difference, Mike.  If there were no difference,
then IBM wouldn't have had any Java 2 Swing functionality to implement in
Java 1.1.8.

> You accuse me of lying because you don't understand the subject.

I accuse you of lying because I have evidence showing that Java 1.2
functionality was implemented in OS/2 Java 1.1.8, while you called
the statement "bullshit".

>>> Doesn't it make sense to refer to the contents of the JDK to prove
>>> that something isn't in it?  If you claim that a certain object 
>>> exists in a box, doesn't it make sense to look in the box and see
>>> if it's in there?

>> Typical inappropriate analogy, given that you looked in the wrong
>> box.  Do you often look for T-shirts in the sock drawer and, upon
>> not finding any T-shirts there, claim that there are no T-shirts
>> in the dresser?

> I looked in the correct boxes, Dave,

Prove it, Mike.

> and the Java 2 security classes are nowhere to be found.

Let me guess:  you're ignoring certain boxes because you don't think
they're part of the JDK.

> You named a class that you think is a Java 2 security class, though
> I have explained why it is not.

Illogically, using a semantic argument.

>>>> ] IBM's security migration aid lets you use security enhancements from
>>>> ] Java(tm)2 (later referred to as 1.2) with a base 1.1.8 Developer Kit
>>>> ] without you needing to modify your 1.1 application.
>>>>
>>>> Now, why would IBM say that you can use security enhancements from
>>>> Java(tm)2 if they are not included, Mike?  Once again, that text came
>>>> from the released JDK, not the preview.

>>> Do you understand the difference between "security enhancements from
>>> Java 2" and "Java 2 security classes"?

>> Yeah; one uses four words and a number, while the other uses three words
>> and a number.  Care to explain a significant difference, without relying
>> on a semantic argument, Mike?

> It is similar to the difference between "turbochargers based on the 
> Porsche 911 design" and "Porsche 911 turbochargers".

If the functionality of the latter is provided by the former, then the
difference is irrelevant, Mike.

> In the first case, they might emulate the Porsche 911 turbochargers,
> and might provide similar functionality.  But they are still not
> Porsche 911 turbochargers.

Irrelevant, given that only the functionality needs to implemented to
justify saying that that functionality was implemented, Mike.

>>> As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
>>> on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
>>> classes".

>> IBM disagrees, Mike:
>>
>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.

On what basis do you call it "incorrect", Mike?

> The newer description is more accurate.

The newer description is different, Mike.

> I've referred to the newer description several times.

And I've referred to one included in the JDK itself, Mike.

> I'll do so again here:

Unnecessary, Mike.

>>>>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.

>>>>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.

>>>> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>>>> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>>>> browsing.  

>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

>> In IBM's words:
>>
>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>> ] applets.
>>
>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>> browsing, Mike.

> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.

Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
several occasions.

> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
> is repeating your incorrect claims.

I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike.  Meanwhile,
you keep deleting the evidence for why my original response was so
short, and it wasn't because I deleted most of Joseph's article.
You did.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:21:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 12:36:17
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 00:58:12, tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget
MAME,
> >>>>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.
> 
> >>>>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> Indeed.
> 
> >> Then why bring up that you think it's cool?
> 
> >>>>> I like it. I like it a lot.
> 
> >>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> Indeed also.
> 
> >> Then why bring up that you like it?
> 
> >>>>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)
> 
> >>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> Indeed once more.
> 
> >> Then why bring it up?
> 
> > I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of 
> > the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it
> 
> Which demonstrates his attraction to games.
> 
That comment might be jumping the gun a little bit. Merely from the 
fact that someone assists in the development of a piece of software 
that happens to be games-related (MAME isn't a game by itself, 
remember, it only allows one to play those sacred arcade games in the 
privacy of their own house <G>) does not follow that this person would
be attracted to games.

Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.

> > (I already knew it, but it had kinda slipped to the background). Now,
> > like I said, I like MAME,
> 
> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> > and I simply wanted to avoid people getting the wrong idea about it.
> 
> How does a comment about you liking it keep people from getting the
> wrong idea about it?
> 
> > You see, others reading these threads who are aware of the nature
> > of your "exchanges" with Marty might get the impression that you
> > were putting down MAME.
> 
> Illogical, given that I only noted his attraction to games.
> 
> > I'm pretty sure you weren't, but I wanted to play safe.
> 
> If people are going to illogically conclude that I was putting down
> MAME, commenting that you like it won't keep that from happening.
> 
You're probably right. I was giving my reasons/sentiments for making 
the statement. In afterthought, I guess I don't have enough autority 
on UseNet to make a difference in anything. Oh well...

> > After that, one thing led to another and now I've publically admitted 
> > to owning pirated software. Oh well...
> >
> > "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
> > Europan!"
> > (Let's see who'll get that one.)
> 
> From Io or Ganymede?
> 
> Oops, I gave it away.

Maybe. Let's wait and see.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      03-Nov-99 12:49:29
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (3 Nov 1999 03:47:24 GMT):
>of the wince er WinCE systems either. I just don't need another gizmo 
>to hang on my belt. (Only recently did I get a cell phone, and that's

You wear belts?  (That's a joke, settle down.)

>Pens and papers, that's for me. And I rarely take notes... it's a

Paper is fine for notes, that's about it.  I use notepads, but for notes,
and only so I can put it right in my face, what with all the OS2
requests I get (heh).

>reaction to all the guys who *expected* the girl to take notes. If I 
>acted like a secretary, they'd treat me that way.

Hm.  Interesting tangent.

>Regarding speaking to a computer... uno, you may not be aware of it,

I'm not aware of you except from here, in advocacy.  I don't subscribe
to Ziff-Davis (too shallow)  so don't get a chance to read your print
stuff.

>but I'm the author of The Computer Speech Book (AP Professional, 
>1996). I'm also the sysop of the Voicetype forum on Compuserve.

1. How much action is there in that forum?  Compared to last year, or
say 1996?

>And I type about 100wpm so I can usually keep up with my thoughts 
>reasonably well.

Typing, yes, but not longhand (and you as much 'admitted' that you
do articles in longhand).

>For samples of my articles... well, you can look at

2. Have examples of your early stuff?  And yes, I am going to check
these out.  SR?

>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/column/0,4712,2353788,00.html if you 
>want an example of a column (ie an opinion piece), 
>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2176543,00.html for a 
>how-to, http://www.netpress.org/careandfeeding.html for a *different* 
>how-to, http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,,381684,00.html for a 
>comparison of online discussion servers, and 
>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/business/opportunity/muffin.html for a case 
>study. (Yeah, that'll keep him occupied for a couple of minutes....)

3. BTW, do you use OS2 100% of the time when you're at a computer?  If
not, what % is it used, and what else do you use?

Here's a link to amazon (I prefer bookpool but they don't have it):

http://www.amazon.com/
exec/obidos/ASIN/0126246602/o/qid=941633108/sr=8-2/002-2416058-7205806

A best seller!  Right up there with most OS2 software.  (It's just a
yoke, settle down).

        Some of the things you might say to a computer
        [running OS2] are not anatomically possible.


 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
 Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:41:15
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, one
must
> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The statement
is
> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:40:05
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>> Marty writes:

>>> Ok.  Further proof of Dave's incorrectness is available at:
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> What alleged incorrectness, Marty?

> The factual incorrectness of the statement, "Yet to look at the
> contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to
> boot!" which you made in the following USENET article:

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

> A side note to all interested (or bored-to-tears) parties: regardless of
> whether Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 implements *some* or *none* of Java 1.2's
> functionality, one issue that warrants further discussion is that, if
> Java 1.1.8 only implements *some* of 1.2's functionality, it's hardly
> useful to a Java 1.2 application expecting *all* of 1.2's funtionality,
> so one must question just how valuable implementing *some* of the
> funtionality really is.

Joseph's remark (the one that Timbol called "bullshit") had nothing to
do with value.

> Can Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 run any 1.2-level program that you throw at
> it? No? Then just how useful is the "1.2 functionality" it implements?

Ask IBM their rationale for providing the implementation.  Of course,
I've already quoted one rationale.  Perhaps you'd like to comprehend
it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:48:24
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>> Marty writes:
  
> -- snip --

>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
>>> executable was run.

>> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.  Why do you think it says
>> that it MUST be run under OS/2?

> Because the self-extraction module must be run under OS/2. However, the
> JAVAINUF.EXE executable can, indeed, be run under DOS.

Nothing gets extracted, Curtis.

> When one does so, it displays a message indicating that the
> self-extraction module requires OS/2 in order to execute.

Which contradicts Marty's claim:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

> However, there is a difference between JAVAINUF.EXE, which is an
> executable file, and the self-extraction module contained therein.

Doesn't change the fact that Marty's statement is wrong:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>> Continue to deny your error, Marty, and you'll develop a reputation
>> for "never" admitting to making mistakes.

> This is sound advice, Marty, considering that it comes from the master
> of denial himself, the one who does have such a reputation.

Because people like Marty lie about me.

> -- snip --

>>> And you bring the point up into our discussion.

>> On what basis do you call it "our" discussion, Marty?  I was having a
>> discussion with Timbol when you jumped in.

> Do you seriously consider an exchange in USENET to be a private affair?

Where did I call it a "private affair", Curtis?

> No, USENET is a public forum; if you want a private conversation, use
> e-mail.

Timbol doesn't find that "entertaining".

> -- snip --

>>> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

> And you are the one who keeps implying that one cannot view the
> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

> -- snip --

>> Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the contents
>> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip, somehow
>> proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.

> Mike Timbol made his claims based on an examination of the contents of
> classes.zip (and other files),

Which other files?

> not based on the fact that he *can* examine them.

Wouldn't that be a necessary prerequisite?

> Karel, if you are reading this, the above is a classic example of why
> threads involving Tholen go south.

On the contrary, the reason threads involving me "go south" is because
people like Timbol, Marty, and Lucien like to entertain themselves
using USENET.

> -- snip --

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu                     03-Nov-99 12:59:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
>>>>>> I do?"
>>>>>>    --Nick Danger

>>>>> LOL! I should have seen that one coming.

>>>> Are you familiar with Nicky and Nancy?

>>> All I have is the Nick Danger readout you once force-fed me <G>.

>> Force-fed?!

> I *did* put a distinct <G> there...

I'm aware of that.

>>> It was enough to make me momentarily wish I lived on another continent.

>> Surely you can find the recordings somewhere in Europe, maybe even
>> on Europa.

> I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
> version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
> "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...

You like wet, spongy ground?

>>> You Americans sure have some good comedy stuff - sometimes...

>> Hasn't rubbed off on some of the newsgroup participants.

> Not all of them are American, so some of them are bound to have a 
> *decent* sense of humour <he speaks, hastily ducking for cover>.

Many of the participants I've dealt with are either Americans or are
at least living and working in America.  (Note how that allows for
South Americans.)

>>> [snip]

>>>>>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.

>>>>> Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.

>>>> You mean browser?

>>> browser > Yahoo > search engine > David Tholen

>> And the connection to "'bot"?

> Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
> Harmless, but alas incureable.

But preventable.

>>> [snip]

>>>>>> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
>>>>>> the complaint in the first place.

>>>>> Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
>>>>> yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.

>>>> I already have.  I haven't received an answer.

>>> Apparently it's got something to do with Netscape's filter. I don't 
>>> use Netscape for news, so don't ask me for further explanations.

>> I don't use Netscape for news either.

>>> [snip] 

>>>>>> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
>>>>>> Marty's "infantile game".

>>>>> I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
>>>>> fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
>>>>> even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
>>>>> of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
>>>>> cells, and yet...

>>>> ...people like Marty use those brain cells to play "infantile games".

>>> Allow me to play "Johnny Little Bastard" here for a moment: It usually
>>> takes two to play.

>> Not in this case.

>>> So, even if Marty had started playing a game (which he sort of admitted
>>> already), you've given him plenty of ammo to continue...

>> Like some facts?

>>> Back to my old cowardly self: No comment...

>> Aww...

>>>>>>>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

>>>>>>>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
>>>>>>>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.

>>>>>>> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
>>>>>>> mind". So: thanks.

>>>>>> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.

>>>>> You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 

>>>> Supports?

>>> thanks

>> You're welcome.

> Don't mention it.

Too late.

>>>>> supports my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 
>>>>> is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
>>>>> out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
>>>>> different reasons then.

>>>> And also irrelevant to the issue of people reading that which has been
>>>> allegedly killfiled.

>>> I cannot be helt responsible for the mental problems of other people.

>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you should be.  Unless, of course, you
>> played the Medusan ambassador on that Star Trek episode with the same
>> actress who played Dr. Pulaski in the Next Generation's second season.
>> Her name slips my mind at the moment...

> Diana Muldaur (Since I've started talking with you, I've made sure to 
> always have my copy of "the unauthorised History of Trek" handy. It 
> doesn't have an index, but I don't really need it anyway).

Isn't using a book cheating?

>>>>>>> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 
>>>>>>> replies)

>>>>>> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of
references.

>>>>> Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
>>>>> always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.

>>>> He's making direct references now, as is Mike Timbol.  So did David
>>>> Leblanc.

>>> Indeed, but in Marty's case, preceded by the "announcement" that his 
>>> killfile was broken, so at least he's consequent. I don't know about 
>>> the others.

>> Now, how do you break a killfile?

> Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
> quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
> This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
> Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
> surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.

You don't say!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 12:53:20
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 10:33:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>>>> And a part-time job insulting people on USENET.  And don't forget
MAME,
>>>>>>>> Marty.  You obviously have an attraction to games.

>>>>>>> Dave, MAME is a way cool piece of software.

>>>>>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>>>> Indeed.

>>>> Then why bring up that you think it's cool?

>>>>>>> I like it. I like it a lot.

>>>>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>>>> Indeed also.

>>>> Then why bring up that you like it?

>>>>>>> (although I still can't get MAME/2 to grab my ROMs from the CD) (*)

>>>>>> Also irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>>>> Indeed once more.

>>>> Then why bring it up?

>>> I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of 
>>> the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it

>> Which demonstrates his attraction to games.

> That comment might be jumping the gun a little bit.

Not at all.

> Merely from the fact that someone assists in the development of a
> piece of software that happens to be games-related (MAME isn't a
> game by itself, remember, it only allows one to play those sacred
> arcade games in the privacy of their own house <G>) does not follow
> that this person would be attracted to games.

Does MAME do anything besides play games?

> Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
> Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.

Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!

>>> (I already knew it, but it had kinda slipped to the background). Now,
>>> like I said, I like MAME,

>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.

>>> and I simply wanted to avoid people getting the wrong idea about it.

>> How does a comment about you liking it keep people from getting the
>> wrong idea about it?

>>> You see, others reading these threads who are aware of the nature
>>> of your "exchanges" with Marty might get the impression that you
>>> were putting down MAME.

>> Illogical, given that I only noted his attraction to games.

>>> I'm pretty sure you weren't, but I wanted to play safe.

>> If people are going to illogically conclude that I was putting down
>> MAME, commenting that you like it won't keep that from happening.

> You're probably right. I was giving my reasons/sentiments for making 
> the statement. In afterthought, I guess I don't have enough autority 
> on UseNet to make a difference in anything. Oh well...

You don't need authority.  If you want to sound like you're making a
difference, just throw around jargon like Lucien has.  If you really
want to make a difference, apply some logic.

>>> After that, one thing led to another and now I've publically admitted 
>>> to owning pirated software. Oh well...
>>>
>>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
>>> Europan!"
>>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)

>> From Io or Ganymede?
>>
>> Oops, I gave it away.

> Maybe. Let's wait and see.

You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
in this newsgroup.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 13:10:14
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>>> Marty writes:

>>> -- snip --

>>>>>>> Do you understand the difference between "WinZip" and "InfoZip"?

>>>>>> Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive
>>>>>> format portable, Mike?  Do make up your mind.

>>>>> The archive format is portable.

>>>> Then why did he ask about the difference between "WinZip" and
>>>> "InfoZip"?

>>> He was probably just testing the depths of your ignorance, Dave.

>> What alleged ignorance, Curtis?

> Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance regarding WinZip's capabilities,

Where have I indicted any ignorance regarding WinZip's capabilities,
Curtis?

> as well as your factual ignorance regarding whether one needs to run
> OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

>>> BTW, *DO* you understand the difference between "WinZip"
>>> and "InfoZip"?

>> Irrelevant, as I'm not the one who brought it up, Curtis.

> Actually, whether or not you are the one who brought it up is what's
> irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

> The question above is quite relevant,

Incorrect.  I could just as easily ask you some question brought up
by some other party, but that wouldn't necessarily make it relevant
to this discussion.

> your whines to the contrary notwithstanding.

What alleged "whines", Curtis?

>>> You seem quite interested in *NOT* answering the question.

>> You seem quite interested in irrelevant questions.

> "Irrelevant?"

That's what I said.

> Or just "uncomfortable?"

Illogical.

> I mean, really, dismissing questions such as these is as cowardly as
> hiding behind the alleged errors of others.

Oh really?  Tell me, Curtis, does heat lightning need flatness?  Note
that if you dismiss the question, then you will be doing something
cowardly, by your own definition.

> Last year, I accused you of having an "I am NOMAD! I am PERFECT"
> syndrome.

Thereby diverting attention away from the issue and making a personal
attack.  That's the tactic used by people who lack a logical argument.

> You are simply supporting my earlier observations.

Illogical.

> I pointed out an obvious error you made, giving you a golden opportunity
> to prove my earlier hypothesis wrong,

I've already done that.

> yet, rather that own up to your error, you continue these typical
> diversionary tactics.

How ironic, coming from someone who has used personal attacks to engage
in a diversionary tactic.

>>> -- snip --

>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
>>>>> contents. How is that irrelevant?

>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

>>> And how, pray tell, does that make it "irrelevant?"

>> Because there is a way to do it using OS/2.

> That is a non-answer, Dave.

On the contrary, OS/2 provides a way to look at the contents.  If one
has claimed to look at the contents, then one can assume that a method
was used to extract those contents.

> Nobody is claiming that there *isn't* a way to do it in OS/2.

Then why did you call it "irrelevant"?

> You claim that the questions are "irrelevant," then turn around
> a post a completely vacuous and irrelevant "answer."

On what basis do you make that claim?

>>> After all, it can also be done ***WITHOUT*** OS/2.

>> Do you also agree with Marty that the self-extracting archive can
>> run on DOS?

> Have I ever said as much, Dave?

Looks to me like you're dismissing the question, which is "as cowardly
as hiding behind the alleged errors of others".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 13:21:08
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> -- snip --

>>> If I see fit to challange a claim made by Mike Timbol, I will do so
>>> in my time and on my terms.

>> Why haven't you seen fit to challenge Timbol?

>>> You don't enter into it, so keep your nose out of it.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't been keeping his nose out of
>> the discussion between me and Mike.

> When someone posts a blatant error on a public forum such as USENET, it's
> hardly a case of "nosiness" to correct said error.

And Timbol's blatant error when he responded to Joseph Coughlan with
"bullshit" therefore justifies my participation.

> OTOH, you are questioning/judging my decision-making process, my psyche,
> which is nosy to extremes,

Meanhile, you've been making personal attacks, which is insulting to
extremes and hasn't accomplished anything as far as I am concerned.

> and dragging other individuals into discussion to boot.

Such as?  I certainly didn't ask Marty to get involved.  Indeed, I'm
supposedly in his killfile.  I certainly didn't ask Lucien to get
involved.  They jumped in of their own accord, just like you.

> Do I ask you why you choose to deal or not deal with Mike Timbol or
> Marty in a given certain way?

You did write:

CB] You don't enter into it, so keep your nose out of it.

> No, because that's your business, not mine.

Yet here you are.

> However, if you post a blatently wrong statement, I will take you to
> task on it,

Why don't you take Timbol, or Lucien for that matter, to task for their
blatantly wrong statements?

> and would have no problem with your taking me to task on a blatant error
> I may make.

I'll even do that for your personal attacks.

> Like I said, I expect something more mature from a university professor.

I'm not the one entertaining myself using USENET.  I'm not the one
accusing other people of being like Nomad.  I guess it's okay for
you, because you're not a university professor?

> -- snip --

>>>
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=537879114&CONTEXT=941504762.1516240931&hitnum=
8
>>>
>>> Note that the article was posted in response to a statement made by Mr.
>>> Timbol.

> -- snip --

>>> OTOH, your being wrong about needing to run OS/2 in order to extract the
>>> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE is not something that is open to debate.

>> Then you should agree that the Java 1.2 functionality that IBM implemented
>> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 is also not something that is open to debate.

> If you read the article referenced by the url above, you will see my
> position quite plainly. IOW, I have already addressed this.

Interesting that you're more persistent with me than with Timbol.

> -- snip --

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      03-Nov-99 13:49:08
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Esther comes clean (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's sa

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (3 Nov 1999 03:47:24 GMT):
>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/column/0,4712,2353788,00.html if you

        >Are You Liable For Your Customer's Software Piracy?

Yes.

>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,2176543,00.html for a

        >Creating community: the actuality, not the buzzword

Well done, but not my cup of tea (coffee, for me, thanks).  BTW, what
fido conference did you moderate?

        >how-to, http://www.netpress.org/careandfeeding.html for a *different*

Nice pic of you in the members page, and a decent bio, for a 'tech
writer':

 Esther Schindler is Technology Editor at Sm@rt Reseller, and hastens
 to mention that she never voted for including an @ in the name. She's
 been writing about computers professionally since 1992. Before hanging
 up her freelance writer hat, Esther was senior contributing editor at
 OS/2 Magazine, and has been involved in writing nine -- or is it ten?
 -- books. She was a compiler programmer, owned a computer store on an
 island off the coast of Maine, and has been a Compuserve sysop for as
 long as she can remember. You can reach her at esther@bitranch.com,
 especially if you mention chocolate.

Didn't read the piece (though it does look like something useful to
those in your business).

>how-to, http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,,381684,00.html for a
>comparison of online discussion servers, and

 These packages deliver what they promise, but they just don't promise
 --or do--enough. They tend to be top-heavy with pretty features that
 look good in a chart, but they don't encourage the camaraderie that
 gets a user to return to a site again and again.

Not my juice, either.

>http://www.zdnet.com/sr/business/opportunity/muffin.html for a case 
>study. (Yeah, that'll keep him occupied for a couple of minutes....)

Hm.  Not quite worthy of a case study, but what-the-hey, it's better
than a lot of stuff out there.

All in all, from these 4 or 5 articles, I say you're wasting your
time in here.  You are obviously capable of much more.


 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
 Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 13:50:24
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>> -- snip --

>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>>> file?

>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
>>> self-extracting archive,

>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

> And the "executable file" in question, namely, JAVAINUF.EXE, happens to be a
> self-extracting archive, the contents of which can indeed be examined
without
> running the self-extraction module, using the proper tool(s).

That means you're looking at the contents of the extraction, not the
executable file.

>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

> On the contrary, I am correctly observing that you are self-deluded,

Typical invective.

> considering that you still appear to believe that one needs OS/2 in order to
> examine the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>>>
>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.
>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility). Where
>>> is the logic, here?

>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
>> able to do it.

> Why do you use OS/2, Dave?

Irrelevant, Curtis.  Of course, I've answered that question so many
times in this newsgroup, I wonder how you could have missed it.

> After all, both OS/2 and Window NT are tools, and they are both
> Operating Systems.

So is Solaris, Curtis.  So is UNICOS, Curtis.  So is RISC OS.

> Based on your logic, if OS/2 can do any particular thing, then the
> other (i.e., NT) should also be able to do it, so there is no reason
> to prefer OS/2 over NT.

Illogical, as I was not comparing operating systems, Curtis.  Unzip
utilities and operating systems are rather different.

> OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools are
> created equal.

I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

> And you are illogical in the extreme if you think that one tool's
> failure to do a particular thing necessarily implies that all such
> tools must fail in a similar manner.

On the contrary, Curtis, you are the one being illogical in the
extreme, because you've ignored another possibility.

>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
>>> other tool can?

>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>> file as argument.

> Why? Are you really that naive?

You're the one who is naive, Curtis.

> You are admitting technical ineptitude here.

I'm doing no such thing, Curtis.  However, you're showing your own
ineptitude.

>>> Are you really that stupid, Dave?

>> What's allegedly "stupid" about expecting other unzip tools to behave
>> similarly with the same file as argument?

> Maybe "stupid" is too strong a word. How about "naive" instead?

Also too strong.  However, you can apply it to yourself.

> For example, are you aware that InfoZip cannot handle multi-part
> archives?

Irrelevant, given that we're not dealing with a multi-part archive.

> Just how ignorant/naive are you?

Less than you.

>>> Are you trying to make OS/2 look bad?

>> Illogical.  How does the output of unzip make OS/2 look bad?

> Was I talking about the output of unzip?

Obviously, given that that was the evidence I supplied.

> No, I was talking about *you.*

I didn't create the output of unzip, Curtis.

> Talk about "illogical" . . .

Yes, you're demonstrating it in spades, Curtis.

>>  "Are you really that stupid, Curtis?"  Do your postings here make USENET
>> look bad?

> "Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery . . ."

On the contrary, I'm putting a mirror in front of your face, hoping
you'll recognize something.

>>> You're doing a fine job of it on at least two counts: 1) showing the
>>> world that an OS/2 ZIP archive tool is weaker than a Windows ZIP
>>> archive tool,

>> I've done no such thing, Curtis.

> Perhaps, according to a blind man (or illiterate one).

Illogical, Curtis.

>>> and 2) showing the world that a certain OS/2 user is technically
>>> inept, yet stubborn beyond reason.

>> Typical invective.

> Actually, it isn't "invective" at all,

Balderdash, Curtis.

> but accurate, level-headed observation and description of said observation.

Incorrect, Curtis.


>> And you think that one OS/2 user can make OS/2
>> look bad?  Well, using that sort of illogic, then you just made
>> whatever operating system you use look bad.

> Perhaps, to you I did, but that doesn't concern me,

Yet you somehow expect your comment to concern me.  Amazing!

> considering that I use a variety of OSes

Gee, so do I.

> (check my headers. I am using NT currently, but I use OS/2 and
> Linux as well).

I use more than that.

>>>> Notice how it says "Self Extract Utility for OS/2".  Not Windows NT,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Try to notice that Mike never claimed to have run the self-extraction,
>>> Dave.  Try to stop your stupidity.

>> Why did you delete the text of his to which I was responding?

> Uh, to save bandwidth?

You could do even more of that by not responding at all, Curtis.

> I have perused many threads involving you, and notice that many,
> perhaps most of them contains several levels of chevrons.

So what?  I prefer to retain evidence.

> I choose not to repeat that which can be interrogated on Deja News,
> or previous posts on one's given news server.

I that case, you apparently won't mind if I remove all but my responses
to you, Curtis.

>>> If you can.

>> Typical invective.  The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> Well, I suppose it gives you a warm'n'fuzzy to believe that.

I suppose your invective gives you a warm'n'fuzzy.

> Far be it from me to deny you your simple pleasures . . .

You're erroneously presupposing that my statement gives me a
"warm'n'fuzzy".

> but it does support my belief that you are self-deluded.

You're the one deluding yourself, Curtis.  You have jumped to
several erroneous conclusions.

>>> -- snip --

>>>> You're presupposing that I've reached incorrect conclusions regarding
>>>> the file in question, Mike.

>>> No. He is observing that you have reached an incorrect conclusion that
>>> one needs OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, but you
>>> are too blind with obstinate stupidity to comprehend this.

>> Typical invective.  The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> Again, it's simple observation, not "invective."

I suggest you look up the word in the dictionary, Curtis.

> But believe what you will . . .

Prove what you can.

>>>>> You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.

>>>> Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

>>> No need to "prove" it, any more than there is a need to "prove" that the
>>> sky is blue on a clear day.

>> The sky didn't make a claim, Curtis.  Timbol did.

> Hmm. You are always using the ultra-nerdy phrase "non-sequitor" in cases
like
> this.

Actually, I spell it correctly.  What's allegedly "ultra-nerdy" about it,
Curtis?  Does your description advance your argument in any way?

> I never said that "the sky made a claim."

But it would have to have made a claim for your analogy to be appropriate,
Curtis.

> I would try to explain the analogy, but it would be like teaching a pig
> to dance

You can't explain the analogy, so you resort to more invective.  It
figures.

> -- it would make me look foolish, and it would annoy the pig.

Your attempted analogy already made you look foolish.

>>>>> Good show.

>>>> You're providing the entertainment, Mike.

>>> I'm sure that this delusion makes you feel all warm'n'toasty inside, but
>>> it's hardly the truth. You are providing entertainment through your
>>> buffoonery.

>> Typical invective.  The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
>> logical argument.

> Well, it appears that this is your latest battle cry,

On the contrary, I've been using it for about as long as people have
been using invective instead of logical arguments.

> but, again, it's simple observation.

I suggest you look up the word in the dictionary, Curtis.

> When someone holds up a large ball, a buffoon would insist that
> there is no large ball.

Irrelevant, given that there is no buffoon involved (at least on my
part).

> If you don't like my observations, you do have the
> option of changing how I (and others) perceive you.

And how do you suggest I go about doing that, Curtis?  Shall I start
using invective the way you do?  Shall I start crying "bullshit" in
response to correct statements the way Timbol did?  Shall I start
evangelizing OS/2 in Windows advocacy newsgroups the way Den Beste
has evangelized Windows here?  Shall I start posting for entertainment
purposes the way Eric Bennett does?  Shall I boisterously note the
placement of people in my killfile, only to respond to their postings
a short time later, the way Timbol and Marty have?

No thanks, Curtis.

>>>>>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>>>>>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>>>>>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

>>>>> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.

>>>> What alleged ignorance, Mike?

>>> Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance of WinZip's capabilities, Dave.

>> I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
>> you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?

> You have yet to acknowledge that the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE can be
examined
> with WinZip,

That doesn't mean I questioned WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.

> but, instead, stubbornly insist on perpetrating the implication
> that, since InfoZip cannot read the contents, WinZip must not be
> able to either.

I am quite confident that WinZip can't successfully read my copy of
javainuf.exe, Curtis.

>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>> -- [repeat of InfoZip's choking snipped] --

>>> Repeating your ineptness proves nothing but your ineptness.

>> I posted the output from InfoZip, Curtis.  Nothing inept about my use
>> of InfoZip.

> There is much ineptness in not choosing a better tool when it's available,

Illogical, Curtis.  On what basis do you claim that there is a better tool
available?

> one that many people have told you about, namely, WinZip.

On what basis do you call it better, Curtis?  That it can read a tar
file doesn't make it any better for my present application, given that
the file in question isn't a tar file.

> There is much ineptness in stubbornly clinging to a failed line of
> reasoning.

How ironic, coming from someone stubbornly clinging to a failed line
of reasoning.

> Seriously, if you really want to "prove" that one has to run OS/2 in
> order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, it stands to reason that
> a strong tactic would be to use the tool that "everyone else" is
> allegedly using, and prove that the tool in question does indeed fail.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

>> Do you call yourself "inept" when a light bulb burns out
>> after you flip the light switch?

> How is this relevant, pray tell?

Running unzip with javainuf.exe as argument is as simple as flipping
a light switch, Curtis.

>>> -- snip --

>> It figures.  Why not address the real issue, Curtis?  Timbol claimed
>> that Joseph's statement is "bullshit".  Joseph stated that Java 1.1.8
>> for OS/2 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Now, is that statement
>> "bullshit", as Mike claimed?

> I have already answered that. You have even responded to my answer.

Then why not take up Timbol for his stubbornness?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 14:37:23
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Esther comes clean (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2'

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:49:16, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
|         >Creating community: the actuality, not the buzzword
| Well done, but not my cup of tea (coffee, for me, thanks).  BTW, what
| fido conference did you moderate?

The Phoenix OS/2 conference. And another mild little one, I think... 
it's been some years by now.

|. . . . All in all, from these 4 or 5 articles, I say you're wasting 
your
| time in here.  You are obviously capable of much more.

Thanks for the praise, but I learn from other people. Whereever and 
whenever I find them. It would be too easy for me to retreat into an 
ivory tower and forget what regular people -- who *don't* have dinner 
with a senior IBM VP and who *don't* have access to the information I 
do -- think and care about. I honestly don't want to get out of touch.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             03-Nov-99 14:43:05
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vo0u1$b56$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>> You, _didn't_ read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
> >>> thread,
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?
>
> > You're mystified by a basic concept covered in those references.
>
> Obviously I'm not mystified by a basic concept, Lucien,

On the contrary, you are clearly and obviously mystified.

 thus your
> conclusion is invalid.

Wrong. You need to read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
thread to discern what is meant by "multi-level" in this discussion.

 I do find it rather ironic that you would
> talk about me being allegedly mystified by a basic concept,
considering
> how mystified you are by such a basic concept.  If you disagree, try
> taking my two simple tests.  You've deleted them over a half dozen
> times now.  Too embarassed to admit that you're wrong, Lucien?

Your "test" is merely an attempt to deflect attention away from the
issue of this thread and is therefore irrelevant.

> > The meaning of the term "multi-level" as used here is discussed in
> > those references.
>
> I'm interested in your meaning, Lucien, not theirs.

Mine is congruent with that discussed in those references cited in the
"costly mistakes" thread.

> >> Incorrect, Lucien.  That is *not* my assertion concerning the JDK
> >> sentence.
>
> > Yes, it is your statement.
>
> It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

On the contrary, it directly concerns the JDK sentence.

Let's review again:

Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Here is my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
information.

Your assertion is congruent with my thesis statement.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 14:51:25
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:49:59, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
| >but I'm the author of The Computer Speech Book (AP Professional, 
| >1996). I'm also the sysop of the Voicetype forum on Compuserve.
| 1. How much action is there in that forum?  Compared to last year, or
| say 1996?

Less than there used to be... just as there's less action in the 
Windows forums, the Writer's forum, or th DTPVENDOR forum. AOL's 
purchase of Compuserve made them decide to sell it as "the value deal 
to get to the Internet," or some such, instead of marketing what 
Compserve is really good at. (They do not, however, have an exclusive 
on this sort of stupidity, as the people in this newsgroup know.)

| >And I type about 100wpm so I can usually keep up with my thoughts 
| >reasonably well.
| 
| Typing, yes, but not longhand (and you as much 'admitted' that you
| do articles in longhand).

Writing articles (and books -- I've been involved in 10 or 12) has 
nothing to do with speed. I write, I back up and insert a paragraph, I
scribble something in the margin. When the article is ready, it comes 
out... and it comes out *best* on paper.

Then I type it in, and edit as I transcribe.

| BTW, do you use OS2 100% of the time when you're at a computer?  If
| not, what % is it used, and what else do you use?

Uh, that's hard to say, because I really do multitask my computer use.
My "main" computer -- on which I do email, Compuserve, any 
telecom-related stuff (such as newsgroups and IRC), and some writing 
(still in DeScribe... I wrote about a third of the manual and was lead
author). I spend a *lot* of time doing email -- I get something like 
600 messages a day -- so that's not trivial.

The bitranch has 15 computers, from Mac to Linux to Windows to OS/2 
(some of them multi-booted), and some of them are lab/testing 
machines. On one Win95 machine I do my ZD Lotus Notes mail, but it's 
on the same Belkin KVM switch as a system that usually running WinNT, 
on which I do a lot of software testing (and cussing), a Win95 machine
used for some testing but also for a lot of random Web browsing, and a
Linux machine I haven't finished setting up yet. (Someone else at S@R 
specializes in Linux related stuff, so it's not as high a priority for
me.) The Mac is in another room, and it doesn't get used nearly as 
often as I'd like... but then, I have to fight my husband for the use 
of it, more often than not.

Percentage wise, my OS/CPU-usage for a typical day is probably 40% 
OS/2, 5% Mac, 55% some flavor of Windows -- though that varies quite a
bit depending on the software I'm evaluating.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@emily.oit.umass.edu                      01-Nov-99 19:56:26
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: VisualAge 4 troubles

From: Jason <malstrom@emily.oit.umass.edu>

What's with visualage 4?  

MainActor/2 3.0 canceled because of it
http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4354.html

Star Office having problems:
they have a serious problem with the OS/2 port of StarOffice. Until now 
they used to compile the code with VAcpp 3.65 on OS/2 but now they use 
"namespaces" in the code and because VAcpp 4.0 does not support 
commandline compiling, they can't compile it on OS/2 anymore ( The 
project is simply too big for the VAcpp 4.0 workframe).
http://www.os2ss.com/news/archives/oct99.html

It looks like we can't rely on IBM to give us the good programming tools 
anymore.  It looks like EMX may become the standard

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      03-Nov-99 15:07:10
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (3 Nov 1999 14:51:50 GMT):
>Percentage wise, my OS/CPU-usage for a typical day is probably 40% 
>OS/2, 5% Mac, 55% some flavor of Windows -- though that varies quite a
>bit depending on the software I'm evaluating.

Check out WinCE 2.11 on a HPC/Pro like the diminutive HP Jornada 680.
It's bigger than the palm-sized jobs, but only just big enough, not
too big.  Or, at least, think about it.  Maybe even write about it.
Six months ago I knew nothing about them -- wanted to know nothing
about them -- but today I'm glad I took the time.

(And it would not be that difficult to interface w/OS2 -- just have
to do the software, someone does.)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          03-Nov-99 10:21:28
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Esther comes clean (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2'

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Esther,

I have certainly benefitted from your participation in COOA, and I
appreciate the work you're doing for the OS/2 user community, as
well.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 13:49:16, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
> |         >Creating community: the actuality, not the buzzword
> | Well done, but not my cup of tea (coffee, for me, thanks).  BTW, what
> | fido conference did you moderate?
> 
> The Phoenix OS/2 conference. And another mild little one, I think...
> it's been some years by now.
> 
> |. . . . All in all, from these 4 or 5 articles, I say you're wasting
> your
> | time in here.  You are obviously capable of much more.
> 
> Thanks for the praise, but I learn from other people. Whereever and
> whenever I find them. It would be too easy for me to retreat into an
> ivory tower and forget what regular people -- who *don't* have dinner
> with a senior IBM VP and who *don't* have access to the information I
> do -- think and care about. I honestly don't want to get out of touch.
> 
> --Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             03-Nov-99 08:41:09
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Dale Ross wrote:
> 
> "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
> news:381DA4C2.AA0A713A@isomedia.com...
> > > No you do not understand the program. There is no compensation. David it
> is
> > > very obvious to me that you have no desire to understand what the
> program
> > > is.
> >
> > Those "MVP Bucks" sound a lot like compensation to me.  I wonder if the
> > IRS would agree?
> 
> The IRS is one of the reasons it was setup as an "awards" program. You can
> believe it or discount it or try to find some twist in it. I am not going to
> argue the point with you.

Gee, it sounds a lot like that's what you're doing now.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          03-Nov-99 11:30:28
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Marty wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> > posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> > the points, as I see them.
> >
> > 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> >
> > JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> 
> This has not been shown to be true.

Dave quoted from the "readme.sma" file that came with 
Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  I'll also quote the relevant
portion:

"The Security considerations (Security) are based on enhancements from 
the Java 2 security model. Security is shipped with the IBM OS/2 Warp 
Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 (Developer 
Kit). Security is integrated into the Runtime package and is 
disabled by default. 

Note:  Security is only supported on systems with the IBM OS/2 Warp 
       Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8."

To me, "based on enhancements from the Java 2 security model" and
"JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality" are both
true statements.  The first, from IBM, proves the second.  

Are you saying that the first does NOT prove the second statement
to be true?


> 
> > It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> > changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> > Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> > not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> > by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> > executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> > classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> >
> > 2) The self-extracting archive
> >
> > a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> > is in an OS/2 native format.
> 
> Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.

I wrote "SELF-EXTRACTING" to emphasize that I was referring only
to the OS/2-specific code.  This code is what gives the executable
it's functionality and purpose.  

> 
> > b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> 
> Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The archive
> as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.

And I disagree.  The SELF-EXTRACTING archive will not execute, as
a whole.  Only the DOS stub executes.  If the SELF-EXTRACTING code
and the archive are removed, the executable will "run" in DOS 
exactly the way it does with the SE code included.  Thus, what 
is executed in DOS is not a SE archive.  

> 
> > c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> > format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> > that have archive utilities that implement support for
> > the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> > the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> > d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> > for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> 
> This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.

But, it is ancillary in nature, and has no direct relation
or value to the SELF-EXTRACTION code.  The SE code is the
purpose, the raison d'etre, for the executable program.  If the
DOS stub was replaced with x'90' (NOP) instructions, there
would be no loss of functionality for the SE program.  The
executable would crash and burn if loaded in DOS, but that
has no bearing on the fact that the SE code is OS/2 only.
The program with the DOS stub "NOP'ed" would execute 
flawlessly in OS/2.

> 
> > e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> > viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> > such as editors, viewers, etc.
> >
> > Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> > confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> >
> > For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> > if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> > are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> > OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               03-Nov-99 11:31:29
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >Do you have any clue about what you're talking about?
> 
> Sure, unlike you, I actually use MFC at least once every week. You're
> just some IBM employee hawking stale IBM products, who doesn't really
> know what his competitors' stuff is all about, but you have to knock
> it anyway because that's your job.
>
> >An API is an Application Programming Interface.
> 
> MFC are really libraries, not an API. Essentially, they're C++
> wrappers for the Windows API. You'd know that if you actually used
> them, like I do.

	From the Dictionary of Computing, 9th edition (published by IBM, and a
fairly massive tome) defines an API as:

	1) a functional interface supplied by the operating system or by a
seperately orderable licensed program that allows an application program
written in a high-level language to use specific data or functions of
the operating system or licensed program.

	2) The interface through while an application interacts with an access
method.  In VTAM* programs, it is the language structure used in control
blocks so that application programs can reference them and be identified
to VTAM.

	* VTAM = Virtual Telecommunications Access Method

	I fail to see how MFC doesn't fit into part 1 of the definition of an
API.  Indeed, an API i a fairly broad definition for *any* standard
programming interface.

	So yes, the ANSI C standard libraries do form an API.  As do the Java
classes.  As does MFC.  Many of these may also have *other* names, but
so long as they provide a standardized set of interfaces for application
programs to use, they are, by definition, an API.

> Go around calling the C Standard Library an API and see if other
> programmers don't wonder whether you really know anything about
> programming

	Real programmers know what an API is.  Now you do as well.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               03-Nov-99 11:40:17
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> However, I've reviewed several Java applications for which the
> developers charge real money, and I've never seen one that worked as
> well as a native app. And, in particular, I've encountered a large
> number of Java apps that needed to be installed with Windows, or --
> more commonly -- which were tested only on Windows. (One of them
> crashed both the Mac *and* OS/2, which is an accomplishment of sorts.
> Let's just say I didn't give it a rave review.)
> 
> While I'm sure you can give me examples of good Java code, the fact
> that it's so easy to write *bad* Java code almost proves my point.

	No, it just proves that there are bad Java programers out there.

	I could point out a plethora of really poorly programmed C programs. 
Should the reflect on C itself?  Will you decry C as slow, bloated, or
poorly designed just because some developers can program worth a hill of
beans?

	I'll concede that there are alot of people out there who call
themselves Java programmers who really don't have a clue.  Some of the
worst are people who have lived their lives in the procedural or modular
programming world, and then try to use that design philosophy in Java. 
The results are horrible.

	But this is not the fault of Java, nor is it indicitive of Java as a
runtime environment.  It only reflects on those who write the code.  It
is no easier nor harder to write bad Java code than it is for any other
language, and the results are the same.

	Please don't mistake your disdain for bad software development and
developers for a disdain for Java.  Java is just a language and runtime
environment, which has some excellent performence characteristics (with
modern JITs).  And it's only getting better.  And there are some
extremely fine Java developers and Java applications out there (I should
know - I work with some of the best in the industry :).

	But you shouldn't judge Java based on a handful of bad-apple
applications (I was going to make a really bad pun out of that, but
decided not to :), anymore than you would judge any population based on
two or three members.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               03-Nov-99 11:44:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 15:13:12
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Darin McBride wrote:
> I'd be wary about telling anyone the size of a Java app ... because us
cynics
> like to point out that you're not including the JRE...

	Yes, well the DB2 for OS/2 v6.1 install code has a size as well, but
that too would quickly balloon if we included all of the base DLL's and
the OS required to run it in the first place. Unless you're writing your
own bootstrap loader an including every bit of code you need to run on
the media you supply, the cynics out there will always be able to make
such a claim, be it for a Java based application or not.  Most
applications require some sort of pre-installed service to run, be it an
OS, a BIOS (to run the bootstrap loader in the first place...), or a
runtime environment.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dross1@carolina.rr.com                            03-Nov-99 22:57:02
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com>

"David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote in message
news:38203B7E.71596666@isomedia.com...
> > The IRS is one of the reasons it was setup as an "awards" program. You
can
> > believe it or discount it or try to find some twist in it. I am not
going to
> > argue the point with you.
>
> Gee, it sounds a lot like that's what you're doing now.

All I can say is that I am sorry that you have failed to understand what
I've tried to tell you. It doesn't matter what I say, you find a way twist
it. I can clearly see that you have an agenda that doesn't include
understanding the real story. That's fine, I've said all I have to say on
this subject.

Dale


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RoadRunner - Carolina (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 23:02:16
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:57:17, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
[snip]
> 
> >>> I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
> >>> version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
> >>> "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...
> 
> >> You like wet, spongy ground?
> 
> > Do ye not mock the Name of Bog.
> > For Peet's sake...
> 
> Is Bog related to Nog, of Deep Space Nine fame (or infamy, as the case
> may be)?
> 
It seems we're making Him up as we go along here.

[snip]
> 
> >>> Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
> >>> Harmless, but alas incureable.
> 
> >> But preventable.
> 
> > You're clearly not suffering from the syndrome, otherwise you'd have 
> > known what an utterly meaningless remark that is <G>.
> 
> That presupposing the remark was meaningless.
> 
As I see it, the entire point of the "trying-to-look-interesting" 
syndrome - or TTLI, as we hard-cases call it - is _not_ trying to 
prevent it. It's probably a paradox, or at the very least one doc 
(this is a pun nicked from Robert Heinlein, first time I found use for
it).

[snip]
> >>>>> thanks
> 
> >>>> You're welcome.
> 
> >>> Don't mention it.
> 
> >> Too late.
> 
> > Never mind.
> 
> Said in a high, squeaky Saturday Night Live-ish voice?  Was that Ruth
> Buzzi?  I could imagine Lily Tomlin saying it as well, but I remember
> her more for the raspy snorts about being the phone company -- "we
> don't have to care".
> 
Don't remember ever seeing an episode that makes some sort of bell 
ring. I'm beginning to get a distinct "League of Gentlemen" (BBC 
again, I'm afraid) feeling here, but I can't put my digit on it...

[snip]
> >> Isn't using a book cheating?
> 
> > I had the "Muldaur" part from memory, but for some reason I thought 
> > her first name was Ann. Glad I checked. TUHOT is a very good book; it 
> > covers the original series, the Next Generation and the movies up to 
> > No VIII. Nothing on DS9 or Voyager, which is sort of a shame.
> 
> Depending on your point of view.  Some people consider Voyager an
> illegitimate child.
> 
Well, the original series isn't rerun anywhere at the moment, and one 
can watch only so many reruns of TNG. It was that or serious 
withdrawal symptoms. The one thing I don't like is all this PC stuff, 
you know: Be nice to the poor aliens; don't blast planets away with 
your foton torpedos; Prime Directive this and that...(Grmbl! Grmbl! 
Stupid Prime Directive thing...)

Kirk was a lot more fun. And in that respect, so was Babylon 5 (it's 
probably a mortal sin to mention Star Trek and Babylon 5 in the same 
sentence, but there you go) (Babylon 5 dissapeared from Belgian 
screens a long time ago, BTW).

> > BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
> > and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
> > Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
> > new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
> > with.
> 
> Deep Space Nine has finished its run over here.  Only Voyager remains.
> At least they've gotten away from having the Kazon chase them across
> the quadrant.
> 
Oh yes. And now we have the "new improved Borg", with queen. It's just
not the same anymore.

Mind you, any show that spends an entire episode on the slow decay of 
a copy of ship and crew (last week's episode over here, "Course: 
Oblivion" IIRC) deserves being put out of its misery.

You know what would be funny: the final episode of Voyager ends with 
the crew arriving in what they think is the Alpha Quadrant, only to 
find out they've been going in circles and are back at the ruins of 
the Caretaker's station. Heh heh heh!

Well, at least Neelix makes it home...

[snip]
> >>>> Now, how do you break a killfile?
> 
> >>> Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
> >>> quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
> >>> This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
> >>> Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
> >>> surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.
> 
> >> You don't say!
> 
> > We live and learn, don't we?
> 
> Some of us do.  I wonder about some others.
> 
At least now they know they could have a good time with a futzed-up 
killfile.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 03-Nov-99 23:18:02
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

David Sutherland wrote:
> 
> On 3 Nov 1999 03:36:55 GMT, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> wrote:
> 
> >Marty writes:
> >
> >> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> >>> This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> >>> posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> >>> the points, as I see them.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> >>>
> >>> JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> >
> >> This has not been shown to be true.
> >
> >Incorrect, Marty.  Why do you continue to ignore the evidence
> >that I've provided?
> >
> >>> It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> >>> changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> >>> Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> >>> not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> >>> by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> >>> executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> >>> classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> >>>
> >>> 2) The self-extracting archive
> >>>
> >>> a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> >>> is in an OS/2 native format.
> >
> >> Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
> >
> >But that's what the executable is supposed to do, Marty.
> >
> 
> Nonsense.   When running under DOS the executable is supposed to print
> a message and it does.   Code contained within the executable was
> executed - the executable ran under DOS.
> 
> What part of this don't you understand?
> 
> Regards,
> David Sutherland
> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

David,
What part of "the executable runs in DOS" do you not understand.
I have maintained that the executable runs in DOS.  Why are you
confused about that?  I have discussed the following:

1) the executable
2) the archive
3) the DOS stub code
4) self-extraction code

Number 1 contains 2, 3, and 4.  3 is not necessary and is not
included when I refer to SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE.  That refers
to 2 and 4 only.

Number 1 works in DOS because of number 3.  Numbers 2 and 4 are
irrelevant for number 3 and whether or not it works in DOS.

The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE (items 2 and 4) works only in OS/2.

If the bytes for item 3 are replaced with x'90' (NOP), the
execution of 2 and 4 in OS/2 is not affected.  Similarly, if 
instead of item 3, item 4 is "NOP'ed," the execution of item 3 
in DOS is unaffected.

Item 3 and item are independent programs that have been 
combined into one executable.  Co-existing in the same file
is the only relation between the two.  

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 23:20:25
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:31:18, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Dave Tholen wrote:
> > 
> > Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> 
> In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
> as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It creates an environment in
> which the video and sound hardware of various kinds of machines, arcade
> games among them, can be accurately reproduced, provided that the
> program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump
> files or "ROMs" for short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate
> various kinds of arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern
> architectures.
> 
> As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
> lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
> 
> Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
> that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
> about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
> used in the hardware of these systems.
> 
> Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
> it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
> making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
> into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.
> 
> Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
> my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.
> 
> Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> Usenet?


Allright. But MAME still plays games, yes? Please?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 03-Nov-99 23:08:16
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

David Sutherland wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:57:39 -0500, Bennie Nelson
> <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> 
> >Jeff,
> >
> >The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
> >adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
> >DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
> >processes the archive and can be removed from the
> >executable with no negative impact on the executable's
> >ability to process the archive.
> >
> >Thus, I have used the following definitions:
> >
> 
> Bennie,  you are trying to sidestep the fact the executable file DOES
> run under DOS.   Doing a Tholen and trying to redefine what *part* of
> the executable you wish to talk about just makes you look like a -
> well - a Tholen.   And that's sad.
> 
> Regards,
> David Sutherland
> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

David,
You are incorrect.  I have stated that the executable does run
in DOS.  However, I do not agree that this equates to "the program
works in DOS."  The reason being is that the program is a SELF-EXTRACTING
ARCHIVE and not a DOS stub that simply tells the user to run it in OS/2.
It's quite simple.  I defined the terms and have used them consistently.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Nov-99 23:21:25
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 23:08:32 GMT, Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>
wrote:

>David Sutherland wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:57:39 -0500, Bennie Nelson
>> <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> 
>> >Jeff,
>> >
>> >The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
>> >adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
>> >DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
>> >processes the archive and can be removed from the
>> >executable with no negative impact on the executable's
>> >ability to process the archive.
>> >
>> >Thus, I have used the following definitions:
>> >
>> 
>> Bennie,  you are trying to sidestep the fact the executable file DOES
>> run under DOS.   Doing a Tholen and trying to redefine what *part* of
>> the executable you wish to talk about just makes you look like a -
>> well - a Tholen.   And that's sad.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> David Sutherland
>> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
>
>David,
>You are incorrect.  I have stated that the executable does run
>in DOS.  However, I do not agree that this equates to "the program
>works in DOS."  The reason being is that the program is a SELF-EXTRACTING
>ARCHIVE and not a DOS stub that simply tells the user to run it in OS/2.
>It's quite simple.  I defined the terms and have used them consistently.
>
>Regards,
>Bennie Nelson

Fine, but Tholen claimed that the executable could not be run under
DOS, not that it would fail to self-extract under DOS.  Further he
claimed that Mike Timbol could not have viewed the contents of the
archive *except* from within OS/2.   He was wrong both times and has
rfused to aknowledge theat fact.  Why haven't you challenged Tholen on
these obvious flaws in his claims rather than attempting to redefine
the argument?


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 23:37:11
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Voice dictation and writing (Re: Esther says down with Palm)

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

I agree wholeheartedly!

My creativity is different, depending on the medium I use, not to 
mention the environment. (I write best in a busy airport or a bustling
coffee shop, where I *have* to shut out the world mentally.) My top 
work appears to me as an integral whole, when I feel as if I'm taking 
dictation from the muse... and my biggest problem is to write it down 
fast enough.

I recall a John Dvorak article from many years ago in which John 
realized that the articles he wrote on smaller screens (the classic 
Mac and low-res laptops) were shorter, and had shorter sentences. 

--Esther

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 18:30:32, kasommer@sherrill.kiva.net (Kim A. 
Sommer) wrote:

| In article <zozo81v45h.7p.uno@sage.40th.com>,
| uno@40th.com <reply@only.n.news.40th.com> wrote:
| >
| [snip]
| >(You write articles longhand?  There's no way I could keep up.  Why
| >don't dictate to your computer if you can't type that well/fast?  BTW,
| >and don't take this the wrong way, I've never read an article of yours
| >-- have any URLs so I can see how it comes out when you write ala Andy
| >Rooney?)
| 
| I have a comment on this.  
| 
| A person's writing in longhand can be markedly different from what they
| would come up with via dictation/speaking and even typing. Heck, I find
| there is a big differnce between typing on a typewriter and on a PC.  The
| "voice" changes according to the method.  The discipline of writing well
| with pen and paper is a reward to those who practice it.
| 
| I know of some writers who decry the use of word processors as a way to
| for authors to write more and say less (Harlan Elison comes to mind).  I
| I know of one author, James Alexander Thom, who, like Esther, writes
| everything longhand.  His prose is well thought out and his penmanship is
| wonderful.  He refers to himself as a wordprocessor.
| 
| 
| This is a bit off-topic but voice dictation or other technologies are 
| not solutions for everyone who writes.
| 
| 
| regards,
| Kim
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| -- 
| -------
| Kim A. Sommer   
| Humans do it Better!  The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
| 


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: blnelson@visi.net                                 03-Nov-99 23:37:09
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>

David Sutherland wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 23:08:32 GMT, Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >David Sutherland wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:57:39 -0500, Bennie Nelson
> >> <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Jeff,
> >> >
> >> >The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
> >> >adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
> >> >DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
> >> >processes the archive and can be removed from the
> >> >executable with no negative impact on the executable's
> >> >ability to process the archive.
> >> >
> >> >Thus, I have used the following definitions:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Bennie,  you are trying to sidestep the fact the executable file DOES
> >> run under DOS.   Doing a Tholen and trying to redefine what *part* of
> >> the executable you wish to talk about just makes you look like a -
> >> well - a Tholen.   And that's sad.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> David Sutherland
> >> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
> >
> >David,
> >You are incorrect.  I have stated that the executable does run
> >in DOS.  However, I do not agree that this equates to "the program
> >works in DOS."  The reason being is that the program is a SELF-EXTRACTING
> >ARCHIVE and not a DOS stub that simply tells the user to run it in OS/2.
> >It's quite simple.  I defined the terms and have used them consistently.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Bennie Nelson
> 
> Fine, but Tholen claimed that the executable could not be run under
> DOS, not that it would fail to self-extract under DOS.  Further he
> claimed that Mike Timbol could not have viewed the contents of the
> archive *except* from within OS/2.   He was wrong both times and has
> rfused to aknowledge theat fact.  Why haven't you challenged Tholen on
> these obvious flaws in his claims rather than attempting to redefine
> the argument?
> 
> Regards,
> David Sutherland
> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

I haven't challenged anyone in this thread.  I  entered this particular
subthread by giving a summary of the items being discussed.  That post
generated a little attention and I have addressed the replies to my
posts, only.

But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he stated
that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
correct.

Also, if he claimed that the contents of the archive could not be
viewed by any other method than execution in OS/2, then I do not
agree.  I do not have that file on my machine at home so I cannot
test it at this time, but I believe the archive can be processed 
using winzip, for example.  I have a different file name on my
home machine for the java 1.1.8 archive, so I'll have to wait to
test it on another machine.  The file I do have, javainrt118.exe 
can be processed by unzip.exe.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 23:30:10
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Esther comes clean (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2'

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:21:56, Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> 
wrote:
| I have certainly benefitted from your participation in COOA, and I
| appreciate the work you're doing for the OS/2 user community, as
| well.

Oh, my. Thank you!

Let me express my appreciation in the other direction, as well. :-)

--E

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               03-Nov-99 23:33:21
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

I don't need a palm-sized gizmo... if I needed that kind of 
portability, I'd go for a wearable PC complete with visor and goggles.
(Another one of my coworkers reviewed two such models recently, but 
*I* wanted to do it first!)

And writing about such things is a hard sell for my readership. 
There's not much I could say about them that they wouldn't find in PC 
Week or PC Magazine... which means that S@R could use the space more 
productively. (There's a bunch of cool stuff that I don't get to 
cover. That's okay, because there's an even bigger bunch of neat toys 
that I *do* get to play with.)

--Esther

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 15:07:20, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
| Check out WinCE 2.11 on a HPC/Pro like the diminutive HP Jornada 680.
| It's bigger than the palm-sized jobs, but only just big enough, not
| too big.  Or, at least, think about it.  Maybe even write about it.
| Six months ago I knew nothing about them -- wanted to know nothing
| about them -- but today I'm glad I took the time.
| 
| (And it would not be that difficult to interface w/OS2 -- just have
| to do the software, someone does.)


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 23:38:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>> -- snip --

>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>>>>> file?

>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
>>>>> self-extracting archive,

>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

>>> And the "executable file" in question, namely, JAVAINUF.EXE, happens to be 
a
>>> self-extracting archive, the contents of which can indeed be examined
without
>>> running the self-extraction module, using the proper tool(s).

>> That means you're looking at the contents of the extraction, not the
>> executable file.

> This level of semantic hairsplitting again indicates profound
> desperation on your part,

Oh really?  Then why not accuse Marty of "semantic hairsplitting" when
he claims that the self-extracting archive runs in a DOS session?

> your inevitable denials notwithstanding.

No desperation is needed on my part, given that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does
implement Java 1.2 functionality, which is all I need to justify my
challenge of Timbol's "bullshit".

> Are you claiming that JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* an "executable file?"

Not at all, Curtis.  Having reading comprehension problems?

> The file "classes.zip" *IS* contained therein, and regardless of
> whether you choose to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file,  by
> examining the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE with the proper tool
> (e.g., WinZip), one can obtain, and examine, classes.zip.

Running the program on OS/2 is a "proper tool", Curtis, and happens
to follow IBM's instructions.

> OTOH, if you choose *NOT* to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file, your
> original, 5-chevroned question above is meaningless and irrelevant,
> because JAVAINUF.EXE is the file in question, not some random
> "executable file" (which JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* in this case).

JAVAINUF.EXE is not the JDK, contrary to what Timbol would like you
to believe.

> So, which is it, Dave? It has to be one or the other. Take your pick.

I've already made my choice clear, Curtis.

>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.

>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

>>> On the contrary, I am correctly observing that you are self-deluded,

>> Typical invective.

> Actually, no.

Better look up the word in your dictionary, Curtis.

> I've gone over this before,

I've pointed you to your dictionary before.

> but I am simply observing displayed behavior, which is not "invective."

Incorrect, Curtis.  Why do you "refuse" to look in your dictionary
(that's using your definition of the word "refuse")?

>>> considering that you still appear to believe that one needs OS/2 in order
to
>>> examine the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>>
>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>>
>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>>
>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>
>> what would you conclude?

> Oops!

I see you didn't answer the question.

> You goofed (again).

Illogical, Curtis.  I was hypothesizing a situation and asking you a
question.  There is no "goof" involved.

> Asking this question in a vacuum is a logical no-no,

You're erroneously presupposing a vacuum, Curtis.

> as you well know

I don't know of any vacuum in which the question is being asked, Curtis.

> (assuming even a modicum of intelligence on your part).

Typical invective.

> For starters, one must question why you  would even run
> JAVAINUF.EXE on a DOS platform,

Given that the stub exists, apparently the designers anticipated the
possibility.  Furthermore, DOS applications are supported on a rather
wide variety of platforms, including Windows NT, so DOS can be
considered a placeholder for any system that supports DOS applications.

> when you already know that it's an OS/2-targetted self extracting
> archive.

How would you know that, Curtis?  I've not said anything about the
target operating system for the hypothetical ABC.EXE.  You may have
inferred that from the error message issued by the program, but you
wouldn't know that prior to your attempt to run the program.

> The answer, of course, is that it's a failed attempt to "prove" your
> (incorrect) claim that one *must* be running OS/2 in order to obtain
> the contents of the archive in question.

That's not an answer to my question, Curtis.  You're avoiding the issue.

> Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
> trying InfoZip on the file

Suppose somebody came along and said they were able to examine the
contents by using WinZip on ABC.EXE because the file is a zip
archive.

> in OS/2, especially in light of the fact that other people said
> that they used a different tool altogether (i.e., WinZip) to
> extract the contents thereof on a **NON-OS/2** platform.

If it's a zip archive, Curtis, then why shouldn't one expect InfoZip
to handle it?  If I sent you a tar file prepared on a Solaris system,
would you run off to a Solaris system to extract it, knowing that
you had a utility designed to extract a tar file for your particular
non-Solaris operating system?

In other words, there's no reason to question the action, Curtis.
It follows quite naturally from the claim that WinZip can read it.

> The bottom line is that I wouldn't make such blunders in the first
> place,

What alleged "blunders", Curtis?

> never mind what conclusions I may draw if I had done so.

Translation:  you don't want to answer the question.

> But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I did do the above.
> What I certainly would ***NOT*** do is deny the possibility that other
> tools on other platforms *could* have extracted the contents of the
> archive,

Why not, Curtis?  On the one hand you have a platform different from
OS/2, so without OS/2 support, the executable won't run.  On the other
hand, you have a message indicating that the file is not a zip file,
contrary to the claim that it is.

> especially when someone posted a screen shot of another tool on
> another platform displaying a listing of the archive's contents.

No such action was hypothesized, Curtis, and in the actual situation,
the screen shot came later than the conclusion, thus one shouldn't
use the screen shot when reaching the conclusion.

> Another thing that I certainly would ***NOT*** do is repetitiously post
> my failed attempts at using InfoZip in a lame attempt to disprove claims
> that WinZip *could* extract the contents of the archive in question:

Irrelevant, Curtis; that has nothing to do with the requested conclusion.

>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.
>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility). Where
>>>>> is the logic, here?

>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
>>>> able to do it.

>>> Why do you use OS/2, Dave?

>> Irrelevant, Curtis.  Of course, I've answered that question so many
>> times in this newsgroup, I wonder how you could have missed it.

> (As an aside to anyone lurking in this meandering thread (and you have
> my sympathy if you are), this response from Dave supports my assertion
> that he "doesn't get the gist of anything,"

Illogical, Curtis.  It does not support your assertion at all.

> an assertion I made a little over one year ago.

And still haven't substantiated.  Why do people like you and Marty like
to write in universal terms, such as "anything"?  That approach has
gotten Marty into trouble, and you're in trouble for the same reason.
Your claim requires knowledge of everything that has been made available
for me to ascertain the "gist of".

> It's laughable that he would actually respond to the rhetorical
> question with a serious response,

It's laughable that you would make universal claims, Curtis.  How
ironic.  Now, what makes your question "rhetorical"?  I'd really
like to know, because perhaps I can ignore your other questions once
they've been identified as rhetorical.  Of course, then you could
simply claim that I've "refused" to answer your questions, otherwise
known as a no-win situation.

> apparently ignoring the context in which the question was asked.)

What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
relevant.

>>> After all, both OS/2 and Window NT are tools, and they are both
>>> Operating Systems.

>> So is Solaris, Curtis.  So is UNICOS, Curtis.  So is RISC OS.

>>> Based on your logic, if OS/2 can do any particular thing, then the
>>> other (i.e., NT) should also be able to do it, so there is no reason
>>> to prefer OS/2 over NT.

>> Illogical, as I was not comparing operating systems, Curtis.  Unzip
>> utilities and operating systems are rather different.

> Oh, I see, your "logic" applies to certain types of software tools, but
> not others,

Of course.

> based on whether this "logic" advances your "argument" or simply makes
> you look foolish.

Incorrect, Curtis.  Rather, it's based on what the tool does.  The
zip/unzip tools are very narrow in their capabilities.  Operating
systems are not, unless you want to argue about which components are
actually part of the operating system.  That's been done here to no
resolution, so I'd advise against that approach.

>>> OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools
are
>>> created equal.

>> I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
>> extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

> On *your* copy?

Having trouble being certain of what I wrote, Curtis?

> Are you claiming that there's something special about your copy of
> JAVAINUF.EXE, which came from the same source as Mike Timbol's and
> mine?

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> I realize that you will deny this, but your statements continue to get
> more desperate with each passing day.

Of course I will deny it, because you've jumped to the wrong conclusions
and "refuse" to admit it (using your definition of "refuse").

>>> And you are illogical in the extreme if you think that one tool's
>>> failure to do a particular thing necessarily implies that all such
>>> tools must fail in a similar manner.

>> On the contrary, Curtis, you are the one being illogical in the
>> extreme, because you've ignored another possibility.

> Uh, you mean the one that I soundly disproved?

Not at all, Curtis.

> (Which indicates that I did, in fact, *NOT* ignore it).

You're erroneously presupposing that I mean "the one" you referred to.

>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
>>>>> other tool can?

>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>>>> file as argument.

>>> Why? Are you really that naive?

>> You're the one who is naive, Curtis.

> How so?

By failing to consider all the possibilities.

> By actually expecting you to admit error?

Jumping to another incorrect conclusion?

> Perhaps you're right.

You're erroneously presupposing that your conclusion is the correct
one, Curtis.

>>> You are admitting technical ineptitude here.

>> I'm doing no such thing, Curtis.  However, you're showing your own
>> ineptitude.

> Feel free to elaborate.

Sure thing, after you meaningfully answer the question:

] Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
] execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
] 
]    This program must be run under OS/2.
] 
] and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
] 
]    Archive:  ABC.EXE
]      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
]      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
]      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
]      the last disk(s) of this archive.
] 
] what would you conclude?

> If you really think you have anything on which to elaborate.

Of course I do.

>-- snip --

>>> Just how ignorant/naive are you?

>> Less than you.

> About nameless rocks in space, perhaps,

I'm referring to the issue, Curtis.  By the way, and there are thousands of
"rocks" in space that have names.

> but not about the ability to view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE on a
> non-OS/2 platform.

Incorrect, as you've jumped to conclusions without considering all the
possibilities.

> After all, I've done it.

That didn't prevent you from jumping to an erroneous conclusion, Curtis.

> You, OTOH, apparently have not and cannot (or will not).

What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
relevant.

> Oh. Right. *YOUR* version of JAVAINUF.EXE is special. I forget.
> <chuckle>

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> (Maybe that's the "another possibility" to which you alluded earlier?

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> That your *special* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE can not only *not* be examined
> on a non-OS/2 platform, but contains the Java 2 Security Classes as
> well? LOL!)

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

>>>>> Are you trying to make OS/2 look bad?

>>>> Illogical.  How does the output of unzip make OS/2 look bad?

>>> Was I talking about the output of unzip?

>> Obviously, given that that was the evidence I supplied.

>>> No, I was talking about *you.*

>> I didn't create the output of unzip, Curtis.

> You are saying that the output magically appeared with no intervention

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 23:38:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> on your part?

The output of computer programs is not what I call "magical", Curtis.

>>> Talk about "illogical" . . .

>> Yes, you're demonstrating it in spades, Curtis.

> Well, I'm sure I am to you. Somehow, that doesn't bother me too much.

It should, Curtis.

> Watching you squirm indicates that I'm hitting several nerves,

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm squirming, Curtis.  Watching
you avoid answering my question about what you would conclude indicates
that you're worried about having overlooked something.

> your indignant appeals to my alleged "illogic" notwithstanding.

The fact that you've overlooked possibilities demonstrates your illogic,
Curtis.

>>>>  "Are you really that stupid, Curtis?"  Do your postings here make USENET
>>>> look bad?

>>> "Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery . . ."

>> On the contrary, I'm putting a mirror in front of your face, hoping
>> you'll recognize something.

> Recognize what, exactly?

The illogic of your claim that I'm making OS/2 look bad.

> That I'm arguing with a buffoon/idiot/troll/Nomad who must resort to
> mimicking his opponents' arguments?

Typical invective, and more evidence of a reading comprehension problem
on your part.

> -- snip --

>>> But believe what you will . . .

>> Prove what you can.

> I have already proven that one can examine (and extract) the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE on a non-OS/2 platform, which is something you have yet to
> acknowledge/admit.

You haven't done so with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

> Your "counter argument" is the implication that there is something
> "special" about your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE which prevents it from
> being so examined.

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> Or, to put it another way, it's impossible to prove anything to someone
> who lacks the intelligence, or will, to grasp the proof.

Even more invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who lacks
tha ability to consider other possibilities before jumping to conclusions.

> No, that isn't "invective" unless the proverbial shoe fits.

It's invective either way, Curtis.  Still "refusing" to look in your
dictionary?

> Even then, it isn't invective.

Incorrect, Curtis.  Consult your dictionary.

> -- snip --

>>>>> No need to "prove" it, any more than there is a need to "prove" that the
>>>>> sky is blue on a clear day.

>>>> The sky didn't make a claim, Curtis.  Timbol did.

>>> Hmm. You are always using the ultra-nerdy phrase "non-sequitor" in cases
like
>>> this.

>> Actually, I spell it correctly.  What's allegedly "ultra-nerdy" about it,
>> Curtis?  Does your description advance your argument in any way?

> One would hope that you spell it correctly; you've had so much practice
> in using it.

Yes; people like you who deal in non sequitur statements have given me
considerable practice.

> Does your appeal for proof of that which is axiomatic advance your
> argument in any way?

On what basis do you call it "axiomatic", Curtis?

> -- snip --

>>> If you don't like my observations, you do have the
>>> option of changing how I (and others) perceive you.

>> And how do you suggest I go about doing that, Curtis?  Shall I start
>> using invective the way you do?  Shall I start crying "bullshit" in
>> response to correct statements the way Timbol did?  Shall I start
>> evangelizing OS/2 in Windows advocacy newsgroups the way Den Beste
>> has evangelized Windows here?  Shall I start posting for entertainment
>> purposes the way Eric Bennett does?  Shall I boisterously note the
>> placement of people in my killfile, only to respond to their postings
>> a short time later, the way Timbol and Marty have?

> No,

Then who around here do you have a "good" perception of, Curtis?
Besides yourself, of course.

> all you need to do is admit when you make a mistake,

I've done that, Curtis, contrary to Marty's claim.  Of course, he's not
the only person to have made that mistake.

> like claiming that one has to run OS/2 in order to examine the contents
> of JAVAINUF.EXE.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?

>> No thanks, Curtis.

> Admitting error is too much for you, eh?

Non sequitur.  I was talking about not changing my behavior to match
those of people you apparently perceive differently.

>>>>>>>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>>>>>>>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>>>>>>>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.

>>>>>>> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.

>>>>>> What alleged ignorance, Mike?

>>>>> Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance of WinZip's capabilities, Dave.

>>>> I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
>>>> you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?

>>> You have yet to acknowledge that the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE can be
examined
>>> with WinZip,

>> That doesn't mean I questioned WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.

> I never said that you "questioned" WinZip's capabilities, Dave, only
> that you are ignorant of them.

I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?

>>> but, instead, stubbornly insist on perpetrating the implication
>>> that, since InfoZip cannot read the contents, WinZip must not be
>>> able to either.

>> I am quite confident that WinZip can't successfully read my copy of
>> javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> What is the basis of this confidence, Dave? What is so special about
> your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE?

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> You are the one playing games here.  Tell us why WinZip would fail on
> your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, and then explain how that proves Mike
> Timbol's inability to examine a different copy of JAVAINUF.EXE on his
> Windows machine.

Why not answer my question first, Curtis?

] Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
] execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
] 
]    This program must be run under OS/2.
] 
] and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
] 
]    Archive:  ABC.EXE
]      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
]      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
]      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
]      the last disk(s) of this archive.
] 
] what would you conclude?

> And explain how that disproves my screen shot of WinZip displaying a
> listing of JAVAINUF.EXE's contents,

Irrelevant, given that I haven't even seen your screen shot, and also
given that it wasn't applied to my copy of javainuf.exe.

> when the JAVAINUF.EXE in question was downloaded from the IBM web site,

So was mine, Curtis.

> and is the Java 1.1.8 for OS/2 archive.

It's one of two runtime environments, Curtis.  It is not the JDK,
contrary to Timbol's indication.

>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

>>>>> -- [repeat of InfoZip's choking snipped] --

>>>>> Repeating your ineptness proves nothing but your ineptness.

>>>> I posted the output from InfoZip, Curtis.  Nothing inept about my use
>>>> of InfoZip.

>>> There is much ineptness in not choosing a better tool when it's available,

>> Illogical, Curtis.  On what basis do you claim that there is a better tool
>> available?

>>> one that many people have told you about, namely, WinZip.

>> On what basis do you call it better, Curtis?  That it can read a tar
>> file doesn't make it any better for my present application, given that
>> the file in question isn't a tar file.

> That it can read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE while InfoZip cannot is
> the basis, Dave.

Your "it" doesn't refer to my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

>>> There is much ineptness in stubbornly clinging to a failed line of
>>> reasoning.

>> How ironic, coming from someone stubbornly clinging to a failed line
>> of reasoning.

> Back to mimicry again . . .

You mean the sincerest form of flattery?

> Maybe I should co-opt your battle cry:
>
> "Back to mimicry again. The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
> logical argument."

That's not my battle cry, Curtis.

>>> Seriously, if you really want to "prove" that one has to run OS/2 in
>>> order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, it stands to reason that
>>> a strong tactic would be to use the tool that "everyone else" is
>>> allegedly using, and prove that the tool in question does indeed fail.

>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>>
>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>>
>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>>
>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>
>> what would you conclude?

> I have already addressed this above.

But you did not answer it above in any meaningful way.  I asked you for
what you would conclude, not for what you would not conclude.

> It was a lengthy address, and do not wish to repeat it here.

Therefore I will not repeat my response here.

> Why do you repeat the same lengthy question in one post?

Because your response called for it.

>>>> Do you call yourself "inept" when a light bulb burns out
>>>> after you flip the light switch?

>>> How is this relevant, pray tell?

>> Running unzip with javainuf.exe as argument is as simple as flipping
>> a light switch, Curtis.

> True, but it still doesn't explain the relevance.

Sure it does, Curtis.  You called me "inept", but you haven't yet
identified the allegedly "inept" action on my part.

> After all, running WinZip with JAVAINUF.EXE as an input file is
> equally simple, but the results are quite different.

Not when done on my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> I have already answered that. You have even responded to my answer.

>> Then why not take up Timbol for his stubbornness?

> As you pointed out, Mike didn't respond to my posting, so I let the
> matter drop,

So you let him get away with his misinformation?

> and I'm not going to study dozens of posts in order to get
> a handle on Mike's position,

You don't need to, Curtis.  It's all nicely summarized in the following:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

> just to satisfy you.

Has nothing to do with me, Curtis.  Perhaps you've heard the saying
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again."  It means that too
many people give up too easily.  A good example is the working of
homework problems.  Another example is the countering of
misinformation in this newsgroup.

> You are taking him to task, so have at it.

I am, Curtis, and I don't need your insults to divert attention
away from the issue.

> If you make a blunderous mistake, admit it and move on.

The key word here is "if", Curtis.  I'm still waiting for you to
identify the allegedly "inept" action on my part.

> That would get *me* off of your back, anyway.

Famous last words.

> Then you could concentrate on your exchanges with Marty and Mike,
> without being distracted by me.

Both are playing their own games, Curtis.  Timbol has admitted to
responding to me for entertainment purposes.  Marty has admitted to
playing "infantile games" in the past, and is clearly playing one
now, given his recent complaint about my antispammed ID.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 23:45:10
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?

> In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
> as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> emulates many different kinds of CPUs.

Oh really?  Does that mean MAME will allow me to run any application
written for any of those CPUs, game or not?

> It creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of
> various kinds of machines, arcade games among them,

Any other applications?

> can be accurately reproduced, provided that the program code for said
> CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump files or "ROMs" for
> short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate various kinds of
> arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern architectures.

Will it let me run CP/M applications, like the Magic Wand word
processor?

> As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
> lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
>
> Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
> that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
> about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
> used in the hardware of these systems.

And the games had nothing to do with it?

> Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
> it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
> making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
> into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.

And the games had nothing to do with it?

> Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
> my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.

Perhaps you should spend more time doing that then playing "infantile
games" on USENET, Marty.  PacMan won't respond to you when you insult
him.

> Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> Usenet?

You're presupposing the above is a complete description of your
motivation, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               03-Nov-99 15:57:00
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: VisualAge 4 troubles

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On 1 Nov 1999 19:56:53 -0500, Jason wrote:

>It looks like we can't rely on IBM to give us the good programming tools 
>anymore.

It's probably what happens when everything had to be blindly pushed to do
Java.

Java has it's place - but not blindly everywhere.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 23:51:04
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

> [snip]
 
>>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
 
>>> Err... It makes my day?
 
>> By playing games?

> Indeed, my good man. Indeed.
> Many's been the long winding evening turned into bliss and joy by the 
> simple, yet sofisticated virtue of the odd session of "Bomb Jack", 
> "Galaxian" or even "Mr Do" (not "Donkey Kong" however; I never liked 
> that ape).

PacMan?  Or Ms. PacMan?  (Why didn't they call it PacWoman?)

> Before MAME, I had to steal coins, leave the house, find a handy time 
> machine and warp back to that era of wonders, the Eighties, when men 
> were still men and computer games were only found in arcades. These 
> youngsters nowadays! They don't know how good they have it!

How about "Asteroids"?  I can still remember traveling to a remote
location to chase an asteroid occultation, going into a small
burger stand to get a bite before the observation, and seeing
some kid playing the only game in the seating area:  "Asteroids".
The coincidence was amusing.

>>> MAME is merely an engine. Like, many games need Windows 95 <shudder> 
>>> to run, but it would be wrong to state that every Windows 95 
>>> "programmer" has an affection for games.
 
>> Windows 95 does other things besides playing games

> Hah! name one!

GPF?

>> (well, at least it tries).

> I see I spoke too soon.
> Well, it was a nalogy; we've learned in this group that they're 
> supposed to be slightly off.

From whom did you learn that?

>>>>> Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
>>>>> Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.
  
>>>> Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!
 
>>> Sheer luck, Sir. Sheer luck.
 
>> Practice makes perfect.

> [snip]

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
>>>>>>> Europan!"
>>>>>>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)
 
>>>>>> From Io or Ganymede?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oops, I gave it away.
 
>>>>> Maybe. Let's wait and see.
 
>>>> You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
>>>> in this newsgroup.
 
>>> No reasoning needed here, just decent reading skills <G>.
 
>> Some people lack those as well.

> It's easy to miss a letter.

Or two.  Or three.

Hmm.  That last line of mine sounds like Victor Borge.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 00:02:10
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

> [snip]

>>>>> I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
>>>>> version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
>>>>> "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...

>>>> You like wet, spongy ground?

>>> Do ye not mock the Name of Bog.
>>> For Peet's sake...

>> Is Bog related to Nog, of Deep Space Nine fame (or infamy, as the case
>> may be)?

> It seems we're making Him up as we go along here.

Whoa!  Isn't the capitalized "Him" reserved for the "Creator"?

> [snip]

>>>>> Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
>>>>> Harmless, but alas incureable.

>>>> But preventable.

>>> You're clearly not suffering from the syndrome, otherwise you'd have 
>>> known what an utterly meaningless remark that is <G>.

>> That presupposing the remark was meaningless.

> As I see it, the entire point of the "trying-to-look-interesting" 
> syndrome - or TTLI, as we hard-cases call it - is _not_ trying to 
> prevent it. It's probably a paradox, or at the very least one doc 
> (this is a pun nicked from Robert Heinlein, first time I found use for
> it).

Oh, so you *want* to try and look interesting.

> [snip]

>>>>>>> thanks

>>>>>> You're welcome.

>>>>> Don't mention it.

>>>> Too late.

>>> Never mind.

>> Said in a high, squeaky Saturday Night Live-ish voice?  Was that Ruth
>> Buzzi?  I could imagine Lily Tomlin saying it as well, but I remember
>> her more for the raspy snorts about being the phone company -- "we
>> don't have to care".

> Don't remember ever seeing an episode that makes some sort of bell 
> ring. I'm beginning to get a distinct "League of Gentlemen" (BBC 
> again, I'm afraid) feeling here, but I can't put my digit on it...

Wasn't it some long, whiny complaint from some concerned citizen
during the Weekend Update segment, only to be told that the complaint
was based on a misunderstanding?  Following the realization came
"Never mind".  They used it rather frequently.

> [snip]

>>>> Isn't using a book cheating?

>>> I had the "Muldaur" part from memory, but for some reason I thought 
>>> her first name was Ann. Glad I checked. TUHOT is a very good book; it 
>>> covers the original series, the Next Generation and the movies up to 
>>> No VIII. Nothing on DS9 or Voyager, which is sort of a shame.

>> Depending on your point of view.  Some people consider Voyager an
>> illegitimate child.

> Well, the original series isn't rerun anywhere at the moment,

No SciFi channel available over the satellite?

> and one can watch only so many reruns of TNG. It was that or serious 
> withdrawal symptoms. The one thing I don't like is all this PC stuff, 
> you know: Be nice to the poor aliens; don't blast planets away with 
> your foton torpedos; Prime Directive this and that...(Grmbl! Grmbl! 
> Stupid Prime Directive thing...)

That spelling made me think of "futon" torpedos.  Hilarious!

> Kirk was a lot more fun. And in that respect, so was Babylon 5 (it's 
> probably a mortal sin to mention Star Trek and Babylon 5 in the same 
> sentence,

Not as far as I am concerned.

> but there you go) (Babylon 5 dissapeared from Belgian 
> screens a long time ago, BTW).

How long ago?  The fifth and final season wrapped up many months ago.
TNT is still doing reruns on Saturday morning.  Two episodes, back
to back.

>>> BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
>>> and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
>>> Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
>>> new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
>>> with.

>> Deep Space Nine has finished its run over here.  Only Voyager remains.
>> At least they've gotten away from having the Kazon chase them across
>> the quadrant.

> Oh yes. And now we have the "new improved Borg", with queen. It's just
> not the same anymore.

But the queen was introduced in a TNG movie.  Don't blame Voyager.

> Mind you, any show that spends an entire episode on the slow decay of 
> a copy of ship and crew (last week's episode over here, "Course: 
> Oblivion" IIRC) deserves being put out of its misery.

It was episode with Janeway and Paris as lizards that hit bottom for
me.

> You know what would be funny: the final episode of Voyager ends with 
> the crew arriving in what they think is the Alpha Quadrant, only to 
> find out they've been going in circles and are back at the ruins of 
> the Caretaker's station. Heh heh heh!

There's a rumor going around that they will actually make it back to
the Alpha Quadrant this season, now that Deep Space Nine has finished
its run.

> Well, at least Neelix makes it home...

Da capo.

> [snip]

>>>>>> Now, how do you break a killfile?

>>>>> Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
>>>>> quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
>>>>> This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
>>>>> Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
>>>>> surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.

>>>> You don't say!

>>> We live and learn, don't we?

>> Some of us do.  I wonder about some others.

> At least now they know they could have a good time with a futzed-up 
> killfile.

Assuming they can figure out how Marty futzed-up his.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 00:04:07
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:

> But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
> the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he stated
> that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
> correct.

What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the self-extracting
archive would run in a DOS session.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      04-Nov-99 01:02:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:26:11
Subj: Esther lays it on the line (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Java, O

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (3 Nov 1999 23:33:43 GMT):
>I don't need a palm-sized gizmo... if I needed that kind of

HPC/Pro runs up to 800x600.  Hitachi has a pretty cool tablet-only
device, but that's $1200 street (most of these things, the good ones,
are selling for list, and are difficult to get).  But, those are too
big (might as well get a notebook) -- small is where it's at for me.
There are more WinCE devices than there are OS2 ISVs, if you'd like
to check it out.  J680.  Check it out.

>portability, I'd go for a wearable PC complete with visor and goggles.

Hey!  I'm not a nerd, or at least never advertise my nerdness (if I
have any).  Besides, visor...and goggles.  Where do you put it when
you're done?  Anyway, that's just the display.  It's possible you'll
see a CE device do that RSN (CE isn't just palms and handhelds, it's
also pretty much any device.  You could buy (still can) the entire
CE OS (2.11) for about $1000, and build it however you want (comes
as source, libraries, and a platform builder), for many different
CPUs.

>(Another one of my coworkers reviewed two such models recently, but 
>*I* wanted to do it first!)

Is that right.

>And writing about such things is a hard sell for my readership.

And your readership is OS2 users?  I know it's not, but then what is
it in .advocacy that gets you 'to the people'?  I think .advocacy is
the worst example of OS2 users -- not even close to real life.  And
it's the same crowd (or as you might call it, community) that seem to
go beating the same dead horse time after time.

>There's not much I could say about them that they wouldn't find in PC 
>Week or PC Magazine... which means that S@R could use the space more

(no comment -- that could be printed)

>productively. (There's a bunch of cool stuff that I don't get to 
>cover. That's okay, because there's an even bigger bunch of neat toys 
>that I *do* get to play with.)

Oh, yeah, but do you really want to?  You don't seem all that enthused,
but maybe that's just because there's not much to be all that enthused,
about.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           03-Nov-99 12:15:22
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:21
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <mgkfOMMpz5KMwXnnxqtrezgXoGp8@4ax.com>, on 11/02/99 at 10:58 AM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:

> The warp4  ini files are just as volatile and prone to problems as the
> windows registry. This is my and many other OS/2 users that I knew and
> discussed the matter with's experience.

BULL! Pure unadulterated BULL! The stability of the OS/2 ini files is
several orders of magnitude higher than the totally unacceptable level of
Windows 9x.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           03-Nov-99 12:17:05
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <19991102.9141946@mis.configured.host>, on 11/02/99 at 09:14 AM,
   Joseph <josco@ibm.net> said:

> Oddly, OS/2 allows for multiple, time stamped archives of the desktop 
> and ini files where as windows does not.  If the Windows and OS/2's 
> technology are equally volatile as you claim then clearly MS's  decision
> to not allow automated registry archives is a disadvantage.  

Of course you are right. I have never had to install Unimaint on my Notes
Server, my Notes database storage machine, etc. The only machine I use it
on is the one I use to experiment with new software, multiple operating
systems, etc.

Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal machine
is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           03-Nov-99 12:19:27
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Microsoft MVPs were paid!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <kKKT3.2654$hI6.49872@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, on 11/02/99 at 11:47
PM,
   "Dale Ross" <dross1@carolina.rr.com> said:

> The IRS is one of the reasons it was setup as an "awards" program. You
> can believe it or discount it or try to find some twist in it. I am not
> going to argue the point with you.

Sure you are, Dale, because you remain what you always were,- a no good,
lying, paid Lemming of Bill Gates.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 03-Nov-99 17:47:13
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:

> Marty writes:

-- snip --


> >> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
> >> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.
>
> > Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.
>
> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

If you seriously believe that this makes any difference, then you are
supporting my
belief that you are, indeed, self-deluded.

-- snip --


> > Take another look at the URL:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Nor does it need to. That you would attempt to make this an issue indicates
your
desperation.

Karel, are you listening?


> >>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> >>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> >>>>>>> other tool can?
>
> >>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> >>>>>> file as argument.
>
> >>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.
>
> >>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
>
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
> >> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?
>
> > Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
> > been shattered into tiny little pieces.
>
> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
> javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Again, if you seriously believe that WinZip would choke on your "special" copy 
of
JAVAINUF.EXE, then prove it. Otherwise, your pathetic attempts at not
admitting
your mistake only supports my belief that you suffer from an "I am NOMAD! I am
PERFECT!" syndrome.


> >>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,
>
> >> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
> >> in the same way, Marty.
>
> > Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

Are you listening, Karel? Are you still impressed by this guy's "logic?"
<chuckle>


> >>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
> >>> behave the same is.
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.
>
> > You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
> > decompression tools.
>
> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

Did Marty claim such? No. I guess this is another one of your "non sequitor"
thingies.


Curtis


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 12:51:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> > The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, one
must
> > have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The statement 
is
> > clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.
> 
> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> 
>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> 
>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> 
> what would you conclude?

And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 03-Nov-99 17:55:17
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:

> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --


> > Marty didn't say that you claimed Mike *couldn't* view the contents of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE (in Windows), he simply said that you refuse to accept or
> > admit that Mike *could* do so.
>
> Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

Are you really that blind/stubborn/desperate/insane??!? The exchange betwixt
you and me centers around your refusal to admit your error when you claimed
that one needed to run JAVAINUF.EXE on an OS/2 platform in order to examine
the contents of the archive. If you were to admit this error, I would bow
out of the thread. My continued presence indicates that you have yet to make
such an admission, at least as a response to me.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          03-Nov-99 12:57:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff,

The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
processes the archive and can be removed from the 
executable with no negative impact on the executable's
ability to process the archive.

Thus, I have used the following definitions:

1) SELF-EXTRACTING: archive processing portion of the
executable; OS/2 executable code
2) ARCHIVE: the archive imbedded in the executable
3) DOS stub: generic DOS executable code for issuing
a message if the executable is loaded in a DOS
environment
4) Executable: the complete .EXE file that contains
the above items

Item 3 has no specific function relative to items 1
and 2 and is totally extraneous vis-a-vis archive
processing.  Therefore, any reference to SELF-EXTRACTING,
SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE, or ARCHIVE, does not include
the DOS stub.  To say that the executable runs in DOS 
is the same as saying the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE runs 
in DOS.  

Following your position, I can "run" any Windows 95
program in OS/2.  However, I tried a Win 32 program
in an OS/2 dosbox and received the following:

">pcmwin32
This program cannot be run in DOS mode."

Note that the author of this program disagrees with
your definition: namely, the author does not agree 
that running a DOS stub is the same as the program 
running.

Bennie Nelson

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>
> >Did you read my post before recycling your useless
> >blather?
> 
> Did you read the thread before offering yet more irrelevancy?
> 
> >The self-extraction code is different from the code
> >that executes in DOS to display the message that the
> >program must run in OS/2. This "DOS stub" is totally
> >unnecessary vis-a-vis the archive extraction process
> >and is distinct and separate from the function of the
> >OS/2 extraction code.  The extraction code will run
> >perfectly and completely without the "DOS stub."  But,
> >the OS/2 extraction code will only execute in OS/2.
> 
> None of this has any relevancy to Marty's point that the file contains
> a stub, and it does indeed run under DOS. This is the point that
> Tholen has been foolishly arguing against. Obviously, like your
> dim-witted "champion", you've failed to grasp the very simple, true,
> logical statements Marty has made.
> 
> It's ironic that you fancy yourself to be so "logical". In fact,
> you're not all that swift, and Marty's point has sailed right over
> your head at 100 MPH. No wonder why your wife and son have a hard time
> communicating with you.
> 
> But if it wasn't bad enough that you can't seem to grasp even that
> one, simple concept, you drop the ball again:
> 
> >These two separate programs are merged with the
> >archive data to create an executable.  The executable
> >will "run" in DOS, but the SELF-EXTRACTION code will
> >not. Since the purpose of the program is to extract
> >the archived data
> 
> No, the purpose of the stub is not to extract the archived data.
> Again, your "logic" fails, and you plunge into irrelevant issues that
> have nothing whatsoever to do with Marty's statements.
> 
> Try to focus. I know that it must be hard for you.
> 
> >it is erroneous to say that the
> >executable works in DOS.
> 
> No, it isn't. As Marty has explained, and you "fail to comprehend" (as
> your mentally-ill mentor would point out), the stub did indeed execute
> in DOS. It even displayed a message. That's not magic. That's
> executing software.
> 
> >If you wish to say that
> >the executable runs in DOS, then you are quite
> >correct.
> 
> Duh. We already know that Marty is correct, and that Tholen is wrong
> and dumb to be arguing with Marty's statements and Mike Timbol's
> statements, both of which have been proven to be true.
> 
> It seems to me that you simply don't like when anyone except Tholen
> focusses on "the branch". When Tholen does it, it apparently equates
> to "logic" in your mind, but when those other "emotionally blocked
> people" (as you put it) do it, then they're "unskilled at logic".
> Perhaps you're just emotionally blocked, and that's why you run
> interference for Tholen, and make yourself look like a silly, naive,
> foolish hypocrite when you argue against the same sort of logic that
> you praise when he spews it out.
> 
> Furthering this theory, I believe that people like you become
> hypocrites because you're "emotionally blocked" over a niche, pet
> product.
> 
> >If you equate running with working, you
> >are quite incorrect.  The program may execute in DOS,
> >but, since it is a SELF-EXTRACTION program and the
> >SELF-EXTRACTION program imbedded in the executable
> >will not work in DOS, it is correct to say that the
> >SELF-EXTRACTION archive will not work in DOS.
> 
> None of this has any relevancy to Mike's point that he was able to
> examine the contents of the archive without needing to run the
> self-extracting code within that file. This is other point that Tholen
> has been foolishly arguing against. Again, you obviously emulate your
> witless "buddy", and fail to grasp the very simple, true, logical
> statements Mike has made.
> 
> Frankly, you don't seem to know much about either programming, *or*
> logic. You're certainly telling us nothing we don't already know about
> programming, and otherwise, you're simply demonstrating that you're
> incapable of understanding the points that Marty and Mike have made
> when you resort to defending, endorsing, and/or promoting the same
> lack of comprehension of those points, and irrelevant/illogical
> responses to those points that Tholen has already exhibited

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 03-Nov-99 18:20:04
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vp9d0$cr3$2@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.
>
>>> Oh really?  
>
>> Yes, really.  Look at any reference implementation of Java 2 and you'll
>> see those classes are not included.
>
>Illogical.  How can Java 2 security classes not be included in Java 2,
>Mike?

It is you who are preceding from a false premise, and using circular logic.
The fact of the matter is that the classes are not "Java 2 security classes"
because they are not part of Java 2.  You find that illogical, yet it
is, in fact, the truth.

Obviously something's wrong with your logic.

>>>> As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
>>>> on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
>>>> classes".
>
>>> IBM disagrees, Mike:
>>>
>>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     
>
>> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The n
>> ewer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer 
>> description several times.  I'll do so again here:
>
>Unnecessary, Mike.

I see you're conceding defeat on this point as well.  You present the 
earlier, incorrect description, which I've refuted several times based 
on the contents of the JDK, and based on IBM's newer, more accurate 
description.  You refuse to address that at all, instead choosing to 
delete it and merely repeat your incorrect description four more times.


>>>>>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.
>
>>>>>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.
>
>>>>> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>>>>> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>>>>> browsing.  
>
>>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?
>
>>> In IBM's words:
>>>
>>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>>> ] applets.
>>>
>>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>>> browsing, Mike.
>
>> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
>several occasions.

Tell me, then, the web page which contains one of these "Java 
applications" that you've executed while browsing.

>> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
>> is repeating your incorrect claims.
>
>I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike. 

Yet all of my claims are correct, based on IBM's up-to-date description
of the JDK, plus the contents of the actual JDK itself.  

Evidence which you refuse to address.

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kasommer@sherrill.kiva.net                        03-Nov-99 13:30:16
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Voice dictation and writing (Re: Esther says down with Palm)

From: kasommer@sherrill.kiva.net (Kim A. Sommer)

In article <zozo81v45h.7p.uno@sage.40th.com>,
uno@40th.com <reply@only.n.news.40th.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>(You write articles longhand?  There's no way I could keep up.  Why
>don't dictate to your computer if you can't type that well/fast?  BTW,
>and don't take this the wrong way, I've never read an article of yours
>-- have any URLs so I can see how it comes out when you write ala Andy
>Rooney?)

I have a comment on this.  

A person's writing in longhand can be markedly different from what they
would come up with via dictation/speaking and even typing. Heck, I find
there is a big differnce between typing on a typewriter and on a PC.  The
"voice" changes according to the method.  The discipline of writing well
with pen and paper is a reward to those who practice it.

I know of some writers who decry the use of word processors as a way to
for authors to write more and say less (Harlan Elison comes to mind).  I
I know of one author, James Alexander Thom, who, like Esther, writes
everything longhand.  His prose is well thought out and his penmanship is
wonderful.  He refers to himself as a wordprocessor.


This is a bit off-topic but voice dictation or other technologies are 
not solutions for everyone who writes.


regards,
Kim






-- 
-------
Kim A. Sommer   
Humans do it Better!  The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Kiva Networking (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 19:05:18
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:59:37, tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> >>>>>> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
> >>>>>> I do?"
> >>>>>>    --Nick Danger
> 
> >>>>> LOL! I should have seen that one coming.
> 
> >>>> Are you familiar with Nicky and Nancy?
> 
> >>> All I have is the Nick Danger readout you once force-fed me <G>.
> 
> >> Force-fed?!
> 
> > I *did* put a distinct <G> there...
> 
> I'm aware of that.
> 
> >>> It was enough to make me momentarily wish I lived on another continent.
> 
> >> Surely you can find the recordings somewhere in Europe, maybe even
> >> on Europa.
> 
> > I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
> > version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
> > "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...
> 
> You like wet, spongy ground?
> 
Do ye not mock the Name of Bog.
For Peet's sake...

> >>> You Americans sure have some good comedy stuff - sometimes...
> 
> >> Hasn't rubbed off on some of the newsgroup participants.
> 
> > Not all of them are American, so some of them are bound to have a 
> > *decent* sense of humour <he speaks, hastily ducking for cover>.
> 
> Many of the participants I've dealt with are either Americans or are
> at least living and working in America.  (Note how that allows for
> South Americans.)
> 
> >>> [snip]
> 
> >>>>>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.
> 
> >>>>> Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.
> 
> >>>> You mean browser?
> 
> >>> browser > Yahoo > search engine > David Tholen
> 
> >> And the connection to "'bot"?
> 
> > Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
> > Harmless, but alas incureable.
> 
> But preventable.
> 
You're clearly not suffering from the syndrome, otherwise you'd have 
known what an utterly meaningless remark that is <G>.

> >>> [snip]
> 
> >>>>>> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
> >>>>>> the complaint in the first place.
> 
> >>>>> Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
> >>>>> yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.
> 
> >>>> I already have.  I haven't received an answer.
> 
> >>> Apparently it's got something to do with Netscape's filter. I don't 
> >>> use Netscape for news, so don't ask me for further explanations.
> 
> >> I don't use Netscape for news either.
> 
> >>> [snip] 
> 
> >>>>>> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
> >>>>>> Marty's "infantile game".
> 
> >>>>> I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
> >>>>> fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
> >>>>> even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
> >>>>> of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
> >>>>> cells, and yet...
> 
> >>>> ...people like Marty use those brain cells to play "infantile games".
> 
> >>> Allow me to play "Johnny Little Bastard" here for a moment: It usually
> >>> takes two to play.
> 
> >> Not in this case.
> 
> >>> So, even if Marty had started playing a game (which he sort of admitted
> >>> already), you've given him plenty of ammo to continue...
> 
> >> Like some facts?
> 
> >>> Back to my old cowardly self: No comment...
> 
> >> Aww...
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...
> 
> >>>>>>>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
> >>>>>>>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.
> 
> >>>>>>> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
> >>>>>>> mind". So: thanks.
> 
> >>>>>> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.
> 
> >>>>> You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 
> 
> >>>> Supports?
> 
> >>> thanks
> 
> >> You're welcome.
> 
> > Don't mention it.
> 
> Too late.
> 
Never mind.

> >>>>> supports my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 

> >>>>> is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
> >>>>> out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
> >>>>> different reasons then.
> 
> >>>> And also irrelevant to the issue of people reading that which has been
> >>>> allegedly killfiled.
> 
> >>> I cannot be helt responsible for the mental problems of other people.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you should be.  Unless, of course,
you
> >> played the Medusan ambassador on that Star Trek episode with the same
> >> actress who played Dr. Pulaski in the Next Generation's second season.
> >> Her name slips my mind at the moment...
> 
> > Diana Muldaur (Since I've started talking with you, I've made sure to 
> > always have my copy of "the unauthorised History of Trek" handy. It 
> > doesn't have an index, but I don't really need it anyway).
> 
> Isn't using a book cheating?
> 
I had the "Muldaur" part from memory, but for some reason I thought 
her first name was Ann. Glad I checked. TUHOT is a very good book; it 
covers the original series, the Next Generation and the movies up to 
No VIII. Nothing on DS9 or Voyager, which is sort of a shame.

BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
with.

> >>>>>>> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 

> >>>>>>> replies)
> 
> >>>>>> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of
references.
> 
> >>>>> Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
> >>>>> always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.
> 
> >>>> He's making direct references now, as is Mike Timbol.  So did David
> >>>> Leblanc.
> 
> >>> Indeed, but in Marty's case, preceded by the "announcement" that his 
> >>> killfile was broken, so at least he's consequent. I don't know about 
> >>> the others.
> 
> >> Now, how do you break a killfile?
> 
> > Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
> > quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
> > This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
> > Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
> > surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.
> 
> You don't say!

We live and learn, don't we?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 19:05:17
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 12:53:40, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
[snip]
> >>> I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of 
> >>> the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it
> 
> >> Which demonstrates his attraction to games.
> 
> > That comment might be jumping the gun a little bit.
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> > Merely from the fact that someone assists in the development of a
> > piece of software that happens to be games-related (MAME isn't a
> > game by itself, remember, it only allows one to play those sacred
> > arcade games in the privacy of their own house <G>) does not follow
> > that this person would be attracted to games.
> 
> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> 
Err... It makes my day?

MAME is merely an engine. Like, many games need Windows 95 <shudder> 
to run, but it would be wrong to state that every Windows 95 
"programmer" has an affection for games.

> > Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
> > Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.
> 
> Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!
> 
Sheer luck, Sir. Sheer luck.

> >>> (I already knew it, but it had kinda slipped to the background). Now,
> >>> like I said, I like MAME,
> 
> >> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
> 
> >>> and I simply wanted to avoid people getting the wrong idea about it.
> 
> >> How does a comment about you liking it keep people from getting the
> >> wrong idea about it?
> 
> >>> You see, others reading these threads who are aware of the nature
> >>> of your "exchanges" with Marty might get the impression that you
> >>> were putting down MAME.
> 
> >> Illogical, given that I only noted his attraction to games.
> 
> >>> I'm pretty sure you weren't, but I wanted to play safe.
> 
> >> If people are going to illogically conclude that I was putting down
> >> MAME, commenting that you like it won't keep that from happening.
> 
> > You're probably right. I was giving my reasons/sentiments for making 
> > the statement. In afterthought, I guess I don't have enough autority 
> > on UseNet to make a difference in anything. Oh well...
> 
> You don't need authority.  If you want to sound like you're making a
> difference, just throw around jargon like Lucien has.  If you really
> want to make a difference, apply some logic.
> 
> >>> After that, one thing led to another and now I've publically admitted 
> >>> to owning pirated software. Oh well...
> >>>
> >>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
> >>> Europan!"
> >>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)
> 
> >> From Io or Ganymede?
> >>
> >> Oops, I gave it away.
> 
> > Maybe. Let's wait and see.
> 
> You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
> in this newsgroup.

No reasoning needed here, just decent reading skills <G>.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 03-Nov-99 21:08:06
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >>>> file?
> 
> >>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
> >>> self-extracting archive,
> 
> >> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.
> 
> > And the "executable file" in question, namely, JAVAINUF.EXE, happens to be 
a
> > self-extracting archive, the contents of which can indeed be examined
without
> > running the self-extraction module, using the proper tool(s).
> 
> That means you're looking at the contents of the extraction, not the
> executable file.

This level of semantic hairsplitting again indicates profound
desperation on your part, your inevitable denials notwithstanding. Are
you claiming that JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* an "executable file?" The file
"classes.zip" *IS* contained therein, and regardless of whether you
choose to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file,  by examining the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE with the proper tool (e.g., WinZip), one can
obtain, and examine, classes.zip.

OTOH, if you choose *NOT* to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file, your
original, 5-chevroned question above is meaningless and irrelevant,
because JAVAINUF.EXE is the file in question, not some random
"executable file" (which JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* in this case).

So, which is it, Dave? It has to be one or the other. Take your pick.

> >>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.
> 
> >> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".
> 
> > On the contrary, I am correctly observing that you are self-deluded,
> 
> Typical invective.

Actually, no. I've gone over this before, but I am simply observing
displayed behavior, which is not "invective."

> > considering that you still appear to believe that one needs OS/2 in order
to
> > examine the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> 
>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> 
>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> 
> what would you conclude?

Oops! You goofed (again). Asking this question in a vacuum is a logical
no-no, as you well know (assuming even a modicum of intelligence on your
part). For starters, one must question why you  would even run
JAVAINUF.EXE on a DOS platform, when you already know that it's an
OS/2-targetted self extracting archive. The answer, of course, is that
it's a failed attempt to "prove" your (incorrect) claim that one *must*
be running OS/2 in order to obtain the contents of the archive in
question. Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
trying InfoZip on the file in OS/2, especially in light of the fact that
other people said that they used a different tool altogether (i.e.,
WinZip) to extract the contents thereof on a **NON-OS/2** platform.

The bottom line is that I wouldn't make such blunders in the first
place, never mind what conclusions I may draw if I had done so.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I did do the above.
What I certainly would ***NOT*** do is deny the possibility that other
tools on other platforms *could* have extracted the contents of the
archive, especially when someone posted a screen shot of another tool on
another platform displaying a listing of the archive's contents.

Another thing that I certainly would ***NOT*** do is repetitiously post
my failed attempts at using InfoZip in a lame attempt to disprove claims
that WinZip *could* extract the contents of the archive in question:

> >>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> >>>>
> >>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
> >>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.
> >>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will
> >>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> >>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> >>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility). Where
> >>> is the logic, here?
> 
> >> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
> >> able to do it.
> 
> > Why do you use OS/2, Dave?
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis.  Of course, I've answered that question so many
> times in this newsgroup, I wonder how you could have missed it.

(As an aside to anyone lurking in this meandering thread (and you have
my sympathy if you are), this response from Dave supports my assertion
that he "doesn't get the gist of anything," an assertion I made a little
over one year ago.  It's laughable that he would actually respond to the
rhetorical question with a serious response, apparently ignoring the
context in which the question was asked.)

> > After all, both OS/2 and Window NT are tools, and they are both
> > Operating Systems.
> 
> So is Solaris, Curtis.  So is UNICOS, Curtis.  So is RISC OS.
> 
> > Based on your logic, if OS/2 can do any particular thing, then the
> > other (i.e., NT) should also be able to do it, so there is no reason
> > to prefer OS/2 over NT.
> 
> Illogical, as I was not comparing operating systems, Curtis.  Unzip
> utilities and operating systems are rather different.

Oh, I see, your "logic" applies to certain types of software tools, but
not others, based on whether this "logic" advances your "argument" or
simply makes you look foolish.

> > OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools
are
> > created equal.
> 
> I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
> extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

On *your* copy? Are you claiming that there's something special about
your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, which came from the same source as Mike
Timbol's and mine?

I realize that you will deny this, but your statements continue to get
more desperate with each passing day.

> > And you are illogical in the extreme if you think that one tool's
> > failure to do a particular thing necessarily implies that all such
> > tools must fail in a similar manner.
> 
> On the contrary, Curtis, you are the one being illogical in the
> extreme, because you've ignored another possibility.

Uh, you mean the one that I soundly disproved? (Which indicates that I
did, in fact, *NOT* ignore it).

> >>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> >>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> >>> other tool can?
> 
> >> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> >> file as argument.
> 
> > Why? Are you really that naive?
> 
> You're the one who is naive, Curtis.

How so? By actually expecting you to admit error? Perhaps you're right.

> > You are admitting technical ineptitude here.
> 
> I'm doing no such thing, Curtis.  However, you're showing your own
> ineptitude.

Feel free to elaborate. If you really think you have anything on which
to elaborate.

-- snip --

> > Just how ignorant/naive are you?
> 
> Less than you.

About nameless rocks in space, perhaps, but not about the ability to
view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE on a non-OS/2 platform. After all,
I've done it. You, OTOH, apparently have not and cannot (or will not).

Oh. Right. *YOUR* version of JAVAINUF.EXE is special. I forget.
<chuckle>

(Maybe that's the "another possibility" to which you alluded earlier?
That your *special* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE can not only *not* be examined
on a non-OS/2 platform, but contains the Java 2 Security Classes as
well? LOL!)

> >>> Are you trying to make OS/2 look bad?
> 
> >> Illogical.  How does the output of unzip make OS/2 look bad?
> 
> > Was I talking about the output of unzip?
> 
> Obviously, given that that was the evidence I supplied.
> 
> > No, I was talking about *you.*
> 
> I didn't create the output of unzip, Curtis.

You are saying that the output magically appeared with no intervention
on your part?

> > Talk about "illogical" . . .
> 
> Yes, you're demonstrating it in spades, Curtis.

Well, I'm sure I am to you. Somehow, that doesn't bother me too much.
Watching you squirm indicates that I'm hitting several nerves, your
indignant appeals to my alleged "illogic" notwithstanding.

> >>  "Are you really that stupid, Curtis?"  Do your postings here make USENET
> >> look bad?
> 
> > "Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery . . ."
> 
> On the contrary, I'm putting a mirror in front of your face, hoping
> you'll recognize something.

Recognize what, exactly? That I'm arguing with a
buffoon/idiot/troll/Nomad who must resort to mimicking his opponents'
arguments?

-- snip --

> > But believe what you will . . .
> 
> Prove what you can.

I have already proven that one can examine (and extract) the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE on a non-OS/2 platform, which is something you have yet to
acknowledge/admit. Your "counter argument" is the implication that there
is something "special" about your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE which prevents it
from being so examined.

Or, to put it another way, it's impossible to prove anything to someone
who lacks the intelligence, or will, to grasp the proof.

No, that isn't "invective" unless the proverbial shoe fits. Even then,
it isn't invective.

-- snip --

> >>> No need to "prove" it, any more than there is a need to "prove" that the
> >>> sky is blue on a clear day.
> 
> >> The sky didn't make a claim, Curtis.  Timbol did.
> 
> > Hmm. You are always using the ultra-nerdy phrase "non-sequitor" in cases
like
> > this.
> 
> Actually, I spell it correctly.  What's allegedly "ultra-nerdy" about it,
> Curtis?  Does your description advance your argument in any way?

One would hope that you spell it correctly; you've had so much practice
in using it.  Does your appeal for proof of that which is axiomatic
advance your argument in any way?

-- snip --

> > If you don't like my observations, you do have the
> > option of changing how I (and others) perceive you.
> 
> And how do you suggest I go about doing that, Curtis?  Shall I start
> using invective the way you do?  Shall I start crying "bullshit" in
> response to correct statements the way Timbol did?  Shall I start
> evangelizing OS/2 in Windows advocacy newsgroups the way Den Beste
> has evangelized Windows here?  Shall I start posting for entertainment
> purposes the way Eric Bennett does?  Shall I boisterously note the
> placement of people in my killfile, only to respond to their postings
> a short time later, the way Timbol and Marty have?

No, all you need to do is admit when you make a mistake, like claiming
that one has to run OS/2 in order to examine the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE.

> No thanks, Curtis.

Admitting error is too much for you, eh?

> >>>>>> Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
> >>>>>> requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
> >>>>>> running OS/2.  That's a keeper.
> 
> >>>>> It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.
> 
> >>>> What alleged ignorance, Mike?
> 
> >>> Your factual (not "alleged") ignorance of WinZip's capabilities, Dave.
> 
> >> I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
> >> you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?
> 
> > You have yet to acknowledge that the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE can be
examined
> > with WinZip,
> 
> That doesn't mean I questioned WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.

I never said that you "questioned" WinZip's capabilities, Dave, only
that you are ignorant of them.

> > but, instead, stubbornly insist on perpetrating the implication
> > that, since InfoZip cannot read the contents, WinZip must not be
> > able to either.
> 
> I am quite confident that WinZip can't successfully read my copy of
> javainuf.exe, Curtis.

What is the basis of this confidence, Dave? What is so special about
your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE?

You are the one playing games here.  Tell us why WinZip would fail on
your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, and then explain how that proves Mike
Timbol's inability to examine a different copy of JAVAINUF.EXE on his
Windows machine.

And explain how that disproves my screen shot of WinZip displaying a
listing of JAVAINUF.EXE's contents, when the JAVAINUF.EXE in question
was downloaded from the IBM web site, and is the Java 1.1.8 for OS/2
archive.

> >>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> 
> >>> -- [repeat of InfoZip's choking snipped] --
> 
> >>> Repeating your ineptness proves nothing but your ineptness.
> 
> >> I posted the output from InfoZip, Curtis.  Nothing inept about my use
> >> of InfoZip.
> 
> > There is much ineptness in not choosing a better tool when it's available,
> 
> Illogical, Curtis.  On what basis do you claim that there is a better tool
> available?
> 
> > one that many people have told you about, namely, WinZip.
> 
> On what basis do you call it better, Curtis?  That it can read a tar
> file doesn't make it any better for my present application, given that
> the file in question isn't a tar file.

That it can read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE while InfoZip cannot is
the basis, Dave.

> > There is much ineptness in stubbornly clinging to a failed line of
> > reasoning.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone stubbornly clinging to a failed line
> of reasoning.

Back to mimicry again . . .

Maybe I should co-opt your battle cry:

"Back to mimicry again. The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
logical argument."

> > Seriously, if you really want to "prove" that one has to run OS/2 in
> > order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, it stands to reason that
> > a strong tactic would be to use the tool that "everyone else" is
> > allegedly using, and prove that the tool in question does indeed fail.
> 
> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 03-Nov-99 21:08:06
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:22
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> 
>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> 
>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> 
> what would you conclude?

I have already addressed this above. It was a lengthy address, and do
not wish to repeat it here.

Why do you repeat the same lengthy question in one post?

> >> Do you call yourself "inept" when a light bulb burns out
> >> after you flip the light switch?
> 
> > How is this relevant, pray tell?
> 
> Running unzip with javainuf.exe as argument is as simple as flipping
> a light switch, Curtis.

True, but it still doesn't explain the relevance. After all, running
WinZip with JAVAINUF.EXE as an input file is equally simple, but the
results are quite different.

-- snip --

> > I have already answered that. You have even responded to my answer.
> 
> Then why not take up Timbol for his stubbornness?

As you pointed out, Mike didn't respond to my posting, so I let the
matter drop, and I'm not going to study dozens of posts in order to get
a handle on Mike's position, just to satisfy you. You are taking him to
task, so have at it. If you make a blunderous mistake, admit it and move
on. That would get *me* off of your back, anyway. Then you could
concentrate on your exchanges with Marty and Mike, without being
distracted by me.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 21:49:11
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

> [snip]

>>>>> I brought it up mainly because your mention of MAME remembered me of 
>>>>> the fact that Marty is involved in the development of it
 
>>>> Which demonstrates his attraction to games.
 
>>> That comment might be jumping the gun a little bit.
 
>> Not at all.

>>> Merely from the fact that someone assists in the development of a
>>> piece of software that happens to be games-related (MAME isn't a
>>> game by itself, remember, it only allows one to play those sacred
>>> arcade games in the privacy of their own house <G>) does not follow
>>> that this person would be attracted to games.
 
>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?

> Err... It makes my day?

By playing games?

> MAME is merely an engine. Like, many games need Windows 95 <shudder> 
> to run, but it would be wrong to state that every Windows 95 
> "programmer" has an affection for games.

Windows 95 does other things besides playing games (well, at least it
tries).

>>> Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
>>> Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.
 
>> Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!

> Sheer luck, Sir. Sheer luck.

Practice makes perfect.

>>>>> (I already knew it, but it had kinda slipped to the background). Now,
>>>>> like I said, I like MAME,
 
>>>> Irrelevant to the point I was making.
 
>>>>> and I simply wanted to avoid people getting the wrong idea about it.
 
>>>> How does a comment about you liking it keep people from getting the
>>>> wrong idea about it?
 
>>>>> You see, others reading these threads who are aware of the nature
>>>>> of your "exchanges" with Marty might get the impression that you
>>>>> were putting down MAME.
 
>>>> Illogical, given that I only noted his attraction to games.
 
>>>>> I'm pretty sure you weren't, but I wanted to play safe.
 
>>>> If people are going to illogically conclude that I was putting down
>>>> MAME, commenting that you like it won't keep that from happening.
 
>>> You're probably right. I was giving my reasons/sentiments for making 
>>> the statement. In afterthought, I guess I don't have enough autority 
>>> on UseNet to make a difference in anything. Oh well...
 
>> You don't need authority.  If you want to sound like you're making a
>> difference, just throw around jargon like Lucien has.  If you really
>> want to make a difference, apply some logic.

>>>>> After that, one thing led to another and now I've publically admitted 
>>>>> to owning pirated software. Oh well...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
>>>>> Europan!"
>>>>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)

>>>> From Io or Ganymede?
>>>>
>>>> Oops, I gave it away.

>>> Maybe. Let's wait and see.

>> You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
>> in this newsgroup.

> No reasoning needed here, just decent reading skills <G>.

Some people lack those as well.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 21:57:08
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>>>>>>> "Why don't you hold your finger next to your place in the script like
>>>>>>>> I do?"
>>>>>>>>    --Nick Danger

>>>>>>> LOL! I should have seen that one coming.

>>>>>> Are you familiar with Nicky and Nancy?

>>>>> All I have is the Nick Danger readout you once force-fed me <G>.

>>>> Force-fed?!

>>> I *did* put a distinct <G> there...

>> I'm aware of that.

>>>>> It was enough to make me momentarily wish I lived on another continent.

>>>> Surely you can find the recordings somewhere in Europe, maybe even
>>>> on Europa.

>>> I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
>>> version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
>>> "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...

>> You like wet, spongy ground?

> Do ye not mock the Name of Bog.
> For Peet's sake...

Is Bog related to Nog, of Deep Space Nine fame (or infamy, as the case
may be)?

>>>>> You Americans sure have some good comedy stuff - sometimes...

>>>> Hasn't rubbed off on some of the newsgroup participants.

>>> Not all of them are American, so some of them are bound to have a 
>>> *decent* sense of humour <he speaks, hastily ducking for cover>.

>> Many of the participants I've dealt with are either Americans or are
>> at least living and working in America.  (Note how that allows for
>> South Americans.)

>>>>> [snip]

>>>>>>>> There have been plenty of references to it in this newsgroup.

>>>>>>> Fair enough. I'll fire up the old 'bot then.

>>>>>> You mean browser?

>>>>> browser > Yahoo > search engine > David Tholen

>>>> And the connection to "'bot"?

>>> Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
>>> Harmless, but alas incureable.

>> But preventable.

> You're clearly not suffering from the syndrome, otherwise you'd have 
> known what an utterly meaningless remark that is <G>.

That presupposing the remark was meaningless.

>>>>> [snip]

>>>>>>>> Then ask him why he's no longer using that killfile and why he made
>>>>>>>> the complaint in the first place.

>>>>>>> Well, if you really want me to. But I don't see why you can't ask him 
>>>>>>> yourself. You see a lot more of him than I do.

>>>>>> I already have.  I haven't received an answer.

>>>>> Apparently it's got something to do with Netscape's filter. I don't 
>>>>> use Netscape for news, so don't ask me for further explanations.

>>>> I don't use Netscape for news either.

>>>>> [snip] 

>>>>>>>> Why?  Usually for entertainment purposes.  That's more evidence for
>>>>>>>> Marty's "infantile game".

>>>>>>> I still don't get it. Admittedly, I'm in COOA largely because it's 
>>>>>>> fun, but these threads aren't just funny anymore. They're hard work 
>>>>>>> even just to read, let alone come up with answers all the time. Most 
>>>>>>> of you people strike me as having a reasonable amount of active brain 
>>>>>>> cells, and yet...

>>>>>> ...people like Marty use those brain cells to play "infantile games".

>>>>> Allow me to play "Johnny Little Bastard" here for a moment: It usually
>>>>> takes two to play.

>>>> Not in this case.

>>>>> So, even if Marty had started playing a game (which he sort of admitted
>>>>> already), you've given him plenty of ammo to continue...

>>>> Like some facts?

>>>>> Back to my old cowardly self: No comment...

>>>> Aww...

>>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe I just have a sick mind...

>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's obvious that some of the people who claimed to have
>>>>>>>>>> killfiled me did continue to read some of the posts.

>>>>>>>>> I'm assuming here that you're implying: "No, you don't have a sick 
>>>>>>>>> mind". So: thanks.

>>>>>>>> I didn't imply anything with regard to your description.

>>>>>>> You did give an observational fact that corrobor... corobborr... 

>>>>>> Supports?

>>>>> thanks

>>>> You're welcome.

>>> Don't mention it.

>> Too late.

> Never mind.

Said in a high, squeaky Saturday Night Live-ish voice?  Was that Ruth
Buzzi?  I could imagine Lily Tomlin saying it as well, but I remember
her more for the raspy snorts about being the phone company -- "we
don't have to care".

>>>>>>> supports my theory and therefore makes it less likely that said theory 

>>>>>>> is a produce of an alleged degenerate psyche. It still doesn't rule 
>>>>>>> out the existence of a deviative personality, but that would be for 
>>>>>>> different reasons then.

>>>>>> And also irrelevant to the issue of people reading that which has been
>>>>>> allegedly killfiled.

>>>>> I cannot be helt responsible for the mental problems of other people.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say you should be.  Unless, of course,
you
>>>> played the Medusan ambassador on that Star Trek episode with the same
>>>> actress who played Dr. Pulaski in the Next Generation's second season.
>>>> Her name slips my mind at the moment...

>>> Diana Muldaur (Since I've started talking with you, I've made sure to 
>>> always have my copy of "the unauthorised History of Trek" handy. It 
>>> doesn't have an index, but I don't really need it anyway).

>> Isn't using a book cheating?

> I had the "Muldaur" part from memory, but for some reason I thought 
> her first name was Ann. Glad I checked. TUHOT is a very good book; it 
> covers the original series, the Next Generation and the movies up to 
> No VIII. Nothing on DS9 or Voyager, which is sort of a shame.

Depending on your point of view.  Some people consider Voyager an
illegitimate child.

> BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
> and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
> Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
> new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
> with.

Deep Space Nine has finished its run over here.  Only Voyager remains.
At least they've gotten away from having the Kazon chase them across
the quadrant.

>>>>>>>>> (in fairness, they could have read the quotations in other posters's 

>>>>>>>>> replies)

>>>>>>>> They're replying directly to my postings.  Check the list of
references.

>>>>>>> Some of them did sometimes (Brad Wardell springs to mind). IIRC, Marty
>>>>>>> always made indirect references prior to his killfile getting broken.

>>>>>> He's making direct references now, as is Mike Timbol.  So did David
>>>>>> Leblanc.

>>>>> Indeed, but in Marty's case, preceded by the "announcement" that his 
>>>>> killfile was broken, so at least he's consequent. I don't know about 
>>>>> the others.

>>>> Now, how do you break a killfile?

>>> Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
>>> quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
>>> This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
>>> Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
>>> surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.

>> You don't say!

> We live and learn, don't we?

Some of us do.  I wonder about some others.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mdk@agad.purdue.edu                               03-Nov-99 16:50:23
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: New Microsoft keyboard

From: Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu>

Have you seen the new Microsoft keyboard design?  This one really looks
pretty good:

http://www.ext.vt.edu/~pgr/images/new_microsoft_keyboard.jpg

--
Mark Kelley
Agriculture Information Systems
Purdue University



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Purdue University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 21:57:27
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, one
must
>>> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The statement 
is
>>> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.
 
>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>> 
>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>> 
>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>> 
>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>> 
>> what would you conclude?

> And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?

I didn't specify any particular unzipper, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 22:07:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>>>> You, _didn't_ read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
>>>>> thread,

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?

>>> You're mystified by a basic concept covered in those references.

>> Obviously I'm not mystified by a basic concept, Lucien,

> On the contrary, you are clearly and obviously mystified.

Pontification won't get you anywhere, Lucien.  Meanwhile, I prepared
two simple tests that prove my position.  The fact that you keep
avoiding them suggests to me that you realize how they prove my
position, but you're unwilling to admit it.

>> thus your conclusion is invalid.

> Wrong.

You're erroneously presupposing that I am mustified, Lucien.

> You need to read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
> thread to discern what is meant by "multi-level" in this discussion.

You need to take the two simple tests to discern why your position
is wrong.

>> I do find it rather ironic that you would talk about me being
>> allegedly mystified by a basic concept, considering how mystified
>> you are by such a basic concept.  If you disagree, try taking my
>> two simple tests.  You've deleted them over a half dozen times now.
>> Too embarassed to admit that you're wrong, Lucien?

> Your "test" is merely an attempt to deflect attention away from the
> issue of this thread and is therefore irrelevant.

Incorrect, given that the tests deal directly with the issue of this
thread.

>>> The meaning of the term "multi-level" as used here is discussed in
>>> those references.

>> I'm interested in your meaning, Lucien, not theirs.

> Mine is congruent with that discussed in those references cited in the
> "costly mistakes" thread.

On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?  I can't make such a
determination without knowing your meaning.

>>>> Incorrect, Lucien.  That is *not* my assertion concerning the JDK
>>>> sentence.

>>> Yes, it is your statement.

>> It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> On the contrary, it directly concerns the JDK sentence.

It concerns a portion of the JDK sentence, Lucien, but the meaning
depends on the entire sentence, not just a portion of it.

> Let's review again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.

> Here is your assertion concerning the JDK sentence:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

That doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.  Of course, I've told
you that already.  Still having reading comprehension problems?  Why
repeat the same mistake over and over?

> Here is my thesis statement again:
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.

Your thesis is irrelevant, given that it doesn't apply to the
present situation.  Do you often apply irrelevant theses to
situations, Lucien?

> Your assertion is congruent with my thesis statement.

You're erroneously presupposing that my assertion applies to the
JDK sentence, and that your thesis is relevant to the present
situation, Lucien.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 22:13:19
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> -- snip --

>>> Marty didn't say that you claimed Mike *couldn't* view the contents of
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE (in Windows), he simply said that you refuse to accept or
>>> admit that Mike *could* do so.

>> Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

> Are you really that blind/stubborn/desperate/insane??!?

I see you didn't answer the question, choosing instead to hurl yet more
invective.

> The exchange betwixt you and me centers around your refusal to admit
> your error

Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

> when you claimed that one needed to run JAVAINUF.EXE on an OS/2 platform
> in order to examine the contents of the archive.

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
 
   This program must be run under OS/2.
 
and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
 
   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.
 
what would you conclude?

> If you were to admit this error, I would bow out of the thread.

I'm waiting for you to show where I've allegedly refused to admit
an error.

> My continued presence indicates that you have yet to make
> such an admission, at least as a response to me.

Your continued presence looks like you taking advantage of an
opportunity to hurl insults.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         03-Nov-99 22:19:14
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>> Marty writes:

> -- snip --

>>>> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
>>>> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.

>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
>> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> If you seriously believe that this makes any difference, then you are
> supporting my belief that you are, indeed, self-deluded.

My belief is irrelevant, Curtis.  I know that it makes a difference.
That you think it doesn't only demonstrates that you are the one who
is self-deluded.

> -- snip --

>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Nor does it need to.

On the contrary, it does.

> That you would attempt to make this an issue indicates your
> desperation.

On the contrary, it represents reality, Curtis.

> Karel, are you listening?

Irrelevant, Curtis.

>>>>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
>>>>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
>>>>>>>>> other tool can?

>>>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>>>>>>>> file as argument.

>>>>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.

>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?

>>> Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
>>> been shattered into tiny little pieces.

>> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
>> javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Again, if you seriously believe that WinZip would choke on your
> "special" copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then prove it.

WinZip can't make bytes magically appear, Curtis.

> Otherwise, your pathetic attempts at not admitting your mistake only
> supports my belief that you suffer from an "I am NOMAD! I am PERFECT!"
> syndrome.

Typical invective.

>>>>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,

>>>> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
>>>> in the same way, Marty.

>>> Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

> Are you listening, Karel?

Irrelevant, Curtis.

> Are you still impressed by this guy's "logic?" <chuckle>

I'm impressed that he hasn't yet jumped to the wrong conclusions that
you have.

>>>>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
>>>>> behave the same is.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.

>>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
>>> decompression tools.

>> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

> Did Marty claim such?

He wrote:

M] just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
M] behave the same is.

> No.

Then explain the above quotation, Curtis.

> I guess this is another one of your "non sequitor" thingies.

Incorrect.  For one, I spell it word correctly.  For another, see the
above quotation.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 17:31:09
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Does MAME do anything besides play games?

In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It creates an environment in
which the video and sound hardware of various kinds of machines, arcade
games among them, can be accurately reproduced, provided that the
program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump
files or "ROMs" for short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate
various kinds of arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern
architectures.

As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.

Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
used in the hardware of these systems.

Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.

Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.

Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
Usenet?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Nov-99 22:53:02
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Tue, 02 Nov 1999 10:29:06 -0500, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

Let me get this straight - Tholen claims that logically all
decompression tools must behave the same, which means he must also
believe that all software within a given category must behave the same
(why else entertain such a belief), which means for example that OS/2
(an OS) must behave identically to NT (another OS) and yet he would
argue (and regularly does) that this is not the case.  Further, he
refuses to acknowledge clear, irrefutable evidence that one
decompression tool *does* behave differently from another, proving his
"logic" wrong.  Rather than admit his error he rejects reality.

Once again Tholen proves beyond any shadow of doubt that he is an
idiotic, illogical cretin.   Or a liar.   Or both.    


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Nov-99 22:57:24
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:57:39 -0500, Bennie Nelson
<b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:

>Jeff,
>
>The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
>adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
>DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
>processes the archive and can be removed from the 
>executable with no negative impact on the executable's
>ability to process the archive.
>
>Thus, I have used the following definitions:
>

Bennie,  you are trying to sidestep the fact the executable file DOES
run under DOS.   Doing a Tholen and trying to redefine what *part* of
the executable you wish to talk about just makes you look like a -
well - a Tholen.   And that's sad.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 23:02:13
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: New Microsoft keyboard

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:50:46, Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu> wrote:

> Have you seen the new Microsoft keyboard design?  This one really looks
> pretty good:
> 
> http://www.ext.vt.edu/~pgr/images/new_microsoft_keyboard.jpg
> 
ROTFLMAO!!!

This one's *definitely* worth the download time (I have a 28K8 line, 
in case you wondered).

I did notice they've left off the wrist support. What about CTS?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               03-Nov-99 22:59:11
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 3 Nov 1999 03:36:55 GMT, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

>Marty writes:
>
>> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
>>> This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
>>> posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
>>> the points, as I see them.
>>> 
>>> 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
>>> 
>>> JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
>
>> This has not been shown to be true.
>
>Incorrect, Marty.  Why do you continue to ignore the evidence
>that I've provided?
>
>>> It is not clear whether this functionality involves
>>> changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
>>> Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
>>> not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
>>> by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
>>> executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
>>> classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
>>> 
>>> 2) The self-extracting archive
>>> 
>>> a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
>>> is in an OS/2 native format.
>
>> Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
>
>But that's what the executable is supposed to do, Marty.
>

Nonsense.   When running under DOS the executable is supposed to print
a message and it does.   Code contained within the executable was
executed - the executable ran under DOS.

What part of this don't you understand?


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            03-Nov-99 23:02:14
  To: All                                               03-Nov-99 21:54:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 21:49:23, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
[snip]
> 
>  
> >> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> 
> > Err... It makes my day?
> 
> By playing games?
> 
Indeed, my good man. Indeed.
Many's been the long winding evening turned into bliss and joy by the 
simple, yet sofisticated virtue of the odd session of "Bomb Jack", 
"Galaxian" or even "Mr Do" (not "Donkey Kong" however; I never liked 
that ape).

Before MAME, I had to steal coins, leave the house, find a handy time 
machine and warp back to that era of wonders, the Eighties, when men 
were still men and computer games were only found in arcades. These 
youngsters nowadays! They don't know how good they have it!

> > MAME is merely an engine. Like, many games need Windows 95 <shudder> 
> > to run, but it would be wrong to state that every Windows 95 
> > "programmer" has an affection for games.
> 
> Windows 95 does other things besides playing games

Hah! name one!

> (well, at least it tries).

I see I spoke too soon.
Well, it was a nalogy; we've learned in this group that they're 
supposed to be slightly off.
> 
> >>> Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
> >>> Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.
>  
> >> Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!
> 
> > Sheer luck, Sir. Sheer luck.
> 
> Practice makes perfect.
> 
[snip]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an illegal 
> >>>>> Europan!"
> >>>>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)
> 
> >>>> From Io or Ganymede?
> >>>>
> >>>> Oops, I gave it away.
> 
> >>> Maybe. Let's wait and see.
> 
> >> You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
> >> in this newsgroup.
> 
> > No reasoning needed here, just decent reading skills <G>.
> 
> Some people lack those as well.
> 
It's easy to miss a letter.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             04-Nov-99 01:58:11
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vqbnb$h20$4@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:

> > On the contrary, you are clearly and obviously mystified.
>
> Pontification won't get you anywhere, Lucien.

Again the alleged pontification. Regardless, you are mystified.

> Meanwhile, I prepared
> two simple tests that prove my position.
>  The fact that you keep
> avoiding them suggests to me that you realize how they prove my
> position, but you're unwilling to admit it.

Your "tests" prove nothing relevant, they are merely (unsuccessful)
attempts to deflect attention away from the issue at hand.

> > You need to read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
> > thread to discern what is meant by "multi-level" in this discussion.
>
> You need to take the two simple tests to discern why your position
> is wrong.

Translation: David never read and refuses to now read the references
and is mystified by the term "multi-level" as used here.

> >>> The meaning of the term "multi-level" as used here is discussed in
> >>> those references.
>
> >> I'm interested in your meaning, Lucien, not theirs.
>
> > Mine is congruent with that discussed in those references cited in
the
> > "costly mistakes" thread.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?  I can't make such a
> determination without knowing your meaning.

Yes, you can. Read the pertinant sections in the references cited in
the "costly mistakes" thread. Given that my usage of the term is
congruent with the meaning for it presented there, you will thus
discern my meaning.

> >> It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.
>
> > On the contrary, it directly concerns the JDK sentence.
>
> It concerns a portion of the JDK sentence, Lucien,

Glad you agree.

> but the meaning depends on the entire sentence, not just a portion of
> it.

Exactly.

> > "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> > 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> > information."
>
> That doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

On the contrary, it does directly concern the JDK sentence, and
describes the situation (WRT to quantification) exactly.
It also agrees with my thesis.

Let's review it again; I'll repeat the emphasis to the pertinant
phrases:

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence:

"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
information.]]]"

Here is my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
information.]]]

Note the congruence between the two statements, indicating agreement.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: not-bigshorts@interested.earthli...               04-Nov-99 02:12:17
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Warpseeme ?

Message sender: not-bigshorts@interested.earthlink.net

From: not-bigshorts@interested.earthlink.net (Carl S.)

Anyone heard anything?


Thanks,

Carl S

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: No organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 04-Nov-99 02:41:28
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
> >>>>>> file?
> 
> >>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
> >>>>> self-extracting archive,
> 
> >>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.
> 
> >>> And the "executable file" in question, namely, JAVAINUF.EXE, happens to
be a
> >>> self-extracting archive, the contents of which can indeed be examined
without
> >>> running the self-extraction module, using the proper tool(s).
> 
> >> That means you're looking at the contents of the extraction, not the
> >> executable file.
> 
> > This level of semantic hairsplitting again indicates profound
> > desperation on your part,
> 
> Oh really?  Then why not accuse Marty of "semantic hairsplitting" when
> he claims that the self-extracting archive runs in a DOS session?

I am not interested in semantic hair split conundrums. That is your
forte.

> > your inevitable denials notwithstanding.
> 
> No desperation is needed on my part, given that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does
> implement Java 1.2 functionality, which is all I need to justify my
> challenge of Timbol's "bullshit".

I never claimed that desperation was "needed on your part," only that it
exists.

> > Are you claiming that JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* an "executable file?"
> 
> Not at all, Curtis.  Having reading comprehension problems?

Then why "correct" me when I refer to the executable file in question as
a self extracting archive? Are you trying to argue whether *that*
nomenclature is accurate?

> > The file "classes.zip" *IS* contained therein, and regardless of
> > whether you choose to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file,  by
> > examining the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE with the proper tool
> > (e.g., WinZip), one can obtain, and examine, classes.zip.
> 
> Running the program on OS/2 is a "proper tool", Curtis, and happens
> to follow IBM's instructions.

Acknowledged. Never debated. Never questioned. Why bring it up? How does
it, in any way, disprove that JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined, and its
contents extracted, by a tool such as WinZip?  And what is the basis for
your implied claim that *your* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE could not be
examined by WinZip, nor its contents extracted?

> > OTOH, if you choose *NOT* to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file, your
> > original, 5-chevroned question above is meaningless and irrelevant,
> > because JAVAINUF.EXE is the file in question, not some random
> > "executable file" (which JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* in this case).
> 
> JAVAINUF.EXE is not the JDK, contrary to what Timbol would like you
> to believe.

I never said that it was the JDK.  Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

> > So, which is it, Dave? It has to be one or the other. Take your pick.
> 
> I've already made my choice clear, Curtis.

Okay . . .

> >>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.
> 
> >>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".
> 
> >>> On the contrary, I am correctly observing that you are self-deluded,
> 
> >> Typical invective.
> 
> > Actually, no.
> 
> Better look up the word in your dictionary, Curtis.

How can it be "abusive language" when it's the truth?
 
> > I've gone over this before,
> 
> I've pointed you to your dictionary before.
> 
> > but I am simply observing displayed behavior, which is not "invective."
> 
> Incorrect, Curtis.  Why do you "refuse" to look in your dictionary
> (that's using your definition of the word "refuse")?

And on what basis to you conclude that I refuse to look it up, or
haven't done so already? Like I said, if it's the truth, then it doesn't
qualify as invective.

But, you must find some way to keep avoiding the admission of your
error, so I guess we will argue over the definition of "invective" for
now, eh?

> >>> considering that you still appear to believe that one needs OS/2 in
order to
> >>> examine the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> >> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> >> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> >>
> >>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> >>
> >> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> >>
> >>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
> >>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
> >>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
> >>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
> >>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>
> >> what would you conclude?
> 
> > Oops!
> 
> I see you didn't answer the question.

I was in the process thereof, Dave.

> > You goofed (again).
> 
> Illogical, Curtis.  I was hypothesizing a situation and asking you a
> question.  There is no "goof" involved.
> 
> > Asking this question in a vacuum is a logical no-no,
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing a vacuum, Curtis.

Being that it doesn't mention any dialog with other people, and tries to
dispense with the context of this thread, the hypothetical situation
above does indeed exist in a vacuum.

No, the hypothetical situation above is contrived to lead me where *you*
want me to go. I am supposed to answer in such a way that it would
support your argument, such as it is. The problem is, as I've stated, I
would never go down that path, and will not do so now.

Your transparency is embarrassing.

One problem is that you brought up the InfoZip aspect ***AFTER***
somebody claimed they used WinZip, the purpose of which was to try and
discredit the use of WinZip.

Since that failed, you now cling to this idea that your copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE is somehow different from Mike Timbol's and mine, and that
this difference renders you free of error.

Like I said: Desperate.

> > as you well know
> 
> I don't know of any vacuum in which the question is being asked, Curtis.

Of course, not. That would be an admission of contrivance on your part.

> > (assuming even a modicum of intelligence on your part).
> 
> Typical invective.

Nope. It's an assumption, one that's proving itself erroneous.

> > For starters, one must question why you  would even run
> > JAVAINUF.EXE on a DOS platform,
> 
> Given that the stub exists, apparently the designers anticipated the
> possibility.  Furthermore, DOS applications are supported on a rather
> wide variety of platforms, including Windows NT, so DOS can be
> considered a placeholder for any system that supports DOS applications.

But that doesn't explain why *you* would run it on a DOS platform. 
Typical diversion.

> > when you already know that it's an OS/2-targetted self extracting
> > archive.
> 
> How would you know that, Curtis?  I've not said anything about the
> target operating system for the hypothetical ABC.EXE.

Then you admit that the scenario exist in a vacuum. It cannot be
otherwise, since you did know, a priori, that JAVAINUF.EXE was meant to
be executed in OS/2, based on IBM's instructions.

> You may have inferred that from the error message issued by the program, but 
you
> wouldn't know that prior to your attempt to run the program.

But, if I had read the instructions on the web site from which I
downloaded ABC.EXE, I would know the expected platform.

> > The answer, of course, is that it's a failed attempt to "prove" your
> > (incorrect) claim that one *must* be running OS/2 in order to obtain
> > the contents of the archive in question.
> 
> That's not an answer to my question, Curtis.  You're avoiding the issue.

I'm nailing the issue, Dave. I know it's uncomfortable, but turning your
head away and saying, "I don't see anything. Your avoiding the issue,"
won't make it go away.

> > Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
> > trying InfoZip on the file
> 
> Suppose somebody came along and said they were able to examine the
> contents by using WinZip on ABC.EXE because the file is a zip
> archive.

If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
allegedly used.

> > in OS/2, especially in light of the fact that other people said
> > that they used a different tool altogether (i.e., WinZip) to
> > extract the contents thereof on a **NON-OS/2** platform.
> 
> If it's a zip archive, Curtis, then why shouldn't one expect InfoZip
> to handle it?

Whether one should expect InfoZip to handle JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) is
not the issue. The issue is that WinZip *can* handle it, people have
*told* you it can, yet you continue to avoiding the admission that it
can.

> If I sent you a tar file prepared on a Solaris system,
> would you run off to a Solaris system to extract it, knowing that
> you had a utility designed to extract a tar file for your particular
> non-Solaris operating system?

Hmm. Another contrived scenario in another vacuum.

Dave, you claimed that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE. That claim is clearly wrong.  Hypothesizing
more vacuous scenarios won't change that.

But, to answer your question above, if I were trying to disprove the
claim that somebody in Windows could examine the tar file, I would
indeed try to verify that myself on a Windows system. I would ***NOT***
trot out some Solaris tool, let it choke, and trumpet that as "evidence"
that the Windows users couldn't examine the file's contents.

But, I have already explained that.

> In other words, there's no reason to question the action, Curtis.
> It follows quite naturally from the claim that WinZip can read it.

And you call yourself logical, and have the gall to chastise others over
their "illogic."

> > The bottom line is that I wouldn't make such blunders in the first
> > place,
>  
> What alleged "blunders", Curtis?

The ones I just described. Reading comprehension problems?

> > never mind what conclusions I may draw if I had done so.
> 
> Translation:  you don't want to answer the question.

Bad translation on your part, for I did answer it. I can't help it if
you don't like the answer.

> > But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I did do the above.
> > What I certainly would ***NOT*** do is deny the possibility that other
> > tools on other platforms *could* have extracted the contents of the
> > archive,
> 
> Why not, Curtis?

Because it wouldn't be logical to assume that all such tools are created
equal, and have identical sets of functionality, especially considering
that InfoZip and PKZIP (the OS/2 version) differ in functionality
themselves.

I guess that, perhaps, if I were blatantly naive, I would make that
mistake.

> On the one hand you have a platform different from
> OS/2, so without OS/2 support, the executable won't run.  On the other
> hand, you have a message indicating that the file is not a zip file,
> contrary to the claim that it is.

And on the third hand, you have three people telling you that they
accessed the file's contents using WinZip.

> > especially when someone posted a screen shot of another tool on
> > another platform displaying a listing of the archive's contents.
> 
> No such action was hypothesized, Curtis, and in the actual situation,
> the screen shot came later than the conclusion, thus one shouldn't
> use the screen shot when reaching the conclusion.

But you didn't acknowledge that Mike and Marty and myself could read the
contents of the file, even after the screen shot was posted.  IOW, you
still neglected to admit your error, and continue to do so, under the
guise that your JAVAINUF.EXE file is somehow different from ours, and
that difference liberates you from your position of error.

> > Another thing that I certainly would ***NOT*** do is repetitiously post
> > my failed attempts at using InfoZip in a lame attempt to disprove claims
> > that WinZip *could* extract the contents of the archive in question:
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis; that has nothing to do with the requested conclusion.

My apologies for not staying inside of your contrived, vacuous box.

-- snip --

> >>> Why do you use OS/2, Dave?
> 
> >> Irrelevant, Curtis.  Of course, I've answered that question so many
> >> times in this newsgroup, I wonder how you could have missed it.
> 
> > (As an aside to anyone lurking in this meandering thread (and you have
> > my sympathy if you are), this response from Dave supports my assertion
> > that he "doesn't get the gist of anything,"
> 
> Illogical, Curtis.  It does not support your assertion at all.

Because you proclaim such?  You haven't even admitted your error, so you
will excuse me if I consider your credibility to be under par.

> > an assertion I made a little over one year ago.
> 
> And still haven't substantiated.  Why do people like you and Marty like
> to write in universal terms, such as "anything"?  That approach has
> gotten Marty into trouble, and you're in trouble for the same reason.
> Your claim requires knowledge of everything that has been made available
> for me to ascertain the "gist of".

I guess you don't understand colloquialism.

Or context.

> > It's laughable that he would actually respond to the rhetorical
> > question with a serious response,
> 
> It's laughable that you would make universal claims, Curtis.  How
> ironic.  Now, what makes your question "rhetorical"?

The context in which it was presented.

> I'd really like to know, because perhaps I can ignore your other questions
once
> they've been identified as rhetorical.

There would be no such need if you understood context.

> Of course, then you could simply claim that I've "refused" to answer your
questions,
> otherwise known as a no-win situation.

Yup, you got me there. I indeed *could* do that, but I have no need, so
I would not do such a thing.

> > apparently ignoring the context in which the question was asked.)
> 
> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
> relevant.

But, as I've explained, I have proven your error. That you don't (or
won't) grasp it is an indictment of you and your intelligence, not me
nor mine.

> >>> After all, both OS/2 and Window NT are tools, and they are both
> >>> Operating Systems.
> 
> >> So is Solaris, Curtis.  So is UNICOS, Curtis.  So is RISC OS.

Is this supposed to impress my (or others) in some way?  Does it further
your argument in some way? No? Then I guess it's another one of them non

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 04-Nov-99 02:41:28
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

sequitur thingies . . .

> >>> Based on your logic, if OS/2 can do any particular thing, then the
> >>> other (i.e., NT) should also be able to do it, so there is no reason
> >>> to prefer OS/2 over NT.
> 
> >> Illogical, as I was not comparing operating systems, Curtis.  Unzip
> >> utilities and operating systems are rather different.
> 
> > Oh, I see, your "logic" applies to certain types of software tools, but
> > not others,
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > based on whether this "logic" advances your "argument" or simply makes
> > you look foolish.
> 
> Incorrect, Curtis.  Rather, it's based on what the tool does.  The
> zip/unzip tools are very narrow in their capabilities.  Operating
> systems are not, unless you want to argue about which components are
> actually part of the operating system.  That's been done here to no
> resolution, so I'd advise against that approach.

The breadth of scope (or lack thereof) is hardly relevant, considering
how divergent the levels of functionality are among ZIP tools.

> >>> OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools 
are
> >>> created equal.
> 
> >> I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
> >> extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.
> 
> > On *your* copy?
> 
> Having trouble being certain of what I wrote, Curtis?

Having trouble believing it, yes.

> > Are you claiming that there's something special about your copy of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE, which came from the same source as Mike Timbol's and
> > mine?
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

Look it up in that fancy dictionary of your.

-- snip --

> >>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> >>>> file as argument.
> 
> >>> Why? Are you really that naive?
> 
> >> You're the one who is naive, Curtis.
> 
> > How so?
> 
> By failing to consider all the possibilities.

There are no other possibilities to consider.  You claimed that
extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE required OS/2, and that claim is
wrong, even if your special copy of JAVAINUF.EXE cannot be examined, nor
its contents extracted, by WinZip.

Your special case, assuming it really exists, does not disprove the
general case that JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined by WinZip.

> >> I'm doing no such thing, Curtis.  However, you're showing your own
> >> ineptitude.
> 
> > Feel free to elaborate.
> 
> Sure thing, after you meaningfully answer the question:

-- [repeat of contrived scenario snipped] --

> > If you really think you have anything on which to elaborate.
> 
> Of course I do.

You're bluffing, Dave, and I'm not buying.

-- snip --

> >>> Just how ignorant/naive are you?
> 
> >> Less than you.
> 
> > About nameless rocks in space, perhaps,
> 
> I'm referring to the issue, Curtis.  By the way, and there are thousands of
> "rocks" in space that have names.

Yes, there are, and there are others that don't. I was referring to
those.


> > but not about the ability to view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE on a
> > non-OS/2 platform.
> 
> Incorrect, as you've jumped to conclusions without considering all the
> possibilities.

There are no other possibilities, Dave. Either JAVAINUF.EXE *can* be
examined by WinZip or it cannot, your "special" copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
notwithstanding.

> > After all, I've done it.
> 
> That didn't prevent you from jumping to an erroneous conclusion, Curtis.

Actually, it did, for you are the one who jumped to the erroneous
conclusion that one couldn't read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE unless
one was running OS/2, and I did not jump to that conclusion.

> > You, OTOH, apparently have not and cannot (or will not).
> 
> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
> relevant.

Yeah, gee golly.  Like I indicated earlier, proof itself is irrelevant
in the face if ignorance/obstinance.

And no, that is not "abusive language," but accurate assessment, so
spare us the "typical invective" remark.

> > Oh. Right. *YOUR* version of JAVAINUF.EXE is special. I forget.
> > <chuckle>
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?
> 
> > (Maybe that's the "another possibility" to which you alluded earlier?
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?
> 
> > That your *special* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE can not only *not* be examined
> > on a non-OS/2 platform, but contains the Java 2 Security Classes as
> > well? LOL!)
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

Well? Am I getting warm, Dave?

By "special" I simply mean different (See? I spared you the trouble of
consulting a dictionary).

-- snip --

> > Watching you squirm indicates that I'm hitting several nerves,
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm squirming, Curtis.

Reading comprehension problems?  I said that I was *watching* you
squirm, not "presupposing" it.

> Watching you avoid answering my question about what you would conclude
indicates
> that you're worried about having overlooked something.

I've answered it. You just don't like my answer, so you try to dismiss
it.

Typical diversion.

> > your indignant appeals to my alleged "illogic" notwithstanding.
> 
> The fact that you've overlooked possibilities demonstrates your illogic,
> Curtis.

But I haven't overlooked any possibilities that are relevant, Dave.

-- snip --

> > I have already proven that one can examine (and extract) the contents of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE on a non-OS/2 platform, which is something you have yet to
> > acknowledge/admit.
> 
> You haven't done so with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

No, I haven't, but you have yet to explain why it matters.

> > Your "counter argument" is the implication that there is something
> > "special" about your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE which prevents it from
> > being so examined.
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?
> 
> > Or, to put it another way, it's impossible to prove anything to someone
> > who lacks the intelligence, or will, to grasp the proof.
> 
> Even more invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who lacks
> tha ability to consider other possibilities before jumping to conclusions.

Like I've stated before, the above is not invective, and I have not
overlooked any possibilities that are relevant.

-- snip --

> > Does your appeal for proof of that which is axiomatic advance your
> > argument in any way?
> 
> On what basis do you call it "axiomatic", Curtis?

On the basis that your error is self-evident.  Reading comprehension
problems, Dave?

-- snip --

> >> No thanks, Curtis.
> 
> > Admitting error is too much for you, eh?
> 
> Non sequitur.  I was talking about not changing my behavior to match
> those of people you apparently perceive differently.

Right, and admitting error would be an example of such a modification.

-- snip --

> I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
> you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?

Based on your neglecting to admit that WinZip can read the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE, but instead try to discredit the claim by posting
InfoZip's choking on said file, and maintaining that it's "logical" to
therefore conclude that WinZip should as well.

> >>> but, instead, stubbornly insist on perpetrating the implication
> >>> that, since InfoZip cannot read the contents, WinZip must not be
> >>> able to either.
> 
> >> I am quite confident that WinZip can't successfully read my copy of
> >> javainuf.exe, Curtis.
> 
> > What is the basis of this confidence, Dave? What is so special about
> > your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE?
> 
> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?
> 
> > You are the one playing games here.  Tell us why WinZip would fail on
> > your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, and then explain how that proves Mike
> > Timbol's inability to examine a different copy of JAVAINUF.EXE on his
> > Windows machine.
> 
> Why not answer my question first, Curtis?

You are playing games, this one being, "No. You First!"  Yet you accuse
others of "infantile games."

-- [repeat of contrived vacuous scenario, one that I did address,
snipped] --

> > And explain how that disproves my screen shot of WinZip displaying a
> > listing of JAVAINUF.EXE's contents,
> 
> Irrelevant, given that I haven't even seen your screen shot, and also
> given that it wasn't applied to my copy of javainuf.exe.

Actually, whether you've seen it or not is what's irrelevant, especially
considering that you are trying to disprove evidence that you haven't
even seen.

> > when the JAVAINUF.EXE in question was downloaded from the IBM web site,
> 
> So was mine, Curtis.

So then, explain why WinZip should choke on it?

-- snip --

> >> Illogical, Curtis.  On what basis do you claim that there is a better
tool
> >> available?
> 
> >>> one that many people have told you about, namely, WinZip.
> 
> >> On what basis do you call it better, Curtis?  That it can read a tar
> >> file doesn't make it any better for my present application, given that
> >> the file in question isn't a tar file.
> 
> > That it can read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE while InfoZip cannot is
> > the basis, Dave.
> 
> Your "it" doesn't refer to my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

Which doesn't disprove the fact that WinZip *CAN* read *MY* copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE.

And Marty's. And Mike's

> >>> There is much ineptness in stubbornly clinging to a failed line of
> >>> reasoning.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from someone stubbornly clinging to a failed line
> >> of reasoning.
> 
> > Back to mimicry again . . .
> 
> You mean the sincerest form of flattery?

Something like that.

> > Maybe I should co-opt your battle cry:
> >
> > "Back to mimicry again. The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
> > logical argument."
> 
> That's not my battle cry, Curtis.

Oh? You co-opted it from someone else?

-- [contrived "question" snipped again] --

> > I have already addressed this above.
> 
> But you did not answer it above in any meaningful way.  I asked you for
> what you would conclude, not for what you would not conclude.

I answered it the best I could, considering that it was contrived and
vacuous.

-- snip --

> > True, but it still doesn't explain the relevance.
> 
> Sure it does, Curtis.  You called me "inept", but you haven't yet
> identified the allegedly "inept" action on my part.

Sure I have, but you simply deny it.

-- snip --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 23:55:05
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, one 
must
> >>> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The
statement is
> >>> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.
> 
> >> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> >> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> >>
> >>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> >>
> >> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> >>
> >>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
> >>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
> >>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
> >>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
> >>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>
> >> what would you conclude?
> 
> > And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?
> 
> I didn't specify any particular unzipper, Marty.

I did.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 23:56:26
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,
> 
> > Also meaning besides you Dave?
> 
> Nope.

Then why say "also"?
 
> >>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
> >>> Astronomy by trade.
> 
> >> I'm also a programmer.
> 
> > And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.
> 
> How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?

How much income have you derived from your programming work, Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:09:20
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already. 
Curtis
> >>>>>>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.
> 
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
> 
> >>>>> I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.
> 
> >>>> It hasn't shown up here, Mike, and apparently hasn't shown up on
> >>>> deja.com either, based on what others have written.
> 
> >>> Check again, or don't bother.  Here's the URL for the JPG itself:
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >> What would that prove, Marty?
> 
> > That's the evidence you requested!  Remember??
> >>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
> 
> That doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

Irrelevant, as it is the contents of the posting.  Moreover, it is the
evidence
you requested.  What a laughable attempted dodging of the issue.
 
> > This is the picture contained in "this alleged post" to which you
> > referred.
> 
> Still doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

Still irrelevant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:11:09
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholenbot wrote:
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Mike Timbol, Dave?

Classic Eric!  :-)

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:14:17
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:20
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Are you sure that those are mine?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Are you sure that those are mine?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Are you sure that those are mine?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Are you sure that those are mine?
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Are you sure that those are mine?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> What makes you believe that?
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> Are you sure that those are mine?
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Maybe your infantile games have something to do with this.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 03:15:05
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> On the contrary, you are clearly and obviously mystified.

>> Pontification won't get you anywhere, Lucien.

> Again the alleged pontification.

Nothing alleged about it, Lucien.  Where's your evidence?

> Regardless, you are mystified.

Pontification won't get you anywhere, Lucien.

>> Meanwhile, I prepared two simple tests that prove my position.
>> The fact that you keep avoiding them suggests to me that you
>> realize how they prove my position, but you're unwilling to
>> admit it.

> Your "tests" prove nothing relevant,

On the contrary, both are quite relevant, as explain following the
tests.

> they are merely (unsuccessful) attempts to deflect attention
> away from the issue at hand.

Impossible, given that they deal with the issue at hand using the
process of analogy, and rather simple ones at that.  Indeed, they
are so simple that it is hard to imagine the average reader being
tricked by your use of jargon.

>>> You need to read the references cited in the "costly mistakes"
>>> thread to discern what is meant by "multi-level" in this discussion.

>> You need to take the two simple tests to discern why your position
>> is wrong.

> Translation: David never read and refuses to now read the references

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> and is mystified by the term "multi-level" as used here.

Your usage here is not at all clear, Lucien, which is why I asked
for *your* meaning, not some authors' meaning that you allege is
the same as yours.

>>>>> The meaning of the term "multi-level" as used here is discussed in
>>>>> those references.

>>>> I'm interested in your meaning, Lucien, not theirs.

>>> Mine is congruent with that discussed in those references cited in
>>> the "costly mistakes" thread.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Lucien?  I can't make such a
>> determination without knowing your meaning.

> Yes, you can.

Illogical.  Can you claim that X = 1 without knowing the value assigned
to X?

> Read the pertinant sections in the references cited in the "costly
> mistakes" thread.

That won't tell me your meaning as used here, Lucien, given that the
"costly mistakes" thread predates your usage here.

> Given that my usage of the term is congruent with the meaning for
> it presented there, you will thus discern my meaning.

On what basis do you make the claim that your usage is congruent,
Lucien?  You won't say what your meaning is here, therefore I can't
make such a determination.

>>>> It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

>>> On the contrary, it directly concerns the JDK sentence.

>> It concerns a portion of the JDK sentence, Lucien,

> Glad you agree.

That's not an indication of agreement, Lucien, but rather a correction
of your misleading statement.

>> but the meaning depends on the entire sentence, not just a portion of
>> it.

> Exactly.

So why do you continue to ignore the portion that provides the
additional information, Lucien?

>>> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
>>> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
>>> information."

>> That doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> On the contrary, it does directly concern the JDK sentence,

Incorrect, Lucien, given that the JDK sentence involves the presence
of other information.  Of course, I've told you this several times
already, yet you continue to play dumb for purposes of furthering
your own form of "infantile game".

> and describes the situation (WRT to quantification) exactly.

Incorrect, given that it doesn't recognize the presence of the other
information.

> It also agrees with my thesis.

Your thesis is irrelevant, Lucien, given that other information is
present.

> Let's review it again;

Unnecessary, Lucien.

> I'll repeat the emphasis to the pertinant phrases:

Unnecessary, Lucien.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
> 'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
> information.]]]"

That doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, given that the JDK
sentence involves the presence of other information.  Of course,
I've told you this several times already, yet you continue to play
dumb for purposes of furthering your own form of "infantile game".

> Here is my thesis statement again:
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.]]]

Your thesis is irrelevant, Lucien, given that other information is
present.  Of course, I've told you this several times already, yet
you continue to play dumb for purposes of furthering your own form
of "infantile game".

> Note the congruence between the two statements,

Note the irrelevance of your thesis and your erroneous claim that
my statement is about the JDK sentence.

> indicating agreement.

Incorrect.  Rather, it indicates your reading comprehension problem.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 04:28:05
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (1/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>> -- snip --

>>>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an executable
>>>>>>>> file?

>>>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
>>>>>>> self-extracting archive,

>>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

>>>>> And the "executable file" in question, namely, JAVAINUF.EXE, happens to
be a
>>>>> self-extracting archive, the contents of which can indeed be examined
without
>>>>> running the self-extraction module, using the proper tool(s).

>>>> That means you're looking at the contents of the extraction, not the
>>>> executable file.

>>> This level of semantic hairsplitting again indicates profound
>>> desperation on your part,

>> Oh really?  Then why not accuse Marty of "semantic hairsplitting" when
>> he claims that the self-extracting archive runs in a DOS session?

> I am not interested in semantic hair split conundrums.

Then why did you bring it up, Curtis?

> That is your forte.

On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

>>> your inevitable denials notwithstanding.

>> No desperation is needed on my part, given that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does
>> implement Java 1.2 functionality, which is all I need to justify my
>> challenge of Timbol's "bullshit".

> I never claimed that desperation was "needed on your part," only that it
> exists.

You have no basis for making such a claim, Curtis.  I'm not the one
relying on invective.  That would be you.

>>> Are you claiming that JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* an "executable file?"

>> Not at all, Curtis.  Having reading comprehension problems?

> Then why "correct" me when I refer to the executable file in question as
> a self extracting archive?

What alleged "correction" are you referring to, Curtis?

> Are you trying to argue whether *that* nomenclature is accurate?

Which "nomenclature" are you referring to, Curtis?

>>> The file "classes.zip" *IS* contained therein, and regardless of
>>> whether you choose to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file,  by
>>> examining the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE with the proper tool
>>> (e.g., WinZip), one can obtain, and examine, classes.zip.

>> Running the program on OS/2 is a "proper tool", Curtis, and happens
>> to follow IBM's instructions.

> Acknowledged. Never debated. Never questioned. Why bring it up?

You seem to be interested in ways that Mike could have used to look
at the contents of the archive, Curtis.

> How does it, in any way, disprove that JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined,
> and its contents extracted, by a tool such as WinZip?

Why do I need to disprove it, Curtis?

> And what is the basis for your implied claim that *your* copy of
> JAVAINUF.EXE could not be examined by WinZip, nor its contents
> extracted?

I already answered that question, Curtis.  Having more reading
comprehension problems?

>>> OTOH, if you choose *NOT* to call JAVAINUF.EXE an executable file, your
>>> original, 5-chevroned question above is meaningless and irrelevant,
>>> because JAVAINUF.EXE is the file in question, not some random
>>> "executable file" (which JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* in this case).

>> JAVAINUF.EXE is not the JDK, contrary to what Timbol would like you
>> to believe.

> I never said that it was the JDK.

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say to did say it, Curtis.

> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

Obviously not.  Meanwhile, you're complaining about something I didn't
do, which questions your own reading comprehension.

>>> So, which is it, Dave? It has to be one or the other. Take your pick.

>> I've already made my choice clear, Curtis.

> Okay . . .

That doesn't indicate whether you understand my choice, Curtis.

>>>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.

>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

>>>>> On the contrary, I am correctly observing that you are self-deluded,

>>>> Typical invective.

>>> Actually, no.

>> Better look up the word in your dictionary, Curtis.

> How can it be "abusive language" when it's the truth?

On what basis do you call it the "truth", Curtis?

>>> I've gone over this before,

>> I've pointed you to your dictionary before.

>>> but I am simply observing displayed behavior, which is not "invective."

>> Incorrect, Curtis.  Why do you "refuse" to look in your dictionary
>> (that's using your definition of the word "refuse")?

> And on what basis to you conclude that I refuse to look it up, or
> haven't done so already?

Your continued erroneous claims about it not being invective.

> Like I said, if it's the truth, then it doesn't qualify as invective.

Incorrect, Curtis.  The definition say nothing about truthfulness.
But note that the key word here is "if".  On what basis do you call
it the "truth", Curtis?

> But, you must find some way to keep avoiding the admission of your
> error, so I guess we will argue over the definition of "invective" for
> now, eh?

If you don't want to argue about that, Curtis, simply discontinue your
use of invective.  It's that easy.

>>>>> considering that you still appear to believe that one needs OS/2 in
order to
>>>>> examine the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

>>>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>>>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>>>>
>>>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>>>>
>>>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>>>>
>>>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>>>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>>>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
>>>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>
>>>> what would you conclude?

>>> Oops!

>> I see you didn't answer the question.

> I was in the process thereof, Dave.

I examined your process, Curtis, and no meaningful answer was provided.

>>> You goofed (again).

>> Illogical, Curtis.  I was hypothesizing a situation and asking you a
>> question.  There is no "goof" involved.

Note:  no response.

>>> Asking this question in a vacuum is a logical no-no,

>> You're erroneously presupposing a vacuum, Curtis.

> Being that it doesn't mention any dialog with other people,

None was absolutely essential, Curtis.  I provided one when you asked
about motivation, but motivation isn't strictly necessary to understand
the situation.

> and tries to dispense with the context of this thread,

On the contrary, it directly addresses the context of this thread.

> the hypothetical situation above does indeed exist in a vacuum.

You're erroneously presupposing that your statements are true, Curtis.

> No, the hypothetical situation above is contrived to lead me where *you*
> want me to go.

On the contrary, you've already gone there, Curtis.  I'm simply trying to
establish the means by which you got there already.  I've yet to see any
logical process.

> I am supposed to answer in such a way that it would support your
> argument, such as it is.

You are supposed to answer in a truthful way, Curtis.  If the truth
happens to support my argument, so what?  Why suppress the truth?

> The problem is, as I've stated, I would never go down that path,
> and will not do so now.

On the contrary, you've already gone down that path, Curtis.  I'm
trying to find out how you got there.

> Your transparency is embarrassing.

Your failure to answer the question is embarassing for you, Curtis.

> One problem is that you brought up the InfoZip aspect ***AFTER***
> somebody claimed they used WinZip,

That's the motivation for trying InfoZip in the first place, Curtis.
You asked for why one would even try running InfoZip on ABC.EXE, and
I told you.

> the purpose of which was to try and discredit the use of WinZip.

Incorrect, Curtis.  The purpose was to verify the results.  The
results were not verified.

> Since that failed, you now cling to this idea that your copy of
> JAVAINUF.EXE is somehow different from Mike Timbol's and mine,

It's not an idea, Curtis.  It happens to be the truth.

> and that this difference renders you free of error.

It does, Curtis.

> Like I said: Desperate.

How ironic, coming from someone so desperate to hang the "inept"
tag on me that you "ineptly" failed to consider other possibilities.
Why do you think I asked you how someone can be "inept" when
flipping a light switch and the light bulb happens to burn out?

>>> as you well know

>> I don't know of any vacuum in which the question is being asked, Curtis.

> Of course, not. That would be an admission of contrivance on your part.

What alleged "contrivance", Curtis?

>>> (assuming even a modicum of intelligence on your part).

>> Typical invective.

> Nope. It's an assumption,

How does that not make it invective, Curtis?  Still unable to comprehend
the dictionary definition?

> one that's proving itself erroneous.

You have a rather bizarre (and embarassing) definition of "proof",
Curtis.

>>> For starters, one must question why you  would even run
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE on a DOS platform,

>> Given that the stub exists, apparently the designers anticipated the
>> possibility.  Furthermore, DOS applications are supported on a rather
>> wide variety of platforms, including Windows NT, so DOS can be
>> considered a placeholder for any system that supports DOS applications.

> But that doesn't explain why *you* would run it on a DOS platform. 

DOS happens to be a non-OS/2 platform, Curtis.  Running it on an OS/2
platform won't generate the message.

> Typical diversion.

On the contrary, it's simply your inability to follow the argument.

>>> when you already know that it's an OS/2-targetted self extracting
>>> archive.

>> How would you know that, Curtis?  I've not said anything about the
>> target operating system for the hypothetical ABC.EXE.

> Then you admit that the scenario exist in a vacuum.

Illogical, given that I've made no such admission.

> It cannot be otherwise, since you did know, a priori, that JAVAINUF.EXE
> was meant to be executed in OS/2, based on IBM's instructions.

Irrelevant, Curtis, as such knowledge doesn't affect my argument in
any way.

>> You may have inferred that from the error message issued by the program,
>> but you wouldn't know that prior to your attempt to run the program.

> But, if I had read the instructions on the web site from which I
> downloaded ABC.EXE, I would know the expected platform.

Irrelevant, Curtis, as such knowledge doesn't affect my argument in
any way.

>>> The answer, of course, is that it's a failed attempt to "prove" your
>>> (incorrect) claim that one *must* be running OS/2 in order to obtain
>>> the contents of the archive in question.

>> That's not an answer to my question, Curtis.  You're avoiding the issue.

> I'm nailing the issue, Dave.

Incorrect, given that you didn't answer my question.

> I know it's uncomfortable,

Comfort, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, Curtis.  You're lying when you
say you're nailing the issue, given that you're avoiding it.

> but turning your head away and saying, "I don't see anything. Your
> avoiding the issue," won't make it go away.

I never said "I don't see anything", Curtis.  Having more reading
comprehension problems?  On the contrary, I'm seeing plenty, and
what I'm seeing represents you avoiding the question.

>>> Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
>>> trying InfoZip on the file

>> Suppose somebody came along and said they were able to examine the
>> contents by using WinZip on ABC.EXE because the file is a zip
>> archive.

> If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
> then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
> allegedly used.

Why, Curtis, especially given the claims made about zip being a
standard archive format?

If I sent you a tar file prepared on a Solaris system,
would you run off to a Solaris system to extract it, knowing that
you had a utility designed to extract a tar file for your particular
non-Solaris operating system?

Of course, I asked you that question once already, and you avoided
an answer by calling it "contrived".

>>> in OS/2, especially in light of the fact that other people said
>>> that they used a different tool altogether (i.e., WinZip) to
>>> extract the contents thereof on a **NON-OS/2** platform.

>> If it's a zip archive, Curtis, then why shouldn't one expect InfoZip
>> to handle it?

> Whether one should expect InfoZip to handle JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) is
> not the issue.

Then why did you ask me:

CB] Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
CB] trying InfoZip on the file

> The issue is that WinZip *can* handle it,

You're erroneously presupposing that WinZip can handle it, Curtis.

> people have *told* you it can,

They didn't try it with my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> yet you continue to avoiding the admission that it can.

That's because it can't handle my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

>> If I sent you a tar file prepared on a Solaris system,
>> would you run off to a Solaris system to extract it, knowing that
>> you had a utility designed to extract a tar file for your particular
>> non-Solaris operating system?

> Hmm. Another contrived scenario in another vacuum.

What's allegedly "contrived" about it, Curtis?  Why do you keep
avoiding my questions?

> Dave, you claimed that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the
> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE. That claim is clearly wrong.

The unzip utility didn't work, Curtis.  What other options are there?

> Hypothesizing more vacuous scenarios won't change that.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm hypothesizing vacuous
scenarious, Curtis.

> But, to answer your question above, if I were trying to disprove the
> claim that somebody in Windows could examine the tar file, I would
> indeed try to verify that myself on a Windows system.

CB] If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
CB] then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
CB] allegedly used.

The platform used was Solaris, Curtis.

> I would ***NOT*** trot out some Solaris tool,

CB] If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
CB] then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 04:28:05
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (2/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

CB] allegedly used.

The platform used was Solaris, Curtis.

> let it choke, and trumpet that as "evidence" that the Windows users
> couldn't examine the file's contents.

On what basis do you write "let it" choke, Curtis?

> But, I have already explained that.

Inconsistently.  See above.

>> In other words, there's no reason to question the action, Curtis.
>> It follows quite naturally from the claim that WinZip can read it.

> And you call yourself logical, and have the gall to chastise others over
> their "illogic."

What's allegedly illogical about it, Curtis?  Is it illogical to
extract a tar archive prepared on a Solaris system using WinZip on
a Windows system?  Apparently not, otherwise WinZip wouldn't have
been designed to do so.  (Then again, I've encountered numerous
illogical Windows programmers here, so maybe WinZip was designed
to extract a Solaris tar archive for illogical reasons.)

>>> The bottom line is that I wouldn't make such blunders in the first
>>> place,
  
>> What alleged "blunders", Curtis?

> The ones I just described.

Where are these alleged descriptions, Curtis?

> Reading comprehension problems?

Obviously not, Curtis.  Blunder identification problems?

>>> never mind what conclusions I may draw if I had done so.

>> Translation:  you don't want to answer the question.

> Bad translation on your part, for I did answer it.

Incorrect; rather you said what you would *not* conclude.  I asked you
what you *would* conclude.

> I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

You can help it if your answer is non sequitur.

>>> But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I did do the above.
>>> What I certainly would ***NOT*** do is deny the possibility that other
>>> tools on other platforms *could* have extracted the contents of the
>>> archive,

>> Why not, Curtis?

> Because it wouldn't be logical to assume that all such tools are created
> equal, and have identical sets of functionality, especially considering
> that InfoZip and PKZIP (the OS/2 version) differ in functionality
> themselves.

Irrelevant, given that one doesn't require identifical functionality,
but only sufficient functionality.

> I guess that, perhaps, if I were blatantly naive, I would make that
> mistake.

You've made other blatantly naive mistakes, Curtis.

>> On the one hand you have a platform different from
>> OS/2, so without OS/2 support, the executable won't run.  On the other
>> hand, you have a message indicating that the file is not a zip file,
>> contrary to the claim that it is.

> And on the third hand, you have three people telling you that they
> accessed the file's contents using WinZip.

They didn't use my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

>>> especially when someone posted a screen shot of another tool on
>>> another platform displaying a listing of the archive's contents.

>> No such action was hypothesized, Curtis, and in the actual situation,
>> the screen shot came later than the conclusion, thus one shouldn't
>> use the screen shot when reaching the conclusion.

> But you didn't acknowledge that Mike and Marty and myself could read the
> contents of the file, even after the screen shot was posted.

How ironic, coming from the person who didn't acknowledge his own
invective, even after the error was pointed out.

> IOW, you still neglected to admit your error, and continue to do so,
> under the guise that your JAVAINUF.EXE file is somehow different from
> ours,

It's not guise, Curtis.  It happens to be the truth.

> and that difference liberates you from your position of error.

It does, Curtis.  Your problem is the way you jump to conclusions,
especially those that give you the opportunity to spew invective.

>>> Another thing that I certainly would ***NOT*** do is repetitiously post
>>> my failed attempts at using InfoZip in a lame attempt to disprove claims
>>> that WinZip *could* extract the contents of the archive in question:

>> Irrelevant, Curtis; that has nothing to do with the requested conclusion.

> My apologies for not staying inside of your contrived, vacuous box.

What allegedly "contrived, vacuous box", Curtis?

> -- snip --

>>>>> Why do you use OS/2, Dave?

>>>> Irrelevant, Curtis.  Of course, I've answered that question so many
>>>> times in this newsgroup, I wonder how you could have missed it.

>>> (As an aside to anyone lurking in this meandering thread (and you have
>>> my sympathy if you are), this response from Dave supports my assertion
>>> that he "doesn't get the gist of anything,"

>> Illogical, Curtis.  It does not support your assertion at all.

> Because you proclaim such?

Because you haven't substantiated your claim, Curtis.

> You haven't even admitted your error, so you will excuse me if I
> consider your credibility to be under par.

How ironic, coming from the person who still hasn't even admitted his
error about "the gist of anything".  Using your own standards, readers
can consider your credibility to be under par.

>>> an assertion I made a little over one year ago.

>> And still haven't substantiated.  Why do people like you and Marty like
>> to write in universal terms, such as "anything"?  That approach has
>> gotten Marty into trouble, and you're in trouble for the same reason.
>> Your claim requires knowledge of everything that has been made available
>> for me to ascertain the "gist of".

> I guess you don't understand colloquialism.

I guess you don't understand the universal claim.

> Or context.

I guess you don't understand what substantiation is.

>>> It's laughable that he would actually respond to the rhetorical
>>> question with a serious response,

>> It's laughable that you would make universal claims, Curtis.  How
>> ironic.  Now, what makes your question "rhetorical"?

> The context in which it was presented.

How does the context allegedly prove that, Curtis?

>> I'd really like to know, because perhaps I can ignore your other questions
>> once they've been identified as rhetorical.

> There would be no such need if you understood context.

Prove it, if you think you can, Curtis.

>> Of course, then you could simply claim that I've "refused" to answer your
>> questions, otherwise known as a no-win situation.

> Yup, you got me there. I indeed *could* do that, but I have no need,

Indeed, you have no need, but that hasn't stopped you.

> so I would not do such a thing.

Too late; you already have.

>>> apparently ignoring the context in which the question was asked.)

>> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
>> relevant.

> But, as I've explained, I have proven your error.

Where did you prove that I ignored the context in which the question
was asked, Curtis?

> That you don't (or won't) grasp it is an indictment of you and your
> intelligence, not me nor mine.

On the contrary, that you don't (or won't) identify your alleged
proof is an indictment of you and your intelligence, not me nor
mine.

>>>>> After all, both OS/2 and Window NT are tools, and they are both
>>>>> Operating Systems.

>>>> So is Solaris, Curtis.  So is UNICOS, Curtis.  So is RISC OS.

> Is this supposed to impress my (or others) in some way?

Not at all, Curtis.  It's supposed to get you to think.

> Does it further your argument in some way?

At least at much as ti furthers your argument, Curtis.

> No? Then I guess it's another one of them non sequitur thingies . . .

Which you've used on several occasions.

>>>>> Based on your logic, if OS/2 can do any particular thing, then the
>>>>> other (i.e., NT) should also be able to do it, so there is no reason
>>>>> to prefer OS/2 over NT.

>>>> Illogical, as I was not comparing operating systems, Curtis.  Unzip
>>>> utilities and operating systems are rather different.

>>> Oh, I see, your "logic" applies to certain types of software tools, but
>>> not others,

>> Of course.

>>> based on whether this "logic" advances your "argument" or simply makes
>>> you look foolish.

>> Incorrect, Curtis.  Rather, it's based on what the tool does.  The
>> zip/unzip tools are very narrow in their capabilities.  Operating
>> systems are not, unless you want to argue about which components are
>> actually part of the operating system.  That's been done here to no
>> resolution, so I'd advise against that approach.

> The breadth of scope (or lack thereof) is hardly relevant,

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Curtis.

> considering how divergent the levels of functionality are among ZIP
> tools.

How are they allegedly divergent, when discussed in the context of
unzipping a zip archive, Curtis?

>>>>> OTOH, you are quite naive if you really think that all ZIP archive tools 
are
>>>>> created equal.

>>>> I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
>>>> extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

>>> On *your* copy?

>> Having trouble being certain of what I wrote, Curtis?

> Having trouble believing it, yes.

That's your problem, Curtis.

>>> Are you claiming that there's something special about your copy of
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE, which came from the same source as Mike Timbol's and
>>> mine?

>> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> Look it up in that fancy dictionary of your.

That won't help, Curtis, as there are several definitions, and my
dictionary won't tell me which one you're using.

> -- snip --

>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>>>>>> file as argument.

>>>>> Why? Are you really that naive?

>>>> You're the one who is naive, Curtis.

>>> How so?

>> By failing to consider all the possibilities.

> There are no other possibilities to consider.

Incorrect, Curtis.

> You claimed that extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE required OS/2,

Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:

   This program must be run under OS/2.

and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with

   Archive:  ABC.EXE
     End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
     a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
     latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
     the last disk(s) of this archive.

what would you conclude?  Don't tell me what you wouldn't conclude.

> and that claim is wrong, even if your special copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> cannot be examined, nor its contents extracted, by WinZip.

How ironic, coming from the person whose conclusion is wrong, even if
he claims that there are no other possibilities to consider.

> Your special case, assuming it really exists, does not disprove the
> general case that JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined by WinZip.

Your claim of "ineptitude" does not prove same, Curtis.

>>>> I'm doing no such thing, Curtis.  However, you're showing your own
>>>> ineptitude.

>>> Feel free to elaborate.

>> Sure thing, after you meaningfully answer the question:

> -- [repeat of contrived scenario snipped] --

What allegedly "contrived scenario", Curtis?

>>> If you really think you have anything on which to elaborate.

>> Of course I do.

> You're bluffing, Dave,

Wrong again, Curtis.

> and I'm not buying.

Must be worried then.  It's when one is confident that the opponent is
bluffing that they continue to buy into the hand.

> -- snip --

>>>>> Just how ignorant/naive are you?

>>>> Less than you.

>>> About nameless rocks in space, perhaps,

>> I'm referring to the issue, Curtis.  By the way, and there are thousands of
>> "rocks" in space that have names.

> Yes, there are, and there are others that don't. I was referring to
> those.

Why just those, Curtis?

>>> but not about the ability to view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE on a
>>> non-OS/2 platform.

>> Incorrect, as you've jumped to conclusions without considering all the
>> possibilities.

> There are no other possibilities, Dave.

Incorrect, Curtis.

> Either JAVAINUF.EXE *can* be examined by WinZip or it cannot, your
> "special" copy of JAVAINUF.EXE notwithstanding.

Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

>>> After all, I've done it.

>> That didn't prevent you from jumping to an erroneous conclusion, Curtis.

> Actually, it did,

How so, Curtis?

> for you are the one who jumped to the erroneous conclusion that one
> couldn't read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE unless one was running OS/2,
> and I did not jump to that conclusion.

Illogical, given that the above does not prove that you were prevented
from jumping to an erroneous conclusion.

>>> You, OTOH, apparently have not and cannot (or will not).

>> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
>> relevant.

> Yeah, gee golly.  Like I indicated earlier, proof itself is irrelevant
> in the face if ignorance/obstinance.

In which case I don't need to prove anything to you, Curtis.

> And no, that is not "abusive language," but accurate assessment,

Of what you're doing.

> so spare us the "typical invective" remark.

I'll just apply where appropriate, Curtis.

>>> Oh. Right. *YOUR* version of JAVAINUF.EXE is special. I forget.
>>> <chuckle

>> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

>>> (Maybe that's the "another possibility" to which you alluded earlier?

>> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

>>> That your *special* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE can not only *not* be examined
>>> on a non-OS/2 platform, but contains the Java 2 Security Classes as
>>> well? LOL!)

>> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

> Well? Am I getting warm, Dave?

Why do you ask, Curtis, given your insistence that there is no other
possibility?

> By "special" I simply mean different

How does a difference make one or the other "special", Curtis?

> (See? I spared you the trouble of consulting a dictionary).

Irrelevant, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> Watching you squirm indicates that I'm hitting several nerves,

>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm squirming, Curtis.

> Reading comprehension problems?

Not at all, Curtis.

> I said that I was *watching* you squirm, not "presupposing" it.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm squirming, Curtis.

>> Watching you avoid answering my question about what you would conclude
>> indicates that you're worried about having overlooked something.

> I've answered it.

On the contrary, you told me what you wouldn't conclude.  But I didn't
ask about what you wouldn't conclude.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 04:28:05
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (3/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> You just don't like my answer,

Incorrect.  Your answer doesn't address the question I asked.

> so you try to dismiss it.

Appropriately.

> Typical diversion.

Of yours.

>>> your indignant appeals to my alleged "illogic" notwithstanding.

>> The fact that you've overlooked possibilities demonstrates your illogic,
>> Curtis.

> But I haven't overlooked any possibilities that are relevant, Dave.

On the contrary, you have, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> I have already proven that one can examine (and extract) the contents of
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE on a non-OS/2 platform, which is something you have yet to
>>> acknowledge/admit.

>> You haven't done so with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

> No, I haven't, but you have yet to explain why it matters.

Is it really necessary to point out that the results are different?

>>> Your "counter argument" is the implication that there is something
>>> "special" about your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE which prevents it from
>>> being so examined.

>> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

>>> Or, to put it another way, it's impossible to prove anything to someone
>>> who lacks the intelligence, or will, to grasp the proof.

>> Even more invective, and rather ironic, coming from someone who lacks
>> tha ability to consider other possibilities before jumping to conclusions.

> Like I've stated before, the above is not invective,

Wrong again, Curtis.

> and I have not overlooked any possibilities that are relevant.

Incorrect, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> Does your appeal for proof of that which is axiomatic advance your
>>> argument in any way?

>> On what basis do you call it "axiomatic", Curtis?

> On the basis that your error is self-evident.

To whom, Curtis?

> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

Not at all, Curtis.  Just because you claim that something is
"self-evident" does not necessarily make it so.

> -- snip --

>>>> No thanks, Curtis.

>>> Admitting error is too much for you, eh?

>> Non sequitur.  I was talking about not changing my behavior to match
>> those of people you apparently perceive differently.

> Right, and admitting error would be an example of such a modification.

Incorrect, given that I have admitted error.  Ask Marty.  He made the
same mistake, and paid the price.

> -- snip --

>> I said nothing about WinZip's capabilities, Curtis.  So, on what do
>> you base your claim of alleged "ignorance" about those capabilities?

> Based on your neglecting to admit that WinZip can read the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE, but instead try to discredit the claim by posting
> InfoZip's choking on said file, and maintaining that it's "logical" to
> therefore conclude that WinZip should as well.

If InfoZip says that the file is not a zip archive, then why should
someone conclude that any unzipper would work, Curtis?

>>>>> but, instead, stubbornly insist on perpetrating the implication
>>>>> that, since InfoZip cannot read the contents, WinZip must not be
>>>>> able to either.

>>>> I am quite confident that WinZip can't successfully read my copy of
>>>> javainuf.exe, Curtis.

>>> What is the basis of this confidence, Dave? What is so special about
>>> your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE?

>> Exactly what do you mean by "special", Curtis?

>>> You are the one playing games here.  Tell us why WinZip would fail on
>>> your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, and then explain how that proves Mike
>>> Timbol's inability to examine a different copy of JAVAINUF.EXE on his
>>> Windows machine.

>> Why not answer my question first, Curtis?

> You are playing games,

Not at all, Curtis.

> this one being, "No. You First!"

That's not a game, Curtis.

> Yet you accuse others of "infantile games."

With good reason, Curtis.

> -- [repeat of contrived vacuous scenario, one that I did address,
> snipped] --

What allegedly "contrived vacuous scenario", Curtis?

>>> And explain how that disproves my screen shot of WinZip displaying a
>>> listing of JAVAINUF.EXE's contents,

>> Irrelevant, given that I haven't even seen your screen shot, and also
>> given that it wasn't applied to my copy of javainuf.exe.

> Actually, whether you've seen it or not is what's irrelevant, especially
> considering that you are trying to disprove evidence that you haven't
> even seen.

Where am I allegedly trying to disprove your so-called "evidence", Curtis?

>>> when the JAVAINUF.EXE in question was downloaded from the IBM web site,

>> So was mine, Curtis.

> So then, explain why WinZip should choke on it?

I already told you once, Curtis.  Careless with your snippings?  Not
reading before you snip?

> -- snip --

>>>> Illogical, Curtis.  On what basis do you claim that there is a better
tool
>>>> available?

>>>>> one that many people have told you about, namely, WinZip.

>>>> On what basis do you call it better, Curtis?  That it can read a tar
>>>> file doesn't make it any better for my present application, given that
>>>> the file in question isn't a tar file.

>>> That it can read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE while InfoZip cannot is
>>> the basis, Dave.

>> Your "it" doesn't refer to my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> Which doesn't disprove the fact that WinZip *CAN* read *MY* copy of
> JAVAINUF.EXE.

It does disprove your hasty conclusion, Curtis.

> And Marty's. And Mike's

Irrelevant, as I'm dealing with your hasty conclusion, Curtis.

>>>>> There is much ineptness in stubbornly clinging to a failed line of
>>>>> reasoning.

>>>> How ironic, coming from someone stubbornly clinging to a failed line
>>>> of reasoning.

>>> Back to mimicry again . . .

>> You mean the sincerest form of flattery?

> Something like that.

Interesting.

>>> Maybe I should co-opt your battle cry:
>>>
>>> "Back to mimicry again. The usual strategy used by someone who lacks a
>>> logical argument."

>> That's not my battle cry, Curtis.

> Oh? You co-opted it from someone else?

Who do you think I might have co-opted it from, Curtis?

> -- [contrived "question" snipped again] --

What allegedly "contrived 'question'", Curtis?

>>> I have already addressed this above.

>> But you did not answer it above in any meaningful way.  I asked you for
>> what you would conclude, not for what you would not conclude.

> I answered it the best I could,

Is that the best you can do, Curtis?  Odd that you did more the previous
time.

> considering that it was contrived and vacuous.

Prove it, if you think you can, Curtis.

>-- snip --

>>> True, but it still doesn't explain the relevance.

>> Sure it does, Curtis.  You called me "inept", but you haven't yet
>> identified the allegedly "inept" action on my part.

> Sure I have,

Where, Curtis?

> but you simply deny it.

With good reason:  you haven't substantiated your claims.

> -- snip --

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 23:52:22
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (1/4) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this
OS/2 JDK?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not
comprehend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the first time:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the
contents."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to
extract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> its contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that
self-extracting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> archive in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting
and exit,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
> >>>>>>>>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC)
with the
> >>>>>>>>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It
then
> >>>>>>>>>>> calls INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This
program
> >>>>>>>>>>> stub is inside the executable file, hence the program is
executed
> >>>>>>>>>>> under DOS.
> 
> >>>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.
> 
> >>>> The self-extracting archive does not self-extract on DOS, regardless of
> >>>> what you say about it "running" on DOS, Marty.
> 
> >>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.
> 
> >> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.  Do you call that "running"?
> 
> > Yes.
> 
> It figures you'd rely on a semantic argument over what constitutes
> "running".

You asked me what I called it.  I told you.  No semantic argument involved.

> Obviously you have nothing better to do, which is further
> evdience that you're playing an "infantile game".

How ironic coming from Mr. "Eliza" himself.
 
> > I call the display of a string and execution of code from within
> > the EXE file "running".  Don't you?
> 
> Not when the executable is designed to extract an archive instead.

That doesn't change the fact that it is executed.  Yes?

> >>> I notice you see fit to change the wording of my claim from "run" to
> >>> "self-extract".
> 
> >> I'm just being consistent with your own usage, Marty:
> 
> > Incorrect.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

No need to elaborate or prove.  I know my own usage better than you possibly
could and I am declaring your interpretation incorrect.

> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > And run, it does.
> 
> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

Never claimed anything would.  My statement stands.

> >>> How convenient.
> 
> >> Being consistent with your usage is for your convenience, Marty.
> 
> > Yes it would be convenient if you would do so.
> 
> I am, Marty.

Try harder.

> >>> The two are obviously not equivalent and my original statement holds.
> 
> >> Your original statement:
> >> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.
> 
> > But it runs, so my statement holds.
> 
> There's that "it" again.  As I explained once before, the "it" can
> refer to only one of two subjects, namely the self-extracting archive
> or the DOS session.  Now, unless you really want to argue that you
> meant the latter, then we are forced to accept the former.

Already explained.  The self extracting archive (aka "it") is an executable. 
The executable runs in DOS.  Case closed.

> >>>>>>> It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
> >>>>>>> case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the case
> >>>>>>> of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.
> 
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question
is
> >>>>>> a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't,
> 
> >>>>> Quite incorrect again.
> 
> >>>> Balderdash, Marty.
> 
> >>> On what basis do you claim that it is not a bound executable.
> 
> >> On the basis of the absence of DOS code to do the self extraction, Marty.
> 
> > That does not mean it is not a bound executable Dave.
> 
> That does mean there is no DOS code to extract the archive bound into
> the executable, Marty.

Irrelevant, as I never claimed there was not.

> > Being a bound executable only means that the EXE file can run on more
> > than one platform.
> 
> But as the message indicates, the program MUST be run on OS/2.  That's
> a single platform, Marty.

And on what platform did you run it to display that message?

> > It does not mean that it must run the same way on said platforms.
> 
> The functionality of the extraction was not implemented, Marty.

Irrelevant, as I never claimed it was.

> > Of course, I've explained this already.
> 
> And I've responded to your explanation already.  So why do you persist?
> Obviously to continue playing your "infantile game".

Are you enjoying your game with Eric, Dave?
 
> >>> I've already explained below why it is.
> 
> >> I've already explained below why it isn't, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrectly, as usual.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

Incorrectly, as usual.  I've supported my statement below.

> >>>>> Do you know what a "bound executable" is?
> 
> >>>> Of course.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way, Marty.
> 
> >>> Evidence, please.
> 
> >> Are you placing an order, Marty?
> 
> > I'm requesting evidence for your unsupported assertion.
> 
> Are you placing an order, Marty?

Reading comprehension problems?  I've asked you to back up (using whatever
means necessary) your statement.  You have yet to do so.  Without evidence,
your statement is disregarded and you have demonstrated no knowledge of what a
bound executable is.
 
> > I've noted that you failed to provide any in your response.
> 
> Are you placing an order, Marty?

Reading comprehension problems?  I've asked you to back up (using whatever
means necessary) your statement.  You have yet to do so.  Without evidence,
your statement is disregarded and you have demonstrated no knowledge of what a
bound executable is.
 
> >>>>> The DOS and OS/2 programs are bound together into a single EXE file.
> 
> >>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code, Marty?
> 
> >>> Who said anything about self-extracting code?  I said the self
> >>> extracting archive executes in DOS.
> 
> >> It doesn't.  Nothing gets extracted.
> 
> > That doesn't mean it doesn't run in DOS Dave.
> 
> It means the self-extracting archive doesn't run in DOS, Marty.

Perhaps the self-extracting code does not, but the archive (and hence EXE)
does.
 
> > Your own quote of its output proves that it runs.
> 
> Incorrect, given that no archive extraction took place.

Never claimed it would.  Your quote proves that the EXE ran in DOS.

> >>>>> In the case of JAVAINUF.EXE the DOS part of the file displays the
> >>>>> message you quoted and exits.
> 
> >>>> Which means there is no self-extracting code for DOS, thus that code
> >>>> was not bound into the executable, Marty.
> 
> >>> There was DOS code bound into the EXE file and it executes.  My
> >>> statement holds.
> 
> >> Your original statement:
> >> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.
> 
> > Incorrect as noted above.  You seem to not know what a bound executable
> > is.
> 
> Incorrect, as noted above.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way,
> Marty.

Disregarded as you have not substantiated this unsupported claim.

> >>>>>> otherwise it would have self extracted the archive.  It didn't.
> 
> >>>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.
> 
> >>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code bound into the
> >>>> executable, Marty?
> 
> >>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.  A bound executable need
> >>> not execute the same operation in both DOS and OS/2 to be a bound
> >>> executable.
> 
> >> What good is it then, Marty?
> 
> > [the DOS stub?]
> 
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

You know I'm bad at infantile guessing games.  Perhaps you should make your
pronouns more clear next time.

> What do you think the subject of your sentence was?

I noted it in []'s Dave.

> Hint:  you didn't mention any DOS stub in it.

It's quite silly to ask what good the self extracting archive is, so I
disregarded it as a possibility.

Whether it's "any good" or not is irrelevant.  It is still a bound executable
because it contains a DOS stub.  Agreed?

> > To inform the user that to use its intended function, the EXE needs to
> > be run in OS/2.
> 
> So much for trying to run it in a DOS session.

But you've already run it to find out!

> > That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS,
> 
> It does mean that nothing got extracted, Marty.

That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS.  Statements to the contrary are
incorrect.

> > nor that it is not a bound executable.
> 
> No DOS archive extraction code was bound to the executable, Marty.

That does not mean it is not a bound executable.

> > Quite the opposite.
> 
> Quite the repetition, Marty.

Quite incorrect.

> >>> You are quite incorrect to assume that it must.
> 
> >> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.
> 
> > That doesn't change the fact that you are quite incorrect to assume that
> > it must.
> 
> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.

Irrelevant, as your logic, as usual, is at odds with reality.

> >>>>>>> In either case it is executing.
> 
> >>>>>> The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
> >>>>>> that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> >>>> Note:  no response.
> 
> >>> I've already addressed this with my REXX example.
> 
> >> Your REXX script is inappropriate, Marty.
> 
> > Typical unsubstantiated erroneous claim.
> 
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I already
> substantiated my claim, which showed that it is not erroneous.

You failed to grasp the simple concept that any program can say anything it
wants to.  There's little I can do to help you there.

> >>> Code can do or say whatever it wants,
> 
> >> Even start World War III, as they say.
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> Incorrect, given that you referred to "whatever it wants".

Irrelevant as no code has ever wanted to "start World War III".

> >>> no matter how far from reality it is.
> 
> >> In this case, however, the reality is that the file won't self-extract
> >> in a DOS session.
> 
> > Correct.
> 
> Then why did you write:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Covered already.  I see that when you are loosing an argument you resort to
repetition.

> > That doesn't mean it isn't running.
> 
> It does mean that no archive extraction took place, Marty.

Agreed, but that does not make my statement incorrect.

> >>> To blindly believe anything a program says, especially in this day and
> >>> age, is quite a silly thing to do.
> 
> >> Well, if you want to believe that the file really did self-extract in a
> >> DOS session, you are certainly welcome to do so, Marty.
> 
> > And if you want to believe that it is not a bound executable and that
> > stubs can be "displayed" you are welcome to do so.
> 
> You've certainly not provided any reason to change my belief, Marty.

You've not grasped or accepted my explanation.  There's little I can do to
help
you there.  I've properly defined what a bound executable is, and shown how it
is inconsistent with your usage.  I've also noted the fundamental difference
between "displaying" code and executing code, in contrast to your incorrect
usage.  What more can I do?

> >>>>>>>>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.
> 
> >>>>>>>> The program doesn't run, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> The program does in fact run.
> 
> >>>>>> No archive was extracted, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> >>>>> executable was run.
> 
> >>>> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.
> 
> >>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> >>> executable was run.
> 
> >> It does contradict your claim, Marty:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > In what way?
> 
> The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, Marty.

Already covered.

> >>> If I had worded my claim differently, you'd be correct,
> 
> >> I'm correct even with the wording you chose, Marty.
> 
> > Would that it were so, Dave.
> 
> It is, Marty.

Already covered.

> >>> however I never implied in any way what the code was doing.
> 
> >> You did write, however:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Which, if read correctly, the reader would notice that I never implied
> > in any way what the code was doing.
> 
> I'm not talking about any implication, Marty.  I'm talking about what
> you actually wrote.

And then you're making an unwarranted extrapolation as to what it means.  As
you look at the quote, do you see any mention that it will extract anything in
DOS?

> > The self extracting archive is the EXE file.
> 
> Incorrect, given that you made no reference to the EXE file in your
> statement:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Already covered.
 
> > The EXE file can be run in DOS as your own posts have proven.
> 
> The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, contrary to your
> claim, Marty.

Not in contrary to my claim at all, as my claim never addresses this issue.

> >>>> Why do you think it says that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> >>> Already addressed numerous times.
> 
> >> Incorrect.  Rather, you've avoided it numerous times.
> 
> > How is a direct response avoidance?
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 23:52:22
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (2/4) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> By directly using an inappropriate analogy, Marty.

Nothing inappropriate about my response.

> >>>>>>>>> That's what I call running.
> 
> >>>>>>>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like
your
> >>>>>>>> responses to me.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a
DOS
> >>>>>>>>>> session.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> No.  I said the executable would.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in
a
> >>>>>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence 
of a
> >>>>>>>> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it
will
> >>>>>>>> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the
> >>>>>>>> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick,
Marty.
> >>>>>>>> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two
subjects is
> >>>>>>>> a logical choice.
> 
> >>>>>>> Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
> >>>>>>> executable in question?
> 
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You
claimed
> >>>>>> that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
> >>>>>> said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run in
a
> >>>>>> DOS session.  It does not.
> 
> >>>>> It does because the self-extracting archive is JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> >>>> It doesn't self-extract on DOS, Marty.
> 
> >>> Never claimed it would.
> 
> >> Incorrect:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
> > archive when run in DOS.
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
archive when run in DOS.
 
> >>>> It doesn't run.
> 
> >>> Absolutely incorrect again.
> 
> >> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.
> 
> > Correct.
> 
> Glad you agree, Marty.

But "it" does run.

> > But it runs, nonetheless.
> 
> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

Never claimed it would.

> >>>> Your semantic argument won't help you to save face, Marty.
> 
> >>> No need.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > No need on my part.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Typical pontification.

> >>>> It will support my claim that you're responding simply to continue
playing
> >>>> your "infantile game".
> 
> >>> You will reap what you sow.
> 
> >> Illogical, given that I'm not sowing any "infantile game", Marty.
> 
> > I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> Non sequitur.

Incorrect.

> >>>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Right.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Glad you agree, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
> >>>>>>>>> ^
> >>>>>>>>> |---- Incorrect statement.
> 
> >>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the
program,
> >>>>>>>> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?
> 
> >>>>>>> There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.
> 
> >>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.  They get executed.
> 
> >>>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
> >>>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".
> 
> >>> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> >> Non sequitur.
> 
> > I'm rubber and you're glue.
> 
> Non sequitur.

On the contrary, it's quite sequitur.

> > Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
> 
> Non sequitur.  Sounds like something from grade school.  Even more
> evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

How ironic, coming from Dave "Eliza" Tholen.  How long are you going to keep
that infantile game up?

> >>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.
> 
> >> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
> >> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".
> 
> > Nothing semantic about it Dave.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

When the program displayed, "This program must be run under OS/2," was that
the
stub?  If you believe so then try this:

run DEBUG.EXE (or DEBUG.COM depending on your DOS version) in a DOS session.
Then type the following:
e 100
22 54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73 74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 20
75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F 53 2F 32 2E 22
g 100

Then tell me what happens.

Alternatively, if you feel that the stub itself was display magically when you
type the name of the executable, then compare the output you get when you run
the executable to what you get when you say "type JAVAINUF.EXE" at a DOS
prompt.

These two were provided as clear examples of the difference between displaying
a program and executing one, highlighting your incorrect usage.  This is not a
semantic issue, but a mistake on your end, leading to a miscommunication.

> > If I displayed you is that not something entirely different than if
> > I executed you?
> 
> Yet another inappropriate analogy.

Incorrect, as it highlights your incorrect usage of the word by showing the
difference between displaying and executing.

> > You used an incorrect term to describe the situation.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

It has been backed up numerous times.

> > Admit it you coward.
> 
> Typical invective.  Losing another argument, Marty?

Not to you.  Perhaps elsewhere if I am neglecting another argument to answer
you.

> >>> They get executed.  That's not sematics.
> 
> >> Balderdash, Marty.
> 
> > Do you "display" your newsreader to write these postings?
> 
> Of course, given that I need to read the articles before I respond to
> them.

If you hadn't executed your newsreader, would you be able to respond?

> > Do you "display" Netscape when you want to browse the World Wide Web?
> 
> Of course, given that the interface is visual.

If you hadn't executed Netscape, would you be able to browse the World Wide
Web
using Netscape?
 
> > This is obviously an incorrect usage of the word "display",
> 
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

On the basis that it is misleading, and neatly glosses over the required to
execute the code in question.  How convenient.

> > as is your use of it with respect to the stub executable.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

Incorrect, as I have supported this statement above.

> >>> There's a world of difference between executing code and displaying
> >>> something.
> 
> >> There's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
> >> displaying a stub.
> 
> > No argument there, however irrelevant the statement may be.
> 
> It's not irrelevant, Marty.

"Yet another example of your pontification."

> > However, you have yet to own up to the fact that there's a world of
> > difference between executing code and displaying something.
> 
> However, you have yet to own up to the relevancy of the fact that
> there's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
> displaying a stub.

There certainly is, but your misuse of the word display makes the statement
irrelevant.  Displaying a stub doesn't involve the execution of the stub's
code.

Meanwhile, as if I needed to point it out again, you have yet to own up to the
fact that there's a world of difference between executing code and displaying
something.

> >>> You used incorrect terminology
> 
> >> Balderdash, Marty.  You're simply engaging in a semantic argument to
> >> divert attention away from the issue.
> 
> > If I were to use a term incorrectly, you'd call me on it just the same.
> 
> There's a world of difference between using a term incorrectly and
> engaging in a semantic argument, Marty.

You'd be the one to know on both counts.  If I were to use a term incorrectly,
you'd call me on it just the same.

> > Don't expect any less from your opponents.
> 
> I expect you to be consistent, and to be consistent, you should not
> be seeing my postings, due to your alleged use of a killfile.

Sorry to shatter your "reality".

> >>> and now refuse to acknowledge your error.
> 
> >> What alleged error, Marty?
> 
> > Your misuse of the word "display".
> 
> What alleged misuse, Marty?

See above, and below for that matter.

> >>>> Marty, and you'll develop a reputation for "never" admitting to making
> >>>> mistakes.  Then some day you may have to deal with someone the way I've
> >>>> dealt with you.
> 
> >>> And how have you allegedly "dealt" with me, Dave?
> 
> >> By putting up with your lies, Marty.
> 
> > Have you determined this to be an effective way of "dealing" with me?
> 
> I have determined that letting your lies go unchallenged is an
> ineffective way of "dealing" with you, Marty.

Irrelevant to the question asked.
 
> >>>>>>> If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
> >>>>>>> MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
> >>>>>>> MOV DX, [address of string]
> >>>>>>> INT 21
> >>>>>>> MOV AH, 0
> >>>>>>> INT 21
> 
> >>>>>> I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
> >>>>>> is.
> 
> >>>>> On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.
> 
> >>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> >>> No semantics involved.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > No semantics involved on my end.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.

> >>> I'm correcting your misconception of what a stub is and what can be
> >>> done with it.
> 
> >> What alleged misconception, Marty,
> 
> > Pointed out numerous times.
> 
> Where, allegedly, Marty?

Everywhere!

> >> and how will that advance your argument in support of your erroneous
> >> claim:
> 
> > It won't,
> 
> Glad you agree.  So why do you persist?  Apparently to continue playing
> your "infantile game".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through this?"

> > because I do not advance or support any erroneous claim.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.

Addressed above.  I see that when you are loosing an argument you tend to
repeat yourself a lot.

> > However, my statement still stands.
> 
> ..as incorrect.
> 
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> A stub cannot be displayed in a meaningful way.
> 
> >> There is obvious meaning to the one displayed by javainuf.exe, Marty.
> 
> > You are again misusing the word "display".
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Demonstrate how your usage is proper.  I have already demonstrated how it is
improper.  You flatly reject my demonstration without so much as a "because I
said so!"

> > That stub code was not displayed in your output.
> 
> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

No semantics involved in correcting an error in your perception.

> > It was executed.
> 
> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

Still ignoring my point Dave?

> >>>>> You seem to think it can be displayed in a meaningful way.
> 
> >>>> The error message is quite meaningful, Marty.
> 
> >>> The error message is not a "stub" Dave.
> 
> >> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > No semantics involved.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Evidence, please.  What is your definition of a "stub" Dave?  How about "bound
executable"?  How about "to display"?  How about "to execute" (as in code)? 
Now demonstrate how these words tie together in your mind.

If I were to misinterpret the word "incorrect" every time you write it to
mean,
"Marty, I'm a big pompous fool" would you not correct me?  Would that be a
semantic argument on your part or your correction of an error on my part?

> > The stub is the kicker code for the operating system in question.
> > It is not a static text string.
> 
> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

Note that you refuse to accept facts.

> > If I were heretofore going to refer to the word "you" as if it
> > meant "sausage", would you not feel the need to correct me?
> 
> Yet another inappropriate analogy.

Incorrect, because it is exactly what is happening with the roles reversed, of
course.

> >>> It's a "string".
> 
> >> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > None present to continue.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of disregarding it as
"semantic" you'd learn something.
 
> >>> It is displayed by the execution of the code present in the "stub".
> 
> >> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > None present to continue.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of disregarding it as
"semantic" you'd learn something.
 
> >>>>> Unless one knows machine opcodes, it cannot.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant to the issue, Marty.
> 
> >>> Incorrect, as machine opcodes or interpreted x86 assembly are the only
> >>> way to display the already compiled stub.  You used the term
> >>> incorrectly.
> 
> >> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > Continuing to postpone your admitting to an obvious error?
> 
> What alleged "obvious error", Marty?

Your misuse of the phrases "display", "stub", and "bound executable".
 
> >>> Admit your error and I will move on.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't admitted several of his
> >> own errors.
> 
> > I've admitted to all errors that have been proven to me beyond the
> > shadow of a doubt, and several that haven't.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty,

Typical pontification.  To which errors that have been proven to me beyond the
shadow of a doubt have I not admitted, Dave?

> but once again, I'll note that when you make the claims, the burden of 
> proof falls on your shoulders.

Never seems to get in your way.

> >>>>> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
> 
> >>>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> >>> He has already affirmed that he believes the archive format is
> >>> portable.  I agree with him.  Do you agree that the archive format is
> >>> portable?
> 
> >> Irrelevant, given that Timbol is the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> > I'm bringing it up,
> 
> Why, Marty?

Because I'd like to know where you stand on the matter.
 
> > now answer the question,
> 
> Why should I answer an irrelevant question, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 23:52:22
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (3/4) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

It is quite relevant to a number of claims you've made.
 
> > you coward.
> 
> Typical invective.  Losing another argument, eh Marty?

I've noted you squirm to avoid this question time and time again.  Why is this
so?

> >>>>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice quite nicely.
> 
> >>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?"
> >>>> "A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice quite nicely."
> 
> >>> What's allegedly irrelevant and inappropriate about my question Dave?
> 
> >> That's not the reasoning behind the wife beating example, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

Incorrect.  Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

> >>> If a "yes" or "no" won't do, then how about explaining your position
> >>> instead of dodging the issue?
> 
> >> I already have explained my position, Marty.
> 
> > Illogically.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at
57%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
contents.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that 
he
> >>>>>>>>>>> could view the archive.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>>>>>>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
> >>>>>>>>> DT] file?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't
represent
> >>>>>>>> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.
> 
> >>>>>>> You are questioning the fact that he could read it.
> 
> >>>>>> Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran
the
> >>>>>> self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.
> 
> >>>>> What point would that prove?
> 
> >>>> Good question.  Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the
contents
> >>>> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip,
> 
> >>> Which they are, as anyone with the JDK can verify.
> 
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> > On the basis that viewing the contents of classes.zip will show a
> > listing of *.class files,
> 
> Is the listing complete, Marty?

Define complete in this context (regarding which components are included).
 
> > containing the implementation of all of the base component classes of
> > said version of Java.
> 
> That's the 1.1.8 version, Marty.  Now, do you remember what the subject
> of the thread is?  Hint:  it has to do with some additional functionality
> that was implemented.

In the immortal words of the great Curly Howard, "Sointenly."

> >>>> somehow proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.
> 
> >>> That wasn't the whole of his line of reasoning, but I'll leave that for
> >>> you two to explore.
> 
> >> Indeed, Timbol also used the reasoning that the article I referenced
> >> referred to a preview release, suggesting that the Java 2 security
> >> classes were removed before actual release.  Despite that, the actual
> >> release still has the Java 2 security classes.
> 
> Note:  no response.

Am I being asked to defend Mike's position?  Sorry, but it doesn't work that
way.

> >>>>> You were questioning the validity of his reasoning based on his
> >>>>> availability to verify his own claims.
> 
> >>>> I never said anything about his availability, Marty.
> 
> >>> Then why bother questioning him on how he was able to read the contents
> >>> of the archive?
> 
> >> What does that have to do with his availability, Marty?
> 
> > You FUD'ed that he could not verify his own facts.
> 
> Non sequitur.  What alleged FUD, Marty?

Numerous times you've thrown doubt over the fact that he could properly
extract
and view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.  This is FUD and is untrue.

> >>>>>>> He, in fact, can read it.
> 
> >>>>>> So can I, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Do you accept this fact?
> 
> >>>>>> I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't
> >>>>>> include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?
> 
> >>>>> This is a different issue.
> 
> >>>> On the contrary, it's a part of the original issue, Marty.
> 
> >>> In what way?
> 
> >> It represents some of the Java 1.2 functionality that was implemented
> >> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty.  Haven't you been following the issue?
> 
> > That is not an issue in this branch of the thread,
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  Apparently you haven't been following the issue.

I have been in this branch of the thread, and heretofore this point was not
mentioned until now.

> > otherwise I would have quoted it and responded to it.
> 
> As I said, you haven't been following the issue.

Irrelevant, as it was not something I had originally addressed.

> >>>>> It does not seem to include them in such a way that standard Java 1.2
> >>>>> programs would be able to access them.
> 
> >>>> Did IBM claim to include them in that way, Marty?  IBM simply said that
> >>>> functions from Java 2 are included in 1.1.8, thereby justifying
Joseph's
> >>>> statement and contradicting Timbol's "bullshit" response.
> 
> >>> If there is no guarantee that the functions are implemented to
> >>> completion
> 
> >> Completion isn't required to make the statement, Marty.
> 
> > Completion is required to implement the functionality Dave.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Would you claim that a given engine implements the functionality of a car?

> > Do you often half-ass implementation yourself?
> 
> I've never implemented myself, Marty.

Obviously.

> >>> and no guarantee that the interfaces are the same,
> 
> >> Nothing was said about the interfaces being the same, Marty.
> 
> > Glad you agree.
> 
> That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.  Rather, it's an indication
> of the irrelevancy of your remark.

Rather, it's an attempt to avoid my remark.

> >>> and the function names themselves are different, as seems to be the
> >>> case after a cursory examination of the class libraries,
> 
> >> Are you referring to the classes.zip file again, Marty?
> 
> > My words say what they say, Dave.
> 
> But your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

Never stopped you before.

> >>> then how is this even vaguely reminiscent of Java 2 functionality?
> 
> >> Try reading the appropriate file, Marty, rather than classes.zip.
> >> No wonder Timbol thinks he can get away with his lies.  There's
> >> readers like you out there.
> 
> > And who exactly is "like me" out there Dave?
> 
> You are, Marty.

So Timbol is going through all of this trouble for little old me?  I'm
flattered.

> > Archive:  SecMA.jar
> >  Length  Method   Size  Ratio   Date    Time   CRC-32     Name
> >  ------  ------   ----  -----   ----    ----   ------     ----
> >   82070  Stored   82070   0%  07-28-99  03:30  f5766547
> > META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
> >       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/
> >       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/ibm/
> >       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000
> > com/ibm/security12/
> > .... etc.
> >
> > As I have stated, the function names themselves are different, as seems
> > to be the case after a cursory examination of the class libraries.
> 
> Irrelevant, Marty.

How is the contents of the JAR file containing security classes irrelevant to
this issue???

> One does not need to have the same names to implement the same
functionality.

This listing proves that the interface is different, as we discuss below.

> For example, the touch tone keypad has a different name from a rotary dial, 
> but the former implements the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
> telephone number, of the latter.

Unfortunately a poor choice of example, as a touch-tone phone is required for
many newer services to function properly.

> >>>>> They are included as implementation specific plugins which are not
> >>>>> guaranteed to conform to Java 1.2 standards,
> 
> >>>> What's non-standard about them, Marty?
> 
> >>> The classes are under a different inheritance tree.
> 
> >> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> >> classes, Marty?
> 
> > It automatically means they are not Java 2 compatible, which means that
> > Java 2 functionality is not implemented in this version of Java.
> 
> Yet another semantic argument.

So any direct proof I provide of a mistake you make is "semantic"?  How
convenient.

> Exactly what do you think "functionality" means, Marty?

Yet another semantic argument.

> Having the same name?  The same interface?

Yet another semantic argument.

> >>> The interfaces to them are different.
> 
> >> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> >> classes, Marty?
> 
> > Absolutely.
> 
> Illogical.  The interface to the touch tone keypad is different from
> the rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
> telephone number, is present.

Inappropriate example, as noted above.

> >>> Though I have not used them, I would also wager that the
> >>> functionality is not 100% accurate.
> 
> >> Wagers are not proof, Marty.
> 
> > Nor are unsupported statements, but that never stopped you before.
> 
> Irrelevant, given that my statement is supported by an actual article
> posted by an IBM representative, Marty.

Incorrect.
 
> >>> If a Java 2 program which utilized the new classes were to attempt
> >>> to execute on an OS/2 system with Java 1.1.8, it would, and does
> >>> exit with an exception error.
> 
> >> The security classes are for developers, Marty, not clients.
> 
> > And are therefore, useless.
> 
> Illogical, given that IBM provided them for a reason.  That you cannot
> figure out that reason is your problem, Marty.

Not my problem at all.

> > Why would a developer embrace something that isn't standard that no
> > clients were meant to run?
> 
> Read the referenced article, Marty.

Done.  Now what?

> >>> That's what's non-standard about them.
> 
> >> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> >> classes, Marty?
> 
> > Absolutely.
> 
> Illogical.  The touch tone keypad is a different standard from the
> rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
> telephone number, is present.

Inappropriate example, as noted above.

> >>>>> and as such seem to be fairly useless.
> 
> >>>> Then why would IBM include them, Marty?
> 
> >>> Technology preview?  Perhaps specific applications for specific
> >>> customers that are tied to OS/2.
> 
> >> Did you even bother to read the excerpt I provided, Marty?
> >>
> >> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
> >> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
> >> ] platform.
> 
> > Yup.  As I stated, technology preview.
> 
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  Do you know what
> "migrate" means?

Yet another semantic argument.
 
> > As such, however, no Java 2 functionality is implemented.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.  Reread the referenced article.

Done.  Now what?

> >>>> Perhaps you simply don't understand their usefulness?
> 
> >>> It's hard to understand the usefulness of a platform independent
> >>> language being tied to one platform through non-conformity.
> 
> >> Try to understand Microsoft's Java, Marty.  However, you haven't
> >> proven non-conformity.
> 
> > The inheritance tree of the classes already proves non-conformity.
> 
> How so, Marty?

Have you ever coded in Java?  If so it would be quite apparent.

> And where's your understanding of Microsoft's Java?

Microsoft can get away with non-conformity due to market share.  IBM does not
have this luxury with OS/2.
 
> >>>>> If I were a Java programmer, I would be quite hesitant to use
> >>>>> these functions.
> 
> >>>> Why not let Java programmers tell you what they find useful or not
> >>>> about the inclusion of Java 2 security classes in the JDK, Marty?
> 
> >>> Because I like to take matters into my own hands when I make a
> >>> decision.
> 
> >> Even if your hands aren't qualified to do so.
> 
> > On what basis do you make this claim, Mr. "Display the Stub"?
> 
> Your illogical claims and your lies, Marty.

Have you ever coded in Java?  I have.  By my measure, I'm quite a bit more
qualified than you are to be discussing this matter.

> >>> As a seasoned programmer myself who worked in Java for a time
> >>> I feel qualified to make such a statement.
> 
> >> Your feelings are irrelevant, Marty.
> 
> > My feelings in this matter have weight in light of my experience.
> 
> With whom, Marty?  Certainly not me.

Unfortunate for you.  You could learn a thing or two from me if you had an
open
mind.

> >>> The basis of Java is its portability.
> 
> >> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
> >> for OS/2, will not be portable?
> 
> > Reading comprehension problems?
> 
> Obviously not, Marty.

Nothing obvious about it.

> > My words say what they say, Dave.
> 
> Your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

Yet another semantic argument.

> >>> If one throws in platform-specific code, that tenant is
> >>> destroyed.
> 
> >> Illogical.
> 
> > There is nothing illogical about that statement.
> 
> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
> for OS/2, will not be portable?

Not at all.  My statement was generalized.  If one throws platform specific
code into Java, the tenants of Java have been broken.  Do you not agree?

> Is there something about IBM's Java 1.1.8 that is not portable, Marty?

Irrelevant.

> >> IBM is simply giving Java developers on OS/2 a head start on the use of
> >> those security classes.
> 
> > Then why not give Java developers on OS/2 the real thing, rather than a
> > partial, incompatible, platform specific implementation?
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               03-Nov-99 23:52:22
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: (4/4) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> Don't you think IBM plans to do so, Marty?

What I think IBM plans to do is irrelevant.

> > Using such a thing could do more harm than good.
> 
> IBM obviously thinks otherwise.

What IBM "thinks" is unprovable and irrelevant.

> Perhaps you should take up the issue with your employer.

Illogical, as I am employed by the server group, not the software group.

> >>>>> If portability was a concern I could not use these functions at all.
> 
> >>>> Perhaps you should comprehend IBM's intentions, Marty:
> >>>>
> >>>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
> >>>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
> >>>> ] platform.
> 
> >>> Exactly as I stated above:  Technology preview.  Not useful for anything
> >>> but evaluation.
> 
> >> And migration, Marty.
> 
> > Why migrate to an "in-between" step when you can migrate to the real
> > thing in one step?
> 
> Why use the stairway when you can leap between floors?

Typical inappropriate analogy.  In this case it is just as difficult to
migrate
to the "real deal" as it is to migrate to an "in-between" step.

> >>> Not equivalent implementation by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, given that "equivalent" was never stated, Marty.
> 
> > Since it is not an equivalent implementation, then Java 2 functionality
> > is not implemented therein.
> 
> Illogical, given that equivalence is not required for functionality to
> be implemented, Marty.  Consider the touch tone keypad and the rotary
> dial example.

Consider why it is incorrect, and also consider what you would do with a car
engine without a chassis.

[Let's try this section over again... I'll start with your question.]

> >>>> You still have not answered the question I posed:  I don't accept
> >>>> his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't include Java 2
> >>>> security classes, Marty.  Do you?

> I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for why you don't think
> Java 2 security classes were implemented, Marty.  Don't try to use
> "standard interface" or "same name" criteria without explaining how
> they prevent the functionality from being provided.  Refer to the
> touch tone keypad and rotary dial for an example, Marty.

Yes.  The contents (listed a ways above) shows that the names of the classes,
and thus the interfaces are different.  Since the Java API itself is nothing
but an interface, this proves to me that Java 2 security classes, as defined
by
Sun, are not implemented in the JDK in question.

[Now for my question.]

> >>>>> You still have no answered the question I posed:  Do you accept the
fact
> >>>>> that Mike can read the archive's contents in a meaningful way and
> >>>>> extract them if he chooses?

I expect a reasonable "go" at it this time.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 05:22:19
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>> What makes you believe that?
>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>> What makes you believe that?
>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>> What makes you believe that?
>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>> What makes you believe that?
>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>> What makes you believe that?
>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>> What makes you believe that?
>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Maybe your infantile games have something to do with this.

How ironic, coming from someone playing an "infantile game", as
further evidenced by the way in which you removed all the text
to which the above was in response.  Gee, aren't you one of the
people who has complained about "destroying context"?  Hypocrite.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 05:21:04
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already. 
Curtis
>>>>>>>>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.
 
>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
 
>>>>>>> I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.
 
>>>>>> It hasn't shown up here, Mike, and apparently hasn't shown up on
>>>>>> deja.com either, based on what others have written.
 
>>>>> Check again, or don't bother.  Here's the URL for the JPG itself:
>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
 
>>>> What would that prove, Marty?
 
>>> That's the evidence you requested!  Remember??

>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
 
>> That doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

> Irrelevant,

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that your remark was in
response to my note that it hadn't shown up here.

> as it is the contents of the posting.

Which posting, Marty?

> Moreover, it is the evidence you requested.

That so-called "evidence" doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

> What a laughable attempted dodging of the issue.

What a laughable problem with reading comprehension.

>>> This is the picture contained in "this alleged post" to which you
>>> referred.
 
>> Still doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

> Still irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that your remark was in
response to my note that it hadn't shown up here.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:52:29
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> 
> > In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
> > as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> > emulates many different kinds of CPUs.
> 
> Oh really?  Does that mean MAME will allow me to run any application
> written for any of those CPUs, game or not?

If the CPUs are emulated properly, then yes.  MESS is a MAME "bolt-on"
specific
to PC emulation, but uses all of the same emulation code as its arcade
counterpart.
 
> > It creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of
> > various kinds of machines, arcade games among them,
> 
> Any other applications?

Whatever you can run on the given platform.

> > can be accurately reproduced, provided that the program code for said
> > CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump files or "ROMs" for
> > short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate various kinds of
> > arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern architectures.
> 
> Will it let me run CP/M applications, like the Magic Wand word
> processor?

The MESS modification will, which contains definitions specific to x86 PCs.

> > As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
> > lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
> >
> > Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
> > that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> > hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> > anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
> > about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
> > used in the hardware of these systems.
> 
> And the games had nothing to do with it?

The games themselves have nothing to do with my learning about hardware and
fascination with emulation.

> > Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
> > it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> > example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> > invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
> > making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> > learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
> > into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.
> 
> And the games had nothing to do with it?

The games themselves had nothing to do with my enjoyment of porting large
multimedia applications to OS/2, nor the "frontiersman" feel, nor helping
other
developers.

> > Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
> > my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.

[Here's where the games come in.]

> Perhaps you should spend more time doing that then playing "infantile
> games" on USENET, Marty.

I already do.

> PacMan won't respond to you when you insult him.

Now why would I insult PacMan?  He doesn't make erroneous statements and
insist
they are correct.  He just eats dots and runs away from spooky ghosts.  The
poor guy doesn't even have legs with which to run.

> > Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> > Usenet?
> 
> You're presupposing the above is a complete description of your
> motivation, Marty.

Correct.  I've noted you failed to answer the question.  Does any of this
indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on Usenet?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:56:12
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:31:18, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > >
> > > Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> >
> > In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
> > as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> > emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It creates an environment in
> > which the video and sound hardware of various kinds of machines, arcade
> > games among them, can be accurately reproduced, provided that the
> > program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump
> > files or "ROMs" for short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate
> > various kinds of arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern
> > architectures.
> >
> > As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
> > lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
> >
> > Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
> > that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> > hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> > anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
> > about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
> > used in the hardware of these systems.
> >
> > Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
> > it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> > example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> > invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
> > making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> > learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
> > into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.
> >
> > Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
> > my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.
> >
> > Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> > Usenet?
> 
> Allright. But MAME still plays games, yes? Please?

I already stated above:
MAME does not play games.  It emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It
creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of various kinds
of machines, arcade games among them, can be accurately reproduced, provided
that the program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump
files or "ROMs" for short).

The user plays the games.  MAME creates an environment in which they can run.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 01:02:03
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is
playing the
> >>>>>>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT 
run
> >>>>>>>>>> under DOS, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have
shown.
> 
> >>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
proves.
> 
> >>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.
> 
> >>>>>> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
> >>>>>> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?
> 
> >>>>> How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
> >>>>> DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
> >>>>> proves.
> 
> >>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking about
> >>>> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.
> 
> >>> Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you to
> >>> understand.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  In reality, your code wasn't complex enough to extract
> >> any archive.
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.
> 
> >>> I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself proves" is
> >>> completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message can be made
> >>> to state anything that its author desires.
> 
> >> That doesn't mean the javainuf.exe error message is in error itself,
> >> Marty.
> 
> > Never claimed it was.
> 
> But you claimed that the program "runs" in a DOS session, whereas the
> message states that it must be run on OS/2.

The message is obviously technically incorrect.
 
> > Nor does it mean that anything can be proven using it as evidence.
> 
> The fact that nothing was extracted can be used as evidence, Marty.

Incorrect.  The screen output of the executable can be used as evidence.

> >>>>> The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.
> 
> >>>> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.
> 
> >>> I never claimed it could Dave.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > No part of that statement claims that running the executable in DOS will
> > extract the archive.
> 
> Then why is it called a "self-extracting archive", Marty?

Irrelevant.  Still relying on a semantic argument, Dave?

> >>> Do read a bit more carefully next time.
> 
> >> I read it carefully enough the first time, Marty.
> 
> > Not carefully enough, as you seem to have missed the fact that I never
> > said what the program would do, merely that it would run.
> 
> On the contrary, you mentioned what it would do by referring to it as
> a self-extracting archive.

You erroneously inferred that from my statement.  I neither implied nor stated
what it would do.

> >> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to
realize
> >> that I have admitted to mistakes.
> 
> > How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
> > mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize
> that I have admitted to mistakes.

How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious mistakes
as they are continually being pointed out.
 
> > Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?
> 
> Still relying on a semantic argument, Marty?

I'll take that for a "yes".  How absurd.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 01:06:07
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents,
one must
> >>>>> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The
statement is
> >>>>> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.
> 
> >>>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> >>>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> >>>>
> >>>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> >>>>
> >>>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> >>>>
> >>>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
> >>>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is 
not
> >>>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In 
the
> >>>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be
found on
> >>>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>>
> >>>> what would you conclude?
> 
> >>> And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?
> 
> >> I didn't specify any particular unzipper, Marty.
> 
> > I did.
> 
> It's not your example, Marty.

I don't mind.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 01:07:06
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,
> 
> >>> Also meaning besides you Dave?
> 
> >> Nope.
> 
> > Then why say "also"?
> 
> Because he isn't the only one who does so, Marty.

The only other person in context was you, Dave.  Why say such things about
yourself?
 
> >>>>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
> >>>>> Astronomy by trade.
> 
> >>>> I'm also a programmer.
> 
> >>> And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.
> 
> >> How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?
> 
> > How much income have you derived from your programming work, Dave?
> 
> That's proprietary information, Marty.

Likewise.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 01:10:09
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already. 
Curtis
> >>>>>>>>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>> I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.
> 
> >>>>>> It hasn't shown up here, Mike, and apparently hasn't shown up on
> >>>>>> deja.com either, based on what others have written.
> 
> >>>>> Check again, or don't bother.  Here's the URL for the JPG itself:
> >>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >>>> What would that prove, Marty?
> 
> >>> That's the evidence you requested!  Remember??
> 
> >>>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?
> 
> >> That doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.
> 
> > Irrelevant,
> 
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that your remark was in
> response to my note that it hadn't shown up here.

Which is irrelevant as to why it was requested in the first place.
 
> > as it is the contents of the posting.
> 
> Which posting, Marty?

Gee... I don't know Dave.  You play dumb too well.

> > Moreover, it is the evidence you requested.
> 
> That so-called "evidence" doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

Nor does it need to, as it was evidence for the original issue in which you
requested the article, not what you've just changed the subject to.

> > What a laughable attempted dodging of the issue.
> 
> What a laughable problem with reading comprehension.

Squirm some more Dave.

> >>> This is the picture contained in "this alleged post" to which you
> >>> referred.
> 
> >> Still doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.
> 
> > Still irrelevant.
> 
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that your remark was in
> response to my note that it hadn't shown up here.

It was evidence for the original issue in which you requested the article, not
what you've just changed the subject to.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 01:13:00
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >> What makes you believe that?
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >> What makes you believe that?
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >> What makes you believe that?
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >> What makes you believe that?
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >> What makes you believe that?
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >> What makes you believe that?
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Maybe your infantile games have something to do with this.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone playing an "infantile game", as
> further evidenced by the way in which you removed all the text
> to which the above was in response.  Gee, aren't you one of the
> people who has complained about "destroying context"?  Hypocrite.

There was no context to destroy.  Your statements had no correlation to the
statements to which they were allegedly "replying".  By all means, keep
denying
the existence of your game.  Gee, aren't you one of the people who has
complained about "infantile games"?  Hypocrite.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hannwei@computer.org                              04-Nov-99 06:40:19
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: New Microsoft keyboard

From: Hann Wei Toh <hannwei@computer.org>

In article <3820AE36.3853ECDC@agad.purdue.edu>,
  Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu> wrote:
> Have you seen the new Microsoft keyboard design?  This one really
> looks pretty good:
>
> http://www.ext.vt.edu/~pgr/images/new_microsoft_keyboard.jpg

People used to say that Microsoft does not have innovations.  Perhaps
the company is changing.  Anyhow, I would suggest combining the keys
into one.

Hann Wei


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 07:08:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian Tholen
>I was hypothesizing a situation

You know, Ian Tholen is *so* dumb, and foolishly contradictory, that
it's a piece of cake to underscore his stupidity and hypocrisy with
his own words, which I do below (and is the reason why he's too afraid
to directly reply to my posts -- he knows that I *know* what a buffoon
he is, and have no trouble demonstrating with a vast library of his
own demented tripe):

From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Gates is Satan, however...
Date: 27 Mar 1998 22:42:29 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <6fha0l$a75@news.Hawaii.Edu>

I'm not interested in the possibilities, but rather the facts.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 06:51:26
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson
>The position you're defending is absurd.

Apparently, you must beleive that nearly everything that Tholen has
contributed to this newsgroup is "absurd" then, because "the program
does indeed run under DOS because it displayed a message" is the sort
of "logic" that Tholen would apply, when he was attempting to harrass
and FUD opinions of people who are saying things that he doesn't want
to hear. For example, when people were calling IBM, trying to obtain
OS/2 For PowerPC, and being told repeatedly by IBM reps that it was no
longer sold, Tholen argued that it couldn't be considered a
discontinued product, simply because IBM hadn't "officially" announced
it as such, despite the fact that none of the people attempting to
actually order it were able to get anything except the thumbs down
from all IBM sources they could contact.

That's "Tholen Logic" for you.

But then, you're "emotionally blocked" over a niche market, pet
product, so it's understandable why you would think that a fellow
nutcase would "make sense"

The rest of your post is every bit as irrelevant as it was the first
time you posted it, and I responded to it. None of it changes the fact
that both Marty and Mike have made simple, factual statements which
are *not* incorrect. They are firmly established in technical
definitions, regardless of how you would prefer to view them as a
result of your "emotionally blocked" adherence to a particular product

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 06:56:07
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

>On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 23:08:32 GMT, Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>
>wrote:
>
>>David Sutherland wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:57:39 -0500, Bennie Nelson
>>> <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >Jeff,
>>> >
>>> >The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
>>> >adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
>>> >DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
>>> >processes the archive and can be removed from the
>>> >executable with no negative impact on the executable's
>>> >ability to process the archive.
>>> >
>>> >Thus, I have used the following definitions:
>>> >
>>> 
>>> Bennie,  you are trying to sidestep the fact the executable file DOES
>>> run under DOS.   Doing a Tholen and trying to redefine what *part* of
>>> the executable you wish to talk about just makes you look like a -
>>> well - a Tholen.   And that's sad.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> David Sutherland
>>> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
>>
>>David,
>>You are incorrect.  I have stated that the executable does run
>>in DOS.  However, I do not agree that this equates to "the program
>>works in DOS."  The reason being is that the program is a SELF-EXTRACTING
>>ARCHIVE and not a DOS stub that simply tells the user to run it in OS/2.
>>It's quite simple.  I defined the terms and have used them consistently.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Bennie Nelson

>Fine, but Tholen claimed that the executable could not be run under
>DOS, not that it would fail to self-extract under DOS.  Further he
>claimed that Mike Timbol could not have viewed the contents of the
>archive *except* from within OS/2.   He was wrong both times and has
>rfused to aknowledge theat fact.  Why haven't you challenged Tholen on
>these obvious flaws in his claims rather than attempting to redefine
>the argument?

Because Bennie is "emotionally blocked" over a niche market pet
product (and also emotionally blocked over a more successful,
competing product/company), and therefore is inclined to accept,
praise, and even run interference for, exceedingly hypocritical,
contradictory, and inconsistent stupidity from Tholen.

There is absolutely nothing "logical" about Bennie's posts. They're
just more of the "OS/2 Advocacy Shuffle" as I call it. Nowadays, it's
purely a nostalgic, novelty dance, with no purpose or value. But it
can't be amusing in a clownish sort of way

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:20:00
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:
> 
> > But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
> > the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he stated
> > that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
> > correct.
> 
> What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the self-extracting
> archive would run in a DOS session.

What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms were the
same as yours and Bennie's.

You then proceeded to misuse the terms "display", "stub", and "bound
executable".  You then followed up with a healthy smathering of denial of
obvious facts, such as the JPG, the existence of the JPG, and the existence of
the article in which it was originally posted, topped off with irrelevant
examples and failure to answer direct questions.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 05:19:02
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
 
>>>>> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, one 
must
>>>>> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The
statement is
>>>>> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.

>>>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>>>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>>>>
>>>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>>>>
>>>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>>>>
>>>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>>>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>>>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
>>>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>
>>>> what would you conclude?

>>> And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?

>> I didn't specify any particular unzipper, Marty.

> I did.

It's not your example, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 05:18:09
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>>>> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,
 
>>> Also meaning besides you Dave?
 
>> Nope.

> Then why say "also"?

Because he isn't the only one who does so, Marty.

>>>>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
>>>>> Astronomy by trade.
 
>>>> I'm also a programmer.
 
>>> And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.
 
>> How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?

> How much income have you derived from your programming work, Dave?

That's proprietary information, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:27:25
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> > > posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> > > the points, as I see them.
> > >
> > > 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> > >
> > > JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> >
> > This has not been shown to be true.
> 
> Dave quoted from the "readme.sma" file that came with
> Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  I'll also quote the relevant
> portion:
> 
> "The Security considerations (Security) are based on enhancements from
> the Java 2 security model. Security is shipped with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 (Developer
> Kit). Security is integrated into the Runtime package and is
> disabled by default.
> 
> Note:  Security is only supported on systems with the IBM OS/2 Warp
>        Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8."
> 
> To me, "based on enhancements from the Java 2 security model" and
> "JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality" are both
> true statements.  The first, from IBM, proves the second.

The first, from IBM, does not prove anything.  I can make a movie based on a
novel, yet tell a very different story than the novel told, as we often see
happening.
 
> Are you saying that the first does NOT prove the second statement
> to be true?

Yes.

> > > It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> > > changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> > > Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> > > not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> > > by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> > > executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> > > classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> > >
> > > 2) The self-extracting archive
> > >
> > > a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> > > is in an OS/2 native format.
> >
> > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
> 
> I wrote "SELF-EXTRACTING" to emphasize that I was referring only
> to the OS/2-specific code.  This code is what gives the executable
> it's functionality and purpose.

We differ in definitions, hence our disagreement.  Neither of us is
inconsistent with our own use of these definitions of the terms in question.

> > > b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> >
> > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The archive
> > as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.
> 
> And I disagree.  The SELF-EXTRACTING archive will not execute, as
> a whole.  Only the DOS stub executes.  If the SELF-EXTRACTING code
> and the archive are removed, the executable will "run" in DOS
> exactly the way it does with the SE code included.  Thus, what
> is executed in DOS is not a SE archive.

Again, we differ in our definitions of the terms in question.
 
> > > c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> > > format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> > > that have archive utilities that implement support for
> > > the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> > > the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> > > d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> > > for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> >
> > This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.
> 
> But, it is ancillary in nature, and has no direct relation
> or value to the SELF-EXTRACTION code.

I never claimed it was not.

> The SE code is the purpose, the raison d'etre, for the 
> executable program.  If the DOS stub was replaced with x'90' (NOP) 
> instructions, there would be no loss of functionality for the SE 
> program.  The executable would crash and burn if loaded in DOS, 

If you forgot to cap it off with a RET instruction, that is.  ;-)

> but that has no bearing on the fact that the SE code is OS/2 
> only. The program with the DOS stub "NOP'ed" would execute
> flawlessly in OS/2.

Again, the shism in the definition of our terms lead to this disagreement.

> > > e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> > > viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> > > such as editors, viewers, etc.
> > >
> > > Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> > > confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> > >
> > > For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> > > if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> > > are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> > > OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> 
> Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         04-Nov-99 05:17:07
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty writes:

>> Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:

>>> But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
>>> the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he stated
>>> that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
>>> correct.
 
>> What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the self-extracting
>> archive would run in a DOS session.

> What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms were
> the same as yours and Bennie's.

Incorrect, as your use of "it" clearly referred to the self-extracting
archive, Marty.

> You then proceeded to misuse the terms "display", "stub", and "bound
> executable".

Incorrect, Marty.  Rather, you proceeded to engage in a semantic
argument to try and cover up the mistake you made.

> You then followed up with a healthy smathering of denial of
> obvious facts, such as the JPG, the existence of the JPG,

I never denied the existence of the JPG, Marty.  I denied that it
appeared here.

> and the existence of the article in which it was originally posted,

Never showed up here, Marty.  And I wasn't even the first person to
note that it didn't propagate.

> topped off with irrelevant examples and failure to answer direct
> questions.

What allegedly "irrelevant examples", Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 00:36:14
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 03:16:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>> -- snip --
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
> >>>>>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
> >>>>>>>>>> file?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
> >>>>>>>>> self-extracting archive,
> 
> >>>>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.
> 
> >>>>>>> With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of an executable
> >>>>>>> file.
> 
> >>>>>> Like the LIST tool.
> 
> >>>>> That's not a proper tool for such a purpose.
> 
> >>>> What purpose are you referring to, Marty?  I was referring to examining
> >>>> the contents of an executable file.  I often find LIST to be a proper
> >>>> tool for such a purpose.
> 
> >>> On how many occasions have you had to view the contents of an executable
> >>> and found "LIST" a useful view thereof?
> 
> >> Several.  I haven't tried to count them.  I never anticipated such a
> >> question from you.
> 
> > Ballpark figure... 1? 5? 10? 100?
> 
> At least 100.

Dubious, but irrelevant nonetheless.  Thank you for appeasing my curiousity.
 
> >>> Personally, I prefer to look at disassembly or a debugger view if the
> >>> executable has symbollic information as I find it quite a bit more
> >>> useful.
> 
> >> Your preferences are irrelevant, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.
> 
> >>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >>>>>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this
file is
> >>>>>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
> >>>>>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment
will
> >>>>>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>>>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an
archive
> >>>>>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >>>>>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility).
Where
> >>>>>>>>> is the logic, here?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
> >>>>>>>> able to do it.
> 
> >>>>>>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities.  For
> >>>>>>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your logic
is
> >>>>>>> flawed.
> 
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar file,
> >>>>>> Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to InfoZip
> >>>>> and is thus more capable.
> 
> >>>> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
> >>>> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> >>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.
> 
> >> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
> >> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> > LOL!  Are you implying that your version is any different than the one
> > Curtis viewed in WinZip?
> 
> You are inferring that, Marty.

Then why make such a statement?  Do you believe that your version is any
different than the one Curtis viewed in WinZip?  If so, on what basis?

> > This just gets better and better!
> 
> What does "this" refer to, Marty?

Your absurdity.

> >>>>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> >>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> >>>>> wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> >>>> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
> >>>> this fact?
> 
> >>> I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.
> 
> >> I see you're still not read to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.
> 
> > I haven't read any mistake on my part Dave.
> 
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I keep pointing them
> out to you.

Ineptly and erroneously.

> > Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted
> > to deflect it again:
> 
> The issue I'm discussing is your lie about me never discussing an issue,
> Marty.

You may want to stick to the topic at hand for a change.

> > javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> > wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
> this fact?

You're certainly avoiding this one.

javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish to
keep challenging this fact?

> >>> Take another look at the URL:
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> > Why not try it in WinZip yourself then?
> 
> I can't run two operating systems on my PC simultaneously, Marty, and
> I've got a numerical integration running in the background (687 hours
> total CPU time as of this writing).

Reasonable.  However, it would also be reasonable to accept documented
evidence
that numerous others can read this archive in WinZip.  You have yet to do so. 
Why?

> > How laughable for you to think your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is different
> > than what Curtis downloaded and viewed.
> 
> What's so laughable about it, Marty?

Because we all got it from the same place, did we not?

> > How about this... we ask Curtis to get a time and date stamp as
> > well as file size from "his version" of the file, post it here, and
> > then compare it to "your version" of the file.  Would that satisfy
> > you?
> 
> I already know that his version is different, Marty.

I what way.  Perhaps it's time to enlighten us instead of continuing this
infantile game.

> >>>>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> >>>>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> >>>>>>>>> other tool can?
> 
> >>>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
> >>>>>>>> file as argument.
> 
> >>>>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.
> 
> >>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >>>> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?
> 
> >>> Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
> >>> been shattered into tiny little pieces.
> 
> >> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
> >> javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> > Please stop embarassing yourself.
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
> by continuing his "infantile game".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

> >>>>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,
> 
> >>>> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
> >>>> in the same way, Marty.
> 
> >>> Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> > Please stop embarassing yourself.
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
> by continuing his "infantile game".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
 
> >>>>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
> >>>>> behave the same is.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.
> 
> >>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
> >>> decompression tools.
> 
> >> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.
> 
> > So therefore they are all identical?  Illogical.
> 
> Yes, your conclusion is illogical, Marty, as I never said anything like
> that.

You said that you have assumed all decompression tools would function
similarly.  That is illogical.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 07:32:13
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 05:57:20
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Brad BARCLAY
>the ANSI C standard libraries do form an API.

Say no more. I can see now that you're obviously not all that clued in
to the practice of developing software. You don't even refer to
standard components by their given, widely used names.

I call the standard C library a "standard C library". So does everyone
else I know who regularly writes software. Obviously, IBM employees
don't live in the real world with the rest of us

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:04:17
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> it is not a "Java 2 security class", because it is not in Java 2.

>>>> Oh really?  

>>> Yes, really.  Look at any reference implementation of Java 2 and you'll
>>> see those classes are not included.

>> Illogical.  How can Java 2 security classes not be included in Java 2,
>> Mike?

> It is you who are preceding from a false premise,

What allegedly false premise, Mike?

> and using circular logic.

On the contrary, I'm identifying your circular logic, Mike.

> The fact of the matter is that the classes are not "Java 2 security
> classes"

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> because they are not part of Java 2.

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> You find that illogical, yet it is, in fact, the truth.

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

> Obviously something's wrong with your logic.

What's wrong here is your lack of evidence, Mike.

>>>>> As I told you earlier, the JDK includes "security enhancements based
>>>>> on the Java 2 security model".  It does not include "Java 2 security
>>>>> classes".

>>>> IBM disagrees, Mike:
>>>>
>>>> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
>>>> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
>>>> ] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementation of
>>>> ] the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.     

>>> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The n
>>> ewer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer 
>>> description several times.  I'll do so again here:

>> Unnecessary, Mike.

> I see you're conceding defeat on this point as well.

Where is this alleged conceding of defeat, Mike?  Having more reading
comprehension problems?

> You present the earlier, incorrect description,

On what basis do you call it "incorrect", Mike?

> which I've refuted several times based on the contents of the JDK,

The javainuf.exe file is not the contents of the JDK, Mike.

> and based on IBM's newer, more accurate description.

What makes it allegedly more accurate, Mike?

> You refuse to address that at all,

On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to substantiate your
claim.

> instead choosing to delete it

How ironic, coming from the person who chose to delete the evidence
for why my original response to you was so short.  See below for the
restoration.

> and merely repeat your incorrect description four more times.

What's allegedly incorrect about my description, Mike?

>>>>>>>> Swing is contained in a separate top-level file, not in javainuf.exe.

>>>>>>> Thus, Swing is not included in the JDK, as I stated.

>>>>>> "Bullshit", Mike.  The JDK is not simply javainuf.exe.  That is only
>>>>>> one of two runtime environment choices, which users can utilize when
>>>>>> browsing.  

>>>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

>>>> In IBM's words:
>>>>
>>>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>>>> ] applets.
>>>>
>>>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>>>> browsing, Mike.

>>> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.

>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
>> several occasions.

> Tell me, then, the web page which contains one of these "Java 
> applications" that you've executed while browsing.

Baseball season is over, Mike.  It'll be a few months before they use
GameCast for baseball games again.

>>> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
>>> is repeating your incorrect claims.

>> I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike. 

> Yet all of my claims are correct,

Balderdash, Mike.  You claimed that Joseph's statement is "bullshit",
yet even you admitted that some 1.2 functionality was implemented in
1.1.8 for OS/2.  They can't both be right, Mike.

> based on IBM's up-to-date description of the JDK,

IBM did not describe javainuf.exe as the JDK, Mike.

> plus the contents of the actual JDK itself.  

IBM did not describe javainuf.exe as the JDK, Mike.

> Evidence which you refuse to address.

Incorrect, considering how I've addressed it in this response.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:07:05
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>>>> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,
 
>>>>> Also meaning besides you Dave?
 
>>>> Nope.
 
>>> Then why say "also"?
 
>> Because he isn't the only one who does so, Marty.

> The only other person in context was you, Dave.

Incorrect, Marty.

> Why say such things about yourself?

I wasn't, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

>>>>>>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
>>>>>>> Astronomy by trade.
 
>>>>>> I'm also a programmer.
 
>>>>> And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.
 
>>>> How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?
 
>>> How much income have you derived from your programming work, Dave?
 
>> That's proprietary information, Marty.

> Likewise.

Why would zero income be proprietary, Marty?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:07:25
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents,
one must
>>>>>>> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The
statement is
>>>>>>> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to acknowledge.

>>>>>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>>>>>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>>>>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is 
not
>>>>>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In 
the
>>>>>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be
found on
>>>>>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what would you conclude?

>>>>> And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?

>>>> I didn't specify any particular unzipper, Marty.

>>> I did.

>> It's not your example, Marty.

> I don't mind.

Irrlevant, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:09:23
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
>>>> What makes you believe that?
>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Maybe your infantile games have something to do with this.

>> How ironic, coming from someone playing an "infantile game", as
>> further evidenced by the way in which you removed all the text
>> to which the above was in response.  Gee, aren't you one of the
>> people who has complained about "destroying context"?  Hypocrite.

> There was no context to destroy.

On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> Your statements had no correlation to the statements to which they
> were allegedly "replying".

You destroyed context, Marty.

> By all means, keep denying the existence of your game.

That's because my alleged "game" doesn't exist, Marty.

> Gee, aren't you one of the people who has
> complained about "infantile games"?

Yours, Marty.

> Hypocrite.

Illogical, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:14:10
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>>> In my case, I used WinZip, as I've stated several times already. 
Curtis
>>>>>>>>>>> Bass posted a screenshot of WinZip reading the file.

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?

>>>>>>>>> I read it in this newsgroup, Dave.

>>>>>>>> It hasn't shown up here, Mike, and apparently hasn't shown up on
>>>>>>>> deja.com either, based on what others have written.

>>>>>>> Check again, or don't bother.  Here's the URL for the JPG itself:
>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>>>> What would that prove, Marty?

>>>>> That's the evidence you requested!  Remember??

>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged post, Mike?

>>>> That doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

>>> Irrelevant,

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that your remark was in
>> response to my note that it hadn't shown up here.

> Which is irrelevant as to why it was requested in the first place.

Irrelevant, given that your remark was in response to my statement that
it hasn't shown up here, Marty.

>>> as it is the contents of the posting.

>> Which posting, Marty?

> Gee... I don't know Dave.

But you wrote the sentence, Marty.

> You play dumb too well.

How ironic, coming from someone playing dumb.  Hypocrite.

>>> Moreover, it is the evidence you requested.

>> That so-called "evidence" doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

> Nor does it need to,

Then why did you tell me to check again, Marty?

> as it was evidence for the original issue in which you
> requested the article,

How does a question about *where* the alleged post is, represent a
request for the article itself, Marty?

> not what you've just changed the subject to.

I haven't changed the subject, Marty.

>>> What a laughable attempted dodging of the issue.

>> What a laughable problem with reading comprehension.

> Squirm some more Dave.

I'm not squirming, Marty.

>>>>> This is the picture contained in "this alleged post" to which you
>>>>> referred.

>>>> Still doesn't prove that it showed up here, Marty.

>>> Still irrelevant.

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, given that your remark was in
>> response to my note that it hadn't shown up here.

> It was evidence for the original issue in which you requested the
> article,

How does a question about *where* the alleged post is, represent a
request for the article itself, Marty?

> not what you've just changed the subject to.

I haven't changed the subject, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:22:08
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?

>>> In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
>>> as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
>>> emulates many different kinds of CPUs.

>> Oh really?  Does that mean MAME will allow me to run any application
>> written for any of those CPUs, game or not?

> If the CPUs are emulated properly, then yes.

Is MAME designed to emulate all those CPUs properly, Marty?

> MESS is a MAME "bolt-on" specific to PC emulation, but uses all of
> the same emulation code as its arcade counterpart.

Why would an arcade game use emulation code, Marty?

>>> It creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of
>>> various kinds of machines, arcade games among them,

>> Any other applications?

> Whatever you can run on the given platform.

Suppose I can run nothing, because MAME doesn't provide the functionality?

>>> can be accurately reproduced, provided that the program code for said
>>> CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump files or "ROMs" for
>>> short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate various kinds of
>>> arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern architectures.

>> Will it let me run CP/M applications, like the Magic Wand word
>> processor?

> The MESS modification will, which contains definitions specific to
> x86 PCs.

I was asking about MAME, Marty, not MESS.

>>> As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
>>> lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
>>>
>>> Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
>>> that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
>>> hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
>>> anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
>>> about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
>>> used in the hardware of these systems.

>> And the games had nothing to do with it?

> The games themselves have nothing to do with my learning about hardware and
> fascination with emulation.

Are you suggesting that there's nothing more to your interest than
learning about hardware and fascination with emulation?

>>> Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
>>> it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
>>> example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
>>> invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
>>> making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
>>> learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
>>> into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.

>> And the games had nothing to do with it?

> The games themselves had nothing to do with my enjoyment of porting large
> multimedia applications to OS/2, nor the "frontiersman" feel, nor helping
> other developers.

What large multimedia applications have you ported, besides arcade games,
Marty?

>>> Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
>>> my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.

> [Here's where the games come in.]

In other words, the games have something to do with it.

>> Perhaps you should spend more time doing that then playing "infantile
>> games" on USENET, Marty.

> I already do.

Then when do you work, Marty?

>> PacMan won't respond to you when you insult him.

> Now why would I insult PacMan?

Why would you insult me?

> He doesn't make erroneous statements and insist they are correct.

Neither do I, Marty.

> He just eats dots and runs away from spooky ghosts.  The
> poor guy doesn't even have legs with which to run.

Irrelevant, Marty.

>>> Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
>>> Usenet?

>> You're presupposing the above is a complete description of your
>> motivation, Marty.

> Correct.  I've noted you failed to answer the question.

Provide a complete description of your motivation, and then I will be
in a position to answer the question, Marty.

> Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> Usenet?

You're presupposing the above is a complete description of your
motivation, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:26:13
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is
playing the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does NOT 
run
>>>>>>>>>>>> under DOS, Marty?

>>>>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have
shown.

>>>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
proves.

>>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.

>>>>>>>> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
>>>>>>>> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?

>>>>>>> How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
>>>>>>> DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself
>>>>>>> proves.

>>>>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking about
>>>>>> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.

>>>>> Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you to
>>>>> understand.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.  In reality, your code wasn't complex enough to extract
>>>> any archive.

>>> Irrelevant.

>> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

>>>>> I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself proves" is
>>>>> completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message can be made
>>>>> to state anything that its author desires.

>>>> That doesn't mean the javainuf.exe error message is in error itself,
>>>> Marty.

>>> Never claimed it was.

>> But you claimed that the program "runs" in a DOS session, whereas the
>> message states that it must be run on OS/2.

> The message is obviously technically incorrect.

Balderdash, given that nothing gets extracted, Marty.

>>> Nor does it mean that anything can be proven using it as evidence.

>> The fact that nothing was extracted can be used as evidence, Marty.

> Incorrect.  The screen output of the executable can be used as evidence.

Not necessarily, Marty.  Extraction could be done silently.

>>>>>>> The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.

>>>>>> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.

>>>>> I never claimed it could Dave.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty:
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> No part of that statement claims that running the executable in DOS will
>>> extract the archive.

>> Then why is it called a "self-extracting archive", Marty?

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

> Still relying on a semantic argument, Dave?

Obviously not, Marty.  However, you are.

>>>>> Do read a bit more carefully next time.

>>>> I read it carefully enough the first time, Marty.

>>> Not carefully enough, as you seem to have missed the fact that I never
>>> said what the program would do, merely that it would run.

>> On the contrary, you mentioned what it would do by referring to it as
>> a self-extracting archive.

> You erroneously inferred that from my statement.

Incorrect, given that inferences are indirect.

> I neither implied nor stated what it would do.

You did write directly what it would do:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to
realize
>>>> that I have admitted to mistakes.

>>> How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
>>> mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize
>> that I have admitted to mistakes.

> How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
mistakes
> as they are continually being pointed out.

How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize
that I have admitted to mistakes.

>>> Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?

>> Still relying on a semantic argument, Marty?

> I'll take that for a "yes".  How absurd.

I'll take that for a "yes".  How absurd.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 09:35:28
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>>>>>> -- snip --

>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>>>>>>>> contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
>>>>>>>>>>>> file?

>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of a
>>>>>>>>>>> self-extracting archive,

>>>>>>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

>>>>>>>>> With the proper tool, one can examine the contents of an executable
>>>>>>>>> file.

>>>>>>>> Like the LIST tool.

>>>>>>> That's not a proper tool for such a purpose.

>>>>>> What purpose are you referring to, Marty?  I was referring to examining
>>>>>> the contents of an executable file.  I often find LIST to be a proper
>>>>>> tool for such a purpose.

>>>>> On how many occasions have you had to view the contents of an executable
>>>>> and found "LIST" a useful view thereof?

>>>> Several.  I haven't tried to count them.  I never anticipated such a
>>>> question from you.

>>> Ballpark figure... 1? 5? 10? 100?

>> At least 100.

> Dubious,

On what basis do you say that, Marty?

> but irrelevant nonetheless.

Then why did you ask for a ballpark figure, Marty?

> Thank you for appeasing my curiousity.

You mean your "infantile game"?

>>>>> Personally, I prefer to look at disassembly or a debugger view if the
>>>>> executable has symbollic information as I find it quite a bit more
>>>>> useful.

>>>> Your preferences are irrelevant, Marty.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

Note:  no response.

>>>>>>>>>>> your self-deluding denials notwithstanding.

>>>>>>>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that I'm "self-deluded".

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this
file is
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile comment
will
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an
archive
>>>>>>>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>>>>>>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

>>>>>>>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2 utility).
Where
>>>>>>>>>>> is the logic, here?

>>>>>>>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also be
>>>>>>>>>> able to do it.

>>>>>>>>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities.  For
>>>>>>>>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your logic
is
>>>>>>>>> flawed.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar file,
>>>>>>>> Marty.

>>>>>>> Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to InfoZip
>>>>>>> and is thus more capable.

>>>>>> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
>>>>>> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>>>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.

>>>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
>>>> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> LOL!  Are you implying that your version is any different than the one
>>> Curtis viewed in WinZip?

>> You are inferring that, Marty.

> Then why make such a statement?

Because of a difference that you've failed to consider, Marty/

> Do you believe that your version is any different than the one
> Curtis viewed in WinZip?

What I believe is irrelevant, Marty.  I know for a fact that my
version is different.

> If so, on what basis?

On the basis of the difference in response from the unzip tools,
assuming, of course, that you and Curtis have accurately reported
the response from your tools.

>>> This just gets better and better!

>> What does "this" refer to, Marty?

> Your absurdity.

What alleged "absurdity", Marty?

>>>>>>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
>>>>>>> wish to keep challenging this fact?

>>>>>> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
>>>>>> this fact?

>>>>> I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.

>>>> I see you're still not read to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.

>>> I haven't read any mistake on my part Dave.

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I keep pointing them
>> out to you.

> Ineptly and erroneously.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>> Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted
>>> to deflect it again:

>> The issue I'm discussing is your lie about me never discussing an issue,
>> Marty.

> You may want to stick to the topic at hand for a change.

Too embarassing for you, Marty?

>>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
>>> wish to keep challenging this fact?

>> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
>> this fact?

> You're certainly avoiding this one.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> wish to keep challenging this fact?

You haven't tested my copy of javainuf.exe, Marty.

>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Why not try it in WinZip yourself then?

>> I can't run two operating systems on my PC simultaneously, Marty, and
>> I've got a numerical integration running in the background (687 hours
>> total CPU time as of this writing).

> Reasonable.  However, it would also be reasonable to accept documented
> evidence that numerous others can read this archive in WinZip.

You haven't accepted my documented evidence, Marty.

> You have yet to do so.  Why?

How ironic, coming from someone who has yet to accept my documented
evidence.

>>> How laughable for you to think your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is different
>>> than what Curtis downloaded and viewed.

>> What's so laughable about it, Marty?

> Because we all got it from the same place, did we not?

So?

>>> How about this... we ask Curtis to get a time and date stamp as
>>> well as file size from "his version" of the file, post it here, and
>>> then compare it to "your version" of the file.  Would that satisfy
>>> you?

>> I already know that his version is different, Marty.

> I what way.

Huh?

> Perhaps it's time to enlighten us

Enlightenment comes from within, Marty.

> instead of continuing this infantile game.

What alleged "infantile game" (other than yours, of course)?

>>>>>>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
>>>>>>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
>>>>>>>>>>> other tool can?

>>>>>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the same
>>>>>>>>>> file as argument.

>>>>>>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.

>>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>>>> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?

>>>>> Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have just
>>>>> been shattered into tiny little pieces.

>>>> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
>>>> javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Please stop embarassing yourself.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
>> by continuing his "infantile game".

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

If you really want to exchange Eliza responses, Marty, I can indulge
you.

>>>>>>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,

>>>>>> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
>>>>>> in the same way, Marty.

>>>>> Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Please stop embarassing yourself.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
>> by continuing his "infantile game".

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

If you really want to exchange Eliza responses, Marty, I can indulge
you.

>>>>>>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
>>>>>>> behave the same is.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.

>>>>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
>>>>> decompression tools.

>>>> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

>>> So therefore they are all identical?  Illogical.

>> Yes, your conclusion is illogical, Marty, as I never said anything like
>> that.

> You said that you have assumed all decompression tools would function
> similarly.  That is illogical.

Incorrect, given that WinZip can't make bytes magically appear.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 04-Nov-99 09:55:02
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vri73$i4p$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
 <tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The n
>>>> ewer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer 
>>>> description several times.  I'll do so again here:
>
>>> Unnecessary, Mike.
>
>> I see you're conceding defeat on this point as well.  You present the 
>> earlier, incorrect description, which I've refuted several times based 
>> on the contents of the JDK, and based on IBM's newer, more accurate 
>> description.
>
>What makes it allegedly more accurate, Mike?

The fact that it is closer to reality than the outdated description
you like to use (and which you have chosen to post three *more* times).

>> You refuse to address that at all,
>
>On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to substantiate your
>claim.

I've already done so several times, in part by posting the new description 
which you continutally delete without addressing.

>> instead choosing to delete it
>> and merely repeat your incorrect description four more times.
>
>What's allegedly incorrect about my description, Mike?

The fact that what it claims is untrue.  It claims the JDK includes
"Java 2 security classes", when it does not.  When presented with
this fact, you merely point back to the original, incorrect claim
as "proof" that "Java 2 security classes" are included.  Circular logic.

Note that the description you present differs from the description
IBM has available on their web site.  Note that the description I
present, from IBM's web site, is more recent than the one you cling to.

Yet, for obvious and pathetic reasons, you favor the first description.
It's wrong, Dave; the current description is more accurate.

>>>>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?
>
>>>>> In IBM's words:
>>>>>
>>>>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>>>>> ] applets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>>>>> browsing, Mike.
>
>>>> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.
>
>>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
>>> several occasions.
>
>> Tell me, then, the web page which contains one of these "Java 
>> applications" that you've executed while browsing.
>
>Baseball season is over, Mike.  It'll be a few months before they use
>GameCast for baseball games again.

Then name another one.  Or is that the only page you can name that you 
claim contains "Java applications" that you execute while browsing?  
Convienient that the single example you name can't be verified, eh?

>>>> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
>>>> is repeating your incorrect claims.
>
>>> I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike. 
>
>> Yet all of my claims are correct, based on IBM's up-to-date description 
>> of the JDK, plus the contents of the actual JDK itself.  
>
>IBM did not describe javainuf.exe as the JDK, Mike.

Here's how IBM *did* describe their JDK:

  IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8
  incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler technology with MMI 
  function. New to this release are security enhancements based on the 
  Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported by 
  IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2 providing serial and parallel device
  support and enabling JavaPOS and JavaXFS. 

  Updated 07/30/99 

Note a number of things:

  1. "security enhancements based on the Java 2 security model" *not*
     "Java 2 security classes".

  2. "Java 2" clearly refers to the "security model", and *ONLY* the
     security model.  It clearly does *not* refer to "Swing", "RMI-IIOP",
     and "the Java COMM API".  Those are *not* Java 2 features.

  3. "Updated 07/30/99", which is more recent than the newsgroup article
     you refer to.

Why is this description more accurate than the one you cling to?  Because
the JDK does not contain "Java 2 security classes", nor does it contain
"Java 2 versions" of the other named features.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 10:06:12
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: (1/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Marty writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this
OS/2 JDK?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not
comprehend
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the first time:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the
contents."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to
extract
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that
self-extracting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archive in a DOS session, it will run.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting
and exit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC)
with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It
then
>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This
program
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stub is inside the executable file, hence the program is
executed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> under DOS.

>>>>>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.

>>>>>> The self-extracting archive does not self-extract on DOS, regardless of
>>>>>> what you say about it "running" on DOS, Marty.

>>>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.

>>>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.  Do you call that "running"?

>>> Yes.

>> It figures you'd rely on a semantic argument over what constitutes
>> "running".

> You asked me what I called it.  I told you.  No semantic argument involved.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> Obviously you have nothing better to do, which is further
>> evdience that you're playing an "infantile game".

> How ironic coming from Mr. "Eliza" himself.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> I call the display of a string and execution of code from within
>>> the EXE file "running".  Don't you?

>> Not when the executable is designed to extract an archive instead.

> That doesn't change the fact that it is executed.  Yes?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> I notice you see fit to change the wording of my claim from "run" to
>>>>> "self-extract".

>>>> I'm just being consistent with your own usage, Marty:

>>> Incorrect.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> No need to elaborate or prove.  I know my own usage better than you possibly
> could and I am declaring your interpretation incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> And run, it does.

>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

> Never claimed anything would.  My statement stands.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> How convenient.

>>>> Being consistent with your usage is for your convenience, Marty.

>>> Yes it would be convenient if you would do so.

>> I am, Marty.

> Try harder.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> The two are obviously not equivalent and my original statement holds.

>>>> Your original statement:
>>>> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.

>>> But it runs, so my statement holds.

>> There's that "it" again.  As I explained once before, the "it" can
>> refer to only one of two subjects, namely the self-extracting archive
>> or the DOS session.  Now, unless you really want to argue that you
>> meant the latter, then we are forced to accept the former.

> Already explained.  The self extracting archive (aka "it") is an executable. 

> The executable runs in DOS.  Case closed.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
>>>>>>>>> case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the case
>>>>>>>>> of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question
is
>>>>>>>> a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't,

>>>>>>> Quite incorrect again.

>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.

>>>>> On what basis do you claim that it is not a bound executable.

>>>> On the basis of the absence of DOS code to do the self extraction, Marty.

>>> That does not mean it is not a bound executable Dave.

>> That does mean there is no DOS code to extract the archive bound into
>> the executable, Marty.

> Irrelevant, as I never claimed there was not.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Being a bound executable only means that the EXE file can run on more
>>> than one platform.

>> But as the message indicates, the program MUST be run on OS/2.  That's
>> a single platform, Marty.

> And on what platform did you run it to display that message?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> It does not mean that it must run the same way on said platforms.

>> The functionality of the extraction was not implemented, Marty.

> Irrelevant, as I never claimed it was.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Of course, I've explained this already.

>> And I've responded to your explanation already.  So why do you persist?
>> Obviously to continue playing your "infantile game".

> Are you enjoying your game with Eric, Dave?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> I've already explained below why it is.

>>>> I've already explained below why it isn't, Marty.

>>> Incorrectly, as usual.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> Incorrectly, as usual.  I've supported my statement below.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> Do you know what a "bound executable" is?

>>>>>> Of course.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way, Marty.

>>>>> Evidence, please.

>>>> Are you placing an order, Marty?

>>> I'm requesting evidence for your unsupported assertion.

>> Are you placing an order, Marty?

> Reading comprehension problems?  I've asked you to back up (using whatever
> means necessary) your statement.  You have yet to do so.  Without evidence,
> your statement is disregarded and you have demonstrated no knowledge of what 
a
> bound executable is.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> I've noted that you failed to provide any in your response.

>> Are you placing an order, Marty?

> Reading comprehension problems?  I've asked you to back up (using whatever
> means necessary) your statement.  You have yet to do so.  Without evidence,
> your statement is disregarded and you have demonstrated no knowledge of what 
a
> bound executable is.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> The DOS and OS/2 programs are bound together into a single EXE file.

>>>>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code, Marty?

>>>>> Who said anything about self-extracting code?  I said the self
>>>>> extracting archive executes in DOS.

>>>> It doesn't.  Nothing gets extracted.

>>> That doesn't mean it doesn't run in DOS Dave.

>> It means the self-extracting archive doesn't run in DOS, Marty.

> Perhaps the self-extracting code does not, but the archive (and hence EXE)
> does.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Your own quote of its output proves that it runs.

>> Incorrect, given that no archive extraction took place.

> Never claimed it would.  Your quote proves that the EXE ran in DOS.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> In the case of JAVAINUF.EXE the DOS part of the file displays the
>>>>>>> message you quoted and exits.

>>>>>> Which means there is no self-extracting code for DOS, thus that code
>>>>>> was not bound into the executable, Marty.

>>>>> There was DOS code bound into the EXE file and it executes.  My
>>>>> statement holds.

>>>> Your original statement:
>>>> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.

>>> Incorrect as noted above.  You seem to not know what a bound executable
>>> is.

>> Incorrect, as noted above.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way,
>> Marty.

> Disregarded as you have not substantiated this unsupported claim.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>> otherwise it would have self extracted the archive.  It didn't.

>>>>>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.

>>>>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code bound into the
>>>>>> executable, Marty?

>>>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.  A bound executable need
>>>>> not execute the same operation in both DOS and OS/2 to be a bound
>>>>> executable.

>>>> What good is it then, Marty?

>>> [the DOS stub?]

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?

> You know I'm bad at infantile guessing games.  Perhaps you should make your
> pronouns more clear next time.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> What do you think the subject of your sentence was?

> I noted it in []'s Dave.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> Hint:  you didn't mention any DOS stub in it.

> It's quite silly to ask what good the self extracting archive is, so I
> disregarded it as a possibility.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> Whether it's "any good" or not is irrelevant.  It is still a bound
executable
> because it contains a DOS stub.  Agreed?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> To inform the user that to use its intended function, the EXE needs to
>>> be run in OS/2.

>> So much for trying to run it in a DOS session.

> But you've already run it to find out!

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS,

>> It does mean that nothing got extracted, Marty.

> That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS.  Statements to the contrary
are
> incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> nor that it is not a bound executable.

>> No DOS archive extraction code was bound to the executable, Marty.

> That does not mean it is not a bound executable.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Quite the opposite.

>> Quite the repetition, Marty.

> Quite incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> You are quite incorrect to assume that it must.

>>>> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.

>>> That doesn't change the fact that you are quite incorrect to assume that
>>> it must.

>> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.

> Irrelevant, as your logic, as usual, is at odds with reality.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> In either case it is executing.

>>>>>>>> The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it says
>>>>>>>> that it MUST be run under OS/2?

>>>>>> Note:  no response.

>>>>> I've already addressed this with my REXX example.

>>>> Your REXX script is inappropriate, Marty.

>>> Typical unsubstantiated erroneous claim.

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I already
>> substantiated my claim, which showed that it is not erroneous.

> You failed to grasp the simple concept that any program can say anything it
> wants to.  There's little I can do to help you there.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> Code can do or say whatever it wants,

>>>> Even start World War III, as they say.

>>> Irrelevant.

>> Incorrect, given that you referred to "whatever it wants".

> Irrelevant as no code has ever wanted to "start World War III".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> no matter how far from reality it is.

>>>> In this case, however, the reality is that the file won't self-extract
>>>> in a DOS session.

>>> Correct.

>> Then why did you write:
>>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 10:06:12
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: (2/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> Covered already.  I see that when you are loosing an argument you resort to
> repetition.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> That doesn't mean it isn't running.

>> It does mean that no archive extraction took place, Marty.

> Agreed, but that does not make my statement incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> To blindly believe anything a program says, especially in this day and
>>>>> age, is quite a silly thing to do.

>>>> Well, if you want to believe that the file really did self-extract in a
>>>> DOS session, you are certainly welcome to do so, Marty.

>>> And if you want to believe that it is not a bound executable and that
>>> stubs can be "displayed" you are welcome to do so.

>> You've certainly not provided any reason to change my belief, Marty.

> You've not grasped or accepted my explanation.  There's little I can do to
help
> you there.  I've properly defined what a bound executable is, and shown how
it
> is inconsistent with your usage.  I've also noted the fundamental difference
> between "displaying" code and executing code, in contrast to your incorrect
> usage.  What more can I do?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.

>>>>>>>>>> The program doesn't run, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> The program does in fact run.

>>>>>>>> No archive was extracted, Marty.

>>>>>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
>>>>>>> executable was run.

>>>>>> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.

>>>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
>>>>> executable was run.

>>>> It does contradict your claim, Marty:
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> In what way?

>> The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, Marty.

> Already covered.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> If I had worded my claim differently, you'd be correct,

>>>> I'm correct even with the wording you chose, Marty.

>>> Would that it were so, Dave.

>> It is, Marty.

> Already covered.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> however I never implied in any way what the code was doing.

>>>> You did write, however:
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> Which, if read correctly, the reader would notice that I never implied
>>> in any way what the code was doing.

>> I'm not talking about any implication, Marty.  I'm talking about what
>> you actually wrote.

> And then you're making an unwarranted extrapolation as to what it means.  As
> you look at the quote, do you see any mention that it will extract anything
in
> DOS?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> The self extracting archive is the EXE file.

>> Incorrect, given that you made no reference to the EXE file in your
>> statement:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> Already covered.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> The EXE file can be run in DOS as your own posts have proven.

>> The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, contrary to your
>> claim, Marty.

> Not in contrary to my claim at all, as my claim never addresses this issue.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> Why do you think it says that it MUST be run under OS/2?

>>>>> Already addressed numerous times.

>>>> Incorrect.  Rather, you've avoided it numerous times.

>>> How is a direct response avoidance?

>> By directly using an inappropriate analogy, Marty.

> Nothing inappropriate about my response.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I call running.

>>>>>>>>>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like
your
>>>>>>>>>> responses to me.

>>>>>>>>>>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a
DOS
>>>>>>>>>>>> session.

>>>>>>>>>>> No.  I said the executable would.

>>>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in
a
>>>>>>>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the presence 
of a
>>>>>>>>>> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it
will
>>>>>>>>>> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the
>>>>>>>>>> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick,
Marty.
>>>>>>>>>> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two
subjects is
>>>>>>>>>> a logical choice.

>>>>>>>>> Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
>>>>>>>>> executable in question?

>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You
claimed
>>>>>>>> that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
>>>>>>>> said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run in
a
>>>>>>>> DOS session.  It does not.

>>>>>>> It does because the self-extracting archive is JAVAINUF.EXE.

>>>>>> It doesn't self-extract on DOS, Marty.

>>>>> Never claimed it would.

>>>> Incorrect:
>>>>
>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>> Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
>>> archive when run in DOS.

>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
> archive when run in DOS.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> It doesn't run.

>>>>> Absolutely incorrect again.

>>>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

>>> Correct.

>> Glad you agree, Marty.

> But "it" does run.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> But it runs, nonetheless.

>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.

> Never claimed it would.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> Your semantic argument won't help you to save face, Marty.

>>>>> No need.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> No need on my part.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Typical pontification.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> It will support my claim that you're responding simply to continue
playing
>>>>>> your "infantile game".

>>>>> You will reap what you sow.

>>>> Illogical, given that I'm not sowing any "infantile game", Marty.

>>> I know you are, but what am I?

>> Non sequitur.

> Incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.

>>>>>>>>>>> Right.

>>>>>>>>>> Glad you agree, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> ^
>>>>>>>>>>> |---- Incorrect statement.

>>>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the
program,
>>>>>>>>>> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile game"?

>>>>>>>>> There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.

>>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>>>>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.  They get executed.

>>>>>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
>>>>>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".

>>>>> I know you are, but what am I?

>>>> Non sequitur.

>>> I'm rubber and you're glue.

>> Non sequitur.

> On the contrary, it's quite sequitur.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.

>> Non sequitur.  Sounds like something from grade school.  Even more
>> evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".

> How ironic, coming from Dave "Eliza" Tholen.  How long are you going to keep
> that infantile game up?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.

>>>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
>>>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".

>>> Nothing semantic about it Dave.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> When the program displayed, "This program must be run under OS/2," was that
the
> stub?  If you believe so then try this:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> run DEBUG.EXE (or DEBUG.COM depending on your DOS version) in a DOS session.
> Then type the following:
> e 100
> 22 54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73 74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E
20
> 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F 53 2F 32 2E 22
> g 100

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> Then tell me what happens.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> Alternatively, if you feel that the stub itself was display magically when
you
> type the name of the executable, then compare the output you get when you
run
> the executable to what you get when you say "type JAVAINUF.EXE" at a DOS
> prompt.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> These two were provided as clear examples of the difference between
displaying
> a program and executing one, highlighting your incorrect usage.  This is not 
a
> semantic issue, but a mistake on your end, leading to a miscommunication.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> If I displayed you is that not something entirely different than if
>>> I executed you?

>> Yet another inappropriate analogy.

> Incorrect, as it highlights your incorrect usage of the word by showing the
> difference between displaying and executing.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> You used an incorrect term to describe the situation.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> It has been backed up numerous times.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Admit it you coward.

>> Typical invective.  Losing another argument, Marty?

> Not to you.  Perhaps elsewhere if I am neglecting another argument to answer
> you.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> They get executed.  That's not sematics.

>>>> Balderdash, Marty.

>>> Do you "display" your newsreader to write these postings?

>> Of course, given that I need to read the articles before I respond to
>> them.

> If you hadn't executed your newsreader, would you be able to respond?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Do you "display" Netscape when you want to browse the World Wide Web?

>> Of course, given that the interface is visual.

> If you hadn't executed Netscape, would you be able to browse the World Wide
Web
> using Netscape?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> This is obviously an incorrect usage of the word "display",

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

> On the basis that it is misleading, and neatly glosses over the required to
> execute the code in question.  How convenient.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> as is your use of it with respect to the stub executable.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> Incorrect, as I have supported this statement above.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> There's a world of difference between executing code and displaying
>>>>> something.

>>>> There's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
>>>> displaying a stub.

>>> No argument there, however irrelevant the statement may be.

>> It's not irrelevant, Marty.

> "Yet another example of your pontification."

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> However, you have yet to own up to the fact that there's a world of
>>> difference between executing code and displaying something.

>> However, you have yet to own up to the relevancy of the fact that
>> there's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
>> displaying a stub.

> There certainly is, but your misuse of the word display makes the statement
> irrelevant.  Displaying a stub doesn't involve the execution of the stub's
> code.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 10:06:12
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: (3/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> Meanwhile, as if I needed to point it out again, you have yet to own up to
the
> fact that there's a world of difference between executing code and
displaying
> something.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> You used incorrect terminology

>>>> Balderdash, Marty.  You're simply engaging in a semantic argument to
>>>> divert attention away from the issue.

>>> If I were to use a term incorrectly, you'd call me on it just the same.

>> There's a world of difference between using a term incorrectly and
>> engaging in a semantic argument, Marty.

> You'd be the one to know on both counts.  If I were to use a term
incorrectly,
> you'd call me on it just the same.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Don't expect any less from your opponents.

>> I expect you to be consistent, and to be consistent, you should not
>> be seeing my postings, due to your alleged use of a killfile.

> Sorry to shatter your "reality".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> and now refuse to acknowledge your error.

>>>> What alleged error, Marty?

>>> Your misuse of the word "display".

>> What alleged misuse, Marty?

> See above, and below for that matter.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> Marty, and you'll develop a reputation for "never" admitting to making
>>>>>> mistakes.  Then some day you may have to deal with someone the way I've
>>>>>> dealt with you.

>>>>> And how have you allegedly "dealt" with me, Dave?

>>>> By putting up with your lies, Marty.

>>> Have you determined this to be an effective way of "dealing" with me?

>> I have determined that letting your lies go unchallenged is an
>> ineffective way of "dealing" with you, Marty.

> Irrelevant to the question asked.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
>>>>>>>>> MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
>>>>>>>>> MOV DX, [address of string]
>>>>>>>>> INT 21
>>>>>>>>> MOV AH, 0
>>>>>>>>> INT 21

>>>>>>>> I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
>>>>>>>> is.

>>>>>>> On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.

>>>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>>>> No semantics involved.

>>>> Incorrect, Marty.

>>> No semantics involved on my end.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> I'm correcting your misconception of what a stub is and what can be
>>>>> done with it.

>>>> What alleged misconception, Marty,

>>> Pointed out numerous times.

>> Where, allegedly, Marty?

> Everywhere!

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>> and how will that advance your argument in support of your erroneous
>>>> claim:

>>> It won't,

>> Glad you agree.  So why do you persist?  Apparently to continue playing
>> your "infantile game".

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through this?"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> because I do not advance or support any erroneous claim.

>> Incorrect, Marty:
>>
>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>> M] DOS session, it will run.

> Addressed above.  I see that when you are loosing an argument you tend to
> repeat yourself a lot.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> However, my statement still stands.

>> ..as incorrect.

>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.

>>>>> A stub cannot be displayed in a meaningful way.

>>>> There is obvious meaning to the one displayed by javainuf.exe, Marty.

>>> You are again misusing the word "display".

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Demonstrate how your usage is proper.  I have already demonstrated how it is
> improper.  You flatly reject my demonstration without so much as a "because
I
> said so!"

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> That stub code was not displayed in your output.

>> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

> No semantics involved in correcting an error in your perception.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> It was executed.

>> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

> Still ignoring my point Dave?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> You seem to think it can be displayed in a meaningful way.

>>>>>> The error message is quite meaningful, Marty.

>>>>> The error message is not a "stub" Dave.

>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>> No semantics involved.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Evidence, please.  What is your definition of a "stub" Dave?  How about
"bound
> executable"?  How about "to display"?  How about "to execute" (as in code)? 
> Now demonstrate how these words tie together in your mind.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> If I were to misinterpret the word "incorrect" every time you write it to
mean,
> "Marty, I'm a big pompous fool" would you not correct me?  Would that be a
> semantic argument on your part or your correction of an error on my part?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> The stub is the kicker code for the operating system in question.
>>> It is not a static text string.

>> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?

> Note that you refuse to accept facts.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> If I were heretofore going to refer to the word "you" as if it
>>> meant "sausage", would you not feel the need to correct me?

>> Yet another inappropriate analogy.

> Incorrect, because it is exactly what is happening with the roles reversed,
of
> course.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> It's a "string".

>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>> None present to continue.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of disregarding it as
> "semantic" you'd learn something.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> It is displayed by the execution of the code present in the "stub".

>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>> None present to continue.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of disregarding it as
> "semantic" you'd learn something.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> Unless one knows machine opcodes, it cannot.

>>>>>> Irrelevant to the issue, Marty.

>>>>> Incorrect, as machine opcodes or interpreted x86 assembly are the only
>>>>> way to display the already compiled stub.  You used the term
>>>>> incorrectly.

>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?

>>> Continuing to postpone your admitting to an obvious error?

>> What alleged "obvious error", Marty?

> Your misuse of the phrases "display", "stub", and "bound executable".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> Admit your error and I will move on.

>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't admitted several of his
>>>> own errors.

>>> I've admitted to all errors that have been proven to me beyond the
>>> shadow of a doubt, and several that haven't.

>> Incorrect, Marty,

> Typical pontification.  To which errors that have been proven to me beyond
the
> shadow of a doubt have I not admitted, Dave?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> but once again, I'll note that when you make the claims, the burden of 
>> proof falls on your shoulders.

> Never seems to get in your way.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

>>>>>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.

>>>>> He has already affirmed that he believes the archive format is
>>>>> portable.  I agree with him.  Do you agree that the archive format is
>>>>> portable?

>>>> Irrelevant, given that Timbol is the one who brought it up, Marty.

>>> I'm bringing it up,

>> Why, Marty?

> Because I'd like to know where you stand on the matter.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> now answer the question,

>> Why should I answer an irrelevant question, Marty?

> It is quite relevant to a number of claims you've made.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> you coward.

>> Typical invective.  Losing another argument, eh Marty?

> I've noted you squirm to avoid this question time and time again.  Why is
this
> so?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice quite nicely.

>>>>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?"
>>>>>> "A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice quite nicely."

>>>>> What's allegedly irrelevant and inappropriate about my question Dave?

>>>> That's not the reasoning behind the wife beating example, Marty.

>>> Incorrect.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> Incorrect.  Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> If a "yes" or "no" won't do, then how about explaining your position
>>>>> instead of dodging the issue?

>>>> I already have explained my position, Marty.

>>> Illogically.

>> Yet another example of your pontification.

> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at
57%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
contents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion that 
he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could view the archive.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?

>>>>>>>>>>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine the
>>>>>>>>>>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
>>>>>>>>>>> DT] file?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?

>>>>>>>>>> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't
represent
>>>>>>>>>> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.

>>>>>>>>> You are questioning the fact that he could read it.

>>>>>>>> Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran
the
>>>>>>>> self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.

>>>>>>> What point would that prove?

>>>>>> Good question.  Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the
contents
>>>>>> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip,

>>>>> Which they are, as anyone with the JDK can verify.

>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

>>> On the basis that viewing the contents of classes.zip will show a
>>> listing of *.class files,

>> Is the listing complete, Marty?

> Define complete in this context (regarding which components are included).

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> containing the implementation of all of the base component classes of
>>> said version of Java.

>> That's the 1.1.8 version, Marty.  Now, do you remember what the subject
>> of the thread is?  Hint:  it has to do with some additional functionality
>> that was implemented.

> In the immortal words of the great Curly Howard, "Sointenly."

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> somehow proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.

>>>>> That wasn't the whole of his line of reasoning, but I'll leave that for
>>>>> you two to explore.

>>>> Indeed, Timbol also used the reasoning that the article I referenced
>>>> referred to a preview release, suggesting that the Java 2 security
>>>> classes were removed before actual release.  Despite that, the actual
>>>> release still has the Java 2 security classes.

>> Note:  no response.

> Am I being asked to defend Mike's position?  Sorry, but it doesn't work that
> way.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 10:06:12
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: (4/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> You were questioning the validity of his reasoning based on his
>>>>>>> availability to verify his own claims.

>>>>>> I never said anything about his availability, Marty.

>>>>> Then why bother questioning him on how he was able to read the contents
>>>>> of the archive?

>>>> What does that have to do with his availability, Marty?

>>> You FUD'ed that he could not verify his own facts.

>> Non sequitur.  What alleged FUD, Marty?

> Numerous times you've thrown doubt over the fact that he could properly
extract
> and view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.  This is FUD and is untrue.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> He, in fact, can read it.

>>>>>>>> So can I, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Do you accept this fact?

>>>>>>>> I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't
>>>>>>>> include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?

>>>>>>> This is a different issue.

>>>>>> On the contrary, it's a part of the original issue, Marty.

>>>>> In what way?

>>>> It represents some of the Java 1.2 functionality that was implemented
>>>> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty.  Haven't you been following the issue?

>>> That is not an issue in this branch of the thread,

>> Incorrect, Marty.  Apparently you haven't been following the issue.

> I have been in this branch of the thread, and heretofore this point was not
> mentioned until now.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> otherwise I would have quoted it and responded to it.

>> As I said, you haven't been following the issue.

> Irrelevant, as it was not something I had originally addressed.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> It does not seem to include them in such a way that standard Java 1.2
>>>>>>> programs would be able to access them.

>>>>>> Did IBM claim to include them in that way, Marty?  IBM simply said that
>>>>>> functions from Java 2 are included in 1.1.8, thereby justifying
Joseph's
>>>>>> statement and contradicting Timbol's "bullshit" response.

>>>>> If there is no guarantee that the functions are implemented to
>>>>> completion

>>>> Completion isn't required to make the statement, Marty.

>>> Completion is required to implement the functionality Dave.

>> Incorrect, Marty.

> Would you claim that a given engine implements the functionality of a car?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Do you often half-ass implementation yourself?

>> I've never implemented myself, Marty.

> Obviously.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> and no guarantee that the interfaces are the same,

>>>> Nothing was said about the interfaces being the same, Marty.

>>> Glad you agree.

>> That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.  Rather, it's an indication
>> of the irrelevancy of your remark.

> Rather, it's an attempt to avoid my remark.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> and the function names themselves are different, as seems to be the
>>>>> case after a cursory examination of the class libraries,

>>>> Are you referring to the classes.zip file again, Marty?

>>> My words say what they say, Dave.

>> But your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

> Never stopped you before.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> then how is this even vaguely reminiscent of Java 2 functionality?

>>>> Try reading the appropriate file, Marty, rather than classes.zip.
>>>> No wonder Timbol thinks he can get away with his lies.  There's
>>>> readers like you out there.

>>> And who exactly is "like me" out there Dave?

>> You are, Marty.

> So Timbol is going through all of this trouble for little old me?  I'm
> flattered.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Archive:  SecMA.jar
>>>  Length  Method   Size  Ratio   Date    Time   CRC-32     Name
>>>  ------  ------   ----  -----   ----    ----   ------     ----
>>>   82070  Stored   82070   0%  07-28-99  03:30  f5766547
>>> META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
>>>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/
>>>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/ibm/
>>>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000
>>> com/ibm/security12/
>>> .... etc.
>>>
>>> As I have stated, the function names themselves are different, as seems
>>> to be the case after a cursory examination of the class libraries.

>> Irrelevant, Marty.

> How is the contents of the JAR file containing security classes irrelevant
to
> this issue???

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> One does not need to have the same names to implement the same
functionality.

> This listing proves that the interface is different, as we discuss below.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> For example, the touch tone keypad has a different name from a rotary dial, 

>> but the former implements the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
>> telephone number, of the latter.

> Unfortunately a poor choice of example, as a touch-tone phone is required
for
> many newer services to function properly.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> They are included as implementation specific plugins which are not
>>>>>>> guaranteed to conform to Java 1.2 standards,

>>>>>> What's non-standard about them, Marty?

>>>>> The classes are under a different inheritance tree.

>>>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
>>>> classes, Marty?

>>> It automatically means they are not Java 2 compatible, which means that
>>> Java 2 functionality is not implemented in this version of Java.

>> Yet another semantic argument.

> So any direct proof I provide of a mistake you make is "semantic"?  How
> convenient.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> Exactly what do you think "functionality" means, Marty?

> Yet another semantic argument.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> Having the same name?  The same interface?

> Yet another semantic argument.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> The interfaces to them are different.

>>>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
>>>> classes, Marty?

>>> Absolutely.

>> Illogical.  The interface to the touch tone keypad is different from
>> the rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
>> telephone number, is present.

> Inappropriate example, as noted above.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> Though I have not used them, I would also wager that the
>>>>> functionality is not 100% accurate.

>>>> Wagers are not proof, Marty.

>>> Nor are unsupported statements, but that never stopped you before.

>> Irrelevant, given that my statement is supported by an actual article
>> posted by an IBM representative, Marty.

> Incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> If a Java 2 program which utilized the new classes were to attempt
>>>>> to execute on an OS/2 system with Java 1.1.8, it would, and does
>>>>> exit with an exception error.

>>>> The security classes are for developers, Marty, not clients.

>>> And are therefore, useless.

>> Illogical, given that IBM provided them for a reason.  That you cannot
>> figure out that reason is your problem, Marty.

> Not my problem at all.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> Why would a developer embrace something that isn't standard that no
>>> clients were meant to run?

>> Read the referenced article, Marty.

> Done.  Now what?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> That's what's non-standard about them.

>>>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
>>>> classes, Marty?

>>> Absolutely.

>> Illogical.  The touch tone keypad is a different standard from the
>> rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
>> telephone number, is present.

> Inappropriate example, as noted above.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> and as such seem to be fairly useless.

>>>>>> Then why would IBM include them, Marty?

>>>>> Technology preview?  Perhaps specific applications for specific
>>>>> customers that are tied to OS/2.

>>>> Did you even bother to read the excerpt I provided, Marty?
>>>>
>>>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
>>>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
>>>> ] platform.

>>> Yup.  As I stated, technology preview.

>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  Do you know what
>> "migrate" means?

> Yet another semantic argument.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> As such, however, no Java 2 functionality is implemented.

>> Incorrect, Marty.  Reread the referenced article.

> Done.  Now what?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> Perhaps you simply don't understand their usefulness?

>>>>> It's hard to understand the usefulness of a platform independent
>>>>> language being tied to one platform through non-conformity.

>>>> Try to understand Microsoft's Java, Marty.  However, you haven't
>>>> proven non-conformity.

>>> The inheritance tree of the classes already proves non-conformity.

>> How so, Marty?

> Have you ever coded in Java?  If so it would be quite apparent.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> And where's your understanding of Microsoft's Java?

> Microsoft can get away with non-conformity due to market share.  IBM does
not
> have this luxury with OS/2.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> If I were a Java programmer, I would be quite hesitant to use
>>>>>>> these functions.

>>>>>> Why not let Java programmers tell you what they find useful or not
>>>>>> about the inclusion of Java 2 security classes in the JDK, Marty?

>>>>> Because I like to take matters into my own hands when I make a
>>>>> decision.

>>>> Even if your hands aren't qualified to do so.

>>> On what basis do you make this claim, Mr. "Display the Stub"?

>> Your illogical claims and your lies, Marty.

> Have you ever coded in Java?  I have.  By my measure, I'm quite a bit more
> qualified than you are to be discussing this matter.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> As a seasoned programmer myself who worked in Java for a time
>>>>> I feel qualified to make such a statement.

>>>> Your feelings are irrelevant, Marty.

>>> My feelings in this matter have weight in light of my experience.

>> With whom, Marty?  Certainly not me.

> Unfortunate for you.  You could learn a thing or two from me if you had an
open
> mind.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> The basis of Java is its portability.

>>>> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
>>>> for OS/2, will not be portable?

>>> Reading comprehension problems?

>> Obviously not, Marty.

> Nothing obvious about it.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>> My words say what they say, Dave.

>> Your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.

> Yet another semantic argument.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> If one throws in platform-specific code, that tenant is
>>>>> destroyed.

>>>> Illogical.

>>> There is nothing illogical about that statement.

>> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
>> for OS/2, will not be portable?

> Not at all.  My statement was generalized.  If one throws platform specific
> code into Java, the tenants of Java have been broken.  Do you not agree?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> Is there something about IBM's Java 1.1.8 that is not portable, Marty?

> Irrelevant.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>> IBM is simply giving Java developers on OS/2 a head start on the use of
>>>> those security classes.

>>> Then why not give Java developers on OS/2 the real thing, rather than a
>>> partial, incompatible, platform specific implementation?

>> Don't you think IBM plans to do so, Marty?

> What I think IBM plans to do is irrelevant.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 10:06:12
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: (5/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>> Using such a thing could do more harm than good.

>> IBM obviously thinks otherwise.

> What IBM "thinks" is unprovable and irrelevant.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>> Perhaps you should take up the issue with your employer.

> Illogical, as I am employed by the server group, not the software group.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> If portability was a concern I could not use these functions at all.

>>>>>> Perhaps you should comprehend IBM's intentions, Marty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
>>>>>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
>>>>>> ] platform.

>>>>> Exactly as I stated above:  Technology preview.  Not useful for anything
>>>>> but evaluation.

>>>> And migration, Marty.

>>> Why migrate to an "in-between" step when you can migrate to the real
>>> thing in one step?

>> Why use the stairway when you can leap between floors?

> Typical inappropriate analogy.  In this case it is just as difficult to
migrate
> to the "real deal" as it is to migrate to an "in-between" step.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>> Not equivalent implementation by any stretch of the imagination.

>>>> Irrelevant, given that "equivalent" was never stated, Marty.

>>> Since it is not an equivalent implementation, then Java 2 functionality
>>> is not implemented therein.

>> Illogical, given that equivalence is not required for functionality to
>> be implemented, Marty.  Consider the touch tone keypad and the rotary
>> dial example.

> Consider why it is incorrect, and also consider what you would do with a car
> engine without a chassis.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> [Let's try this section over again... I'll start with your question.]

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>> You still have not answered the question I posed:  I don't accept
>>>>>> his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't include Java 2
>>>>>> security classes, Marty.  Do you?

>> I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for why you don't think
>> Java 2 security classes were implemented, Marty.  Don't try to use
>> "standard interface" or "same name" criteria without explaining how
>> they prevent the functionality from being provided.  Refer to the
>> touch tone keypad and rotary dial for an example, Marty.

> Yes.  The contents (listed a ways above) shows that the names of the
classes,
> and thus the interfaces are different.  Since the Java API itself is nothing
> but an interface, this proves to me that Java 2 security classes, as defined 
by
> Sun, are not implemented in the JDK in question.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

> [Now for my question.]

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

>>>>>>> You still have no answered the question I posed:  Do you accept the
fact
>>>>>>> that Mike can read the archive's contents in a meaningful way and
>>>>>>> extract them if he chooses?

> I expect a reasonable "go" at it this time.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu                             04-Nov-99 10:24:00
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The n
>>>>> ewer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer 
>>>>> description several times.  I'll do so again here:

>>>> Unnecessary, Mike.

>>> I see you're conceding defeat on this point as well.  You present the 
>>> earlier, incorrect description, which I've refuted several times based 
>>> on the contents of the JDK, and based on IBM's newer, more accurate 
>>> description.

>> What makes it allegedly more accurate, Mike?

> The fact that it is closer to reality than the outdated description
> you like to use (and which you have chosen to post three *more* times).

What makes it allegedly closer to reality, Mike?

>>> You refuse to address that at all,

>> On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to substantiate your
>> claim.

> I've already done so several times,

Impossible, given that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
functionality, thus you can't substantiate your "bullshit" at all,
Mike.

> in part by posting the new description which you continutally
> delete without addressing.

How ironic, coming from someone who continutally [sic] deletes the
proof that my original response was so short because *you* deleted
most of Joseph's article.

>>> instead choosing to delete it
>>> and merely repeat your incorrect description four more times.

>> What's allegedly incorrect about my description, Mike?

> The fact that what it claims is untrue.

On what basis do you call it a fact, Mike?

> It claims the JDK includes "Java 2 security classes", when it does
> not.

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementati

> When presented with this fact, you merely point back to the original,
> incorrect claim as "proof" that "Java 2 security classes" are included.

What's allegedly incorrect about it, Mike?

> Circular logic.

Nothing circular about it, Mike.  I'm pointing directly to evidence,
while you simply pontificate that it is wrong, and try to use a
semantic argument over what is "in" the JDK to justify ignoring the
Java 2 security classes.

> Note that the description you present differs from the description
> IBM has available on their web site.

So what, Mike?  I've written abstracts for meeting presentations and
abstracts for journal publications with descriptions that differ, yet
they both describe the same research results.

> Note that the description I present, from IBM's web site, is more
> recent than the one you cling to.

So what, Mike?  The abstracts in my journal publications are usually
more recent than the ones prepared for meetings.  What does that
prove?

> Yet, for obvious and pathetic reasons, you favor the first description.

What's allegedly "pathetic" about my reasons, Mike?

> It's wrong, Dave;

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> the current description is more accurate.

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

>>>>>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

>>>>>> In IBM's words:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>>>>>> ] applets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>>>>>> browsing, Mike.

>>>>> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.

>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
>>>> several occasions.

>>> Tell me, then, the web page which contains one of these "Java 
>>> applications" that you've executed while browsing.

>> Baseball season is over, Mike.  It'll be a few months before they use
>> GameCast for baseball games again.

> Then name another one.

Unnecessary, Mike.  I already named one.

> Or is that the only page you can name that you claim contains "Java
> applications" that you execute while browsing?  

Irrelevant, given that one is sufficient, Mike.

> Convienient that the single example you name can't be verified, eh?

Sure it can be, Mike.  Wait until next season.

>>>>> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
>>>>> is repeating your incorrect claims.

>>>> I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike. 

>>> Yet all of my claims are correct, based on IBM's up-to-date description 
>>> of the JDK, plus the contents of the actual JDK itself.  

>> IBM did not describe javainuf.exe as the JDK, Mike.

> Here's how IBM *did* describe their JDK:
>
>  IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8
>  incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler technology with MMI 
>  function. New to this release are security enhancements based on the 
>  Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported by 
>  IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2 providing serial and parallel device
>  support and enabling JavaPOS and JavaXFS. 
>
>  Updated 07/30/99 

Note that IBM did not describe it as javainuf.exe, Mike.  Note the
inclusion of security, Swing, RMI-IIOP, and COMM, just like the older
article.

> Note a number of things:
>
>  1. "security enhancements based on the Java 2 security model" *not*
>     "Java 2 security classes".

What's the significance of the difference, Mike?  If I refer to something
as an asteroid in one abstract and as a minor planet in another abstract,
are you going to attach some significance to that difference?

>  2. "Java 2" clearly refers to the "security model", and *ONLY* the
>     security model.  It clearly does *not* refer to "Swing", "RMI-IIOP",
>     and "the Java COMM API".  Those are *not* Java 2 features.

Are you claiming that there have been no changes to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and
COMM between 1.1.8 and 1.2, Mike?

>  3. "Updated 07/30/99", which is more recent than the newsgroup article
>     you refer to.

So what, Mike?  The abstracts in my journal publications are usually
more recent than the ones prepared for meetings.  What does that
prove?

> Why is this description more accurate than the one you cling to?

On what basis do you claim it's more accurate, Mike?

> Because the JDK does not contain "Java 2 security classes",

IBM disagrees, Mike:

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security classes,
] Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's implementati

> nor does it contain "Java 2 versions" of the other named features.

Are you claiming that there have been no changes to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and
COMM between 1.1.8 and 1.2, Mike?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            04-Nov-99 11:00:03
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: New Microsoft keyboard

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 06:40:39, Hann Wei Toh <hannwei@computer.org> 
wrote:

> In article <3820AE36.3853ECDC@agad.purdue.edu>,
>   Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu> wrote:
> > Have you seen the new Microsoft keyboard design?  This one really
> > looks pretty good:
> >
> > http://www.ext.vt.edu/~pgr/images/new_microsoft_keyboard.jpg
> 
> People used to say that Microsoft does not have innovations.  Perhaps
> the company is changing.  Anyhow, I would suggest combining the keys
> into one.
> 
There's a French company, "Claviers Cons", already selling such a 
keyboard. Of course, Microsoft will try to copy it in their next 
version, by bringing out a four-key keyboard where the fourth key does
exactly what the three key combination does now. As usual, the press 
will utterly fail to see the gargantuan level of stupidity involved in
this and applaude the four-key version as "the next generation in user
friendliness".

Nil novi sub sole, as they say.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            04-Nov-99 10:59:28
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:51:08, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> > [snip]
>  
> >>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
>  
> >>> Err... It makes my day?
>  
> >> By playing games?
> 
> > Indeed, my good man. Indeed.
> > Many's been the long winding evening turned into bliss and joy by the 
> > simple, yet sofisticated virtue of the odd session of "Bomb Jack", 
> > "Galaxian" or even "Mr Do" (not "Donkey Kong" however; I never liked 
> > that ape).
> 
> PacMan?  Or Ms. PacMan?  (Why didn't they call it PacWoman?)
> 
An unmarried woman running down alleys, followed by a bunch of horny 
ghosts?! Besides, "Pacwoman" has too many connotations of spandex and 
high heels. The contrast with a circle with a mouth is just too big.

There was one version, "PacManland" or "PacManworld" IIRC, I quite 
liked. It was more graphical, with bigger mazes, and PacMan had a real
face.

> > Before MAME, I had to steal coins, leave the house, find a handy time 
> > machine and warp back to that era of wonders, the Eighties, when men 
> > were still men and computer games were only found in arcades. These 
> > youngsters nowadays! They don't know how good they have it!
> 
> How about "Asteroids"?  I can still remember traveling to a remote
> location to chase an asteroid occultation, going into a small
> burger stand to get a bite before the observation, and seeing
> some kid playing the only game in the seating area:  "Asteroids".
> The coincidence was amusing.
> 
Very. That's one of those things you see in a movie and think: "Gee, 
that'll never happen in real life".

> >>> MAME is merely an engine. Like, many games need Windows 95 <shudder> 
> >>> to run, but it would be wrong to state that every Windows 95 
> >>> "programmer" has an affection for games.
>  
> >> Windows 95 does other things besides playing games
> 
> > Hah! name one!
> 
> GPF?
> 
> >> (well, at least it tries).
> 
> > I see I spoke too soon.
> > Well, it was a nalogy; we've learned in this group that they're 
> > supposed to be slightly off.
> 
> From whom did you learn that?
> 
Why, from Bennie, of course. Have you forgotten already?

> >>>>> Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
> >>>>> Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.
>   
> >>>> Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!
>  
> >>> Sheer luck, Sir. Sheer luck.
>  
> >> Practice makes perfect.
> 
> > [snip]
> 
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an
illegal 
> >>>>>>> Europan!"
> >>>>>>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)
>  
> >>>>>> From Io or Ganymede?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Oops, I gave it away.
>  
> >>>>> Maybe. Let's wait and see.
>  
> >>>> You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
> >>>> in this newsgroup.
>  
> >>> No reasoning needed here, just decent reading skills <G>.
>  
> >> Some people lack those as well.
> 
> > It's easy to miss a letter.
> 
> Or two.  Or three.
> 
> Hmm.  That last line of mine sounds like Victor Borge.
> 
Or the Spanish Inquisition...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            04-Nov-99 11:00:04
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 00:02:20, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> > [snip]
> 
> >>>>> I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
> >>>>> version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
> >>>>> "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...
> 
> >>>> You like wet, spongy ground?
> 
> >>> Do ye not mock the Name of Bog.
> >>> For Peet's sake...
> 
> >> Is Bog related to Nog, of Deep Space Nine fame (or infamy, as the case
> >> may be)?
> 
> > It seems we're making Him up as we go along here.
> 
> Whoa!  Isn't the capitalized "Him" reserved for the "Creator"?
> 
I thought we were making H/him the god of damp patches and small 
things that slither in the dark.
Maybe best to leave the god-creation business over to the 
professionals...

> > [snip]
> 
> >>>>> Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
> >>>>> Harmless, but alas incureable.
> 
> >>>> But preventable.
> 
> >>> You're clearly not suffering from the syndrome, otherwise you'd have 
> >>> known what an utterly meaningless remark that is <G>.
> 
> >> That presupposing the remark was meaningless.
> 
> > As I see it, the entire point of the "trying-to-look-interesting" 
> > syndrome - or TTLI, as we hard-cases call it - is _not_ trying to 
> > prevent it. It's probably a paradox, or at the very least one doc 
> > (this is a pun nicked from Robert Heinlein, first time I found use for
> > it).
> 
> Oh, so you *want* to try and look interesting.
> 
*Now* you've got it. <G>

> > [snip]
> 
> >>>>>>> thanks
> 
> >>>>>> You're welcome.
> 
> >>>>> Don't mention it.
> 
> >>>> Too late.
> 
> >>> Never mind.
> 
> >> Said in a high, squeaky Saturday Night Live-ish voice?  Was that Ruth
> >> Buzzi?  I could imagine Lily Tomlin saying it as well, but I remember
> >> her more for the raspy snorts about being the phone company -- "we
> >> don't have to care".
> 
> > Don't remember ever seeing an episode that makes some sort of bell 
> > ring. I'm beginning to get a distinct "League of Gentlemen" (BBC 
> > again, I'm afraid) feeling here, but I can't put my digit on it...
> 
> Wasn't it some long, whiny complaint from some concerned citizen
> during the Weekend Update segment, only to be told that the complaint
> was based on a misunderstanding?  Following the realization came
> "Never mind".  They used it rather frequently.
> 
I hear the bell, but I can't find the tongue (attempt at traduction of
a Flemish proverb).

> > [snip]
> 
> >>>> Isn't using a book cheating?
> 
> >>> I had the "Muldaur" part from memory, but for some reason I thought 
> >>> her first name was Ann. Glad I checked. TUHOT is a very good book; it 
> >>> covers the original series, the Next Generation and the movies up to 
> >>> No VIII. Nothing on DS9 or Voyager, which is sort of a shame.
> 
> >> Depending on your point of view.  Some people consider Voyager an
> >> illegitimate child.
> 
> > Well, the original series isn't rerun anywhere at the moment,
> 
> No SciFi channel available over the satellite?
> 
Heh. No satellite dish to begin with. I tried to plug in directly, but
nobody wants to sell me 36,000 km of coax. And I don't know what plug 
the Astra takes.

> > and one can watch only so many reruns of TNG. It was that or serious 
> > withdrawal symptoms. The one thing I don't like is all this PC stuff, 
> > you know: Be nice to the poor aliens; don't blast planets away with 
> > your foton torpedos; Prime Directive this and that...(Grmbl! Grmbl! 
> > Stupid Prime Directive thing...)
> 
> That spelling made me think of "futon" torpedos.  Hilarious!
> 
> > Kirk was a lot more fun. And in that respect, so was Babylon 5 (it's 
> > probably a mortal sin to mention Star Trek and Babylon 5 in the same 
> > sentence,
> 
> Not as far as I am concerned.
> 
> > but there you go) (Babylon 5 dissapeared from Belgian 
> > screens a long time ago, BTW).
> 
> How long ago?  The fifth and final season wrapped up many months ago.
> TNT is still doing reruns on Saturday morning.  Two episodes, back
> to back.

No help for me (see above).
> 
> >>> BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
> >>> and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
> >>> Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
> >>> new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
> >>> with.
> 
> >> Deep Space Nine has finished its run over here.  Only Voyager remains.
> >> At least they've gotten away from having the Kazon chase them across
> >> the quadrant.
> 
> > Oh yes. And now we have the "new improved Borg", with queen. It's just
> > not the same anymore.
> 
> But the queen was introduced in a TNG movie.  Don't blame Voyager.

I blame the freaking creators. IIRC, it was Gene who came up with the 
original Borg. Those were consequent. Bringing in some fotogenic queen
to spice up a movie is an insult to his memory (may he orbit in peace)
<snif snif>.
> 
> > Mind you, any show that spends an entire episode on the slow decay of 
> > a copy of ship and crew (last week's episode over here, "Course: 
> > Oblivion" IIRC) deserves being put out of its misery.
> 
> It was episode with Janeway and Paris as lizards that hit bottom for
> me.

Was that before the copy-meltdown? I don't remember it.
> 
> > You know what would be funny: the final episode of Voyager ends with 
> > the crew arriving in what they think is the Alpha Quadrant, only to 
> > find out they've been going in circles and are back at the ruins of 
> > the Caretaker's station. Heh heh heh!
> 
> There's a rumor going around that they will actually make it back to
> the Alpha Quadrant this season, now that Deep Space Nine has finished
> its run.

So what's next? Starfleet Kintergarten, the ongoing perils of a 
daycare center in the 24th century? Or maybe they'll jump another 
century and we'll have "Buck Rogers blasts Starfleet to Oblivion"?

Actually, I'd love it if they would go back a little bit. Do you 
remember the TNG episode with the short appearance of Kelsey Grammer? 
The one with the time traveling sequence where they re-lived the same 
day over and over? I'd like to see a series in that era. Should be 
cheaper too: earlier time, simpler special effects <G>.
> 
> > Well, at least Neelix makes it home...
> 
> Da capo.
> 
> > [snip]
> 
> >>>>>> Now, how do you break a killfile?
> 
> >>>>> Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
> >>>>> quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
> >>>>> This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
> >>>>> Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
> >>>>> surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.
> 
> >>>> You don't say!
> 
> >>> We live and learn, don't we?
> 
> >> Some of us do.  I wonder about some others.
> 
> > At least now they know they could have a good time with a futzed-up 
> > killfile.
> 
> Assuming they can figure out how Marty futzed-up his.
> 

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          04-Nov-99 07:18:03
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Marty wrote:
> 
> Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:
> >
> > > But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
> > > the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he stated
> > > that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
> > > correct.
> >
> > What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the self-extracting
> > archive would run in a DOS session.
> 
> What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms were the
> same as yours and Bennie's.

Then please define your terms for me.  Do you equate the entire 
executable to the self-extracting archive?  Does running the DOS 
stub equate to running the executable which in turn equates to 
running the self-extracting archive?

> 
> You then proceeded to misuse the terms "display", "stub", and "bound
> executable".  You then followed up with a healthy smathering of denial of
> obvious facts, such as the JPG, the existence of the JPG, and the existence
of
> the article in which it was originally posted, topped off with irrelevant
> examples and failure to answer direct questions.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          04-Nov-99 07:42:14
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Marty wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> > > > posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> > > > the points, as I see them.
> > > >
> > > > 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> > > >
> > > > JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> > >
> > > This has not been shown to be true.
> >
> > Dave quoted from the "readme.sma" file that came with
> > Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  I'll also quote the relevant
> > portion:
> >
> > "The Security considerations (Security) are based on enhancements from
> > the Java 2 security model. Security is shipped with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 (Developer
> > Kit). Security is integrated into the Runtime package and is
> > disabled by default.
> >
> > Note:  Security is only supported on systems with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> >        Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8."
> >
> > To me, "based on enhancements from the Java 2 security model" and
> > "JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality" are both
> > true statements.  The first, from IBM, proves the second.
> 
> The first, from IBM, does not prove anything.  I can make a movie based on a
> novel, yet tell a very different story than the novel told, as we often see
> happening.

If the first portion proves nothing, that is, if IBM's words mean nothing,
then your words prove nothing and mean nothing.  Marty, words do have
meanings.  IBM's words have meanings.  Furthermore, IBM's words as part of
a distributed and licensed product carry far more weight than yours or
mine.  Why?  Because those words have a multi-billion dollar international
corporation behind them.

There are only three choices here concerning the quote from IBM:

1) IBM's words as quoted above are false
2) IBM's words as quoted above are true
3) combination of 1 and 2 (i.e., there are elements that are false and
elements that are true)

You have simply brushed them away, while offering no proof.  By the same
manner, you've established the basis for brushing away all that you have
written.  You've simply dismissed the words from IBM based solely upon
the authority of your word.  Bad news, Marty: your words don't carry
that much weight.  

You're going to have to submit evidence to support your claim.  You did
that with the .jpg file.  Why are you waving-your-hands-abracadabra-and-
IBM's-words-vanish this time?

> 
> > Are you saying that the first does NOT prove the second statement
> > to be true?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > > > It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> > > > changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> > > > Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> > > > not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> > > > by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> > > > executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> > > > classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> > > >
> > > > 2) The self-extracting archive
> > > >
> > > > a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> > > > is in an OS/2 native format.
> > >
> > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
> >
> > I wrote "SELF-EXTRACTING" to emphasize that I was referring only
> > to the OS/2-specific code.  This code is what gives the executable
> > it's functionality and purpose.
> 
> We differ in definitions, hence our disagreement.  Neither of us is
> inconsistent with our own use of these definitions of the terms in question.

I have no problem with this.  You may define your terms and use them
consistently and I will understand what you've written.  That is the
essence of good communication.  That is why I offered my set of definitions
and have made my points based upon them.

So, in this case, I would say that we really don't have any substantive
disagreement.  We both agree, in our own words, that the executable runs
in DOS, but that the self-extraction code does not.  The self-extraction
code only executes in OS/2.  We also agree that the executable itself is
able to be processed (e.g., viewed) by various tools.  Finally, the 
archived files included in the executable file are able to be extracted 
in a non-OS2 environment using non-OS2 software. 

> 
> > > > b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> > >
> > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The archive
> > > as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.
> >
> > And I disagree.  The SELF-EXTRACTING archive will not execute, as
> > a whole.  Only the DOS stub executes.  If the SELF-EXTRACTING code
> > and the archive are removed, the executable will "run" in DOS
> > exactly the way it does with the SE code included.  Thus, what
> > is executed in DOS is not a SE archive.
> 
> Again, we differ in our definitions of the terms in question.

But knowing the definitions I've given, do you disagree with anything
substantive in my post?

> 
> > > > c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> > > > format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> > > > that have archive utilities that implement support for
> > > > the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> > > > the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> > > > d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> > > > for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> > >
> > > This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.
> >
> > But, it is ancillary in nature, and has no direct relation
> > or value to the SELF-EXTRACTION code.
> 
> I never claimed it was not.
> 
> > The SE code is the purpose, the raison d'etre, for the
> > executable program.  If the DOS stub was replaced with x'90' (NOP)
> > instructions, there would be no loss of functionality for the SE
> > program.  The executable would crash and burn if loaded in DOS,
> 
> If you forgot to cap it off with a RET instruction, that is.  ;-)

That was implied.  Simply replacing the DOS stub with repeated x'90' 
wouldn't "cap it off with a RET instruction."

> 
> > but that has no bearing on the fact that the SE code is OS/2
> > only. The program with the DOS stub "NOP'ed" would execute
> > flawlessly in OS/2.
> 
> Again, the shism in the definition of our terms lead to this disagreement.

The important fact is that you've understood what I've said because
you know the definitions I've used, and vice versa.  We agree about
the main points.  We simply want to say them in our own ways.  

> 
> > > > e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> > > > viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> > > > such as editors, viewers, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> > > > confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> > > >
> > > > For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> > > > if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> > > > are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> > > > OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> >

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          04-Nov-99 07:47:01
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff,

The position you're defending is absurd.
Bennie Nelson

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> 
> Apparently, you must beleive that nearly everything that Tholen has
> contributed to this newsgroup is "absurd" then, because "the program
> does indeed run under DOS because it displayed a message" is the sort
> of "logic" that Tholen would apply, when he was attempting to harrass
> and FUD opinions of people who are saying things that he doesn't want
> to hear. For example, when people were calling IBM, trying to obtain
> OS/2 For PowerPC, and being told repeatedly by IBM reps that it was no
> longer sold, Tholen argued that it couldn't be considered a
> discontinued product, simply because IBM hadn't "officially" announced
> it as such, despite the fact that none of the people attempting to
> actually order it were able to get anything except the thumbs down
> from all IBM sources they could contact.
> 
> That's "Tholen Logic" for you.
> 
> But then, you're "emotionally blocked" over a niche market, pet
> product, so it's understandable why you would think that a fellow
> nutcase would "make sense"
> 
> The rest of your post is every bit as irrelevant as it was the first
> time you posted it, and I responded to it. None of it changes the fact
> that both Marty and Mike have made simple, factual statements which
> are *not* incorrect. They are firmly established in technical
> definitions, regardless of how you would prefer to view them as a
> result of your "emotionally blocked" adherence to a particular product

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          04-Nov-99 07:48:16
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 10:28:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff,

I see you've got writer's block.  Your repeating yourself.
Slow down.  Take some deep breaths.  You'll get your
creativity back.

Bennie Nelson

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>
> 
> >On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 23:08:32 GMT, Bennie Nelson <blnelson@visi.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>David Sutherland wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 12:57:39 -0500, Bennie Nelson
> >>> <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Jeff,
> >>> >
> >>> >The position you're defending is absurd.  The DOS stub
> >>> >adds no functionality for processing the archive.  The
> >>> >DOS stub is separate and distinct from the code that
> >>> >processes the archive and can be removed from the
> >>> >executable with no negative impact on the executable's
> >>> >ability to process the archive.
> >>> >
> >>> >Thus, I have used the following definitions:
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Bennie,  you are trying to sidestep the fact the executable file DOES
> >>> run under DOS.   Doing a Tholen and trying to redefine what *part* of
> >>> the executable you wish to talk about just makes you look like a -
> >>> well - a Tholen.   And that's sad.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> David Sutherland
> >>> (note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)
> >>
> >>David,
> >>You are incorrect.  I have stated that the executable does run
> >>in DOS.  However, I do not agree that this equates to "the program
> >>works in DOS."  The reason being is that the program is a SELF-EXTRACTING
> >>ARCHIVE and not a DOS stub that simply tells the user to run it in OS/2.
> >>It's quite simple.  I defined the terms and have used them consistently.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Bennie Nelson
> 
> >Fine, but Tholen claimed that the executable could not be run under
> >DOS, not that it would fail to self-extract under DOS.  Further he
> >claimed that Mike Timbol could not have viewed the contents of the
> >archive *except* from within OS/2.   He was wrong both times and has
> >rfused to aknowledge theat fact.  Why haven't you challenged Tholen on
> >these obvious flaws in his claims rather than attempting to redefine
> >the argument?
> 
> Because Bennie is "emotionally blocked" over a niche market pet
> product (and also emotionally blocked over a more successful,
> competing product/company), and therefore is inclined to accept,
> praise, and even run interference for, exceedingly hypocritical,
> contradictory, and inconsistent stupidity from Tholen.
> 
> There is absolutely nothing "logical" about Bennie's posts. They're
> just more of the "OS/2 Advocacy Shuffle" as I call it. Nowadays, it's
> purely a nostalgic, novelty dance, with no purpose or value. But it
> can't be amusing in a clownish sort of way

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             04-Nov-99 13:45:22
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vqtnv$2m0$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> > Translation: David never read and refuses to now read the references
>
> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

Your misunderstanding of the term "multi-level" is clear.

> > and is mystified by the term "multi-level" as used here.
>
> Your usage here is not at all clear, Lucien,

My usage is clear.

> which is why I asked
> for *your* meaning, not some authors' meaning that you allege is
> the same as yours.

My usage is congruent with the meaning presented for the term in the
references cited in the "costly mistakes" thread. Read the pertinent
sections of those references and you'll discern a meaning congruent
with mine.

> >>>> It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.
>
> >>> On the contrary, it directly concerns the JDK sentence.
>
> >> It concerns a portion of the JDK sentence, Lucien,
>
> > Glad you agree.
>
> That's not an indication of agreement, Lucien,

Yes, it is.

> but rather a correction
> of your misleading statement.

Wrong.

> >> but the meaning depends on the entire sentence, not just a portion
of
> >> it.
>
> > Exactly.
>
> So why do you continue to ignore the portion that provides the
> additional information, Lucien?

It is irrelevant to the issue, which is the alternation WRT
quantification, your refutation of your own (correct) statements
describing and supporting the presence of the alternation and the
unwitting agreement between your statements and my thesis.

Let's review again:

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):

"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
information.]]]"

Here is my thesis statement again (emphasis mine):

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
information.]]]

Note that the statements render redundant your wittless and endless
restatements that the ambiguity is resolved in the presence of
additional information - this is a central point of both statements and
you only continually support my argument with your unwitting arguments.

Note also the agreement between the two statements.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               04-Nov-99 15:01:14
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Jav

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:02:38, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
| Hey!  I'm not a nerd, or at least never advertise my nerdness (if I
| have any).

I *am* a nerd, and I don't care what people think. I may be a nerd who
shops at Ann Taylor, but I'm still a nerd.

You might be interested in small. That's not important to me.

| And your readership is OS2 users?  I know it's not, but then what is
| it in .advocacy that gets you 'to the people'?  I think .advocacy is
| the worst example of OS2 users -- not even close to real life.  And
| it's the same crowd (or as you might call it, community) that seem to
| go beating the same dead horse time after time.

It's still a community, uno. Perhaps it's a community largely formed 
of the extremists -- though I think it's less so than you imagine -- 
but that merely makes it easier for me to see what the emotional 
undercurrents are. Folks in c.o.o.a. are louder about what they think.

Why are *you* here? I'm an OS/2 user. You no longer are. What's the 
appeal?

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:23:23
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> >>>>>>> The actual statment by Dave Tholen is, "Yet to look at the contents, 
one must
> >>>>>>> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" The
statement is
> >>>>>>> clearly wrong, which is something that Tholen has yet to
acknowledge.
> 
> >>>>>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> >>>>>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
> >>>>>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file
is not
> >>>>>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive. 
In the
> >>>>>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be
found on
> >>>>>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> what would you conclude?
> 
> >>>>> And if you opened it in WinZip, what would you conclude?
> 
> >>>> I didn't specify any particular unzipper, Marty.
> 
> >>> I did.
> 
> >> It's not your example, Marty.
> 
> > I don't mind.
> 
> Irrlevant, Marty.

It becomes my example when I change its meaning.  If you used unzip,
what would you have concluded?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:24:29
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>> Mike also uses USENET for entertainment purposes,
> 
> >>>>> Also meaning besides you Dave?
> 
> >>>> Nope.
> 
> >>> Then why say "also"?
> 
> >> Because he isn't the only one who does so, Marty.
> 
> > The only other person in context was you, Dave.
> 
> Incorrect, Marty.

Typical pontification.
 
> > Why say such things about yourself?
> 
> I wasn't, Marty.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

Incorrect.
 
> >>>>>>> rather than those of Dave Tholen, who is a university professor of
> >>>>>>> Astronomy by trade.
> 
> >>>>>> I'm also a programmer.
> 
> >>>>> And I'm also an astronomer because I've used a telescope before.
> 
> >>>> How much income have you derived from your astronomical work, Marty?
> 
> >>> How much income have you derived from your programming work, Dave?
> 
> >> That's proprietary information, Marty.
> 
> > Likewise.
> 
> Why would zero income be proprietary, Marty?

That's something you have to ask yourself.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:22:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: (1/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

I see you've decided to loose this argument.

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I must again ask the question:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh really?  And on what are you allegedly running this
OS/2 JDK?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will repeat my answer, since you apparently did not
comprehend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it the first time:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  "I'm not running the JDK, Dave, I'm looking at the
contents."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I already told you, moron.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "This program must be run under OS/2."
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He didn't use WinZip to execute it Dave.  He used WinZip to
extract
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its contents.  Incidentally, if you try to run that
self-extracting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> archive in a DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output, Marty:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] E:\>javainuf
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ] This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It runs long enough to display that message you are quoting
and exit,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it executes under DOS.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't execute the program, Marty.  It displays a stub.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It executes a stub program inside the executable to display
that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> message.  The stub consists of loading the DX register (IIRC)
with the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> address of that string and calling an INT 21 subfunction.  It
then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> calls INT 21 with AH=0 to tell DOS to end the program.  This
program
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stub is inside the executable file, hence the program is
executed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> under DOS.
> 
> >>>>>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or
says.
> 
> >>>>>> The self-extracting archive does not self-extract on DOS, regardless
of
> >>>>>> what you say about it "running" on DOS, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> The program is certainly executed, regardless of what it does or says.
> 
> >>>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.  Do you call that "running"?
> 
> >>> Yes.
> 
> >> It figures you'd rely on a semantic argument over what constitutes
> >> "running".
> 
> > You asked me what I called it.  I told you.  No semantic argument
involved.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> Obviously you have nothing better to do, which is further
> >> evdience that you're playing an "infantile game".
> 
> > How ironic coming from Mr. "Eliza" himself.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> I call the display of a string and execution of code from within
> >>> the EXE file "running".  Don't you?
> 
> >> Not when the executable is designed to extract an archive instead.
> 
> > That doesn't change the fact that it is executed.  Yes?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> I notice you see fit to change the wording of my claim from "run" to
> >>>>> "self-extract".
> 
> >>>> I'm just being consistent with your own usage, Marty:
> 
> >>> Incorrect.
> 
> >> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> > No need to elaborate or prove.  I know my own usage better than you
possibly
> > could and I am declaring your interpretation incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> And run, it does.
> 
> >> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.
> 
> > Never claimed anything would.  My statement stands.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> How convenient.
> 
> >>>> Being consistent with your usage is for your convenience, Marty.
> 
> >>> Yes it would be convenient if you would do so.
> 
> >> I am, Marty.
> 
> > Try harder.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> The two are obviously not equivalent and my original statement holds.
> 
> >>>> Your original statement:
> >>>> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.
> 
> >>> But it runs, so my statement holds.
> 
> >> There's that "it" again.  As I explained once before, the "it" can
> >> refer to only one of two subjects, namely the self-extracting archive
> >> or the DOS session.  Now, unless you really want to argue that you
> >> meant the latter, then we are forced to accept the former.
> 
> > Already explained.  The self extracting archive (aka "it") is an
executable.
> > The executable runs in DOS.  Case closed.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> It could have been a simple stub to display the string as in this
> >>>>>>>>> case, or could have been a full-blown DOS executable as in the
case
> >>>>>>>>> of some other bound executables such as XDFCOPY.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, unless you are claiming that the executable in question 
is
> >>>>>>>> a bound executable.  Obviously it isn't,
> 
> >>>>>>> Quite incorrect again.
> 
> >>>>>> Balderdash, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> On what basis do you claim that it is not a bound executable.
> 
> >>>> On the basis of the absence of DOS code to do the self extraction,
Marty.
> 
> >>> That does not mean it is not a bound executable Dave.
> 
> >> That does mean there is no DOS code to extract the archive bound into
> >> the executable, Marty.
> 
> > Irrelevant, as I never claimed there was not.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Being a bound executable only means that the EXE file can run on more
> >>> than one platform.
> 
> >> But as the message indicates, the program MUST be run on OS/2.  That's
> >> a single platform, Marty.
> 
> > And on what platform did you run it to display that message?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> It does not mean that it must run the same way on said platforms.
> 
> >> The functionality of the extraction was not implemented, Marty.
> 
> > Irrelevant, as I never claimed it was.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Of course, I've explained this already.
> 
> >> And I've responded to your explanation already.  So why do you persist?
> >> Obviously to continue playing your "infantile game".
> 
> > Are you enjoying your game with Eric, Dave?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> I've already explained below why it is.
> 
> >>>> I've already explained below why it isn't, Marty.
> 
> >>> Incorrectly, as usual.
> 
> >> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> > Incorrectly, as usual.  I've supported my statement below.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Do you know what a "bound executable" is?
> 
> >>>>>> Of course.  I've compiled quite a few executables that way, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Evidence, please.
> 
> >>>> Are you placing an order, Marty?
> 
> >>> I'm requesting evidence for your unsupported assertion.
> 
> >> Are you placing an order, Marty?
> 
> > Reading comprehension problems?  I've asked you to back up (using whatever
> > means necessary) your statement.  You have yet to do so.  Without
evidence,
> > your statement is disregarded and you have demonstrated no knowledge of
what a
> > bound executable is.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> I've noted that you failed to provide any in your response.
> 
> >> Are you placing an order, Marty?
> 
> > Reading comprehension problems?  I've asked you to back up (using whatever
> > means necessary) your statement.  You have yet to do so.  Without
evidence,
> > your statement is disregarded and you have demonstrated no knowledge of
what a
> > bound executable is.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> The DOS and OS/2 programs are bound together into a single EXE file.
> 
> >>>>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> Who said anything about self-extracting code?  I said the self
> >>>>> extracting archive executes in DOS.
> 
> >>>> It doesn't.  Nothing gets extracted.
> 
> >>> That doesn't mean it doesn't run in DOS Dave.
> 
> >> It means the self-extracting archive doesn't run in DOS, Marty.
> 
> > Perhaps the self-extracting code does not, but the archive (and hence EXE)
> > does.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Your own quote of its output proves that it runs.
> 
> >> Incorrect, given that no archive extraction took place.
> 
> > Never claimed it would.  Your quote proves that the EXE ran in DOS.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> In the case of JAVAINUF.EXE the DOS part of the file displays the
> >>>>>>> message you quoted and exits.
> 
> >>>>>> Which means there is no self-extracting code for DOS, thus that code
> >>>>>> was not bound into the executable, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> There was DOS code bound into the EXE file and it executes.  My
> >>>>> statement holds.
> 
> >>>> Your original statement:
> >>>> does not not hold, Marty.  Nothing gets extracted.
> 
> >>> Incorrect as noted above.  You seem to not know what a bound executable
> >>> is.
> 
> >> Incorrect, as noted above.  I've compiled quite a few executables that
way,
> >> Marty.
> 
> > Disregarded as you have not substantiated this unsupported claim.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>> otherwise it would have self extracted the archive.  It didn't.
> 
> >>>>>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.
> 
> >>>>>> Where is the DOS self-extracting archive code bound into the
> >>>>>> executable, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> That doesn't mean it isn't a bound executable.  A bound executable
need
> >>>>> not execute the same operation in both DOS and OS/2 to be a bound
> >>>>> executable.
> 
> >>>> What good is it then, Marty?
> 
> >>> [the DOS stub?]
> 
> >> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> 
> > You know I'm bad at infantile guessing games.  Perhaps you should make
your
> > pronouns more clear next time.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> What do you think the subject of your sentence was?
> 
> > I noted it in []'s Dave.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> Hint:  you didn't mention any DOS stub in it.
> 
> > It's quite silly to ask what good the self extracting archive is, so I
> > disregarded it as a possibility.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > Whether it's "any good" or not is irrelevant.  It is still a bound
executable
> > because it contains a DOS stub.  Agreed?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> To inform the user that to use its intended function, the EXE needs to
> >>> be run in OS/2.
> 
> >> So much for trying to run it in a DOS session.
> 
> > But you've already run it to find out!
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS,
> 
> >> It does mean that nothing got extracted, Marty.
> 
> > That doesn't mean that it doesn't run in DOS.  Statements to the contrary
are
> > incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> nor that it is not a bound executable.
> 
> >> No DOS archive extraction code was bound to the executable, Marty.
> 
> > That does not mean it is not a bound executable.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Quite the opposite.
> 
> >> Quite the repetition, Marty.
> 
> > Quite incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> You are quite incorrect to assume that it must.
> 
> >>>> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.
> 
> >>> That doesn't change the fact that you are quite incorrect to assume that
> >>> it must.
> 
> >> I am quite logical to assume that it should, Marty.
> 
> > Irrelevant, as your logic, as usual, is at odds with reality.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> In either case it is executing.
> 
> >>>>>>>> The program itself doesn't think so, Marty.  Why do you think it
says
> >>>>>>>> that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> >>>>>> Note:  no response.
> 
> >>>>> I've already addressed this with my REXX example.
> 
> >>>> Your REXX script is inappropriate, Marty.
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:22:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: (2/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> >>> Typical unsubstantiated erroneous claim.
> 
> >> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I already
> >> substantiated my claim, which showed that it is not erroneous.
> 
> > You failed to grasp the simple concept that any program can say anything
it
> > wants to.  There's little I can do to help you there.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Code can do or say whatever it wants,
> 
> >>>> Even start World War III, as they say.
> 
> >>> Irrelevant.
> 
> >> Incorrect, given that you referred to "whatever it wants".
> 
> > Irrelevant as no code has ever wanted to "start World War III".
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> no matter how far from reality it is.
> 
> >>>> In this case, however, the reality is that the file won't self-extract
> >>>> in a DOS session.
> 
> >>> Correct.
> 
> >> Then why did you write:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Covered already.  I see that when you are loosing an argument you resort
to
> > repetition.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> That doesn't mean it isn't running.
> 
> >> It does mean that no archive extraction took place, Marty.
> 
> > Agreed, but that does not make my statement incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> To blindly believe anything a program says, especially in this day and
> >>>>> age, is quite a silly thing to do.
> 
> >>>> Well, if you want to believe that the file really did self-extract in a
> >>>> DOS session, you are certainly welcome to do so, Marty.
> 
> >>> And if you want to believe that it is not a bound executable and that
> >>> stubs can be "displayed" you are welcome to do so.
> 
> >> You've certainly not provided any reason to change my belief, Marty.
> 
> > You've not grasped or accepted my explanation.  There's little I can do to 
help
> > you there.  I've properly defined what a bound executable is, and shown
how it
> > is inconsistent with your usage.  I've also noted the fundamental
difference
> > between "displaying" code and executing code, in contrast to your
incorrect
> > usage.  What more can I do?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Code is executed from inside of the executable.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> The program doesn't run, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> The program does in fact run.
> 
> >>>>>>>> No archive was extracted, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> >>>>>>> executable was run.
> 
> >>>>>> That code didn't extract the archive, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> That doesn't change the fact that 16 bit DOS code residing in the
> >>>>> executable was run.
> 
> >>>> It does contradict your claim, Marty:
> >>>>
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> In what way?
> 
> >> The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, Marty.
> 
> > Already covered.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> If I had worded my claim differently, you'd be correct,
> 
> >>>> I'm correct even with the wording you chose, Marty.
> 
> >>> Would that it were so, Dave.
> 
> >> It is, Marty.
> 
> > Already covered.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> however I never implied in any way what the code was doing.
> 
> >>>> You did write, however:
> >>>>
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> Which, if read correctly, the reader would notice that I never implied
> >>> in any way what the code was doing.
> 
> >> I'm not talking about any implication, Marty.  I'm talking about what
> >> you actually wrote.
> 
> > And then you're making an unwarranted extrapolation as to what it means. 
As
> > you look at the quote, do you see any mention that it will extract
anything in
> > DOS?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> The self extracting archive is the EXE file.
> 
> >> Incorrect, given that you made no reference to the EXE file in your
> >> statement:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Already covered.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> The EXE file can be run in DOS as your own posts have proven.
> 
> >> The archive does not self-extract in a DOS session, contrary to your
> >> claim, Marty.
> 
> > Not in contrary to my claim at all, as my claim never addresses this
issue.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> Why do you think it says that it MUST be run under OS/2?
> 
> >>>>> Already addressed numerous times.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect.  Rather, you've avoided it numerous times.
> 
> >>> How is a direct response avoidance?
> 
> >> By directly using an inappropriate analogy, Marty.
> 
> > Nothing inappropriate about my response.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> That's what I call running.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> It figures.  Your "running" doesn't accomplish much, sort of like 
your
> >>>>>>>>>> responses to me.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You clearly said that the self-extracting archive will run in a 
DOS
> >>>>>>>>>>>> session.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> No.  I said the executable would.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Balderdash, Marty:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive
in a
> >>>>>>>>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Note the lack of any reference to an executable.  Note the
presence of a
> >>>>>>>>>> reference to a self-extracting archive.  You clearly wrote:  "it
will
> >>>>>>>>>> run".  The only subjects to which "it" could refer are the
> >>>>>>>>>> "self-extracting archive" and the "DOS session".  Take your pick, 
Marty.
> >>>>>>>>>> Neither is a reference to an executable.  Only one of the two
subjects is
> >>>>>>>>>> a logical choice.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Is not the self-extracting archive JAVAINUF.EXE?  Is this not the
> >>>>>>>>> executable in question?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Marty, given that the issue is what you said.  You
claimed
> >>>>>>>> that you said "the executable would [run]", but that's not what you
> >>>>>>>> said.  Rather you said that the self-extracting archive would run
in a
> >>>>>>>> DOS session.  It does not.
> 
> >>>>>>> It does because the self-extracting archive is JAVAINUF.EXE.
> 
> >>>>>> It doesn't self-extract on DOS, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Never claimed it would.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect:
> >>>>
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
> >>> archive when run in DOS.
> 
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Now tell me which part of my statement claimed that it would extract any
> > archive when run in DOS.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> It doesn't run.
> 
> >>>>> Absolutely incorrect again.
> 
> >>>> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.
> 
> >>> Correct.
> 
> >> Glad you agree, Marty.
> 
> > But "it" does run.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> But it runs, nonetheless.
> 
> >> Nothing gets extracted, Marty.
> 
> > Never claimed it would.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> Your semantic argument won't help you to save face, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> No need.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> >>> No need on my part.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > Typical pontification.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> It will support my claim that you're responding simply to continue
playing
> >>>>>> your "infantile game".
> 
> >>>>> You will reap what you sow.
> 
> >>>> Illogical, given that I'm not sowing any "infantile game", Marty.
> 
> >>> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> >> Non sequitur.
> 
> > Incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't extract any archive.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Right.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Glad you agree, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> DT] It doesn't execute the program, Marty.
> >>>>>>>>>>> ^
> >>>>>>>>>>> |---- Incorrect statement.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> The display of a stub doesn't represent the execution of the
program,
> >>>>>>>>>> Marty.  Or is your semantic argument part of your "infantile
game"?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> There is no "display of a stub" occurring Dave.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.  They get executed.
> 
> >>>>>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
> >>>>>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".
> 
> >>>>> I know you are, but what am I?
> 
> >>>> Non sequitur.
> 
> >>> I'm rubber and you're glue.
> 
> >> Non sequitur.
> 
> > On the contrary, it's quite sequitur.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
> 
> >> Non sequitur.  Sounds like something from grade school.  Even more
> >> evidence that you're playing an "infantile game".
> 
> > How ironic, coming from Dave "Eliza" Tholen.  How long are you going to
keep
> > that infantile game up?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Stubs do not get displayed Dave.
> 
> >>>> Yet another semantic argument, which further supports my claim that
> >>>> you're responding simply to continue playing your "infantile game".
> 
> >>> Nothing semantic about it Dave.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > When the program displayed, "This program must be run under OS/2," was
that the
> > stub?  If you believe so then try this:
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > run DEBUG.EXE (or DEBUG.COM depending on your DOS version) in a DOS
session.
> > Then type the following:
> > e 100
> > 22 54 68 69 73 20 70 72 6F 67 72 61 6D 20 6D 75 73 74 20 62 65 20 72 75 6E 
20
> > 75 6E 64 65 72 20 4F 53 2F 32 2E 22
> > g 100
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > Then tell me what happens.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > Alternatively, if you feel that the stub itself was display magically when 
you
> > type the name of the executable, then compare the output you get when you
run
> > the executable to what you get when you say "type JAVAINUF.EXE" at a DOS
> > prompt.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > These two were provided as clear examples of the difference between
displaying
> > a program and executing one, highlighting your incorrect usage.  This is
not a
> > semantic issue, but a mistake on your end, leading to a miscommunication.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> If I displayed you is that not something entirely different than if
> >>> I executed you?
> 
> >> Yet another inappropriate analogy.
> 
> > Incorrect, as it highlights your incorrect usage of the word by showing
the
> > difference between displaying and executing.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> You used an incorrect term to describe the situation.
> 
> >> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> > It has been backed up numerous times.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Admit it you coward.
> 
> >> Typical invective.  Losing another argument, Marty?
> 
> > Not to you.  Perhaps elsewhere if I am neglecting another argument to
answer
> > you.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> They get executed.  That's not sematics.
> 
> >>>> Balderdash, Marty.
> 
> >>> Do you "display" your newsreader to write these postings?
> 
> >> Of course, given that I need to read the articles before I respond to
> >> them.
> 
> > If you hadn't executed your newsreader, would you be able to respond?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Do you "display" Netscape when you want to browse the World Wide Web?
> 
> >> Of course, given that the interface is visual.
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:22:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: (3/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> > If you hadn't executed Netscape, would you be able to browse the World
Wide Web
> > using Netscape?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> This is obviously an incorrect usage of the word "display",
> 
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> > On the basis that it is misleading, and neatly glosses over the required
to
> > execute the code in question.  How convenient.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> as is your use of it with respect to the stub executable.
> 
> >> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> > Incorrect, as I have supported this statement above.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> There's a world of difference between executing code and displaying
> >>>>> something.
> 
> >>>> There's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
> >>>> displaying a stub.
> 
> >>> No argument there, however irrelevant the statement may be.
> 
> >> It's not irrelevant, Marty.
> 
> > "Yet another example of your pontification."
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> However, you have yet to own up to the fact that there's a world of
> >>> difference between executing code and displaying something.
> 
> >> However, you have yet to own up to the relevancy of the fact that
> >> there's a world of difference between self-extracting an archive and
> >> displaying a stub.
> 
> > There certainly is, but your misuse of the word display makes the
statement
> > irrelevant.  Displaying a stub doesn't involve the execution of the stub's
> > code.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > Meanwhile, as if I needed to point it out again, you have yet to own up to 
the
> > fact that there's a world of difference between executing code and
displaying
> > something.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> You used incorrect terminology
> 
> >>>> Balderdash, Marty.  You're simply engaging in a semantic argument to
> >>>> divert attention away from the issue.
> 
> >>> If I were to use a term incorrectly, you'd call me on it just the same.
> 
> >> There's a world of difference between using a term incorrectly and
> >> engaging in a semantic argument, Marty.
> 
> > You'd be the one to know on both counts.  If I were to use a term
incorrectly,
> > you'd call me on it just the same.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Don't expect any less from your opponents.
> 
> >> I expect you to be consistent, and to be consistent, you should not
> >> be seeing my postings, due to your alleged use of a killfile.
> 
> > Sorry to shatter your "reality".
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> and now refuse to acknowledge your error.
> 
> >>>> What alleged error, Marty?
> 
> >>> Your misuse of the word "display".
> 
> >> What alleged misuse, Marty?
> 
> > See above, and below for that matter.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> Marty, and you'll develop a reputation for "never" admitting to
making
> >>>>>> mistakes.  Then some day you may have to deal with someone the way
I've
> >>>>>> dealt with you.
> 
> >>>>> And how have you allegedly "dealt" with me, Dave?
> 
> >>>> By putting up with your lies, Marty.
> 
> >>> Have you determined this to be an effective way of "dealing" with me?
> 
> >> I have determined that letting your lies go unchallenged is an
> >> ineffective way of "dealing" with you, Marty.
> 
> > Irrelevant to the question asked.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> If the stub were being displayed, you'd see:
> >>>>>>>>> MOV AH, [subfunction to print a string]
> >>>>>>>>> MOV DX, [address of string]
> >>>>>>>>> INT 21
> >>>>>>>>> MOV AH, 0
> >>>>>>>>> INT 21
> 
> >>>>>>>> I see you're now engaging in a semantic argument over what a "stub"
> >>>>>>>> is.
> 
> >>>>>>> On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.
> 
> >>>>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> >>>>> No semantics involved.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> >>> No semantics involved on my end.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > On the contrary, you don't seem to know what a stub is.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> I'm correcting your misconception of what a stub is and what can be
> >>>>> done with it.
> 
> >>>> What alleged misconception, Marty,
> 
> >>> Pointed out numerous times.
> 
> >> Where, allegedly, Marty?
> 
> > Everywhere!
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>> and how will that advance your argument in support of your erroneous
> >>>> claim:
> 
> >>> It won't,
> 
> >> Glad you agree.  So why do you persist?  Apparently to continue playing
> >> your "infantile game".
> 
> > "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through this?"
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> because I do not advance or support any erroneous claim.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty:
> >>
> >> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> > Addressed above.  I see that when you are loosing an argument you tend to
> > repeat yourself a lot.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> However, my statement still stands.
> 
> >> ..as incorrect.
> 
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>>>> A stub cannot be displayed in a meaningful way.
> 
> >>>> There is obvious meaning to the one displayed by javainuf.exe, Marty.
> 
> >>> You are again misusing the word "display".
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > Demonstrate how your usage is proper.  I have already demonstrated how it
is
> > improper.  You flatly reject my demonstration without so much as a
"because I
> > said so!"
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> That stub code was not displayed in your output.
> 
> >> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > No semantics involved in correcting an error in your perception.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> It was executed.
> 
> >> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > Still ignoring my point Dave?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> You seem to think it can be displayed in a meaningful way.
> 
> >>>>>> The error message is quite meaningful, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> The error message is not a "stub" Dave.
> 
> >>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> >>> No semantics involved.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > Evidence, please.  What is your definition of a "stub" Dave?  How about
"bound
> > executable"?  How about "to display"?  How about "to execute" (as in
code)?
> > Now demonstrate how these words tie together in your mind.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > If I were to misinterpret the word "incorrect" every time you write it to
mean,
> > "Marty, I'm a big pompous fool" would you not correct me?  Would that be a
> > semantic argument on your part or your correction of an error on my part?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> The stub is the kicker code for the operating system in question.
> >>> It is not a static text string.
> 
> >> Still relying on a semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > Note that you refuse to accept facts.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> If I were heretofore going to refer to the word "you" as if it
> >>> meant "sausage", would you not feel the need to correct me?
> 
> >> Yet another inappropriate analogy.
> 
> > Incorrect, because it is exactly what is happening with the roles
reversed, of
> > course.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> It's a "string".
> 
> >>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> >>> None present to continue.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of disregarding it as
> > "semantic" you'd learn something.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> It is displayed by the execution of the code present in the "stub".
> 
> >>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> >>> None present to continue.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of disregarding it as
> > "semantic" you'd learn something.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Unless one knows machine opcodes, it cannot.
> 
> >>>>>> Irrelevant to the issue, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Incorrect, as machine opcodes or interpreted x86 assembly are the only
> >>>>> way to display the already compiled stub.  You used the term
> >>>>> incorrectly.
> 
> >>>> Continuing your semantic argument, eh Marty?
> 
> >>> Continuing to postpone your admitting to an obvious error?
> 
> >> What alleged "obvious error", Marty?
> 
> > Your misuse of the phrases "display", "stub", and "bound executable".
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Admit your error and I will move on.
> 
> >>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't admitted several of his
> >>>> own errors.
> 
> >>> I've admitted to all errors that have been proven to me beyond the
> >>> shadow of a doubt, and several that haven't.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty,
> 
> > Typical pontification.  To which errors that have been proven to me beyond 
the
> > shadow of a doubt have I not admitted, Dave?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> but once again, I'll note that when you make the claims, the burden of
> >> proof falls on your shoulders.
> 
> > Never seems to get in your way.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
> 
> >>>>>> Ask Timbol.  He's the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> He has already affirmed that he believes the archive format is
> >>>>> portable.  I agree with him.  Do you agree that the archive format is
> >>>>> portable?
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that Timbol is the one who brought it up, Marty.
> 
> >>> I'm bringing it up,
> 
> >> Why, Marty?
> 
> > Because I'd like to know where you stand on the matter.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> now answer the question,
> 
> >> Why should I answer an irrelevant question, Marty?
> 
> > It is quite relevant to a number of claims you've made.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> you coward.
> 
> >> Typical invective.  Losing another argument, eh Marty?
> 
> > I've noted you squirm to avoid this question time and time again.  Why is
this
> > so?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice quite nicely.
> 
> >>>>>> "Have you stopped beating your wife, Marty?"
> >>>>>> "A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice quite nicely."
> 
> >>>>> What's allegedly irrelevant and inappropriate about my question Dave?
> 
> >>>> That's not the reasoning behind the wife beating example, Marty.
> 
> >>> Incorrect.
> 
> >> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> > Incorrect.  Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> If a "yes" or "no" won't do, then how about explaining your position
> >>>>> instead of dodging the issue?
> 
> >>>> I already have explained my position, Marty.
> 
> >>> Illogically.
> 
> >> Yet another example of your pontification.
> 
> > Do you agree that the archive format is portable?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 
57%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is
d7312638.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:22:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: (4/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has just shown you that he decompressed it and read its
contents.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How is that irrelevant?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because it can be done under OS/2, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That has nothing to do with your challenge to his assertion
that he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> could view the archive.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Where is this alleged challenge to his assertion, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> DT] Do you really want to claim that you were able to examine
the
> >>>>>>>>>>> DT] contents of classes.zip by examining the contents of an
executable
> >>>>>>>>>>> DT] file?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> DT] And exactly how are you looking at those contents, Mike?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Where is the alleged challenge, Marty?  Those quotations don't
represent
> >>>>>>>>>> a claim that he couldn't view the archive.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> You are questioning the fact that he could read it.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Not at all, Marty.  I was allowing for the possibility that he ran
the
> >>>>>>>> self-extracting archive on OS/2 all along.
> 
> >>>>>>> What point would that prove?
> 
> >>>>>> Good question.  Timbol seems to think that the ability to read the
contents
> >>>>>> of the JDK, which he claims are contained in classes.zip,
> 
> >>>>> Which they are, as anyone with the JDK can verify.
> 
> >>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> >>> On the basis that viewing the contents of classes.zip will show a
> >>> listing of *.class files,
> 
> >> Is the listing complete, Marty?
> 
> > Define complete in this context (regarding which components are included).
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> containing the implementation of all of the base component classes of
> >>> said version of Java.
> 
> >> That's the 1.1.8 version, Marty.  Now, do you remember what the subject
> >> of the thread is?  Hint:  it has to do with some additional functionality
> >> that was implemented.
> 
> > In the immortal words of the great Curly Howard, "Sointenly."
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> somehow proves that 1.1.8 does not include Java 2 security classes.
> 
> >>>>> That wasn't the whole of his line of reasoning, but I'll leave that
for
> >>>>> you two to explore.
> 
> >>>> Indeed, Timbol also used the reasoning that the article I referenced
> >>>> referred to a preview release, suggesting that the Java 2 security
> >>>> classes were removed before actual release.  Despite that, the actual
> >>>> release still has the Java 2 security classes.
> 
> >> Note:  no response.
> 
> > Am I being asked to defend Mike's position?  Sorry, but it doesn't work
that
> > way.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> You were questioning the validity of his reasoning based on his
> >>>>>>> availability to verify his own claims.
> 
> >>>>>> I never said anything about his availability, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Then why bother questioning him on how he was able to read the
contents
> >>>>> of the archive?
> 
> >>>> What does that have to do with his availability, Marty?
> 
> >>> You FUD'ed that he could not verify his own facts.
> 
> >> Non sequitur.  What alleged FUD, Marty?
> 
> > Numerous times you've thrown doubt over the fact that he could properly
extract
> > and view the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.  This is FUD and is untrue.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> He, in fact, can read it.
> 
> >>>>>>>> So can I, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Do you accept this fact?
> 
> >>>>>>>> I don't accept his claim that the contents prove that the JDK
doesn't
> >>>>>>>> include Java 2 security classes, Marty.  Do you?
> 
> >>>>>>> This is a different issue.
> 
> >>>>>> On the contrary, it's a part of the original issue, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> In what way?
> 
> >>>> It represents some of the Java 1.2 functionality that was implemented
> >>>> in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, Marty.  Haven't you been following the issue?
> 
> >>> That is not an issue in this branch of the thread,
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  Apparently you haven't been following the issue.
> 
> > I have been in this branch of the thread, and heretofore this point was
not
> > mentioned until now.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> otherwise I would have quoted it and responded to it.
> 
> >> As I said, you haven't been following the issue.
> 
> > Irrelevant, as it was not something I had originally addressed.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> It does not seem to include them in such a way that standard Java
1.2
> >>>>>>> programs would be able to access them.
> 
> >>>>>> Did IBM claim to include them in that way, Marty?  IBM simply said
that
> >>>>>> functions from Java 2 are included in 1.1.8, thereby justifying
Joseph's
> >>>>>> statement and contradicting Timbol's "bullshit" response.
> 
> >>>>> If there is no guarantee that the functions are implemented to
> >>>>> completion
> 
> >>>> Completion isn't required to make the statement, Marty.
> 
> >>> Completion is required to implement the functionality Dave.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.
> 
> > Would you claim that a given engine implements the functionality of a car?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Do you often half-ass implementation yourself?
> 
> >> I've never implemented myself, Marty.
> 
> > Obviously.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> and no guarantee that the interfaces are the same,
> 
> >>>> Nothing was said about the interfaces being the same, Marty.
> 
> >>> Glad you agree.
> 
> >> That's not a statement of agreement, Marty.  Rather, it's an indication
> >> of the irrelevancy of your remark.
> 
> > Rather, it's an attempt to avoid my remark.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> and the function names themselves are different, as seems to be the
> >>>>> case after a cursory examination of the class libraries,
> 
> >>>> Are you referring to the classes.zip file again, Marty?
> 
> >>> My words say what they say, Dave.
> 
> >> But your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.
> 
> > Never stopped you before.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> then how is this even vaguely reminiscent of Java 2 functionality?
> 
> >>>> Try reading the appropriate file, Marty, rather than classes.zip.
> >>>> No wonder Timbol thinks he can get away with his lies.  There's
> >>>> readers like you out there.
> 
> >>> And who exactly is "like me" out there Dave?
> 
> >> You are, Marty.
> 
> > So Timbol is going through all of this trouble for little old me?  I'm
> > flattered.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Archive:  SecMA.jar
> >>>  Length  Method   Size  Ratio   Date    Time   CRC-32     Name
> >>>  ------  ------   ----  -----   ----    ----   ------     ----
> >>>   82070  Stored   82070   0%  07-28-99  03:30  f5766547
> >>> META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
> >>>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/
> >>>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000   com/ibm/
> >>>       0  Stored       0   0%  07-28-99  01:23  00000000
> >>> com/ibm/security12/
> >>> .... etc.
> >>>
> >>> As I have stated, the function names themselves are different, as seems
> >>> to be the case after a cursory examination of the class libraries.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, Marty.
> 
> > How is the contents of the JAR file containing security classes irrelevant 
to
> > this issue???
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> One does not need to have the same names to implement the same
functionality.
> 
> > This listing proves that the interface is different, as we discuss below.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> For example, the touch tone keypad has a different name from a rotary
dial,
> >> but the former implements the functionality, namely the ability to enter
a
> >> telephone number, of the latter.
> 
> > Unfortunately a poor choice of example, as a touch-tone phone is required
for
> > many newer services to function properly.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> They are included as implementation specific plugins which are not
> >>>>>>> guaranteed to conform to Java 1.2 standards,
> 
> >>>>>> What's non-standard about them, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> The classes are under a different inheritance tree.
> 
> >>>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> >>>> classes, Marty?
> 
> >>> It automatically means they are not Java 2 compatible, which means that
> >>> Java 2 functionality is not implemented in this version of Java.
> 
> >> Yet another semantic argument.
> 
> > So any direct proof I provide of a mistake you make is "semantic"?  How
> > convenient.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> Exactly what do you think "functionality" means, Marty?
> 
> > Yet another semantic argument.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> Having the same name?  The same interface?
> 
> > Yet another semantic argument.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> The interfaces to them are different.
> 
> >>>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> >>>> classes, Marty?
> 
> >>> Absolutely.
> 
> >> Illogical.  The interface to the touch tone keypad is different from
> >> the rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
> >> telephone number, is present.
> 
> > Inappropriate example, as noted above.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Though I have not used them, I would also wager that the
> >>>>> functionality is not 100% accurate.
> 
> >>>> Wagers are not proof, Marty.
> 
> >>> Nor are unsupported statements, but that never stopped you before.
> 
> >> Irrelevant, given that my statement is supported by an actual article
> >> posted by an IBM representative, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> If a Java 2 program which utilized the new classes were to attempt
> >>>>> to execute on an OS/2 system with Java 1.1.8, it would, and does
> >>>>> exit with an exception error.
> 
> >>>> The security classes are for developers, Marty, not clients.
> 
> >>> And are therefore, useless.
> 
> >> Illogical, given that IBM provided them for a reason.  That you cannot
> >> figure out that reason is your problem, Marty.
> 
> > Not my problem at all.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Why would a developer embrace something that isn't standard that no
> >>> clients were meant to run?
> 
> >> Read the referenced article, Marty.
> 
> > Done.  Now what?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> That's what's non-standard about them.
> 
> >>>> Does that somehow justify the claim that they are not Java 2 security
> >>>> classes, Marty?
> 
> >>> Absolutely.
> 
> >> Illogical.  The touch tone keypad is a different standard from the
> >> rotary dial, yet the functionality, namely the ability to enter a
> >> telephone number, is present.
> 
> > Inappropriate example, as noted above.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> and as such seem to be fairly useless.
> 
> >>>>>> Then why would IBM include them, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> Technology preview?  Perhaps specific applications for specific
> >>>>> customers that are tied to OS/2.
> 
> >>>> Did you even bother to read the excerpt I provided, Marty?
> >>>>
> >>>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
> >>>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
> >>>> ] platform.
> 
> >>> Yup.  As I stated, technology preview.
> 
> >> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  Do you know what
> >> "migrate" means?
> 
> > Yet another semantic argument.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> As such, however, no Java 2 functionality is implemented.
> 
> >> Incorrect, Marty.  Reread the referenced article.
> 
> > Done.  Now what?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> Perhaps you simply don't understand their usefulness?
> 
> >>>>> It's hard to understand the usefulness of a platform independent

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:22:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: (5/5) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> >>>>> language being tied to one platform through non-conformity.
> 
> >>>> Try to understand Microsoft's Java, Marty.  However, you haven't
> >>>> proven non-conformity.
> 
> >>> The inheritance tree of the classes already proves non-conformity.
> 
> >> How so, Marty?
> 
> > Have you ever coded in Java?  If so it would be quite apparent.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> And where's your understanding of Microsoft's Java?
> 
> > Microsoft can get away with non-conformity due to market share.  IBM does
not
> > have this luxury with OS/2.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> If I were a Java programmer, I would be quite hesitant to use
> >>>>>>> these functions.
> 
> >>>>>> Why not let Java programmers tell you what they find useful or not
> >>>>>> about the inclusion of Java 2 security classes in the JDK, Marty?
> 
> >>>>> Because I like to take matters into my own hands when I make a
> >>>>> decision.
> 
> >>>> Even if your hands aren't qualified to do so.
> 
> >>> On what basis do you make this claim, Mr. "Display the Stub"?
> 
> >> Your illogical claims and your lies, Marty.
> 
> > Have you ever coded in Java?  I have.  By my measure, I'm quite a bit more
> > qualified than you are to be discussing this matter.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> As a seasoned programmer myself who worked in Java for a time
> >>>>> I feel qualified to make such a statement.
> 
> >>>> Your feelings are irrelevant, Marty.
> 
> >>> My feelings in this matter have weight in light of my experience.
> 
> >> With whom, Marty?  Certainly not me.
> 
> > Unfortunate for you.  You could learn a thing or two from me if you had an 
open
> > mind.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> The basis of Java is its portability.
> 
> >>>> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
> >>>> for OS/2, will not be portable?
> 
> >>> Reading comprehension problems?
> 
> >> Obviously not, Marty.
> 
> > Nothing obvious about it.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> My words say what they say, Dave.
> 
> >> Your words aren't sufficiently unambiguous, Marty.
> 
> > Yet another semantic argument.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> If one throws in platform-specific code, that tenant is
> >>>>> destroyed.
> 
> >>>> Illogical.
> 
> >>> There is nothing illogical about that statement.
> 
> >> Are you suggesting that IBM's Java 1.2, when it becomes available
> >> for OS/2, will not be portable?
> 
> > Not at all.  My statement was generalized.  If one throws platform
specific
> > code into Java, the tenants of Java have been broken.  Do you not agree?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> Is there something about IBM's Java 1.1.8 that is not portable, Marty?
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>> IBM is simply giving Java developers on OS/2 a head start on the use of
> >>>> those security classes.
> 
> >>> Then why not give Java developers on OS/2 the real thing, rather than a
> >>> partial, incompatible, platform specific implementation?
> 
> >> Don't you think IBM plans to do so, Marty?
> 
> > What I think IBM plans to do is irrelevant.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>> Using such a thing could do more harm than good.
> 
> >> IBM obviously thinks otherwise.
> 
> > What IBM "thinks" is unprovable and irrelevant.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >> Perhaps you should take up the issue with your employer.
> 
> > Illogical, as I am employed by the server group, not the software group.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> If portability was a concern I could not use these functions at all.
> 
> >>>>>> Perhaps you should comprehend IBM's intentions, Marty:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ] This allows OS/2 customers to begin evaluating some of the Java 2
> >>>>>> ] functions as they migrate their Java applications to the Java 2
> >>>>>> ] platform.
> 
> >>>>> Exactly as I stated above:  Technology preview.  Not useful for
anything
> >>>>> but evaluation.
> 
> >>>> And migration, Marty.
> 
> >>> Why migrate to an "in-between" step when you can migrate to the real
> >>> thing in one step?
> 
> >> Why use the stairway when you can leap between floors?
> 
> > Typical inappropriate analogy.  In this case it is just as difficult to
migrate
> > to the "real deal" as it is to migrate to an "in-between" step.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Not equivalent implementation by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> >>>> Irrelevant, given that "equivalent" was never stated, Marty.
> 
> >>> Since it is not an equivalent implementation, then Java 2 functionality
> >>> is not implemented therein.
> 
> >> Illogical, given that equivalence is not required for functionality to
> >> be implemented, Marty.  Consider the touch tone keypad and the rotary
> >> dial example.
> 
> > Consider why it is incorrect, and also consider what you would do with a
car
> > engine without a chassis.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > [Let's try this section over again... I'll start with your question.]
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>> You still have not answered the question I posed:  I don't accept
> >>>>>> his claim that the contents prove that the JDK doesn't include Java 2
> >>>>>> security classes, Marty.  Do you?
> 
> >> I'm still waiting for a logical explanation for why you don't think
> >> Java 2 security classes were implemented, Marty.  Don't try to use
> >> "standard interface" or "same name" criteria without explaining how
> >> they prevent the functionality from being provided.  Refer to the
> >> touch tone keypad and rotary dial for an example, Marty.
> 
> > Yes.  The contents (listed a ways above) shows that the names of the
classes,
> > and thus the interfaces are different.  Since the Java API itself is
nothing
> > but an interface, this proves to me that Java 2 security classes, as
defined by
> > Sun, are not implemented in the JDK in question.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> > [Now for my question.]
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> You still have no answered the question I posed:  Do you accept the
fact
> >>>>>>> that Mike can read the archive's contents in a meaningful way and
> >>>>>>> extract them if he chooses?
> 
> > I expect a reasonable "go" at it this time.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about heading down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:56:11
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> Maybe your infantile games have something to do with this.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from someone playing an "infantile game", as
> >> further evidenced by the way in which you removed all the text
> >> to which the above was in response.  Gee, aren't you one of the
> >> people who has complained about "destroying context"?  Hypocrite.
> 
> > There was no context to destroy.
> 
> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?

See below.

> > Your statements had no correlation to the statements to which they
> > were allegedly "replying".
> 
> You destroyed context, Marty.

There was none, as the replies were inappropriate.
 
> > By all means, keep denying the existence of your game.
> 
> That's because my alleged "game" doesn't exist, Marty.

Then what do you call the material quoted above?

> > Gee, aren't you one of the people who has
> > complained about "infantile games"?
> 
> Yours, Marty.

Yeah, you don't seem to mind your own.
 
> > Hypocrite.
> 
> Illogical, Marty.

What's allegedly illogical about it Dave?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 10:58:24
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > >
> > > Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:
> > >
> > > > But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
> > > > the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he
stated
> > > > that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
> > > > correct.
> > >
> > > What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the self-extracting
> > > archive would run in a DOS session.
> >
> > What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms were
the
> > same as yours and Bennie's.
> 
> Then please define your terms for me.  Do you equate the entire
> executable to the self-extracting archive?  Does running the DOS
> stub equate to running the executable which in turn equates to
> running the self-extracting archive?

You got it.  Dave still doesn't.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 11:53:28
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> 
> >>> In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer it
> >>> as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> >>> emulates many different kinds of CPUs.
> 
> >> Oh really?  Does that mean MAME will allow me to run any application
> >> written for any of those CPUs, game or not?
> 
> > If the CPUs are emulated properly, then yes.
> 
> Is MAME designed to emulate all those CPUs properly, Marty?

Yes, but not all is known about some of the CPUs emulated.

> > MESS is a MAME "bolt-on" specific to PC emulation, but uses all of
> > the same emulation code as its arcade counterpart.
> 
> Why would an arcade game use emulation code, Marty?

If it is running in MAME, it has to because it cannot execute natively.
 
> >>> It creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of
> >>> various kinds of machines, arcade games among them,
> 
> >> Any other applications?
> 
> > Whatever you can run on the given platform.
> 
> Suppose I can run nothing, because MAME doesn't provide the functionality?

Your loss, I suppose.  What functionality is it allegedly missing?
 
> >>> can be accurately reproduced, provided that the program code for said
> >>> CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump files or "ROMs" for
> >>> short).  The MAME platform has been used to emulate various kinds of
> >>> arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as semi-modern architectures.
> 
> >> Will it let me run CP/M applications, like the Magic Wand word
> >> processor?
> 
> > The MESS modification will, which contains definitions specific to
> > x86 PCs.
> 
> I was asking about MAME, Marty, not MESS.

MAME is the core of MESS.  MESS contains several "driver" additions
putting the various pieces of MAME together in such a way that consoles
and PCs can be emulated.
 
> >>> As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
> >>> lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
> >>>
> >>> Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it fascinating
> >>> that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> >>> hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> >>> anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous amount
> >>> about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting tricks
> >>> used in the hardware of these systems.
> 
> >> And the games had nothing to do with it?
> 
> > The games themselves have nothing to do with my learning about hardware
and
> > fascination with emulation.
> 
> Are you suggesting that there's nothing more to your interest than
> learning about hardware and fascination with emulation?

I said that my interest was threefold, and that the game aspect is
independent of the other two.
 
> >>> Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and making
> >>> it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> >>> example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> >>> invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the way,
> >>> making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> >>> learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects come
> >>> into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.
> 
> >> And the games had nothing to do with it?
> 
> > The games themselves had nothing to do with my enjoyment of porting large
> > multimedia applications to OS/2, nor the "frontiersman" feel, nor helping
> > other developers.
> 
> What large multimedia applications have you ported, besides arcade games,
> Marty?

Synthetic Audio Library, and a few old DOS proggies of mine that I never
released.  I've also ported and never released Retrocade, but that is
another arcade emulator.  In addition, I've created my own (not ported)
audio mixer from scratch which is currently used by MAME and will
eventually be used to implement DirectSound in OS/2.
 
> >>> Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
> >>> my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.
> 
> > [Here's where the games come in.]
> 
> In other words, the games have something to do with it.

Not with the other two aspects.
 
> >> Perhaps you should spend more time doing that then playing "infantile
> >> games" on USENET, Marty.
> 
> > I already do.
> 
> Then when do you work, Marty?

Whenever I can and desire to do so.
 
> >> PacMan won't respond to you when you insult him.
> 
> > Now why would I insult PacMan?
> 
> Why would you insult me?

Irrelevant.  I see you failed to answer the question.
 
> > He doesn't make erroneous statements and insist they are correct.
> 
> Neither do I, Marty.

Irrelevant.
 
> > He just eats dots and runs away from spooky ghosts.  The
> > poor guy doesn't even have legs with which to run.
> 
> Irrelevant, Marty.

Incorrect, as this demonstrates a reason that I do not dislike PacMan
and therefore would not insult him.

> >>> Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> >>> Usenet?
> 
> >> You're presupposing the above is a complete description of your
> >> motivation, Marty.
> 
> > Correct.  I've noted you failed to answer the question.
> 
> Provide a complete description of your motivation, and then I will be
> in a position to answer the question, Marty.

Already have.
 
> > Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> > Usenet?
> 
> You're presupposing the above is a complete description of your
> motivation, Marty.

And it is, as I have already stated.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 04-Nov-99 16:57:21
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> > -- snip --
> 
> >>> Marty didn't say that you claimed Mike *couldn't* view the contents of
> >>> JAVAINUF.EXE (in Windows), he simply said that you refuse to accept or
> >>> admit that Mike *could* do so.
> 
> >> Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?
> 
> > Are you really that blind/stubborn/desperate/insane??!?
> 
> I see you didn't answer the question, choosing instead to hurl yet more
> invective.
> 
> > The exchange betwixt you and me centers around your refusal to admit
> > your error
> 
> Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

Okay, let me rephrase: your continued neglect to admit your error, and
your continued attempts to dodge the admission, evade the admission and
deflect attention away from the issue of admission, all of which are
tantamount to refusing to make said admission.

> > when you claimed that one needed to run JAVAINUF.EXE on an OS/2 platform
> > in order to examine the contents of the archive.
> 
> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
> 
>    This program must be run under OS/2.
> 
> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
> 
>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
> 
> what would you conclude?

Okay, I'll go ahead and take your bait, although I have, in fact,
already answered this question, which, for the record, is posed in a
vacuum and is also contrived.

What I would conclude, assuming that I did take the path outlined above
(which I would not do in the real world, but apparently must do in your
hypothetical one), is that the ***EASIEST*** way to extract the contents
of ABC.EXE would be to run it under OS/2. However, I absolutely would
***NOT*** conclude that that must be the ***ONLY*** way to extract said
contents of said archive, because I, a priori, am in fact aware of
InfoZip's shortcomings, the fact that, as far as ZIP archive utilities
go, InfoZip is rather weak in terms of functionality (although it is
sufficient for many tasks, excluding this one, of course), and WinZip's
existence and extensive capabilities. (As a matter of fact, my a priori
knowledge of InfoZip's weaknesses is one reason why I would not take the
path you outlined above, in the real world, even though I am forced down
that path in your hypothetical world.) Ergo, should someone inform me
that  they, in fact, did use WinZip to extract the contents of ABC.EXE,
I absolutely ***WOULD NOT*** use my failed attempt to use InfoZip as an
excuse to dismiss this someone's claim, because, again, I, a priori, am
aware of WinZip's extensive (as compared to InfoZip at any rate)
capabilities.

I suspect that you will find fault with this answer as well.

It seems that you always do . . .

> > If you were to admit this error, I would bow out of the thread.
> 
> I'm waiting for you to show where I've allegedly refused to admit
> an error.

See above for the rephrasing. Also, immediately above, I didn't claim
"refusal" on your part, only the implication of neglect (to admit your
error).

> > My continued presence indicates that you have yet to make
> > such an admission, at least as a response to me.
> 
> Your continued presence looks like you taking advantage of an
> opportunity to hurl insults.

What it looks like to you is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          04-Nov-99 12:01:02
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 14:41:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Marty wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:
> > > >
> > > > > But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated that
> > > > > the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he
stated
> > > > > that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
> > > > > correct.
> > > >
> > > > What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the self-extracting
> > > > archive would run in a DOS session.
> > >
> > > What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms were 
the
> > > same as yours and Bennie's.
> >
> > Then please define your terms for me.  Do you equate the entire
> > executable to the self-extracting archive?  Does running the DOS
> > stub equate to running the executable which in turn equates to
> > running the self-extracting archive?
> 
> You got it.  Dave still doesn't.

Do you also "get" why I do not agree with that view and that I prefer
to be more specific in distinguishing between the various components
of the executable?

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 04-Nov-99 17:18:26
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Ian Tholen
> >I was hypothesizing a situation
> 
> You know, Ian Tholen is *so* dumb, and foolishly contradictory, that
> it's a piece of cake to underscore his stupidity and hypocrisy with
> his own words, which I do below (and is the reason why he's too afraid
> to directly reply to my posts -- he knows that I *know* what a buffoon
> he is, and have no trouble demonstrating with a vast library of his
> own demented tripe):
> 
> From: tholen@hale.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Gates is Satan, however...
> Date: 27 Mar 1998 22:42:29 GMT
> Organization: University of Hawaii
> Message-ID: <6fha0l$a75@news.Hawaii.Edu>
> 
> I'm not interested in the possibilities, but rather the facts.

LOL!  Tell me, Jeff, you mentioned a digest of Tholen material. Is that
available online? Or are you selfishly hogging all that good material
for yourself? :)


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      04-Nov-99 17:22:01
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:21
Subj: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re: Esther 

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (4 Nov 1999 15:01:28 GMT):
>On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:02:38, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
>| Hey!  I'm not a nerd, or at least never advertise my nerdness (if I
>| have any).
>
>I *am* a nerd, and I don't care what people think. I may be a nerd who
>shops at Ann Taylor, but I'm still a nerd.

Oh, I meant to write:

>| Hey!  I'm not a nerd (not that there's anything wrong with that)..."

>You might be interested in small. That's not important to me.

Right.

>Why are *you* here? I'm an OS/2 user. You no longer are. What's the 
>appeal?

You are?  I thought you were here to keep in touch with the 'little
people' -- to keep yourself from being full assimilated.  Or maybe you
don't get enough respect at your workplace and come here to play your
self-titled Queen of OS2 role (or is it OS2 godess?).  I think you know
what I mean.  Besides, I can't recall you actually doing much in the way
of OS2 cheerleading, but I do see you put lots of dampers on it everywhere
(except here).

Anyway, don't take things so personally.  And quit making things up;
it's not good for a writer to be known for making up stories.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 04-Nov-99 17:14:16
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --

> > If you seriously believe that this makes any difference, then you are
> > supporting my belief that you are, indeed, self-deluded.
> 
> My belief is irrelevant, Curtis.  I know that it makes a difference.
> That you think it doesn't only demonstrates that you are the one who
> is self-deluded.

Explain how WinZip's allegedly choking on *your* JAVAINUF.EXE file,
which, presumably, was downloaded form the same site that Mike Timbol's,
Marty's and mine were, would disprove the claim that WinZip did not
choke on Mike Timbol's, Marty's and my copy of the JAVAINUF.EXE file.

Either explain it, or admit your error. There is no third alternative
(unless we consider continued evasiveness and deflection to be an
alternative, in which case I must stand corrected).

> > -- snip --
> 
> >>> Take another look at the URL:
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> > Nor does it need to.
> 
> On the contrary, it does.

Explain why. Or admit your error.

> > That you would attempt to make this an issue indicates your
> > desperation.
> 
> On the contrary, it represents reality, Curtis.

Yes, the reality of your desperation.

> > Karel, are you listening?
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis.

I didn't claim "relevance," Dave, but it *is* something I want to know.

-- snip --

> > Again, if you seriously believe that WinZip would choke on your
> > "special" copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then prove it.
> 
> WinZip can't make bytes magically appear, Curtis.

This riddle isn't proof, Dave.

> > Otherwise, your pathetic attempts at not admitting your mistake only
> > supports my belief that you suffer from an "I am NOMAD! I am PERFECT!"
> > syndrome.
> 
> Typical invective.

My apologies if you consider the truth as "abuse," but the
double-chevroned statement above is absolutely true.  I do, in fact,
honestly believe that you do so suffer, and your behavior does, in fact,
support said belief.

-- snip --

> > Are you listening, Karel?
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis.
> 
> > Are you still impressed by this guy's "logic?" <chuckle>
> 
> I'm impressed that he hasn't yet jumped to the wrong conclusions that
> you have.

Which "conclusion" might that be, Dave?

-- snip --

> >>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
> >>> decompression tools.
> 
> >> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.
> 
> > Did Marty claim such?
> 
> He wrote:
> 
> M] just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
> M] behave the same is.
> 
> > No.
> 
> Then explain the above quotation, Curtis.

Expecting all operating systems to behave the same way is foolish.
Expecting all human beings to behave the same way is foolish. Ergo,
expecting all ZIP archive tools to behave the same way is foolish.

Now, it's your turn. In light of my explanation, *you* explain how you
managed to equate decompression tools to humans in your interpretation
of what Marty said, Dave.

It should be quite interesting.

> > I guess this is another one of your "non sequitor" thingies.
> 
> Incorrect.  For one, I spell it word correctly.  For another, see the
> above quotation.

I see the above quotation.  I even explained it for you, since you
apparently had such difficulty with it.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               04-Nov-99 13:50:15
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:21
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Brad BARCLAY
> >the ANSI C standard libraries do form an API.
> 
> Say no more. I can see now that you're obviously not all that clued in
> to the practice of developing software. You don't even refer to
> standard components by their given, widely used names.
> 
> I call the standard C library a "standard C library". So does everyone
> else I know who regularly writes software. Obviously, IBM employees
> don't live in the real world with the rest of us

	And obviously you can't understand the concept of a library being a
superset of an API.  I've given you the definition of an API from an
authortative source.  Is the best you can come up with a "no it isn't"
and a personal attack?

	I personally couldn't care less what you, or anyone else, calls a C
library.  As with many things in computerdom, there is often more than
one correct way to denote the same thing, especially when there is a
subset/superset relation.  It's still an API, as it provides you with a
standard INTERFACE for PROGRAMMING things called APPLICATIONS, hence the
letters A - P - I.

	If you'd like me to provide you with definitions of what constitutes an
"application", what "programming" is, and what an "interface" is all
about, I'd be more than happy to do so.  Otherwise, admit you were wrong
and drop it.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 04-Nov-99 18:53:02
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vrms0$l1e$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
 <tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The n
>>>>>> ewer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer 
>>>>>> description several times.  I'll do so again here:
>
>>>>> Unnecessary, Mike.
>
>>>> I see you're conceding defeat on this point as well.  You present the 
>>>> earlier, incorrect description, which I've refuted several times based 
>>>> on the contents of the JDK, and based on IBM's newer, more accurate 
>>>> description.
>
>>> What makes it allegedly more accurate, Mike?
>
>> The fact that it is closer to reality than the outdated description
>> you like to use (and which you have chosen to post three *more* times).
>
>What makes it allegedly closer to reality, Mike?

Tell me, Dave, if you claim San Francisco is in Montana, and I tell you
that San Francisco is in California, what makes my claim closer to reality?

>>>> You refuse to address that at all,
>
>>> On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to substantiate your
>>> claim.
>
>> I've already done so several times, in part by posting the new 
>> description which you continutally delete without addressing.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who continutally [sic] deletes the
>proof that my original response was so short because *you* deleted
>most of Joseph's article.

On the contrary, I've addressed that several times.  Each time, you've
deleted my explanation, and simply reiterated your incorrect argument.  
I'll refresh your memory below.

>>>> instead choosing to delete it
>>>> and merely repeat your incorrect description four more times.
>
>>> What's allegedly incorrect about my description, Mike?
>
>> The fact that what it claims is untrue.  It claims the JDK includes 
>> "Java 2 security classes", when it does not.  When presented with 
>> this fact, you merely point back to the original, incorrect claim as 
>> "proof" that "Java 2 security classes" are included.
>
>What's allegedly incorrect about it, Mike?

What's allegedly incorrect about the claim that San Francisco is in 
Montana?

>> Circular logic.
>
>Nothing circular about it, Mike.  I'm pointing directly to evidence,

...and when I explain that it's wrong, you merely point back to the
original "evidence".  That's circular.  Amazing that you don't understand 
this.

It's like pointing to an early atlas that has a misprint, accidently 
labeling a city in Montana as "San Francisco".  When I point out that
it is incorrect, you refuse to believe me, pointing back to your
mistaken atlas as "proof".

>while you simply pontificate that it is wrong, and try to use a
>semantic argument over what is "in" the JDK to justify ignoring the
>Java 2 security classes.

When I tell you that San Francisco is not in Montana, that's not 
pontification.

>> Note that the description you present differs from the description
>> IBM has available on their web site.  Note that the description I 
>> present, from IBM's web site, is more recent than the one you cling to.
>> Yet, for obvious and pathetic reasons, you favor the first description.
>
>What's allegedly "pathetic" about my reasons, Mike?

The fact that you cling to the earlier description because you think it
makes you look like you actually have an argument, when you clearly don't.


>>>>>>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?
>
>>>>>>> In IBM's words:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>>>>>>> ] applets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>>>>>>> browsing, Mike.
>
>>>>>> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.
>
>>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
>>>>> several occasions.
>
>>>> Tell me, then, the web page which contains one of these "Java 
>>>> applications" that you've executed while browsing.
>
>>> Baseball season is over, Mike.  It'll be a few months before they use
>>> GameCast for baseball games again.
>
>> Then name another one.  Or is that the only page you can name that you 
>> claim contains "Java applications" that you execute while browsing?  
>
>Irrelevant, given that one is sufficient, Mike.

I'll just note that you're refusing to substantiate you claim, probably
because someone more clued in than you told you your claim is wrong.

>> Convienient that the single example you name can't be verified, eh?
>
>Sure it can be, Mike.  Wait until next season.

Fairly transparent tactic, Dave.  I'll just point out, again, that you do 
not run Java applications while browsing, thus your claim is, once again, 
incorrect.  It's Java applets which are run in browsers, not applications.

If GameCast is written in Java, and it runs in your browser, it is an applet.

I'm now waiting for you to claim that this is merely a "semantic argument"
since you clearly don't understand the difference between Java applets
and applications.

>>>>>> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
>>>>>> is repeating your incorrect claims.
>
>>>>> I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike. 
>
>>>> Yet all of my claims are correct, based on IBM's up-to-date description 
>>>> of the JDK, plus the contents of the actual JDK itself.  
>
>>> IBM did not describe javainuf.exe as the JDK, Mike.
>
>> Here's how IBM *did* describe their JDK:
>>
>>  IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8
>>  incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler technology with MMI 
>>  function. New to this release are security enhancements based on the 
>>  Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported by 
>>  IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2 providing serial and parallel device
>>  support and enabling JavaPOS and JavaXFS. 
>>
>>  Updated 07/30/99 
>
>> Note a number of things:
>>
>>  1. "security enhancements based on the Java 2 security model" *not*
>>     "Java 2 security classes".
>
>What's the significance of the difference, Mike?  

The significance is that the newer version is correct, wherease the earlier
version is not.  You've had every opportunity to simply name one of the
"Java 2 security classes" allegedly included, yet you could not do so.

>If I refer to something
>as an asteroid in one abstract and as a minor planet in another abstract,
>are you going to attach some significance to that difference?

Typical Tholen inappropriate analogy.  Suppose you refer to it as a
piece of fruit in one abstract, then as a minor planet in the current
abstract.

>>  2. "Java 2" clearly refers to the "security model", and *ONLY* the
>>     security model.  It clearly does *not* refer to "Swing", "RMI-IIOP",
>>     and "the Java COMM API".  Those are *not* Java 2 features.
>
>Are you claiming that there have been no changes to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and
>COMM between 1.1.8 and 1.2, Mike?

Does it look like I'm claiming that?

>>  3. "Updated 07/30/99", which is more recent than the newsgroup article
>>     you refer to.
>
>So what, Mike?  The abstracts in my journal publications are usually
>more recent than the ones prepared for meetings.  What does that
>prove?

It proves that your analogy has nothing to do with the case at hand.

>> Why is this description more accurate than the one you cling to?
>> Because the JDK does not contain "Java 2 security classes",
>> nor does it contain "Java 2 versions" of the other named features.
>
>Are you claiming that there have been no changes to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and
>COMM between 1.1.8 and 1.2, Mike?

Again, I see you have no argument.

I'm curious, Dave: If you were a rational person, what would you accept
as evidence for the following items:

  1. There are no "Java 2 security classes" in IBM's JDK 1.1.8.
  2. There are no "Java 2 versions" of Swing, RMI-IIOP, and the COMM
     API in IBM's JDK 1.1.8.
  3. Java applications are not run while browsing.
  4. You do *not* need to be running OS/2 to examine the contents of
     javainuf.exe in a meaningful fashion.

I eagerly await your response, since it will undoubtedly save me much 
time in the future.

>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
>MT] you deleted it,
>
>DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
>
>MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
>MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>
>Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
>its entirety:

Note the fatal flaw of Dave's manufactured response here: He reproduces
a small exchange, takes it completely out of context, and claims that 
*I* am referring to the posts *he* indicates.  This is clearly wrong...

>> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above
>
>Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
>appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
>another one of your lies.

In fact, there is a clear indication that I am *not* referring to 
the posts he indicates, since I had included an excerpt of the post I
*am* referring to (which was, in fact, preserved in the article from
which Dave extracted the exchange above), which does not exist in
the posts Dave claims I am referring to.

  Mike: "Yes, officer, I saw that man do it."  (Points to the red-haired
        man on the right)  "The guy with the red hair."

  Dave: "Mike is clearly lying!  This man could not have done it!"
        (Points to the brown-haired man on the left)  "He doesn't even 
        have red hair!"

What's wrong with this picture?

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: chris@network23.karoo.co.uk                       04-Nov-99 19:09:02
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:21
Subj: Voodoo 3 2000

From: "Chris D." <chris@network23.karoo.co.uk>

Sorry if the wrong group, but Im new to OS/2 warp 4 and wondered if there
are any drivers compat with Voodoo 2000?


Chris D.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RemarQ http://www.remarQ.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 20:03:18
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>
>The position you're defending is absurd.

It was not absurd for Marty to claim that the executable runs under
DOS. Indeed, he and others ran it under DOS and it actually did
exactly what it's supposed to do: It displayed a message.

It's also not absurd for Mike Timbol to claim that he doesn't need
OS/2 in order to examine the contents of a self-extracting zip
archive. Indeed, he and others have proven that they can examine it
upon NT.

What is absurd is your failure to grasp the truth in such simple,
logical statements, accompanied by proof. Why, you don't know logic at
all. You're about as "clever" as your buddy Tholen, which is to say,
not clever at all. You're just yet another OS/2 loonie who wants to
align himself with a notorious kook and mentally ill social misfit,
strictly because you're "emotionally blocked" over your niche market,
dying pet product. The absurdity is you, Bennie, and we're laughing at
your buffoonish attempts to prop up the idiocy of Ian Tholen

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 20:07:17
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>
>I see you've got writer's block.  Your repeating yourself.
>Slow down.  Take some deep breaths.  You'll get your
>creativity back.

That's ironic coming from the buffoon who is doing Bob O's vaudeville
routine almost verbatim months after Bobo fled the newsgroup when
everyone started laughing at the pathetically vapid and erroneous
"logic" he spewed forth in a foolish attempt to defend a fellow OS/2
kook, namely, Tholen.

"Tholen's detractors are emotionally blocked... [and] unskilled at
logic".
-- Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 15:36:09
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 16:45:22
Subj: Re: Voodoo 3 2000

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"Chris D." wrote:
> 
> Sorry if the wrong group, but Im new to OS/2 warp 4 and wondered if there
> are any drivers compat with Voodoo 2000?
> 
> Chris D.

Check out Scitech Display Doctor (http://www.scitechsoft.com).  They
support several recent 3DFx chipsets.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          04-Nov-99 21:57:16
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 19:52:02
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Brad BARCLAY
>>>the ANSI C standard libraries do form an API.
 
>> Say no more. I can see now that you're obviously not all that clued in
>> to the practice of developing software. You don't even refer to
>> standard components by their given, widely used names.
>> 
>> I call the standard C library a "standard C library". So does everyone
>> else I know who regularly writes software. Obviously, IBM employees
>> don't live in the real world with the rest of us

>And obviously you can't understand the concept of a library being a
>superset of an API.

Obviously, you can't understand that programmers call the C standard
library a "library" because that's indeed what it is, and programmers
call the MS Foundation Classes "classes" because that's what they are.

>I've given you the definition of an API

The question isn't about what an API is. The question is about what
MFC and the C standard libraries are. They are C++ Classes and
libraries respectively.

>I personally couldn't care less what you, or anyone else, calls a C
>library.

And I personally couldn't care less what you call it, except for
noting that you've chosen to call it something that other programmers
do not, for whatever reason you've decided to do something that
foolish.

>As with many things in computerdom, there is often more than
>one correct way to denote the same thing

Yes, IBM employees do have an annoying tendency to relabel things with
a lot of extra, bogus terminology (in an attempt to make it sound
impressive and justify bilking customers out of more money).
Nevertheless, the standard C libraries are libraries, and MFC are C++
classes, wrappers actually for the Windows API.

>Otherwise, admit you were wrong

I am not wrong in stating that the standard C libraries are libraries,
and MFC are C++ classes, wrappers actually for the Windows API. In
fact, this is absolutely correct.

You are the one who is wrong

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 18:53:00
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this
file is
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]   not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part
archive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]   In the latter case the central directory and zipfile
comment will
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]   be found on the last disk(s) of this archive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an
archive
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike said he used WinZip, not InfoZip (which is an OS/2
utility). Where
> >>>>>>>>>>> is the logic, here?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Simple:  if one can allegedly do it, then the other should also
be
> >>>>>>>>>> able to do it.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> WinZip is a superset to InfoZip.  It has far more capabilities. 
For
> >>>>>>>>> instance, it can read gzip, arj, and tar files as well.  Your
logic is
> >>>>>>>>> flawed.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a gzip, arj, or tar
file,
> >>>>>>>> Marty.
> 
> >>>>>>> Completely relevant, as it shows that WinZip is a superset to
InfoZip
> >>>>>>> and is thus more capable.
> 
> >>>>>> Completely irrelevant, as it does not provide any more capability to
> >>>>>> deal with my javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as my URL points out.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, and quite laughable, as your URL doesn't deal with my
> >>>> copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> >>> LOL!  Are you implying that your version is any different than the one
> >>> Curtis viewed in WinZip?
> 
> >> You are inferring that, Marty.
> 
> > Then why make such a statement?
> 
> Because of a difference that you've failed to consider, Marty/

Such as?  I told you I'm really bad at infantile guessing games.
 
> > Do you believe that your version is any different than the one
> > Curtis viewed in WinZip?
> 
> What I believe is irrelevant, Marty.  I know for a fact that my
> version is different.

In what way?  Time to put your cards out on the table so we can laugh at your
pair of 2's.

> > If so, on what basis?
> 
> On the basis of the difference in response from the unzip tools,
> assuming, of course, that you and Curtis have accurately reported
> the response from your tools.

Perhaps you can send one of us "your" copy so we can see for ourselves how
"different" it allegedly is.

> >>> This just gets better and better!
> 
> >> What does "this" refer to, Marty?
> 
> > Your absurdity.
> 
> What alleged "absurdity", Marty?

That which you continue to promulgate.

> >>>>>>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> >>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> >>>>>>> wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> >>>>>> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep
challenging
> >>>>>> this fact?
> 
> >>>>> I see you're still not ready to admit your mistake.  I'm not
surprised.
> 
> >>>> I see you're still not read to admit your mistake.  I'm not surprised.
> 
> >>> I haven't read any mistake on my part Dave.
> 
> >> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I keep pointing them
> >> out to you.
> 
> > Ineptly and erroneously.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish to
keep challenging this fact?

> >>> Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted
> >>> to deflect it again:
> 
> >> The issue I'm discussing is your lie about me never discussing an issue,
> >> Marty.
> 
> > You may want to stick to the topic at hand for a change.
> 
> Too embarassing for you, Marty?

Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted to
deflect it again:  javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as
illustrated by http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg. 
Do
you wish to keep challenging this fact?

> >>> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> >>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> >>> wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> >> I've been discussing an issue, Marty.  Do you wish to keep challenging
> >> this fact?
> 
> > You're certainly avoiding this one.
> 
> Yet another example of your pontification.

The evidence is quite clear.  Prove that you are not avoiding the point by
addressing it.  Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you
attempted to deflect it again:  javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by
WinZip, as illustrated by
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish to
keep challenging this fact?
 
> > javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> > http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you
> > wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> You haven't tested my copy of javainuf.exe, Marty.

You haven't given me the opportunity to do so.  You simply report that your
copy is different while presenting no evidence to make anyone believe so.  If
your copy is different, prove it.
 
> >>>>> Take another look at the URL:
> >>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> >>> Why not try it in WinZip yourself then?
> 
> >> I can't run two operating systems on my PC simultaneously, Marty, and
> >> I've got a numerical integration running in the background (687 hours
> >> total CPU time as of this writing).
> 
> > Reasonable.  However, it would also be reasonable to accept documented
> > evidence that numerous others can read this archive in WinZip.
> 
> You haven't accepted my documented evidence, Marty.

You haven't presented any documented evidence that your copy is different.

> > You have yet to do so.  Why?
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone who has yet to accept my documented
> evidence.

I'd be more than will to accept it if any were presented.

> >>> How laughable for you to think your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is different
> >>> than what Curtis downloaded and viewed.
> 
> >> What's so laughable about it, Marty?
> 
> > Because we all got it from the same place, did we not?
> 
> So?

So it must be the same file.

> >>> How about this... we ask Curtis to get a time and date stamp as
> >>> well as file size from "his version" of the file, post it here, and
> >>> then compare it to "your version" of the file.  Would that satisfy
> >>> you?
> 
> >> I already know that his version is different, Marty.
> 
> > I what way.
> 
> Huh?

In what way?

> > Perhaps it's time to enlighten us
> 
> Enlightenment comes from within, Marty.

In that case, I already know all that I need to about your game.

> > instead of continuing this infantile game.
> 
> What alleged "infantile game" (other than yours, of course)?

"Are you sure those are Eliza's?"

> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you seriously think that, by proving InfoZip cannot read the
> >>>>>>>>>>> contents of a self-extracting archive, you are proving that no
> >>>>>>>>>>> other tool can?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> I fully expect other unzip tools to behave similarly with the
same
> >>>>>>>>>> file as argument.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> You would be sorely disappointed.
> 
> >>>>>>>> On what basis do you make that claim, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >>>>>> How does that prove I would be "sorely disappointed", Marty?
> 
> >>>>> Because your expectations of what another unzip tool would do have
just
> >>>>> been shattered into tiny little pieces.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, given that your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the
> >>>> javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> >>> Please stop embarassing yourself.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
> >> by continuing his "infantile game".
> 
> > "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> If you really want to exchange Eliza responses, Marty, I can indulge
> you.

So you desire to lose another argument?  How unfortunate for you.

> >>>>>>> Expecting all unzip tools to behave the same is foolish,
> 
> >>>>>> Nothing foolish about expecting them to handle the same file
> >>>>>> in the same way, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> Quite foolish, as the URL points out.  Take another look:
> >>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
> 
> >>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
> 
> >>> Please stop embarassing yourself.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who continues to embarass himself
> >> by continuing his "infantile game".
> 
> > "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> If you really want to exchange Eliza responses, Marty, I can indulge
> you.

I was pointing out the irony of your claim.  I have no desire to partake of
your infantile game with Eric.

> >>>>>>> just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
> >>>>>>> behave the same is.
> 
> >>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I never indicated any such expectation, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
> >>>>> decompression tools.
> 
> >>>> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.
> 
> >>> So therefore they are all identical?  Illogical.
> 
> >> Yes, your conclusion is illogical, Marty, as I never said anything like
> >> that.
> 
> > You said that you have assumed all decompression tools would function
> > similarly.  That is illogical.
> 
> Incorrect, given that WinZip can't make bytes magically appear.

Why would it need to?  No magic is involved.  It's called "decompression".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 19:02:17
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:56:24, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:31:18, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> > > >
> > > > In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will answer
it
> > > > as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> > > > emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It creates an environment in
> > > > which the video and sound hardware of various kinds of machines,
arcade
> > > > games among them, can be accurately reproduced, provided that the
> > > > program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump
> > > > files or "ROMs" for short).  The MAME platform has been used to
emulate
> > > > various kinds of arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as
semi-modern
> > > > architectures.
> > > >
> > > > As far as the speculations on which part of this project my interests
> > > > lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
> > > >
> > > > Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it
fascinating
> > > > that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> > > > hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> > > > anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous
amount
> > > > about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting
tricks
> > > > used in the hardware of these systems.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and
making
> > > > it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> > > > example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> > > > invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the
way,
> > > > making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> > > > learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects
come
> > > > into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.
> > > >
> > > > Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can test
> > > > my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.
> > > >
> > > > Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> > > > Usenet?
> > >
> > > Allright. But MAME still plays games, yes? Please?
> >
> > I already stated above:
> > MAME does not play games.  It emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It
> > creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of various
kinds
> > of machines, arcade games among them, can be accurately reproduced,
provided
> > that the program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip
dump
> > files or "ROMs" for short).
> >
> > The user plays the games.  MAME creates an environment in which they can
run.
> 
> Aaooww! But I wanna play games!
> 
> (Actually, all of the above is just a - rather infantile - plea to
> keep MAME what it is: an excellent arcade machine emulator. Please
> don't go fot the featuritis thing and try to incorporate every micro-
> or home-computer that ever existed. It's fine right now. Really.)

Too late, as the incorporation of every micro in existence is (one of) their
ultimate goals.  All that means to you as an end-user is that the executable
will be a bit bigger and more games and software will be supported.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 18:59:19
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:51:08, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> wrote:
> 
> > Karel Jansens writes:
> >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > >>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> >
> > >>> Err... It makes my day?
> >
> > >> By playing games?
> >
> > > Indeed, my good man. Indeed.
> > > Many's been the long winding evening turned into bliss and joy by the
> > > simple, yet sofisticated virtue of the odd session of "Bomb Jack",
> > > "Galaxian" or even "Mr Do" (not "Donkey Kong" however; I never liked
> > > that ape).
> >
> > PacMan?  Or Ms. PacMan?  (Why didn't they call it PacWoman?)
> >
> An unmarried woman running down alleys, followed by a bunch of horny
> ghosts?! Besides, "Pacwoman" has too many connotations of spandex and
> high heels. The contrast with a circle with a mouth is just too big.
> 
> There was one version, "PacManland" or "PacManworld" IIRC, I quite
> liked. It was more graphical, with bigger mazes, and PacMan had a real
> face.

PacLand didn't have any mazes, but PacMan had legs and a face, and could run
and jump in a sidescroller environment.  PacMania was an isometric psuedo-3D
view of standard PacMan with 16 bit color, nice graphics, and good sound. 
PacMan had a face, but no arms or legs and could jump over ghosts, but
eventually some of the ghosts figure out how to jump too.  Both games are
supported by MAME.

> > Hmm.  That last line of mine sounds like Victor Borge.
> >
> Or the Spanish Inquisition...

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 19:11:14
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> Marty writes:
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm willing to let the readers decide for themselves who is
playing the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> game here and will no longer respond to Dave's accusations.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Too embarassed to admit that the self-extracting archive does
NOT run
> >>>>>>>>>>>> under DOS, Marty?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as your own posts have
shown.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message itself 
proves.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> You are quite incorrect on this point as my REXX program proves.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Your REXX script is an inappropriate example, Marty, as I already
> >>>>>>>> explained.  Too embarassed to admit its inappropriateness?
> 
> >>>>>>> How is that inappropriate to what you've claimed:
> >>>>>>> DT] You are quite incorrect on this point as the error message
itself
> >>>>>>> proves.
> 
> >>>>>> Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty?  I was talking
about
> >>>>>> the inappropriateness of your REXX script example.
> 
> >>>>> Apparently the code comprising my REXX script was too complex for you
to
> >>>>> understand.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty.  In reality, your code wasn't complex enough to
extract
> >>>> any archive.
> 
> >>> Irrelevant.
> 
> >> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> I'll spell it out for you: "as the error message itself proves" is
> >>>>> completely illogical and inconclusive, as an error message can be made
> >>>>> to state anything that its author desires.
> 
> >>>> That doesn't mean the javainuf.exe error message is in error itself,
> >>>> Marty.
> 
> >>> Never claimed it was.
> 
> >> But you claimed that the program "runs" in a DOS session, whereas the
> >> message states that it must be run on OS/2.
> 
> > The message is obviously technically incorrect.
> 
> Balderdash, given that nothing gets extracted, Marty.

"This program must be run in OS/2." != "This archive must be extracted in
OS/2."

The message is oxymoronic in that in order to display it, you have to be
running the EXE file in DOS.

> >>> Nor does it mean that anything can be proven using it as evidence.
> 
> >> The fact that nothing was extracted can be used as evidence, Marty.
> 
> > Incorrect.  The screen output of the executable can be used as evidence.
> 
> Not necessarily, Marty.  Extraction could be done silently.

That doesn't change the fact that the screen output, if present (as it was
when
you ran it), can be used as evidence (as I have done).

> >>>>>>> The error message proves nothing, as illustrated by my REXX example.
> 
> >>>>>> The failure to extract anything proves everything, Marty.
> 
> >>>>> I never claimed it could Dave.
> 
> >>>> Incorrect, Marty:
> >>>>
> >>>> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> >>>> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> >>> No part of that statement claims that running the executable in DOS will
> >>> extract the archive.
> 
> >> Then why is it called a "self-extracting archive", Marty?
> 
> > Irrelevant.
> 
> On the contrary, it's quite relevant, Marty.

Still relying on a semantic argument, Dave?

> > Still relying on a semantic argument, Dave?
> 
> Obviously not, Marty.

Incorrect.

> However, you are.

Prove it, if you think you can.

> >>>>> Do read a bit more carefully next time.
> 
> >>>> I read it carefully enough the first time, Marty.
> 
> >>> Not carefully enough, as you seem to have missed the fact that I never
> >>> said what the program would do, merely that it would run.
> 
> >> On the contrary, you mentioned what it would do by referring to it as
> >> a self-extracting archive.
> 
> > You erroneously inferred that from my statement.
> 
> Incorrect, given that inferences are indirect.

As was yours.

> > I neither implied nor stated what it would do.
> 
> You did write directly what it would do:
>
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.
                          ^^^
 
"Run" is sufficiently ambiguous to cover the execution of a DOS stub Dave.  My
statement stands, yet again and still.

> >>>> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to
realize
> >>>> that I have admitted to mistakes.
> 
> >>> How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
> >>> mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.
> 
> >> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to
realize
> >> that I have admitted to mistakes.
> 
> > How ironic coming from someone who even now refuses to admit obvious
mistakes
> > as they are continually being pointed out.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone who didn't read carefully enough to realize
> that I have admitted to mistakes.

Irrelevant, and quite ironic, coming from someone who even now refuses to
admit
obvious mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.

> >>> Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?
> 
> >> Still relying on a semantic argument, Marty?
> 
> > I'll take that for a "yes".  How absurd.
> 
> I'll take that for a "yes".

Illogical.

> How absurd.

Incorrect.

Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 05-Nov-99 00:39:23
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --

> >>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

-- snip --

> > I am not interested in semantic hair split conundrums.
> 
> Then why did you bring it up, Curtis?

I didn't. You did. I simply observed it's presence when you brought it
up.

> > That is your forte.
> 
> On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

On the basis of watching you avoid acknowledging your error via repeated
attempts at semantic hair split conundra (as well as general deflections
and other methods of diversion), and noting your obvious skill at such.

-- snip --

> > I never claimed that desperation was "needed on your part," only that it
> > exists.
> 
> You have no basis for making such a claim, Curtis.  I'm not the one
> relying on invective.  That would be you.

Point number one: Whether or not I am "relying on invective" has noting
to do with your state of desperation.

Point number two: I am not "relying on invective" in the first place.

Point number three: Observing your repeated deflections and convolutions
(the presence of which you will now proceed to question or deny) in
order to not admit your error in claiming one must run OS/2 in order to
extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE provides me with ample basis for my
claim.

> >>> Are you claiming that JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* an "executable file?"
> 
> >> Not at all, Curtis.  Having reading comprehension problems?
> 
> > Then why "correct" me when I refer to the executable file in question as
> > a self extracting archive?
> 
> What alleged "correction" are you referring to, Curtis?

The one I preserved up above, preceded by seven chevrons (!).

Now, I suppose you will proceed to claim that it isn't a correction . .
.

> > Are you trying to argue whether *that* nomenclature is accurate?
> 
> Which "nomenclature" are you referring to, Curtis?

The nomenclature that's right in front of your nose.  Or are you making
an issue of my alleged misspelling of the word? (Which word are you
referring to, Curtis?)

I see that part of your "strategy" involves responding to questions with
more questions, in an attempt to steer clear of the issue, which is that
you claimed one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE, but have yet to admit your claim to be in error.

-- snip --

> > Acknowledged. Never debated. Never questioned. Why bring it up?
> 
> You seem to be interested in ways that Mike could have used to look
> at the contents of the archive, Curtis.

Because I am interested in the truth, namely, that one can, indeed look
at the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE in Windows, whether Dave Tholen likes it
or not.

> > How does it, in any way, disprove that JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined,
> > and its contents extracted, by a tool such as WinZip?
> 
> Why do I need to disprove it, Curtis?

To save face, Tholen, but you are failing miserably.

> > And what is the basis for your implied claim that *your* copy of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE could not be examined by WinZip, nor its contents
> > extracted?
> 
> I already answered that question, Curtis.  Having more reading
> comprehension problems?

You stated some riddle about WinZip's inability to "make bytes magically
appear," but that's hardly an answer.

-- snip --

> >>> So, which is it, Dave? It has to be one or the other. Take your pick.
> 
> >> I've already made my choice clear, Curtis.
> 
> > Okay . . .
> 
> That doesn't indicate whether you understand my choice, Curtis.

You're right. It doesn't.

-- snip --

> > But, you must find some way to keep avoiding the admission of your
> > error, so I guess we will argue over the definition of "invective" for
> > now, eh?
> 
> If you don't want to argue about that, Curtis, simply discontinue your
> use of invective.  It's that easy.

Considering that I haven't used invective, yet you feel compelled to
insist that I have, and likewise feel compelled to argue over its
definition, I observe that it is, in fact, not that easy.

-- snip --

> >> I see you didn't answer the question.
> 
> > I was in the process thereof, Dave.
> 
> I examined your process, Curtis, and no meaningful answer was provided.

Just because you cannot fathom the meaning of an answer, it does not
follow that there is no meaning.

> >>> You goofed (again).
> 
> >> Illogical, Curtis.  I was hypothesizing a situation and asking you a
> >> question.  There is no "goof" involved.
> 
> Note:  no response.

Okay, here's your response:

You goofed in presenting the question in a vacuum, going so far as to
not mention which "unzipper" I am supposed to use, in spite of the fact
that InfoZip is the unzipper in question.

-- [snip of Tholen Denials] --

> > No, the hypothetical situation above is contrived to lead me where *you*
> > want me to go.
> 
> On the contrary, you've already gone there, Curtis.  I'm simply trying to
> establish the means by which you got there already.  I've yet to see any
> logical process.

I've already gone where, Dave? The scenario discusses running ABC.EXE in
DOS, getting a "This program must me run in OS/2" message, then
proceeding to use "an unzipper" on ABC.EXE.

I have not done any of those things, so explain your claim that "I've
already gone there."

If you can.

> > I am supposed to answer in such a way that it would support your
> > argument, such as it is.
> 
> You are supposed to answer in a truthful way, Curtis.  If the truth
> happens to support my argument, so what?  Why suppress the truth?

And I did answer it in a truthful way: I would not run ABC.EXE in DOS,
since I already know that it's an OS/2 self extracting archive. But,
even if I did go that far down *your* path, I would not then use "an
unzipper" to try and extract the contents of ABC.EXE; I would simply
execute the program in an OS/2 session and be done with it.

Because of this, I wouldn't necessarily *conclude* anything, Dave.
Therefore, I presented you with things that I definitely would *not*
conclude. How else am I suppose to answer your scenario?

Lie?

-- [snip of Tholen's unsubstantiated claims] --

> > One problem is that you brought up the InfoZip aspect ***AFTER***
> > somebody claimed they used WinZip,
> 
> That's the motivation for trying InfoZip in the first place, Curtis.
> You asked for why one would even try running InfoZip on ABC.EXE, and
> I told you.

But that's illogical, considering that nobody else claimed to have used
that particular tool, but used WinZip instead.

> > the purpose of which was to try and discredit the use of WinZip.
> 
> Incorrect, Curtis.  The purpose was to verify the results.  The
> results were not verified.

Because you used the wrong tool.

Really. You are supposed to be a scientist. When verifying another
scientist's experiment, does it not make sense to duplicate the other
scientist's environment as faithfully as possible? If you don't, then
how much faith can you have in the results of your verification?

Using InfoZip when I, Marty and Mike used WinZip is not very scientific.

> > Since that failed, you now cling to this idea that your copy of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE is somehow different from Mike Timbol's and mine,
> 
> It's not an idea, Curtis.  It happens to be the truth.

Prove it, then.

> > and that this difference renders you free of error.
> 
> It does, Curtis.

No, it cannot, because your claim is that one has to run OS/2 in order
to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, a claim which has been soundly
disproved using WinZip on JAVAINUF.EXE in three different instances, the
"fact" that WinZip would choke on your "version" of JAVAINUF.EXE
notwithstanding.

> > Like I said: Desperate.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone so desperate to hang the "inept"
> tag on me that you "ineptly" failed to consider other possibilities.

And you failed to tell us what those "other possibilities" are, or how
they're relevant.

Sounds pretty inept to me.

Of course, you will now claim that you *have* told us what those "other
possibilities" are, yes?

> Why do you think I asked you how someone can be "inept" when
> flipping a light switch and the light bulb happens to burn out?

Typical inappropriate analogy.

-- snip --

> > But that doesn't explain why *you* would run it on a DOS platform.
> 
> DOS happens to be a non-OS/2 platform, Curtis.  Running it on an OS/2
> platform won't generate the message.

Why worry about generating the message? Why not just run it in OS/2 and
proceed to install it?

> > Typical diversion.
> 
> On the contrary, it's simply your inability to follow the argument.

My inability to "follow" a vacuous non argument.

> >>> when you already know that it's an OS/2-targetted self extracting
> >>> archive.
> 
> >> How would you know that, Curtis?  I've not said anything about the
> >> target operating system for the hypothetical ABC.EXE.
> 
> > Then you admit that the scenario exist in a vacuum.
> 
> Illogical, given that I've made no such admission.

Yes, you have. You are just too stubborn or unaware or confused to
realize it (and no, that is not invective).

> > It cannot be otherwise, since you did know, a priori, that JAVAINUF.EXE
> > was meant to be executed in OS/2, based on IBM's instructions.
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis, as such knowledge doesn't affect my argument in
> any way.

Being that you have no argument to affect.

> >> You may have inferred that from the error message issued by the program,
> >> but you wouldn't know that prior to your attempt to run the program.
> 
> > But, if I had read the instructions on the web site from which I
> > downloaded ABC.EXE, I would know the expected platform.
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis, as such knowledge doesn't affect my argument in
> any way.

Because you have no argument.

-- [more of Dave's denials snipped] --

> Comfort, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, Curtis.  You're lying when you
> say you're nailing the issue, given that you're avoiding it.

Now you accuse me of lying.

The issue is that you haven't admitted that you were wrong when you
stated that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE, and I certainly am not the one who's avoiding the issue.
On the contrary, that would be you.  I am, OTOH, nailing the issue, by
reminding you of your error, and illustrating how irrelevant your
scenario is in relation to the issue.

> > but turning your head away and saying, "I don't see anything. Your
> > avoiding the issue," won't make it go away.
> 
> I never said "I don't see anything", Curtis.  Having more reading
> comprehension problems?  On the contrary, I'm seeing plenty, and
> what I'm seeing represents you avoiding the question.

Again. I did answer it. You just choose to avoid the answer, by claiming
that it "isn't meaningful" or that I "didn't answer it."

> >>> Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
> >>> trying InfoZip on the file
> 
> >> Suppose somebody came along and said they were able to examine the
> >> contents by using WinZip on ABC.EXE because the file is a zip
> >> archive.
> 
> > If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
> > then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
> > allegedly used.
> 
> Why, Curtis, especially given the claims made about zip being a
> standard archive format?

And how logical is it to assume that all tools which access a given
standard archive format are created equal, having equal capabilities?
Especially in light of the fact that different tools on the *same
platform* exhibit varying levels of functionality/capability.

And how "scientific" is it to *not* use the same environment that Maty,
Mike and I used when trying to verify our claim?

> If I sent you a tar file prepared on a Solaris system,
> would you run off to a Solaris system to extract it, knowing that
> you had a utility designed to extract a tar file for your particular
> non-Solaris operating system?
> 
> Of course, I asked you that question once already, and you avoided
> an answer by calling it "contrived".

No, I didn't avoid it at all. I answered it, in spite of the fact that
it was contrived.

> >>> in OS/2, especially in light of the fact that other people said
> >>> that they used a different tool altogether (i.e., WinZip) to
> >>> extract the contents thereof on a **NON-OS/2** platform.
> 
> >> If it's a zip archive, Curtis, then why shouldn't one expect InfoZip
> >> to handle it?
> 
> > Whether one should expect InfoZip to handle JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) is
> > not the issue.
> 
> Then why did you ask me:
> 
> CB] Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
> CB] trying InfoZip on the file

Precisely because whether one should expect InfoZip to handle
JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) is not the issue, in light of the fact that
Mike, Marty and I didn't use InfoZip to support our claim. Ergo, one
must, in fact, question why someone *would* use it.

> > The issue is that WinZip *can* handle it,
> 
> You're erroneously presupposing that WinZip can handle it, Curtis.

You have got to be kidding!  Considering that I did extract the contents
of JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip, how can my claim that WinZip can handle
JAVAINUF.EXE be either "erroneous" or an "assumption?"

Right. Your copy is somehow immune, and that somehow invalidates the
*fact* that I did extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip, as
did Marty and Mike.

Three against one, yet *I* am the one who is "naive" or "overlooking
possibilities" or whatever.

Karel, this is why people resort to invective. It's like arguing with
the proverbial Brick Wall.

And no, that is not invective, but an accurate analogy.

> > people have *told* you it can,
> 
> They didn't try it with my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.
> 
> > yet you continue to avoiding the admission that it can.
> 
> That's because it can't handle my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

Then I would submit that your copy is defective.  Just like your
arguments.

-- [Dave's accusing me of not answering another vacuous scenario
snipped] --

> > But, to answer your question above, if I were trying to disprove the
> > claim that somebody in Windows could examine the tar file, I would
> > indeed try to verify that myself on a Windows system.
> 
> CB] If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
> CB] then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
> CB] allegedly used.
> 
> The platform used was Solaris, Curtis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 05-Nov-99 00:39:23
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

No, Solaris maps to OS/2 in this scenario. JAVAINUF.EXE was targeted to
OS/2, remember? And the TAR file was "prepared" on Solaris, which again
maps to JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) being targeted to OS/2.

> > I would ***NOT*** trot out some Solaris tool,
> 
> CB] If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
> CB] then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
> CB] allegedly used.
> 
> The platform used was Solaris, Curtis.

See above. Repeating things won't change the fact that you are again
confused.

> > let it choke, and trumpet that as "evidence" that the Windows users
> > couldn't examine the file's contents.
> 
> On what basis do you write "let it" choke, Curtis?

On the basis that InfoZip running on OS/2 (which maps to Solaris in the
current contrived scenario) choked on JAVAINUF.EXE.

Why do you require so much hand holding, Dave? You are supposed to be
smarter than this.

> > But, I have already explained that.
> 
> Inconsistently.  See above.

Okay. I'm looking . . . yup, I nailed it, but you didn't (perhaps
couldn't) comprehend my explanation

-- [more of Dave's evasive nonsense snipped] --

> >>> But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I did do the above.
> >>> What I certainly would ***NOT*** do is deny the possibility that other
> >>> tools on other platforms *could* have extracted the contents of the
> >>> archive,
> 
> >> Why not, Curtis?
> 
> > Because it wouldn't be logical to assume that all such tools are created
> > equal, and have identical sets of functionality, especially considering
> > that InfoZip and PKZIP (the OS/2 version) differ in functionality
> > themselves.
> 
> Irrelevant, given that one doesn't require identifical functionality,
> but only sufficient functionality.

Still looking for logic on Dave's part . . . and finding none.

Obviously, InfoZip lacks that "sufficient functionality," but WinZip
doesn't.

> > I guess that, perhaps, if I were blatantly naive, I would make that
> > mistake.
> 
> You've made other blatantly naive mistakes, Curtis.

Then kindly point them out.

Go ahead. I'm waiting.

Can't, can you?

-- snip --

> > IOW, you still neglected to admit your error, and continue to do so,
> > under the guise that your JAVAINUF.EXE file is somehow different from
> > ours,
> 
> It's not guise, Curtis.  It happens to be the truth.

It may be the truth, but it's still irrelevant to your erroneous claim
that one has to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE.

I remember your attempt at chastising me over my use of the word
"anything" when I put forth the claim that you "don't get the gist of
anything," accusing me of speaking in universal terms. Well, by pointing
to your specific copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, telling us that its contents
absolutely cannot be extracted by WinZip, and that therefore frees you
from your erroneous statement that one had to run OS/2 in order to
extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, you are also speaking universally,
by projecting your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE into everyone else's reality,
and are therefore just as guilty of that particular error as you accuse
me of being.

> > and that difference liberates you from your position of error.
> 
> It does, Curtis.  Your problem is the way you jump to conclusions,
> especially those that give you the opportunity to spew invective.

More errors on your part, for I have yet to "spew invective" or to "jump
to conclusions."

> >>> Another thing that I certainly would ***NOT*** do is repetitiously post
> >>> my failed attempts at using InfoZip in a lame attempt to disprove claims
> >>> that WinZip *could* extract the contents of the archive in question:
> 
> >> Irrelevant, Curtis; that has nothing to do with the requested conclusion.
> 
> > My apologies for not staying inside of your contrived, vacuous box.
> 
> What allegedly "contrived, vacuous box", Curtis?

The one I refuse to stay in, of course.

-- snip --

> > You haven't even admitted your error, so you will excuse me if I
> > consider your credibility to be under par.
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person who still hasn't even admitted his
> error about "the gist of anything".  Using your own standards, readers
> can consider your credibility to be under par.

If my use of "the gist of anything" is in error, then so is your
contention that your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE liberates you from your
position of error, for precisely the same reason.

> >>> an assertion I made a little over one year ago.
> 
> >> And still haven't substantiated.  Why do people like you and Marty like
> >> to write in universal terms, such as "anything"?  That approach has
> >> gotten Marty into trouble, and you're in trouble for the same reason.
> >> Your claim requires knowledge of everything that has been made available
> >> for me to ascertain the "gist of".
> 
> > I guess you don't understand colloquialism.
> 
> I guess you don't understand the universal claim.

What you can guess is irrelevant, Dave. What you can prove is relevant.

Can you prove that, universally, WinZip is unable to extract the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE based on the alleged fact that it cannot
extract the contents of your specific copy?

> > Or context.
> 
> I guess you don't understand what substantiation is.

On the contrary, I have been posting it in volumes. You simply ignore
it, or dodge it, or claim it's irrelevant, but neglect to accept it.

> >>> It's laughable that he would actually respond to the rhetorical
> >>> question with a serious response,
> 
> >> It's laughable that you would make universal claims, Curtis.  How
> >> ironic.  Now, what makes your question "rhetorical"?

As laughable as your universal claim, Dave?

-- snip --

> > Yup, you got me there. I indeed *could* do that, but I have no need,
> 
> Indeed, you have no need, but that hasn't stopped you.

Have you stopped beating your wife, Dave?

> > so I would not do such a thing.
> 
> Too late; you already have.

Kindly point out where, without the game playing.

> >>> apparently ignoring the context in which the question was asked.)
> 
> >> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
> >> relevant.
> 
> > But, as I've explained, I have proven your error.
> 
> Where did you prove that I ignored the context in which the question
> was asked, Curtis?

That isn't the error to which I was referring, Dave. I was referring to
another one of your errors.

-- snip --

> >>>> I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
> >>>> extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.
> 
> >>> On *your* copy?
> 
> >> Having trouble being certain of what I wrote, Curtis?
> 
> > Having trouble believing it, yes.
> 
> That's your problem, Curtis.

If it were a "problem" I would agree.

-- snip --

> > Look it up in that fancy dictionary of your.
> 
> That won't help, Curtis, as there are several definitions, and my
> dictionary won't tell me which one you're using.

Using context, you could infer the correct definition. After all, you
have in the past determined "correct" interpretations of what people
wrote with far less.

-- snip --

> >>> Feel free to elaborate.
> 
> >> Sure thing, after you meaningfully answer the question:

I have, here and elsewhere.

-- snip --

> > You're bluffing, Dave,
> 
> Wrong again, Curtis.
> 
> > and I'm not buying.
> 
> Must be worried then.  It's when one is confident that the opponent is
> bluffing that they continue to buy into the hand.

Believe what you will. This isn't the first time you've misinterpreted
what I wrote.

What I meant was that I am not buying your story that you actually have
anything on which to elaborate.

-- snip --

> >> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
> >> relevant.
> 
> > Yeah, gee golly.  Like I indicated earlier, proof itself is irrelevant
> > in the face if ignorance/obstinance.
> 
> In which case I don't need to prove anything to you, Curtis.

You have no need to prove anything to me in any case, Dave, my alleged
"ignorance/obstinance" notwithstanding.  OTOH, I have yet to see
anything which even resembles credible evidence from you, let alone
"proof," whereas I have proven than WinZip can indeed extract the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE (even though it, supposedly, cannot do so on
*your* copy - LOL!).

-- snip --

> > Well? Am I getting warm, Dave?
> 
> Why do you ask, Curtis, given your insistence that there is no other
> possibility?

Reading comprehension problems, Dave? I revised my statement to "no
relevant possibility." I ask if I am getting closer to your *irrelevant*
possibility, that's all.

-- snip --

> >> Watching you avoid answering my question about what you would conclude
> >> indicates that you're worried about having overlooked something.
> 
> > I've answered it.
> 
> On the contrary, you told me what you wouldn't conclude.  But I didn't
> ask about what you wouldn't conclude.

As I've stated elsewhere, I would be unable to conclude anything because
I wouldn't have gone through that scenario (your claims that I "already
have" notwithstanding).

-- [remainder of Dave's repetitious denials and unsubstantiated claims
snipped] --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 20:10:24
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Curtis Bass wrote:
> 
> Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > Curtis Bass writes:
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > >>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > > I am not interested in semantic hair split conundrums.
> >
> > Then why did you bring it up, Curtis?
> 
> I didn't. You did. I simply observed it's presence when you brought it
> up.
> 
> > > That is your forte.
> >
> > On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?
> 
> On the basis of watching you avoid acknowledging your error via repeated
> attempts at semantic hair split conundra (as well as general deflections
> and other methods of diversion), and noting your obvious skill at such.

The real skill is in doing such a thing such that your opponents don't notice
and take your bait.  Dave fails miserably using this tactic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: huffd@nls.net                                     05-Nov-99 01:08:04
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:16
Subj: Re: Large OS/2 Customers List (LOS2CL) updated

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>

Esther,
Geez I thought you were serious! Because they kept crashing. I get it!
No really look behind the counter (carefully) at the checkin and loading
areas.
I've seen it in several hubs come (fly) to CLE and check it out!

Esther Schindler wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 23:03:02, "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>
> wrote:
>
> | If you've flown on any American Airline in the last ten years you've used
OS/2.
>
> David, are you *sure* about that? I was under the impression that they
> switched to Windows about 5 years ago, but I could be wrong.
>
> --Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               04-Nov-99 17:52:26
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:17
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >And obviously you can't understand the concept of a library being a
> >superset of an API.
> 
> Obviously, you can't understand that programmers call the C standard
> library a "library" because that's indeed what it is, and programmers
> call the MS Foundation Classes "classes" because that's what they are.
> 
> >I've given you the definition of an API
> 
> The question isn't about what an API is. The question is about what
> MFC and the C standard libraries are. They are C++ Classes and
> libraries respectively.

	And they are also API's.  I've given you the definition of an API. 
They fit the defintion.  You haven't refuted this.  In fact, you can't
refute this.  MFC is still an API.  It's an operating service which
contains a standard set of calls and data structures which application
developers use to create applications.

	A "library", "class", "object", "framework", or whatever are all data
structures.  Any first year University Computer Science student can tell
you that.

	Look, I don't argue with 4-year-olds.  If you're going to argue like
one, than I'm not going to waste my time on you.  I have my degree in
Comp.Sci, and I work for the biggest Comp.Sci. company in the world. 
And I've provided ample proof from third-party sources to support my
claim.

	If you can't play with the big boys, and can't understand the concept
of what a API is, and how there are a variety of supersets to the
concept of an API (even high-schools teach set theory...), then I've
wasted my last word on you.  Good-day.

Brad BARCLAY
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu                     04-Nov-99 22:53:22
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:17
Subj: Re: Voodoo 3 2000

From: hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu

In article <7vslkg$h6a$1@supernews.com>,
  "Chris D." <chris@network23.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Sorry if the wrong group, but Im new to OS/2 warp 4 and wondered if
> there are any drivers compat with Voodoo 2000?

Check out: http://www.scitechsoft.com/

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu *AMD K6-2 400* |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 18:21:18
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:
> > > > >
> > > > > > But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated
that
> > > > > > the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If he
stated
> > > > > > that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he is
> > > > > > correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the
self-extracting
> > > > > archive would run in a DOS session.
> > > >
> > > > What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms
were the
> > > > same as yours and Bennie's.
> > >
> > > Then please define your terms for me.  Do you equate the entire
> > > executable to the self-extracting archive?  Does running the DOS
> > > stub equate to running the executable which in turn equates to
> > > running the self-extracting archive?
> >
> > You got it.  Dave still doesn't.
> 
> Do you also "get" why I do not agree with that view and that I prefer
> to be more specific in distinguishing between the various components
> of the executable?

As you've defined your terms I see that my view would be incorrect.  I don't,
however, believe that your definitions are any more or less valid or more or
less ambiguous than my own.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 18:35:11
  To: All                                               04-Nov-99 21:24:17
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> > > > > posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> > > > > the points, as I see them.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> > > > >
> > > > > JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> > > >
> > > > This has not been shown to be true.
> > >
> > > Dave quoted from the "readme.sma" file that came with
> > > Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  I'll also quote the relevant
> > > portion:
> > >
> > > "The Security considerations (Security) are based on enhancements from
> > > the Java 2 security model. Security is shipped with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > > Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 (Developer
> > > Kit). Security is integrated into the Runtime package and is
> > > disabled by default.
> > >
> > > Note:  Security is only supported on systems with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > >        Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8."
> > >
> > > To me, "based on enhancements from the Java 2 security model" and
> > > "JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality" are both
> > > true statements.  The first, from IBM, proves the second.
> >
> > The first, from IBM, does not prove anything.  I can make a movie based on 
a
> > novel, yet tell a very different story than the novel told, as we often
see
> > happening.
> 
> If the first portion proves nothing, that is, if IBM's words mean nothing,
> then your words prove nothing and mean nothing.  Marty, words do have
> meanings.  IBM's words have meanings.  Furthermore, IBM's words as part of
> a distributed and licensed product carry far more weight than yours or
> mine.  Why?  Because those words have a multi-billion dollar international
> corporation behind them.

IBM's words were that their JDK will have security enhancements "based on"
those of Java 2.  That doesn't mean they will implement Java 2 functionality
nor that they lied.

> There are only three choices here concerning the quote from IBM:
> 
> 1) IBM's words as quoted above are false
> 2) IBM's words as quoted above are true
> 3) combination of 1 and 2 (i.e., there are elements that are false and
> elements that are true)

I go with #2, however this is not proof of Java 2 functionality being
implemented in their 1.1.8 JDK.
 
> You have simply brushed them away, while offering no proof.

I've offered an example of how something can be "based on" something else, yet
be very different in nature and implementation.

> By the same manner, you've established the basis for brushing away all 
> that you have written.

Not so, Bennie.

> You've simply dismissed the words from IBM based solely upon the authority 
> of your word.  Bad news, Marty: your words don't carry that much weight.

I haven't dismissed their words at all.  Saying that the JDK is based on
functionality from Java 2 does not mean, and certainly doesn't prove that it
implements said functionality.

> You're going to have to submit evidence to support your claim.  You did
> that with the .jpg file.  Why are you waving-your-hands-abracadabra-and-
> IBM's-words-vanish this time?
 
Have you understood the novel/movie analogy?

> > > Are you saying that the first does NOT prove the second statement
> > > to be true?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > > > It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> > > > > changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> > > > > Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> > > > > not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> > > > > by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> > > > > executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> > > > > classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) The self-extracting archive
> > > > >
> > > > > a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> > > > > is in an OS/2 native format.
> > > >
> > > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
> > >
> > > I wrote "SELF-EXTRACTING" to emphasize that I was referring only
> > > to the OS/2-specific code.  This code is what gives the executable
> > > it's functionality and purpose.
> >
> > We differ in definitions, hence our disagreement.  Neither of us is
> > inconsistent with our own use of these definitions of the terms in
question.
> 
> I have no problem with this.  You may define your terms and use them
> consistently and I will understand what you've written.  That is the
> essence of good communication.  That is why I offered my set of definitions
> and have made my points based upon them.
> 
> So, in this case, I would say that we really don't have any substantive
> disagreement.  We both agree, in our own words, that the executable runs
> in DOS, but that the self-extraction code does not.  The self-extraction
> code only executes in OS/2.  We also agree that the executable itself is
> able to be processed (e.g., viewed) by various tools.  Finally, the
> archived files included in the executable file are able to be extracted
> in a non-OS2 environment using non-OS2 software.

Check.

> > > > > b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> > > >
> > > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The
archive
> > > > as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.
> > >
> > > And I disagree.  The SELF-EXTRACTING archive will not execute, as
> > > a whole.  Only the DOS stub executes.  If the SELF-EXTRACTING code
> > > and the archive are removed, the executable will "run" in DOS
> > > exactly the way it does with the SE code included.  Thus, what
> > > is executed in DOS is not a SE archive.
> >
> > Again, we differ in our definitions of the terms in question.
> 
> But knowing the definitions I've given, do you disagree with anything
> substantive in my post?

Nope.

> > > > > c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> > > > > format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> > > > > that have archive utilities that implement support for
> > > > > the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> > > > > the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> > > > > d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> > > > > for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> > > >
> > > > This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.
> > >
> > > But, it is ancillary in nature, and has no direct relation
> > > or value to the SELF-EXTRACTION code.
> >
> > I never claimed it was not.
> >
> > > The SE code is the purpose, the raison d'etre, for the
> > > executable program.  If the DOS stub was replaced with x'90' (NOP)
> > > instructions, there would be no loss of functionality for the SE
> > > program.  The executable would crash and burn if loaded in DOS,
> >
> > If you forgot to cap it off with a RET instruction, that is.  ;-)
> 
> That was implied.  Simply replacing the DOS stub with repeated x'90'
> wouldn't "cap it off with a RET instruction."

To play devil's advocate, I could point out that perhaps a RET is encountered
in the "random" bytes comprising the rest of the executable before the stack
frame is destroyed.

> > > but that has no bearing on the fact that the SE code is OS/2
> > > only. The program with the DOS stub "NOP'ed" would execute
> > > flawlessly in OS/2.
> >
> > Again, the shism in the definition of our terms lead to this disagreement.
> 
> The important fact is that you've understood what I've said because
> you know the definitions I've used, and vice versa.  We agree about
> the main points.  We simply want to say them in our own ways.

Yup.  No problem.

> > > > > e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> > > > > viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> > > > > such as editors, viewers, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> > > > > confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> > > > >
> > > > > For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> > > > > if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> > > > > are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> > > > > OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> > >
> 
> Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com                            05-Nov-99 01:52:24
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re: Esther says down with Palm (Re: Jav

From: lwriemen@wcic.cioe.com (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:02:38, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
> And your readership is OS2 users?  I know it's not, but then what is
> it in .advocacy that gets you 'to the people'?  I think .advocacy is
> the worst example of OS2 users -- not even close to real life.  And
> it's the same crowd (or as you might call it, community) that seem to
> go beating the same dead horse time after time.
> 
Like the type of OS/2 users that hang out in c.o.o.a dead horse? ;-)

It seems like you're part of this community.  The dead horses get beat 
from all sides; right?  :-)

Lee W. Riemenschneider 
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 01:58:25
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>> [snip]

>>>>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?

>>>>> Err... It makes my day?

>>>> By playing games?

>>> Indeed, my good man. Indeed.
>>> Many's been the long winding evening turned into bliss and joy by the 
>>> simple, yet sofisticated virtue of the odd session of "Bomb Jack", 
>>> "Galaxian" or even "Mr Do" (not "Donkey Kong" however; I never liked 
>>> that ape).

>> PacMan?  Or Ms. PacMan?  (Why didn't they call it PacWoman?)

> An unmarried woman running down alleys, followed by a bunch of horny 
> ghosts?! Besides, "Pacwoman" has too many connotations of spandex and 
> high heels.

I don't see those connotations myself.  But what's wrong with spandex?
I can imagine what's wrong with high heels.

> The contrast with a circle with a mouth is just too big.

What does PacMan connote?

> There was one version, "PacManland" or "PacManworld" IIRC, I quite 
> liked. It was more graphical, with bigger mazes, and PacMan had a real
> face.

Disembodied?

>>> Before MAME, I had to steal coins, leave the house, find a handy time 
>>> machine and warp back to that era of wonders, the Eighties, when men 
>>> were still men and computer games were only found in arcades. These 
>>> youngsters nowadays! They don't know how good they have it!

>> How about "Asteroids"?  I can still remember traveling to a remote
>> location to chase an asteroid occultation, going into a small
>> burger stand to get a bite before the observation, and seeing
>> some kid playing the only game in the seating area:  "Asteroids".
>> The coincidence was amusing.

> Very. That's one of those things you see in a movie and think: "Gee, 
> that'll never happen in real life".

I have seen it in a movie as well.  But I knew it could happen in
real life.

>>>>> MAME is merely an engine. Like, many games need Windows 95 <shudder> 
>>>>> to run, but it would be wrong to state that every Windows 95 
>>>>> "programmer" has an affection for games.

>>>> Windows 95 does other things besides playing games

>>> Hah! name one!

>> GPF?

>>>> (well, at least it tries).

>>> I see I spoke too soon.
>>> Well, it was a nalogy; we've learned in this group that they're 
>>> supposed to be slightly off.

>> From whom did you learn that?

> Why, from Bennie, of course. Have you forgotten already?

To forget something, you need to know it previously.

>>>>>>> Still, MAME is volunteer-based, so it would be safe to suppose that 
>>>>>>> Marty has some kind of interest in (arcade) games.

>>>>>> Logical.  You're getting the hang of it, Karel!

>>>>> Sheer luck, Sir. Sheer luck.

>>>> Practice makes perfect.

>>> [snip]

>>>>>>>>> "Watch this space, folks! Next week he'll confess to being an
illegal 
>>>>>>>>> Europan!"
>>>>>>>>> (Let's see who'll get that one.)

>>>>>>>> From Io or Ganymede?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oops, I gave it away.
  
>>>>>>> Maybe. Let's wait and see.

>>>>>> You're right, considering the lack of reasoning used by so many others
>>>>>> in this newsgroup.

>>>>> No reasoning needed here, just decent reading skills <G>.

>>>> Some people lack those as well.

>>> It's easy to miss a letter.

>> Or two.  Or three.
>>
>> Hmm.  That last line of mine sounds like Victor Borge.

> Or the Spanish Inquisition...

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.  Our weapon is fear and surprise.
Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise; and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.
Our THREE weapons...  Amongst our weaponry..."

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               04-Nov-99 21:17:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.  Our weapon is fear and surprise.
> Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise; and a fanatical devotion to the Pope.
> Our THREE weapons...  Amongst our weaponry..."

Sorry, but I beat you to it by a couple of hours.  Guess my Spanish
Inquisitors
were on a faster bus.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 02:09:15
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Karel Jansens writes:

>>> [snip]

>>>>>>> I have the faint impression someone has done an underground comicbook 
>>>>>>> version of Nick Danger (or maybe just used the name, but the overall 
>>>>>>> "impression" was alike), but for the love of Bog...

>>>>>> You like wet, spongy ground?

>>>>> Do ye not mock the Name of Bog.
>>>>> For Peet's sake...

>>>> Is Bog related to Nog, of Deep Space Nine fame (or infamy, as the case
>>>> may be)?

>>> It seems we're making Him up as we go along here.

>> Whoa!  Isn't the capitalized "Him" reserved for the "Creator"?

> I thought we were making H/him the god of damp patches and small 
> things that slither in the dark.
> Maybe best to leave the god-creation business over to the 
> professionals...

And who might they be?  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

>>> [snip]

>>>>>>> Symptom of the well-know "trying-to-look-interesting" syndrome. 
>>>>>>> Harmless, but alas incureable.

>>>>>> But preventable.

>>>>> You're clearly not suffering from the syndrome, otherwise you'd have 
>>>>> known what an utterly meaningless remark that is <G>.

>>>> That presupposing the remark was meaningless.

>>> As I see it, the entire point of the "trying-to-look-interesting" 
>>> syndrome - or TTLI, as we hard-cases call it - is _not_ trying to 
>>> prevent it. It's probably a paradox, or at the very least one doc 
>>> (this is a pun nicked from Robert Heinlein, first time I found use for
>>> it).

>> Oh, so you *want* to try and look interesting.

> *Now* you've got it. <G>

>>> [snip]

>>>>>>>>> thanks

>>>>>>>> You're welcome.

>>>>>>> Don't mention it.

>>>>>> Too late.

>>>>> Never mind.

>>>> Said in a high, squeaky Saturday Night Live-ish voice?  Was that Ruth
>>>> Buzzi?  I could imagine Lily Tomlin saying it as well, but I remember
>>>> her more for the raspy snorts about being the phone company -- "we
>>>> don't have to care".

>>> Don't remember ever seeing an episode that makes some sort of bell 
>>> ring. I'm beginning to get a distinct "League of Gentlemen" (BBC 
>>> again, I'm afraid) feeling here, but I can't put my digit on it...

>> Wasn't it some long, whiny complaint from some concerned citizen
>> during the Weekend Update segment, only to be told that the complaint
>> was based on a misunderstanding?  Following the realization came
>> "Never mind".  They used it rather frequently.

> I hear the bell, but I can't find the tongue (attempt at traduction of
> a Flemish proverb).

Which Flemish proverb?

>>> [snip]

>>>>>> Isn't using a book cheating?

>>>>> I had the "Muldaur" part from memory, but for some reason I thought 
>>>>> her first name was Ann. Glad I checked. TUHOT is a very good book; it 
>>>>> covers the original series, the Next Generation and the movies up to 
>>>>> No VIII. Nothing on DS9 or Voyager, which is sort of a shame.

>>>> Depending on your point of view.  Some people consider Voyager an
>>>> illegitimate child.

>>> Well, the original series isn't rerun anywhere at the moment,

>> No SciFi channel available over the satellite?

> Heh. No satellite dish to begin with.

The cable companies usually provide those.

> I tried to plug in directly, but nobody wants to sell me 36,000 km
> of coax.

I will.  I've also got a bridge on the market, in case you're
interested.

> And I don't know what plug the Astra takes.

Is it 110 V/60 Hz or 220 V/50 Hz?

>>> and one can watch only so many reruns of TNG. It was that or serious 
>>> withdrawal symptoms. The one thing I don't like is all this PC stuff, 
>>> you know: Be nice to the poor aliens; don't blast planets away with 
>>> your foton torpedos; Prime Directive this and that...(Grmbl! Grmbl! 
>>> Stupid Prime Directive thing...)

>> That spelling made me think of "futon" torpedos.  Hilarious!

>>> Kirk was a lot more fun. And in that respect, so was Babylon 5 (it's 
>>> probably a mortal sin to mention Star Trek and Babylon 5 in the same 
>>> sentence,

>> Not as far as I am concerned.

>>> but there you go) (Babylon 5 dissapeared from Belgian 
>>> screens a long time ago, BTW).

>> How long ago?  The fifth and final season wrapped up many months ago.
>> TNT is still doing reruns on Saturday morning.  Two episodes, back
>> to back.

> No help for me (see above).

You just might have to move.

>>>>> BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
>>>>> and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
>>>>> Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
>>>>> new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
>>>>> with.

>>>> Deep Space Nine has finished its run over here.  Only Voyager remains.
>>>> At least they've gotten away from having the Kazon chase them across
>>>> the quadrant.

>>> Oh yes. And now we have the "new improved Borg", with queen. It's just
>>> not the same anymore.

>> But the queen was introduced in a TNG movie.  Don't blame Voyager.

> I blame the freaking creators. IIRC, it was Gene who came up with the 
> original Borg. Those were consequent. Bringing in some fotogenic queen
> to spice up a movie is an insult to his memory (may he orbit in peace)
> <snif snif>.

But she did make quite a memorable entrance.

>>> Mind you, any show that spends an entire episode on the slow decay of 
>>> a copy of ship and crew (last week's episode over here, "Course: 
>>> Oblivion" IIRC) deserves being put out of its misery.

>> It was episode with Janeway and Paris as lizards that hit bottom for
>> me.

> Was that before the copy-meltdown? I don't remember it.

I don't remember a copy-meltdown.

>>> You know what would be funny: the final episode of Voyager ends with 
>>> the crew arriving in what they think is the Alpha Quadrant, only to 
>>> find out they've been going in circles and are back at the ruins of 
>>> the Caretaker's station. Heh heh heh!

>> There's a rumor going around that they will actually make it back to
>> the Alpha Quadrant this season, now that Deep Space Nine has finished
>> its run.

> So what's next? Starfleet Kintergarten, the ongoing perils of a 
> daycare center in the 24th century? Or maybe they'll jump another 
> century and we'll have "Buck Rogers blasts Starfleet to Oblivion"?

Well, we just saw Tuvok with emotions.  Variation on a theme.  Next
we'll have Borg rooks, knights, and bishops.

> Actually, I'd love it if they would go back a little bit. Do you 
> remember the TNG episode with the short appearance of Kelsey Grammer? 
> The one with the time traveling sequence where they re-lived the same 
> day over and over? I'd like to see a series in that era. Should be 
> cheaper too: earlier time, simpler special effects <G>.

Actually, I'd love it if they would go back a little bit. Do you 
remember the TNG episode with the short appearance of Kelsey Grammer? 
The one with the time traveling sequence where they re-lived the same 
day over and over? I'd like to see a series in that era. Should be 
cheaper too: earlier time, simpler special effects <G>.

>>> Well, at least Neelix makes it home...

>> Da capo.

>>> [snip]

>>>>>>>> Now, how do you break a killfile?

>>>>>>> Repeated exposure to cold and heat will eventually excite the bits to 
>>>>>>> quantum states in which they behave as 0 and 1 _at_the_same_time_. 
>>>>>>> This will make the killfile rather more inefficient for its purpose. 
>>>>>>> Strangely enough, it will make it also a very good "Doom" clone; I'm 
>>>>>>> surprised nobody has mentioned that yet.

>>>>>> You don't say!

>>>>> We live and learn, don't we?

>>>> Some of us do.  I wonder about some others.

>>> At least now they know they could have a good time with a futzed-up 
>>> killfile.

>> Assuming they can figure out how Marty futzed-up his.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 02:37:15
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> LOL!  Tell me, Jeff, you mentioned a digest of Tholen material.

Edited by Glatt to alter the meanings of what I wrote.

> Is that available online?

Why would you want a misleading digest, Curtis?

> Or are you selfishly hogging all that good material
> for yourself? :)

What makes you think his material is "good", Curtis?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 02:35:21
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> Translation: David never read and refuses to now read the references

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> Your misunderstanding of the term "multi-level" is clear.

What alleged "misunderstanding", Lucien?

>>> and is mystified by the term "multi-level" as used here.

>> Your usage here is not at all clear, Lucien,

> My usage is clear.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>> which is why I asked for *your* meaning, not some authors' meaning
>> that you allege is the same as yours.

> My usage is congruent with the meaning presented for the term in the
> references cited in the "costly mistakes" thread.

Prove it, Lucien.

> Read the pertinent sections of those references and you'll discern
> a meaning congruent with mine.

Impossible, given that you haven't explained your meaning.  Congruence
cannot be determined when only one of the two is a known.

>>>>>> It doesn't concern the JDK sentence, Lucien.

>>>>> On the contrary, it directly concerns the JDK sentence.

>>>> It concerns a portion of the JDK sentence, Lucien,

>>> Glad you agree.

>> That's not an indication of agreement, Lucien,

> Yes, it is.

Incorrect, Lucien.  Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?

>> but rather a correction of your misleading statement.

> Wrong.

Incorrect, Lucien, given that I know what I did.

>>>> but the meaning depends on the entire sentence, not just a portion
>>>> of it.

>>> Exactly.

>> So why do you continue to ignore the portion that provides the
>> additional information, Lucien?

> It is irrelevant to the issue,

Incorrect, Lucien, given that additional information is central to the
issue.

> which is the alternation WRT quantification, your refutation of your
> own (correct) statements describing and supporting the presence of
> the alternation

Incorrect, Lucien, given that I never refuted my own statements.

> and the unwitting agreement between your statements and my thesis.

Your thesis doesn't even apply to the present situation, Lucien.

> Let's review again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.  However, you should review my responses to
your repetitive review, given that they obviously haven't sunk in
yet.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
> 'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
> information.]]]"

That statement does not concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, given that
the JDK statement involves the presence of other information.  Of
course, I've told you this so many times now that I don't see how
anyone could not conclude that you're simply playing your own brand
of "infantile game'.

> Here is my thesis statement again (emphasis mine):
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.]]]

Given that there is no "absence of peri-verbal information" in the
present situation, your thesis is irrelevant, Lucien.  Of course,
I've told you this so many times now that I don't see how anyone
could not conclude that you're simply playing your own brand of
"infantile game'.

> Note that the statements render redundant your wittless

What is "witt", Lucien?

> and endless restatements

How ironic, coming from the person whose "reviews" have been "endless".

> that the ambiguity is resolved in the presence of additional
> information

That presence of additional information is what renders your thesis
irrelevant to the present situation, Lucien.

> - this is a central point of both statements

The redundancy is the central point of both statements?  Illogical,
Lucien.  Neither statement mentions redundancy.

> and you only continually support my argument with your unwitting
> arguments.

On the contrary, I destroy your argument each time by pointing
out the problems with your argument.  Of course, you continue to
ignore those problems, and you delete the two simple tests that
illustrate the problems in an easier-to-understand fashion.  See
below for the reinsertion of those two simple tests.

> Note also the agreement between the two statements.

Note the irrelevance of your statement, and note your erroneous
description of my statement as regarding the JDK sentence.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org                     05-Nov-99 02:50:18
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org>

On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 11:44:37 -0500, Brad BARCLAY wrote:

>Darin McBride wrote:
>> I'd be wary about telling anyone the size of a Java app ... because us
cynics
>> like to point out that you're not including the JRE...
>
>	Yes, well the DB2 for OS/2 v6.1 install code has a size as well, but
>that too would quickly balloon if we included all of the base DLL's and
>the OS required to run it in the first place. Unless you're writing your
>own bootstrap loader an including every bit of code you need to run on
>the media you supply, the cynics out there will always be able to make
>such a claim, be it for a Java based application or not.  Most
>applications require some sort of pre-installed service to run, be it an
>OS, a BIOS (to run the bootstrap loader in the first place...), or a
>runtime environment.

I'm talking about what isn't necessarily already on someone's system. 
Something that, if you want everyone to be able to use your program, you have
to ship with it, or explicitly pre-req it.  For example, ship it on the CD.
---
Disclaimer: unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, I do not speak
for the company I work for.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 03:02:07
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>> -- snip --

>>>>> Marty didn't say that you claimed Mike *couldn't* view the contents of
>>>>> JAVAINUF.EXE (in Windows), he simply said that you refuse to accept or
>>>>> admit that Mike *could* do so.

>>>> Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

>>> Are you really that blind/stubborn/desperate/insane??!?

>> I see you didn't answer the question, choosing instead to hurl yet more
>> invective.

>>> The exchange betwixt you and me centers around your refusal to admit
>>> your error

>> Where is this alleged refusal, Curtis?

> Okay, let me rephrase: your continued neglect to admit your error, and
> your continued attempts to dodge the admission,

What alleged "attempts to dodge", Curtis?

> evade the admission

What alleged evasion, Curtis?

> and deflect attention away from the issue of admission,

What alleged deflection, Curtis?

> all of which are tantamount to refusing to make said admission.

You're erroneously presupposing dodging, evasion, and deflection, Curtis.

>>> when you claimed that one needed to run JAVAINUF.EXE on an OS/2 platform
>>> in order to examine the contents of the archive.

>> Tell me, Curtis, if you had a file named ABC.EXE and you tried to
>> execute it on a DOS system, and it responded with:
>>
>>    This program must be run under OS/2.
>>
>> and if you then tried to unzip it, and the unzipper responded with
>>
>>    Archive:  ABC.EXE
>>      End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
>>      a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
>>      latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
>>      the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>
>> what would you conclude?

> Okay, I'll go ahead and take your bait,

It's not "bait", Curtis.

> although I have, in fact, already answered this question,

Incorrect, Curtis, given that I did *not* ask you what you would *not*
conclude.

> which, for the record, is posed in a vacuum and is also contrived.

For the record, your claim is unsubstantiated and erroneous.

> What I would conclude, assuming that I did take the path outlined above
> (which I would not do in the real world,

What you would not do is irrelevant, Curtis.  You reached a conclusion
based on that path.  Now it's simply a matter of explaining each step
of your reasoning.

> but apparently must do in your hypothetical one),

You already did, Curtis.

> is that the ***EASIEST*** way to extract the contents of ABC.EXE would
> be to run it under OS/2.

How would such a conclusion allow you to claim that someone is "inept",
Curtis?

> However, I absolutely would ***NOT*** conclude that that must be the
> ***ONLY*** way to extract said contents of said archive,

There you go again, answering a different question.  I never asked what
you would *not* conclude, Curtis, therefore such a statement is
irrelevant.

> because I, a priori, am in fact aware of InfoZip's shortcomings,

What alleged shortcomings, Curtis?  Marty claimed that he could extract
the archive using InfoZip, thus there is no relevant shortcoming.
Furthermore, the scenario I hypothesized did not even involve InfoZip.
You're jumping to conclusions again.

> the fact that, as far as ZIP archive utilities go, InfoZip is rather
> weak in terms of functionality

What alleged weakness, Curtis?  Marty claimed that he could extract
the archive using InfoZip, thus there is no relevant weakness.
Furthermore, the scenario I hypothesized did not even involve InfoZip.
You're jumping to conclusions again.

> (although it is sufficient for many tasks, excluding this one, of
> course),

On what basis do you exclude this task, Curtis?

> and WinZip's existence and extensive capabilities.

Irrelevant, Curtis.  I can guarantee you that WinZip can't extract
ABC.EXE, despite your claim of "extensive capabilities".  Furthermore,
the scenario I hypothesized did not even involve InfoZip.  You're
jumping to conclusions again.

> (As a matter of fact, my a priori knowledge of InfoZip's weaknesses

What alleged weaknesses, Curtis?  Marty claimed that he could extract
the archive using InfoZip, thus there is no relevant weakness.
Furthermore, the scenario I hypothesized did not even involve InfoZip.
You're jumping to conclusions again.

> is one reason why I would not take the path you outlined above, in
> the real world,

What you would not do is irrelevant, Curtis.  You reached a conclusion
based on that path.  Now it's simply a matter of explaining each step
of your reasoning.

> even though I am forced down that path in your hypothetical world.)

You already took that path, Curtis, when reaching your conclusion.

> Ergo, should someone inform me that they, in fact, did use WinZip
> to extract the contents of ABC.EXE,

Suppose someone only informed you that they unzipped it, but didn't
specify what was used.

> I absolutely ***WOULD NOT*** use my failed attempt to use InfoZip as
> an excuse to dismiss this someone's claim,

There you go again, answering a different question.  I never asked what
you would *not* conclude, Curtis, therefore such a statement is
irrelevant.

> because, again, I, a priori, am aware of WinZip's extensive (as
> compared to InfoZip at any rate) capabilities.

Irrelevant, Curtis.  I can guarantee you that WinZip can't extract
ABC.EXE, despite your claim of "extensive capabilities".  Furthermore,
the scenario I hypothesized did not even involve InfoZip.  You're
jumping to conclusions again.

> I suspect that you will find fault with this answer as well.

Your answer still doesn't justify why you called me "inept".

> It seems that you always do . . .

What seems to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  The fact is that you have
yet to justify your "inept" claim.

>>> If you were to admit this error, I would bow out of the thread.

>> I'm waiting for you to show where I've allegedly refused to admit
>> an error.

> See above for the rephrasing.

See above for my response to your rephrasing.

> Also, immediately above, I didn't claim "refusal" on your part,

You had previously claimed "refusal", Curits.

> only the implication of neglect (to admit your error).

How ironic, coming from someone "neglecting" to justify his claim
of "inept".

>>> My continued presence indicates that you have yet to make
>>> such an admission, at least as a response to me.

>> Your continued presence looks like you taking advantage of an
>> opportunity to hurl insults.

> What it looks like to you is irrelevant.

The existence of your insults is not irrelevant.

> What you can prove is relevant.

I can prove what you've written, Curtis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             05-Nov-99 03:11:17
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:22
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <381C9B80.9127BBBB@isomedia.com>, "David T. Johnson"
<djohnson@isomedia.com> writes:
>
>
|"David H. McCoy" wrote:
|| 
|| IBM To Adopt Win 2000 Companywide
|| (10/28/99, 2:00 p.m. ET)
|| By Madeleine Acey, TechWeb
|| IBM is set to become one of the biggest early adopters of Windows 2000 and
|| plans to standardize its many desktops on the long-awaited Microsoft
operating
|| system worldwide.
|| 
|| Big Blue's integrated solutions marketing manager Dick Sullivan told
|| journalists in London this week that Windows 2000 Professional would be the
|| company's desktop OS of choice across the enterprise when it becomes
available
|| next year. The company will buy 300,000 copies, he said.
|| 
|| "We have a standard desktop across the corporation and ours will be Windows
|| 2000, with Notes and Lotus Smartsuite," Sullivan said.
|| 
|| However IBM's confidence in Microsoft's new baby was not unwavering. Asked
how
|| many service packs Win 2000 would require before it was stable and trusted,
|| Sullivan said "probably two."
|| 
|| "On the server side, people are going to be very cautious," he said.
|| 
|| Sullivan added that the client would be the first thing to roll out in big
|| numbers as there was a lot of pent-up demand from people who had been
waiting
|| to upgrade from NT 4.0.
|| 
|| Win 2000 is a complex operating system -- not just the next version of NT,
he
|| said. IBM is working to integrate the OS with its own applications, he
said.
|| 
|| "Windows 2000 is going to be a very successful OS, so we want it to work
right
|| for our customers for the applications they want to use," Sullivan said.
"It's
|| not going to be a heterogeneous environment, they still have a lot to
learn.
|| There's a long way to go for heterogeneous integration."
|| 
|| E-commerce -- specifically transaction applications -- would be some of the
|| crucial software packages to integrate, he said.
|| 
|| Microsoft Windows product marketing manager Nick McGrath said he was
pleased
|| with the news of IBM's adoption of Win 2000.
|| 
|| "It's exciting to see that a company as diverse in its operations as IBM is
|| embracing Windows 2000 Professional across its desktops," McGrath said.
"It's a
|| clear endorsement of how Windows 2000 Professional is the best OS for
|| businesses of all sizes."
|| 
|| He said he isn't sure if IBM is the OS's biggest customer so far, but he
looks
|| forward to more contracts of a similar size.
|| 
||
*******************************************************************************

|| 
|| Well folks, even the makers of OS/2 know a good thing. See you on the other
|| side...
|| --
|Are you suggesting that IBM is changing their desktops from OS/2 to
|Windows 2000?   Haven't you maintained that IBM did not use OS/2
|anymore?  Since IBM does not use OS/2, this means that IBM is upgrading
|from Windows 9x or NT4 to Windows 2K, probably in the desperate hope
|that they can find something halfway workable.  Maybe that, more than
|anything else, will force Gerstner to cut loose some money for an OS/2
|update.  Heh, heh, heh.

I do not believe the post. Clearly IBM is moving off of NT. There is no
doubt about that. But if you read what IBM says about Windows 2000 they
definitely question if it is the road ahead. "Windows 2000 will be a road
ahead, but not the only road ahead. And who would want to design a car
that could only travel on one type of road?" says Adem Jollans the
Marketing Manager for IBM Software for Windows 2000. Windows 2000
actually runs Java  slower than NT.

I think this is a play on the word desktop. In network computing there
usually is no "desktop". The user interface is a browser. Likely at IBM
most empoyees  will be using the Netscape or Notes browser runing 
over a version of OS/2 Warp on a Network Station.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               05-Nov-99 04:54:21
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re: Est

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

Say WHAT?

Uno, I'm a founder, vice president, and program chair of the Phoenix 
OS/2 Society, the largest OS/2 user group on the planet. I'm sysop in 
the OS/2 Central forum on Compuserve. I write for _extended 
attributes_, POSSI's magazine, every month, and I'm assistant editor. 
I just returned from a meeting where we were discussing logistics for 
the WarpTech conference (which POSSI is sponsoring, to be held 
Memorial Day Weekend 2000 -- see http://www.possi.org for details). 
I'm the minor co-author of Teach Yourself REXX in 21 Days. I was 
senior contributing editor at OS/2 Magazine and, for several years, I 
wrote a high percentage of OS/2 product reviews for PC Magazine and 
other mainstream publications.

And you think I'm not an OS/2 supporter?!

I think OS/2 is wonderful. It's still my favorite choice of OS, and as
I mentioned earlier it's where I do a significant part of my work. But
I'm also a realist who thinks it's important to acknowledge problems 
in order to address them and fix them.

I said earlier that I'm here so that I stay honest. 

You didn't answer my question. Why are you here?

--Esther

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:22:02, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
| >Why are *you* here? I'm an OS/2 user. You no longer are. What's the 
| >appeal?
| 
| You are?  I thought you were here to keep in touch with the 'little
| people' -- to keep yourself from being full assimilated.  Or maybe you
| don't get enough respect at your workplace and come here to play your
| self-titled Queen of OS2 role (or is it OS2 godess?).  I think you know
| what I mean.  Besides, I can't recall you actually doing much in the way
| of OS2 cheerleading, but I do see you put lots of dampers on it everywhere
| (except here).
| 
| Anyway, don't take things so personally.  And quit making things up;
| it's not good for a writer to be known for making up stories.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 03:19:21
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> -- snip --

>>> If you seriously believe that this makes any difference, then you are
>>> supporting my belief that you are, indeed, self-deluded.

>> My belief is irrelevant, Curtis.  I know that it makes a difference.
>> That you think it doesn't only demonstrates that you are the one who
>> is self-deluded.

> Explain how WinZip's allegedly choking on *your* JAVAINUF.EXE file,
> which, presumably, was downloaded form the same site that Mike Timbol's,
> Marty's and mine were, would disprove the claim that WinZip did not
> choke on Mike Timbol's, Marty's and my copy of the JAVAINUF.EXE file.

Who is trying to disprove the claim, Curtis?

> Either explain it, or admit your error.

How ironic, coming from the person who won't admit the error of his
own conclusion.

> There is no third alternative (unless we consider continued
> evasiveness and deflection to be an alternative, in which case
> I must stand corrected).

On what basis do you claim there is no third alternative, Curtis?

>>> -- snip --

>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>> Nor does it need to.

>> On the contrary, it does.

> Explain why.

Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.

> Or admit your error.

I just explained why, thus this option is unnecessary.

>>> That you would attempt to make this an issue indicates your
>>> desperation.

>> On the contrary, it represents reality, Curtis.

> Yes, the reality of your desperation.

Illogical, given that there is no desperation on my part, Curtis.

>>> Karel, are you listening?

>> Irrelevant, Curtis.

> I didn't claim "relevance," Dave, but it *is* something I want to
> know.

Why do you want to know it, Curtis?

> -- snip --

>>> Again, if you seriously believe that WinZip would choke on your
>>> "special" copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then prove it.

>> WinZip can't make bytes magically appear, Curtis.

> This riddle isn't proof, Dave.

It's not a riddle, Curtis, and it is proof.  Your failure to realize
where the problem lies continues.  You are apparently so much more
comfortable hurling insults at people then thinking through problems.

>>> Otherwise, your pathetic attempts at not admitting your mistake only
>>> supports my belief that you suffer from an "I am NOMAD! I am PERFECT!"
>>> syndrome.

>> Typical invective.

> My apologies if you consider the truth as "abuse,"

What alleged "truth", Curtis?

> but the double-chevroned statement above is absolutely true.

Prove it, if you think you can, Curtis.

> I do, in fact, honestly believe that you do so suffer, and your
> behavior does, in fact, support said belief.

What you believe is irrelevant, Curtis; what you can prove is relevant.
Furthermore, invective is independent of the reality of your beliefs.

>-- snip --

>>> Are you listening, Karel?

>> Irrelevant, Curtis.

>>> Are you still impressed by this guy's "logic?" <chuckle

>> I'm impressed that he hasn't yet jumped to the wrong conclusions that
>> you have.

> Which "conclusion" might that be, Dave?

That I'm "inept", Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>>>> You indicated the trend with your close-minded thinking about
>>>>> decompression tools.

>>>> Illogical, Marty, as decompression tools are not humans.

>>> Did Marty claim such?

>> He wrote:
>>
>> M] just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
>> M] behave the same is.

>>> No.

>> Then explain the above quotation, Curtis.

> Expecting all operating systems to behave the same way is foolish.
> Expecting all human beings to behave the same way is foolish. Ergo,
> expecting all ZIP archive tools to behave the same way is foolish.

Illogical, given that ZIP archive tools are not human beings.

> Now, it's your turn. In light of my explanation, *you* explain how you
> managed to equate decompression tools to humans in your interpretation
> of what Marty said, Dave.

Marty wrote:

M] just as expecting all operating systems or all human beings to
M] behave the same is.

> It should be quite interesting.

What's so interesting about the reproduction of Marty's statement,
Curtis?

>>> I guess this is another one of your "non sequitor" thingies.

>> Incorrect.  For one, I spell it word correctly.  For another, see the
>> above quotation.

> I see the above quotation.

Have you comprehended it?

> I even explained it for you, since you apparently had such difficulty
> with it.

What you're having "difficult with" is the alleged appropriateness of
the analogy, Curtis.  Suppose you deprived a human being of oxygen
for an hour.  Would you expect all human beings to behave the same
way (that is, die)?  Now, that's a more appropriate analogy.  All unzip
tools should indeed behave the same way (that is, die) in response to
my copy of the javainuf.exe file.  The details may differ (wording of
error messages, assuming the implementation is smart enough to
recognize the error), but the ultimate response will be the same.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             05-Nov-99 03:29:16
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <MPG.12869db659ceb7be989a8c@news1.mnsinc.com|, David H. McCoy
<forgitaboutit@fake.com| writes:
|In article <381C9B80.9127BBBB@isomedia.com|, djohnson@isomedia.com says...
||| He said he isn't sure if IBM is the OS's biggest customer so far, but he
looks
||| forward to more contracts of a similar size.
||| 
|||
*******************************************************************************

||| 
||| Well folks, even the makers of OS/2 know a good thing. See you on the
other
||| side...
||| --
||Are you suggesting that IBM is changing their desktops from OS/2 to
||Windows 2000?   Haven't you maintained that IBM did not use OS/2
||anymore?  Since IBM does not use OS/2, this means that IBM is upgrading
||from Windows 9x or NT4 to Windows 2K, probably in the desperate hope
||that they can find something halfway workable.  Maybe that, more than
||anything else, will force Gerstner to cut loose some money for an OS/2
||update.  Heh, heh, heh.
||
|
|I'm not suggesting anything and I haven't maintained thta IBM is not using 
|OS/2,  so unless you can back such a statement up(and you cannot), don't
imply 
|otherwise.
|
|You are truly one of the best(or worst) spinsters here, and amuse me to no
end.
|Please keep it up.
|
|-- 
|---------------------------------------
|David H. McCoy
|dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
|---------------------------------------

Spinning this out of control, lets not forget that WIndows 2000 is still
vaporware.
Quote from IBM "Is Windows 2000 the road ahead? .. In conclusion, it is
probable that
Windows 2000 will be a major playor in the market from 2001 onwards and that
its effect will be felt long before that. But it is also increasingly likely
that
Windows 2000 will not be the only player in the market.."

Windows 2000 is an unproven product marketed by a company that is likely to
be split up into pieces that has "bet the company on the product" but is still
years behind the 1999 version of OS/2 Warp. Only the gullable are going to
buy into Windows 2000 in 2000. It has huge risks associated with it for a
developer. It takes at least 8 millon copies of an OS before developers can
afford to develop for the platform. That is just not going to happen for
several
years. Better to develop for the Java Virtual Machine.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             05-Nov-99 03:40:13
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-kOFnX9dfXyE8@agave.bitranch.com|, esther@bitranch.com
(Esther Schindler) writes:
|On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:41:51, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
|| Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living. If you are not coding
Java
|| then you must be planing on going into marketing or retiring.
|
|What color is the sky on your planet?
|
|Java is a tool. It's a good tool, for some things, but it's not a 
|golden bullet that solves all problems or is suitable for all 
|purposes. There are any number of reasons not to write in Java, 
|including
|
|* application performance
|* a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
|* willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or 
|niche
|
|--Esther

The color of the sky on my planet is grey. I live and work in Seattle.
Contrary to popular opinion, there is a lot of Java coding going on
in Seattle. You must have noticed the many Java sessions
at Comdex which I think your company manages. Java has won. Hands
down. I am not saying that there is no place for a C++ or even a
Visual Basic programmer. I am just saying that if you are not already
a C++ or Visual Basic programmer that there is no reason what so
ever to go there.

-- Frank
We missed you at WarpStock
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             05-Nov-99 03:54:28
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <MPG.1286c7d82905698a989a90@news1.mnsinc.com|, David H. McCoy
<forgitaboutit@fake.com| writes:
|In article <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-kOFnX9dfXyE8@agave.bitranch.com|, 
|esther@bitranch.com says...
||On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 20:41:51, flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
||| Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living. If you are not coding
Java
||| then you must be planing on going into marketing or retiring.
||
||What color is the sky on your planet?
||
||Java is a tool. It's a good tool, for some things, but it's not a 
||golden bullet that solves all problems or is suitable for all 
||purposes. There are any number of reasons not to write in Java, 
||including
||
||* application performance
||* a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
||* willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or 
||niche
||
||--Esther
||
|I would throw tool availability into this. C++, for example, currently has
more 
|dev tools available than Java.
 
|---------------------------------------
|David H. McCoy
|dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
|---------------------------------------

I would throw out C++ as a meaningful college course. Do you really disagree?
There
are way to many C++ coders out there. Regarding Java tools. There is really
only one tool worth looking at if you are coding on an Intel platform and wish 
to
stay employed or become employed.

This is kind of new news. You had to go to Warpstock or a Novell Developers
conference
to learn it. I have not seen it in the press. VisualAge for Java and Webshere
are
included in the next version of Novell's Network operating system. That means
20 million new VisualAge for Java shops. You may have a favorite tool but if
you are a working stiff you are going to be using VisualAge tools for your
OO work, regardless of your personal preference. IBM + Novell = death to other 

Java tools. Oh yes there is a VisualAge for C++ tool. You might use that. It
may
help in accepting the inevitable demise of C++ and help you to move to Java.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ericb@pobox.com                                   04-Nov-99 23:00:14
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: ericb@pobox.com (Eric Bennett)

A jury trial in Caldera's lawsuit against Microsoft is scheduled to begin
in January 2000:

http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991104S0009

-- 
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ ) 
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
-Robert Benchley

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             05-Nov-99 04:08:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <381f5eb7.1697746@news.borg.com|, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)
writes:
|
||| Esther Schindler wrote:
||| [...snip...]
||| | There are any number of reasons not to write in Java,
||| | including
||| | 
||| | * application performance
||| | * a requirement or desire to take advantage of an OS-specific function
||| | * willingness to limit one's application to a particular platform or
||| | niche
|
||| Brad BARCLAY
|||All three of which can be acomplished in Java via the JNI (Java Native
||| Interface).  Just encapsulate platform-specific or high-performence code
||| within a native method wrapper, and you can accomplish any and all of
||| the above (although if you've done this, limiting yourself to one
||| platform is silly, as it's easy to port the native bit to other
||| platforms, or make its source available for others to do so).
||| 
||| Jus as C programmers who need high-end performence use Assembly exits,
||| Java can do the same (be it with C, or any other native language).
| 
||Sorry, Brad, I don't buy it. I've never seen a Java application that 
||runs as well as native code.
|
|Indeed. Everything runs perfectly and exquisitely in theory (from the
|point of view of a programmer who has a vested interest in the
|project). In practice though, the truth comes out, and Java has proven
|to be a flawed "product" with unimpressive performance all around.
|
|If there is one thing that programmers have learned to do, it is, that
|when some IBM employee comes rushing out of a boardroom waving his
|hands about "Corba this", or "Taligent that", or "OpenDoc yadda
|yadda", or "Java this", etc, etc, etc, etc, the correct response is
|"if you think that it really is that good, let's see you fly with it
|in the marketplace, and pour your money into it, and wow everyone with
|it, FIRST... and then maybe I'll take a look at it".
|
|Whenever you see IBM hedging its bets, that's the time to proceed with
|extreme caution. Today, IBM is one of the biggest hedge-betters in the
|business. They don't commit to any one thing. In fact, they attempt to
|put a finger into *everything*. IBM wants to be everything to
|everyone. And the consequence of such a philosophy is that IBM drops
|things left and right as the company scrambles to stick their finger
|into everything that happens to attract their attention.

I see IBM as the first technology company to perceive that the customer is in
charge.
They are not hedging. It is a fundamental change in management philosophy that
is summed up in the term "Network Computing".

I am certain that large OS/2 customers forced IBM to release the 1999 version
of OS/2 which has become the key component of network computing. Large 
customers recognize that for the first time in the information
age they control technology introduction. Y2K taught them that. Large 
companies have spoken.  Intel 32 bit processors are in. OS/2 is optimized for 
Intel 32 bit processors so OS/2 is in.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
has more information

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             05-Nov-99 04:18:06
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

Java was not the only saviour of OS/2

It is hard to believe that IBM Chairman and CEO Lou Gerstner, who coined the
term "network
computing", planed the vast improvements to OS/2 Warp that make it without a
doubt the most super
charged vehicle for the information super highway. Yet in the 25 August 1997
Infoworld, Ed Scannell,
on page one, stated that the WorkSpace on Demand implementation of OS/2 "could 
give IBM significant
technical advantages over rival Windows NT and Unix server architectures,
which will not deliver this
capability until the later half of 1998 at the earliest." IBM unfroze OS/2
Warp kernel for its 15 million
plus users at the fall 1996 Comdex. The freeze was related to the use of OS/2
in network computing
(previewed April 2 in San Francisco). Shortly before the 1997 Comdex, the
former General Manager
for OS/2, Mike Lawrie, took charge of the IBM Network Computing Software
division to focus on Java
initiatives, network infrastructure technologies and OS/2 products that
support e-business. That brought
together IBM's Java team, and the Networking Software (NS) and Personal
Software Products (PSP)
organizations under a strong supporter of OS/2. Then in 1998 came Pat. See
Pat. Pat wrote one
program. It can run on all platforms. Pat used 100% Pure Java to write the
program. Run, program run.
In 1998 Patricia Suelty took over the Java-OS/2 division at IBM. It is clear
from the above that Lou
Gerstner's vision is largely responsible for the 1999 edition of OS/2 Warp
which is being marketed under
the confusing name of Warp Server for e-business but that Java was just a part 
of it.

By the Way - Is IBM still boycotting Comdex when it comes to OS/2. It looks
that way. Is
Comdex going to be just another Windows World but with Java this time?

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
vastly updated more coming.



In <LoEFmgJJ9ecw-pn2-Hx3WOXVmddZo@agave.bitranch.com>, esther@bitranch.com
(Esther Schindler) writes:
|
|I may be the last geek on the planet who doesn't have a PalmPilot. I 
|don't really want one. Or, more rigorously, I don't want one any more 
|than I yearn for any gizmo with blinking lights. I just don't _need_ a
|PalmPilot and I don't work the way they do. (I also write most of my 
|articles in longhand. Go figure.)
|
|As a result, I can't take you up on the first offer, and I wouldn't 
|know a Monte Carlo simulation if one fell on me.
|
|However, I've reviewed several Java applications for which the 
|developers charge real money, and I've never seen one that worked as 
|well as a native app. And, in particular, I've encountered a large 
|number of Java apps that needed to be installed with Windows, or -- 
|more commonly -- which were tested only on Windows. (One of them 
|crashed both the Mac *and* OS/2, which is an accomplishment of sorts. 
|Let's just say I didn't give it a rave review.)
|
|While I'm sure you can give me examples of good Java code, the fact 
|that it's so easy to write *bad* Java code almost proves my point.
|
|Java's a great tool. But it's not a savior for OS/2.
|
|--Esther
|
|On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 16:51:40, Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com| wrote:
|
|| Esther Schindler wrote:
|| | 
|| | Sorry, Brad, I don't buy it. I've never seen a Java application that
|| | runs as well as native code.
|| 
|| 	Grab yourself a PalmPilot an install the jSyncManager v1.1 beta
|| (http://yaztromo.idirect.com/java-pilot-dev.html).  It's a pure Java
|| application which can do Palm synchronization on any Java-enabled
|| platform faster than Palm's native Windows software.  It's also less
|| than 200k in size, and has a variety of plug-in jConduits (including one
|| for Lotus Notes for OS/2).
|| 
|| 	And if that one isn't good enough for you, I can send you the source
|| for a distributed graph connectivity application I wrote in Java as part
|| of a contest, which beat the second place native code solution by a
|| factor of 10.
|| 
|| 	Any Java applications which are IO bound are going to be at least as
|| fast as their native code counterparts (how fast do you have to be to
|| wait for input? :).
|| 
|| 	The problem isn't Java - it's Java programmers who don't know how to
|| optimize their code and algorithms.  The above-mentioned graph
|| connectivity code I wrote does 100 000 Monte Carlo simulations for 50
|| different sample sets across the same graph, for each simulation
|| checking the connectivity of each of the 25 arcs, and then testing for
|| graph connectivity.  In short, it's a rather heavy-duty mathematical
|| simulation.  And it won because it was extremely heavily optimized for
|| the task (although it can be memory intensive, as it's using a recursive
|| algorithm to test for connectivity).  It also made excellent use of
|| available resources.
|| 
|| 	I know of several Java applications wihch are at least as fast as their
|| native code counterparts - I'd be more than happy to point more out to
|| you if you'd like :).
|| 
|| Brad BARCLAY
|| 
|| =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|| Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
|| E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs
|

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                05-Nov-99 00:18:09
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Neat tagline I lifted...

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

I just lifted this line of text from a message off a mailing list...

It makes a great tagline...

--

OS/2 is like being in love with a woman and can't stand her father and other
members of the family.

/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 05-Nov-99 05:44:17
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vticf$b7c$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
>>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
>
>>>> Nor does it need to.
>
>>> On the contrary, it does.
>
>> Explain why.
>
>Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.

So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
some other way, but you did not realize it at first?  Is that the
way you want to explain your mistake?

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     04-Nov-99 22:06:27
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Brad BARCLAY wrote:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:
> > >And obviously you can't understand the concept of a library being a
> > >superset of an API.
> >
> > Obviously, you can't understand that programmers call the C standard
> > library a "library" because that's indeed what it is, and programmers
> > call the MS Foundation Classes "classes" because that's what they are.
> >
> > >I've given you the definition of an API
> >
> > The question isn't about what an API is. The question is about what
> > MFC and the C standard libraries are. They are C++ Classes and
> > libraries respectively.
>
>         And they are also API's.  I've given you the definition of an API.
> They fit the defintion.  You haven't refuted this.  In fact, you can't
> refute this.  MFC is still an API.  It's an operating service which
> contains a standard set of calls and data structures which application
> developers use to create applications.

As we both know the ability to recognize what is an API is directly
proportional
to one's salary.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     04-Nov-99 22:07:27
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re: 

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


"uno@40th.com" wrote:

> Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (4 Nov 1999 15:01:28 GMT):
> >On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 01:02:38, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
> >| Hey!  I'm not a nerd, or at least never advertise my nerdness (if I
> >| have any).
> >
> >I *am* a nerd, and I don't care what people think. I may be a nerd who
> >shops at Ann Taylor, but I'm still a nerd.
>
> Oh, I meant to write:
>
> >| Hey!  I'm not a nerd (not that there's anything wrong with that)..."
>
> >You might be interested in small. That's not important to me.
>
> Right.
>
> >Why are *you* here? I'm an OS/2 user. You no longer are. What's the
> >appeal?
>
> You are?  I thought you were here to keep in touch with the 'little
> people' -- to keep yourself from being full assimilated.

[...]

Answer the question.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com                        05-Nov-99 06:10:11
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:38206e99$2$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
| On <19991102.9141946@mis.configured.host>, on 11/02/99 at 09:14 AM,
|    Joseph <josco@ibm.net> said:
|
[snip]
|
| Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal machine
| is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
| between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
| marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.

I shining example of an unbiased and well thought out argument, totally
emersed in technical merit!

Job well done!!

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      04-Nov-99 22:39:27
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 03:42:23
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Brent Davies <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote in message
news:jxuU3.4602$zd.94763@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
>
> Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
> news:38206e99$2$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> | On <19991102.9141946@mis.configured.host>, on 11/02/99 at 09:14 AM,
> |    Joseph <josco@ibm.net> said:
> |
> [snip]
> |
> | Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal
machine
> | is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
> | between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
> | marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.
>
> I shining example of an unbiased and well thought out argument, totally
> emersed in technical merit!
>
> Job well done!!
>
> -B
>

LOL

>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: drsmithy@usa.net                                  05-Nov-99 17:18:14
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: "Christopher Smith" <drsmithy@usa.net>

"Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote in message
news:jxuU3.4602$zd.94763@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
>
> Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
> news:38206e99$2$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> | On <19991102.9141946@mis.configured.host>, on 11/02/99 at 09:14 AM,
> |    Joseph <josco@ibm.net> said:
> |
> [snip]
> |
> | Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal
machine
> | is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
> | between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
> | marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.
>
> I shining example of an unbiased and well thought out argument, totally
> emersed in technical merit!
>
> Job well done!!

</sarcasm>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Queensland (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au                               05-Nov-99 07:18:01
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane)

On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 17:17:11, Bob Germer 
<bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote:

[snip]
> Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal machine
> is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
> between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
> marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.
> 
NO!!
Lets clarify:
A.	Win3.1 or 3.11 over DOS is brilliant - as far as it goes 
- push it and there are all sorts of problems
B.	Not everyone running Windows is impressed with it (or has
a say in the operating system they use)
C.	Windows is (apparently) great for games
D.	Some people just want what everyone else us using
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT 
octa4.net.au 
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au                               05-Nov-99 07:18:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:09:13, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel 
Jansens) wrote:

> I've removed the NT-crosspost. Just a precaution.
> 
Why? Scared of letting the small limp users know what you 
think - courage person courage!
The poster started this here (comp.os.os2.advocacy) and 
there (small limp stuff newgroup) Here the only readers here
are likely to be OS/2 users or those that still miss it/cant
tear themselves away form it (eg McCoy) Let the mob there 
read the full story-( I assume that they have a newsreader 
that can filter if they want to?), maybe "hobyist" was 
unwise to post to both but I wont criticise him/her for that
- but if you want to go ahead- but do it as such - not some 
arbitrary attempt to "limit" the dialogue.
If someone starts a thread in a number  of groups let it 
happen- or are you claiming some omniscent ability to 
determine whats advocacy?
Who knows this small point about Unimaint/Win reg may 
persuade a NT user to try OS/2? I doubt it but I let the 
thread speak for itself.
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT 
octa4.net.au 
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au                               05-Nov-99 07:17:28
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 15:58:37, Hobbyist 
<alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :
> 
> > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 02:49:33, Hobbyist 
> > <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :
[snip]
> 
> Hmmm. You *did* say 'in my experience'. I take the sprouting
> misinformation rant back then.
> 
> The warp4  ini files are just as volatile and prone to problems as the
> windows registry. This is my and many other OS/2 users that I knew and
> discussed the matter with's experience.
> 
> -- 
> -=Ali M.=-
> 
> Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
>          
Apology noted, Having been unable to install successfully 
windows 95 (well I do assume it should boot for more than 49
seconds without freezing requireing a reboot- is this 
presumptous) since 1995 I c annot comment on Windows 
registry - does it hurt?
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT 
octa4.net.au 
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au                               05-Nov-99 07:18:05
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: IBM Licenses SciTech Graphics Technology!

From: rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane)

On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 20:33:01, KendallB@scitechsoft.com 
(Kendall Bennett) wrote:


> You have completely lost me on this one. You message seems to indicate 
> that I should provide some other mechanism for users to access our 
> newsgroup, for brain dead news readers like ProNew? That is *why* we have 
> our web/news gateway. You can read and post news to our newsgroups 
> directly from our web site. 
> 
> Did I miss something here?
> 
Yes in calling a great newsreader(Pronews/2) "brain dead" - 
comments like this make the user(or potential user) really 
worried about how well you undersatnd OS/2.
By the way haven't the complainers just copied the 
executable  and put new settings in it ?
Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT 
octa4.net.au 
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               05-Nov-99 02:51:01
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Rob Hughes wrote:
> > Gotta agree with this.  Add GroupWise to the list.  "Novell" and
> "reliability"
> > are at odds with each other.
> 
> Bwhahahahahahahaha... Guess that would explain perfectly why I have so few
> problems.

As always, YMMV, but let's not get silly and believe that nobody has trouble
with this stuff.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               05-Nov-99 02:59:23
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
> Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living.

The demand for Java applications on OS/2 is effectively zero.  Nobody asks for
it.

> If you remember,
> OS/2 was developed by Microsoft to replace Windows 3.1.

Huh?  OS/2 started development concurrently with the earliest versions of
Windows and its earliest release predated Windows 3.1 by several years.  OS/2
and Windows progressed on parallel tracks for years, which kind of stuck in
IBM's craw.

> You might be more fearfull of Windows 2000, which may be a real bastard.

I can't say I'm all that worked up over Win2K but it's a clear follow-on to NT
and NT was always a lot better than regular Windows.  Good enough, in fact,
that I used it full time for years.  (But not good enough that I'm unhappy to
be leaving it behind.)

jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 08:22:24
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Curtis Bass
>On the basis of watching you avoid acknowledging your error via repeated
>attempts at semantic hair split conundra (as well as general deflections
>and other methods of diversion), and noting your obvious skill at such.

I strongly object to your depiction of Tholen having "skill". If
Tholen were actually good at diversion, don't you think that he'd be
able to fool people other than Bennie Nelson and Karel (neither of
whom impress me as being anything beyond naive), rather than being so
easily exposed as, and regarded as, the diversionary fool which he is?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               05-Nov-99 03:04:13
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Esther Schindler wrote:
> 
> Sorry, Brad, I don't buy it. I've never seen a Java application that
> runs as well as native code.

You may not have seen them but they do exist.  Most Java applications are more
reliable than native counterparts, and some are faster too.

Really.

Of course I would not be so silly as to say that Java applications are
generally good performers; usually they're dreadfully slow relative to native
code.  But it's a whole lot easier to write an efficient server app in Java
than it is in native code.

jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 08:27:26
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian Tholen
>Edited by Glatt to alter the meanings of what I wrote.

Nonsense. They're your words, reproduced verbatim from your usenet
posts, with full attributions (something that you tend to omit from
your "personal archive" of edited quotes).

If they appear to be senseless, that's because what you post to usenet
is indeed idiocy at its worst. I merely collected examples of your
moronic prattle, and assembled them in one place so it's easy to see
how your "logic" contradicts itself.

>What makes you think his material is "good", Curtis?

Because it definitely underscores what an illogical, contradictory,
self-serving, confused, inconsistent, laughable buffoon you are

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 08:30:10
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 05:13:04
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Mike Timbol
>So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>some other way, but you did not realize it at first?  Is that the
>way you want to explain your mistake?

Oh dear, if we're going to let him use that excuse to explain away his
incompetence and stupidity, then he'll be using it all of the time.
After all, his mind is certainly "damaged"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 09:18:18
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: (1/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> -- snip --

>>>>>>>> I said "executable file", not "self-extracting archive", Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> I am not interested in semantic hair split conundrums.

>> Then why did you bring it up, Curtis?

> I didn't. You did.

Oh really?  Then why did you snip the evidence that shows otherwise,
Curtis?

> I simply observed it's presence when you brought it up.

Oh really?  Then why did you snip the evidence that shows otherwise,
Curtis?

>>> That is your forte.

>> On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

> On the basis of watching you avoid acknowledging your error via repeated
> attempts at semantic hair split conundra

What alleged "semantic hair split conundra", Curtis?

> (as well as general deflections and other methods of diversion),

What alleged "general deflections and other methods of diversion", Curtis?

> and noting your obvious skill at such.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of "semantic hair split
conundra" and "general deflections and other methods of diversion", Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> I never claimed that desperation was "needed on your part," only that it
>>> exists.

>> You have no basis for making such a claim, Curtis.  I'm not the one
>> relying on invective.  That would be you.

> Point number one: Whether or not I am "relying on invective" has noting
> to do with your state of desperation.

What alleged "state of desperation", Curtis?

> Point number two: I am not "relying on invective" in the first place.

Incorrect.  Witness all the insults you've hurled at me.

> Point number three: Observing your repeated deflections and convolutions

What alleged "deflections and convolutions", Curtis?

> (the presence of which you will now proceed to question or deny)

The substantiation for which you will have failed to provide.

> in order to not admit your error

In order to not substantiate your erroneous claim.

> in claiming one must run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE provides me with ample basis for my claim.

You claimed that I'm "inept", Curtis.  There is no "ample basis" for
such a claim.  Rather, there is ample basis for concluding that you
jumped to a conclusion, thereby demonstrating that you are inept.

>>>>> Are you claiming that JAVAINUF.EXE is *NOT* an "executable file?"

>>>> Not at all, Curtis.  Having reading comprehension problems?

>>> Then why "correct" me when I refer to the executable file in question as
>>> a self extracting archive?

>> What alleged "correction" are you referring to, Curtis?

> The one I preserved up above, preceded by seven chevrons (!).

Why didn't you preserve the context surrounding it, Curtis?

> Now, I suppose you will proceed to claim that it isn't a correction . .

You suppose wrong, Curtis.  I corrected you because you didn't
properly reproduce what I wrote.

>>> Are you trying to argue whether *that* nomenclature is accurate?

>> Which "nomenclature" are you referring to, Curtis?

> The nomenclature that's right in front of your nose.

Could you be more specific, Curtis?  My editor is currently displaying
75 lines, all of which is "in front of my nose".

> Or are you making an issue of my alleged misspelling of the word?

Where did I indicate any misspelling of that word, Curtis?

> (Which word are you referring to, Curtis?)

Yet another one of your failed predictions.

> I see that part of your "strategy" involves responding to questions
> with more questions, in an attempt to steer clear of the issue,

I see that part of your "strategy" involves making unsubstantiated
claims, in an attempt to associate me with positions that I have
not been shown to have taken.

> which is that you claimed one had to run OS/2 in order to extract
> the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Curtis?

> but have yet to admit your claim to be in error.

How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to admit that his
conclusion is in error.

> -- snip --

>>> Acknowledged. Never debated. Never questioned. Why bring it up?

>> You seem to be interested in ways that Mike could have used to look
>> at the contents of the archive, Curtis.

> Because I am interested in the truth,

Then why did you jump to erroneous conclusions, Curtis?  Obviously,
you're more interested in hurling insults than in the truth.

> namely, that one can, indeed look at the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
> in Windows,

Not my copy of that file, Curtis.

> whether Dave Tholen likes it or not.

It's not a matter of like or dislike, Curtis.  You're ignoring the
truth.  How ironic.

>>> How does it, in any way, disprove that JAVAINUF.EXE can be examined,
>>> and its contents extracted, by a tool such as WinZip?

>> Why do I need to disprove it, Curtis?

> To save face, Tholen,

Why do I need to save face, Curtis?

> but you are failing miserably.

I'm not trying, Curtis.

>>> And what is the basis for your implied claim that *your* copy of
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE could not be examined by WinZip, nor its contents
>>> extracted?

>> I already answered that question, Curtis.  Having more reading
>> comprehension problems?

> You stated some riddle about WinZip's inability to "make bytes
> magically appear," but that's hardly an answer.

It's no riddle, Curtis, and it *is* an answer.  You simly haven't
bothered to comprehend it yet, and your arrogance has so far kept
you from asking for the help you apparently need.

> -- snip --

>>>>> So, which is it, Dave? It has to be one or the other. Take your pick.

>>>> I've already made my choice clear, Curtis.

>>> Okay . . .

>> That doesn't indicate whether you understand my choice, Curtis.

> You're right. It doesn't.

Glad you agree, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> But, you must find some way to keep avoiding the admission of your
>>> error, so I guess we will argue over the definition of "invective" for
>>> now, eh?

>> If you don't want to argue about that, Curtis, simply discontinue your
>> use of invective.  It's that easy.

> Considering that I haven't used invective,

Incorrect, Curtis.  Better consult that dictionary again.

> yet you feel compelled to insist that I have,

That's because you have, where I've indicated as such with my responses.

> and likewise feel compelled to argue over its definition,

You're the one who doesn't understand what it is, Curtis.

> I observe that it is, in fact, not that easy.

You haven't tried discontinuing it yet, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>>> I see you didn't answer the question.

>>> I was in the process thereof, Dave.

>> I examined your process, Curtis, and no meaningful answer was provided.

> Just because you cannot fathom the meaning of an answer, it does not
> follow that there is no meaning.

Just because you claim there is meaning to an answer, it does not follow
that there is meaning relevant to the question that was asked.

>>>>> You goofed (again).

>>>> Illogical, Curtis.  I was hypothesizing a situation and asking you a
>>>> question.  There is no "goof" involved.

>> Note:  no response.

> Okay, here's your response:
>
> You goofed in presenting the question in a vacuum,

What alleged "vacuum", Curtis?

> going so far as to not mention which "unzipper" I am supposed to use,

That was intentional, Curtis, so that you wouldn't jump to conclusions.
Unfortunately, that didn't stop you from jumping to conclusions anyway.

> in spite of the fact that InfoZip is the unzipper in question.

I was being more generic than that, Curtis.  WinZip could be the
unzipper in question.

> -- [snip of Tholen Denials] --

What alleged denials, Curtis?

>>> No, the hypothetical situation above is contrived to lead me where *you*
>>> want me to go.

>> On the contrary, you've already gone there, Curtis.  I'm simply trying to
>> establish the means by which you got there already.  I've yet to see any
>> logical process.

> I've already gone where, Dave?

Down the path, Curtis.

> The scenario discusses running ABC.EXE in DOS, getting a "This program
> must me run in OS/2" message, then proceeding to use "an unzipper" on
> ABC.EXE.

I'm well aware of what the scenario discusses, Curtis.

> I have not done any of those things,

You have followed that path, Curtis.  I did not say you did those
things.

> so explain your claim that "I've already gone there."

See above, Curtis.

> If you can.

I can.  See above, Curtis.

>>> I am supposed to answer in such a way that it would support your
>>> argument, such as it is.

>> You are supposed to answer in a truthful way, Curtis.  If the truth
>> happens to support my argument, so what?  Why suppress the truth?

> And I did answer it in a truthful way:

You answered by telling me what you would *not* conclude, but I didn't
ask you what you would *not* conclude.  You're also supposed to answer
in a relevant way, Curtis.

> I would not run ABC.EXE in DOS,

Irrelevant, Curtis.

> since I already know that it's an OS/2 self extracting archive.

I didn't specify that in my scenario, Curtis.

> But, even if I did go that far down *your* path, I would not then use
> "an unzipper" to try and extract the contents of ABC.EXE; I would simply
> execute the program in an OS/2 session and be done with it.

Why not, if somebody told you they were able to unzip it?

> Because of this, I wouldn't necessarily *conclude* anything, Dave.

But you already have, Curtis.

> Therefore, I presented you with things that I definitely would *not*
> conclude.

Therefore evading the question.

> How else am I suppose to answer your scenario?

The way you originally did, but this time with some reasoning to
justify the conclusion.

> Lie?

You did once already.

> -- [snip of Tholen's unsubstantiated claims] --

What allegedly unsubstantiated claims, Curtis?

>>> One problem is that you brought up the InfoZip aspect ***AFTER***
>>> somebody claimed they used WinZip,

>> That's the motivation for trying InfoZip in the first place, Curtis.
>> You asked for why one would even try running InfoZip on ABC.EXE, and
>> I told you.

> But that's illogical,

Incorrect.

> considering that nobody else claimed to have used that particular tool,

Irrelevant, given that an unzip tool should unzip a zip archive,
Curtis, especially when that tool has been used successfully to unzip
other zip archives.

> but used WinZip instead.

Irrelevant, given that it can't do any better.

>>> the purpose of which was to try and discredit the use of WinZip.

>> Incorrect, Curtis.  The purpose was to verify the results.  The
>> results were not verified.

> Because you used the wrong tool.

Balderdash.  Since when is an unzipper the wrong tool to unzip a zip
archive, Curtis?

> Really. You are supposed to be a scientist.

And what are you, Curtis?  And where do you get this "supposed to be"
nonsense?

> When verifying another scientist's experiment, does it not make
> sense to duplicate the other scientist's environment as faithfully
> as possible?

That depends on what you consider a "faithful duplication".  If one
experiment reports a 3 volt potential, one could verify that result
using either a Simpson voltmeter or a Fluke voltmeter, for example,
but is it really necessary to find out which brand of voltmeter the
original experimenter used?  After all, a voltmeter known to be in
working condition should produce a useful result, eh Curtis?

> If you don't, then how much faith can you have in the results of
> your verification?

That depends on what you consider a "faithful duplication".  See above
for an example.

> Using InfoZip when I, Marty and Mike used WinZip is not very
> scientific.

Illogical, Curtis.  See above for an example.  Furthermore, WinZip
won't work any better on my copy of the javainuf.exe file.

>>> Since that failed, you now cling to this idea that your copy of
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE is somehow different from Mike Timbol's and mine,

>> It's not an idea, Curtis.  It happens to be the truth.

> Prove it, then.

Simple:  the file length isn't the same.

>>> and that this difference renders you free of error.

>> It does, Curtis.

> No, it cannot, because your claim is that one has to run OS/2 in
> order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Curtis?

> a claim which has been soundly disproved using WinZip on JAVAINUF.EXE
> in three different instances,

None of them used the same file that I did, Curtis.

> the "fact" that WinZip would choke on your "version" of JAVAINUF.EXE
> notwithstanding.

Notwithstanding a failure of WinZip?

>>> Like I said: Desperate.

>> How ironic, coming from someone so desperate to hang the "inept"
>> tag on me that you "ineptly" failed to consider other possibilities.

> And you failed to tell us what those "other possibilities" are,

Incorrect, Curtis.  You simply failed to comprehend another possibility,
calling it a "riddle".

> or how they're relevant.

The relevance ought to be obvious, Curtis.

> Sounds pretty inept to me.

The fact that you would need to have the relevance of a possibility
explained to you is pretty inept.

> Of course, you will now claim that you *have* told us what those "other
> possibilities" are, yes?

Of course I will, given that I have.  Just because you can't comprehend
it doesn't mean I haven't done so.

>> Why do you think I asked you how someone can be "inept" when
>> flipping a light switch and the light bulb happens to burn out?

> Typical inappropriate analogy.

What's allegedly inappropriate about it, Curtis?

> -- snip --

>>> But that doesn't explain why *you* would run it on a DOS platform.

>> DOS happens to be a non-OS/2 platform, Curtis.  Running it on an OS/2
>> platform won't generate the message.

> Why worry about generating the message?

Why not?

> Why not just run it in OS/2 and proceed to install it?

Because Timbol claims to be an NT user, Curtis.  You really are lost,
aren't you?

>>> Typical diversion.

>> On the contrary, it's simply your inability to follow the argument.

> My inability to "follow" a vacuous non argument.

What's allegedly "vacuous" about it, Curtis?

>>>>> when you already know that it's an OS/2-targetted self extracting
>>>>> archive.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 09:18:18
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: (2/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>>>> How would you know that, Curtis?  I've not said anything about the
>>>> target operating system for the hypothetical ABC.EXE.

>>> Then you admit that the scenario exist in a vacuum.

>> Illogical, given that I've made no such admission.

> Yes, you have.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  I've made no such
admission.  If you continue to disagree, present your evidence.

> You are just too stubborn or unaware or confused to
> realize it (and no, that is not invective).

I can't realize something that hasn't happened, Curtis.

>>> It cannot be otherwise, since you did know, a priori, that JAVAINUF.EXE
>>> was meant to be executed in OS/2, based on IBM's instructions.

>> Irrelevant, Curtis, as such knowledge doesn't affect my argument in
>> any way.

> Being that you have no argument to affect.

Incorrect, Curtis.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

>>>> You may have inferred that from the error message issued by the program,
>>>> but you wouldn't know that prior to your attempt to run the program.

>>> But, if I had read the instructions on the web site from which I
>>> downloaded ABC.EXE, I would know the expected platform.

>> Irrelevant, Curtis, as such knowledge doesn't affect my argument in
>> any way.

> Because you have no argument.

Incorrect, Curtis.  Having more reading comprehension problems?

> -- [more of Dave's denials snipped] --

What alleged "denials", Curtis?

>> Comfort, or lack thereof, is irrelevant, Curtis.  You're lying when you
>> say you're nailing the issue, given that you're avoiding it.

> Now you accuse me of lying.

That's because you didn't nail the issue, Curtis.

> The issue is that you haven't admitted that you were wrong when you
> stated that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE, and I certainly am not the one who's avoiding the issue.

The issue about which you are lying is your alleged "nailing" of the
issue.

> On the contrary, that would be you.

I've not said anything about "nailing" the issue, Curtis.  That would
be you.

> I am, OTOH, nailing the issue,

Still lying, I see.

> by reminding you of your error, and illustrating how irrelevant your
> scenario is in relation to the issue.

You've made no such illustration, Curtis.  Instead, you've simply
been pontificating about the alleged vacuum.

>>> but turning your head away and saying, "I don't see anything. Your
>>> avoiding the issue," won't make it go away.

>> I never said "I don't see anything", Curtis.  Having more reading
>> comprehension problems?  On the contrary, I'm seeing plenty, and
>> what I'm seeing represents you avoiding the question.

> Again. I did answer it.

On the contrary, you told me what you would *not* conclude, but I
didn't ask you what you would *not* conclude.

> You just choose to avoid the answer,

There is no answer to my question to avoid, Curtis.

> by claiming that it "isn't meaningful" or that I "didn't answer it."

Indeed it isn't meaningful to tell me what you would *not* conclude
when I didn't ask you about that.

>>>>> Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
>>>>> trying InfoZip on the file

>>>> Suppose somebody came along and said they were able to examine the
>>>> contents by using WinZip on ABC.EXE because the file is a zip
>>>> archive.

>>> If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
>>> then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
>>> allegedly used.

>> Why, Curtis, especially given the claims made about zip being a
>> standard archive format?

> And how logical is it to assume that all tools which access a given
> standard archive format are created equal, having equal capabilities?

Irrelevant, given that I didn't make that assumption, Curtis.

> Especially in light of the fact that different tools on the *same
> platform* exhibit varying levels of functionality/capability.

Do any of the different unzippers fail to unzip a zip archvie, Curtis?

> And how "scientific" is it to *not* use the same environment that Maty,
> Mike and I used when trying to verify our claim?

That depends on what you consider the "same environment".  If one
experiment reports a 3 volt potential, one could verify that result
using either a Simpson voltmeter or a Fluke voltmeter, for example,
but is it really necessary to find out which brand of voltmeter the
original experimenter used?  After all, a voltmeter known to be in
working condition should produce a useful result, eh Curtis?

And suppose you did use the same brand of voltmeter, but it's one of
the newer variety that requires batteries to run.  Are you going to
make sure that your voltmeter uses the exact same brand of battery?

What next, duplicating the room temperature and relative humidity?
Air pressure?  Terrestrial magnetic field?

Clearly, at some point a real scientist is going to know when it
becomes ridiculous to try to use the "same environment".  Obviously
you don't know how to do "scientific" work.

>> If I sent you a tar file prepared on a Solaris system,
>> would you run off to a Solaris system to extract it, knowing that
>> you had a utility designed to extract a tar file for your particular
>> non-Solaris operating system?

>> Of course, I asked you that question once already, and you avoided
>> an answer by calling it "contrived".

> No, I didn't avoid it at all.

Then why didn't you tell me your conclusion?

> I answered it,

By telling me what you would *not* conclude???  How is that an answer,
Curtis?

> in spite of the fact that it was contrived.

On what basis do you call it "contrived", Curtis?

>>>>> in OS/2, especially in light of the fact that other people said
>>>>> that they used a different tool altogether (i.e., WinZip) to
>>>>> extract the contents thereof on a **NON-OS/2** platform.

>>>> If it's a zip archive, Curtis, then why shouldn't one expect InfoZip
>>>> to handle it?

>>> Whether one should expect InfoZip to handle JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) is
>>> not the issue.

>> Then why did you ask me:
>>
>> CB] Furthermore, one must question why you would follow that up by
>> CB] trying InfoZip on the file

> Precisely because whether one should expect InfoZip to handle
> JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) is not the issue,

Then why did you bring it up, Curtis?

> in light of the fact that Mike, Marty and I didn't use InfoZip to
> support our claim.

Marty used InfoZip, Curtis.

> Ergo, one must, in fact, question why someone *would* use it.

Why?  Would you question why someone would use a Fluke voltmeter when
the experiment you're trying to verify used a Simpson voltmeter?

>>> The issue is that WinZip *can* handle it,

>> You're erroneously presupposing that WinZip can handle it, Curtis.

> You have got to be kidding!

Not at all, Curtis.

> Considering that I did extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using
> WinZip,

You didn't extract the contents of my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> how can my claim that WinZip can handle JAVAINUF.EXE be either
> "erroneous" or an "assumption?"

Because you didn't extract the contents of my copy of javainuf.exe,
Curtis.  My copy is what "it" refers to.

> Right. Your copy is somehow immune,

I never called it "immune", Curtis.

> and that somehow invalidates the *fact* that I did extract the
> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip, as did Marty and Mike.

None of you used my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> Three against one,

None of you used my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> yet *I* am the one who is "naive" or "overlooking possibilities"
> or whatever.

Precisely.

> Karel, this is why people resort to invective.

Yep; they're too arrogant to admit that they've overlooked
something, so they start hurling insults.

> It's like arguing with the proverbial Brick Wall.

Illogical, given that the proverbial Brick Wall hasn't been
telling you why you're wrong.

> And no, that is not invective, but an accurate analogy.

Still haven't learned the definition of the word, have you, Curtis?
That's what you would call "inept".

>>> people have *told* you it can,

>> They didn't try it with my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

>>> yet you continue to avoiding the admission that it can.

>> That's because it can't handle my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> Then I would submit that your copy is defective.

Bingo!  Now, what took so long?  I reached that conclusion long ago,
while you were hurling invective with your "inept" conclusion.

> Just like your arguments.

What allegedly defective arguments, Curtis?

> -- [Dave's accusing me of not answering another vacuous scenario
> snipped] --

What allegedly "vacuous scenario", Curtis?

>>> But, to answer your question above, if I were trying to disprove the
>>> claim that somebody in Windows could examine the tar file, I would
>>> indeed try to verify that myself on a Windows system.

>> CB] If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
>> CB] then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
>> CB] allegedly used.
>>
>> The platform used was Solaris, Curtis.

> No, Solaris maps to OS/2 in this scenario.

Incorrect, Curtis.

> JAVAINUF.EXE was targeted to OS/2, remember?

I'm talking about ABC.EXE, Curtis, for which no platform was indicated
(until after the error message was generated).

> And the TAR file was "prepared" on Solaris, which again
> maps to JAVAINUF.EXE (or ABC.EXE) being targeted to OS/2.

Incorrect, Curtis.

>>> I would ***NOT*** trot out some Solaris tool,

>> CB] If I were trying to "prove" that they were wrong (for whatever reason),
>> CB] then I would use the tool they allegedly used, on the platform they
>> CB] allegedly used.
>>
>> The platform used was Solaris, Curtis.

> See above.

See my response above.

> Repeating things won't change the fact that you are again confused.

On what basis do you call it a "fact", Curtis?  Meanwhile, you are the
one who is confused.

>>> let it choke, and trumpet that as "evidence" that the Windows users
>>> couldn't examine the file's contents.

>> On what basis do you write "let it" choke, Curtis?

> On the basis that InfoZip running on OS/2 (which maps to Solaris in the
> current contrived scenario) choked on JAVAINUF.EXE.

There's nothing wrong with InfoZip, Curtis.  And you've still got the
mapping wrong.

> Why do you require so much hand holding, Dave?

What alleged "hand holding", Curtis?  How ironic, coming from the person
whose hand had to held for several days before the real problem even
occurred to him.

> You are supposed to be smarter than this.

I'm definitely smarter than what you've been indicating.

>>> But, I have already explained that.

>> Inconsistently.  See above.

> Okay. I'm looking . . . yup, I nailed it,

Yet another lie.

> but you didn't (perhaps couldn't) comprehend my explanation

I comprehended the inconsistency of your explanation just fine, Curtis.

>-- [more of Dave's evasive nonsense snipped] --

What allegedly "evasive nonsense", Curtis?

>>>>> But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that I did do the above.
>>>>> What I certainly would ***NOT*** do is deny the possibility that other
>>>>> tools on other platforms *could* have extracted the contents of the
>>>>> archive,

>>>> Why not, Curtis?

>>> Because it wouldn't be logical to assume that all such tools are created
>>> equal, and have identical sets of functionality, especially considering
>>> that InfoZip and PKZIP (the OS/2 version) differ in functionality
>>> themselves.

>> Irrelevant, given that one doesn't require identifical functionality,
>> but only sufficient functionality.

> Still looking for logic on Dave's part . . . and finding none.

You're obviously not looking properly, Curtis.

> Obviously, InfoZip lacks that "sufficient functionality,"

Wrong again, Curtis.

> but WinZip doesn't.

WinZip can't do any better than InfoZip on my copy of javainuf.exe,
Curtis.

>>> I guess that, perhaps, if I were blatantly naive, I would make that
>>> mistake.

>> You've made other blatantly naive mistakes, Curtis.

> Then kindly point them out.

You concluded that I'm "inept", for one example.  You called your
response about what you would *not* conclude an "answer" to my
question about what you *would* conclude, for another example.

> Go ahead. I'm waiting.

You concluded that I'm "inept", for one example.  You called your
response about what you would *not* conclude an "answer" to my
question about what you *would* conclude, for another example.

> Can't, can you?

You concluded that I'm "inept", for one example.  You called your
response about what you would *not* conclude an "answer" to my
question about what you *would* conclude, for another example.

> -- snip --

>>> IOW, you still neglected to admit your error, and continue to do so,
>>> under the guise that your JAVAINUF.EXE file is somehow different from
>>> ours,

>> It's not guise, Curtis.  It happens to be the truth.

> It may be the truth, but it's still irrelevant to your erroneous claim
> that one has to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE.

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Curtis?

> I remember your attempt at chastising me over my use of the word
> "anything" when I put forth the claim that you "don't get the gist of
> anything," accusing me of speaking in universal terms.

That's because you were, Curtis.

> Well, by pointing to your specific copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, telling us
> that its contents absolutely cannot be extracted by WinZip,

It absolutely cannot, Curtis.

> and that therefore frees you from your erroneous statement that one
> had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Curtis?

> you are also speaking universally, by projecting your copy of
> JAVAINUF.EXE into everyone else's reality,

It did come from the same source, Curtis, as you've pointed out.
Clearly you expected it to be the same.

> and are therefore just as guilty of that particular error as you
> accuse me of being.

I never said anything about you failing the understand the gist of
anything, Curtis.

>>> and that difference liberates you from your position of error.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 09:18:18
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: (3/3) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

>> It does, Curtis.  Your problem is the way you jump to conclusions,
>> especially those that give you the opportunity to spew invective.

> More errors on your part,

Incorrect, Curtis.

> for I have yet to "spew invective"

Yet another lie.

> or to "jump to conclusions."

Yet another lie.

>>>>> Another thing that I certainly would ***NOT*** do is repetitiously post
>>>>> my failed attempts at using InfoZip in a lame attempt to disprove claims
>>>>> that WinZip *could* extract the contents of the archive in question:

>>>> Irrelevant, Curtis; that has nothing to do with the requested conclusion.

>>> My apologies for not staying inside of your contrived, vacuous box.

>> What allegedly "contrived, vacuous box", Curtis?

> The one I refuse to stay in, of course.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of some "contrived, vacuous
box", Curtis.

>-- snip --

>>> You haven't even admitted your error, so you will excuse me if I
>>> consider your credibility to be under par.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who still hasn't even admitted his
>> error about "the gist of anything".  Using your own standards, readers
>> can consider your credibility to be under par.

> If my use of "the gist of anything" is in error,

It is.

> then so is your contention that your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE liberates you
> from your position of error,

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Curtis?

> for precisely the same reason.

Illogical, Curtis, given that the situations are not sufficiently similar
to claim that the reasons are the same.

>>>>> an assertion I made a little over one year ago.

>>>> And still haven't substantiated.  Why do people like you and Marty like
>>>> to write in universal terms, such as "anything"?  That approach has
>>>> gotten Marty into trouble, and you're in trouble for the same reason.
>>>> Your claim requires knowledge of everything that has been made available
>>>> for me to ascertain the "gist of".

>>> I guess you don't understand colloquialism.

>> I guess you don't understand the universal claim.

> What you can guess is irrelevant, Dave. What you can prove is relevant.

I can prove that I do get the gist of most things, contrary to your
claim.

> Can you prove that, universally, WinZip is unable to extract the
> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE based on the alleged fact that it cannot
> extract the contents of your specific copy?

I can prove that WinZip cannot extract the contents of my copy of
javainuf.exe, Curtis.  It's not clear what you mean by "universally",
as all copies of WinZip will fail.

>>> Or context.

>> I guess you don't understand what substantiation is.

> On the contrary, I have been posting it in volumes.

Pontification is not substantiation, Curtis.

> You simply ignore it,

I can't ignore what isn't there, Curtis.

> or dodge it,

I can't dodge what isn't there, Curtis.

> or claim it's irrelevant,

Irrelevant text doesn't substantiate a claim, Curtis.

> but neglect to accept it.

There's no substantiation to accept, Curtis.

>>>>> It's laughable that he would actually respond to the rhetorical
>>>>> question with a serious response,

>>>> It's laughable that you would make universal claims, Curtis.  How
>>>> ironic.  Now, what makes your question "rhetorical"?

> As laughable as your universal claim, Dave?

What happened to the intermediate text, Curtis?  Selective editing
for effect?

> -- snip --

>>> Yup, you got me there. I indeed *could* do that, but I have no need,

>> Indeed, you have no need, but that hasn't stopped you.

> Have you stopped beating your wife, Dave?

Illogical, Curtis.

>>> so I would not do such a thing.

>> Too late; you already have.

> Kindly point out where, without the game playing.

What alleged "game playing", Curtis?

>>>>> apparently ignoring the context in which the question was asked.)

>>>> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
>>>> relevant.

>>> But, as I've explained, I have proven your error.

>> Where did you prove that I ignored the context in which the question
>> was asked, Curtis?

> That isn't the error to which I was referring, Dave.

Incorrect, Curtis.  Follow the exchanges directly above.

> I was referring to another one of your errors.

Illogical, given that there is no clear reference to such in the
exchange above.

> -- snip --

>>>>>> I am not quite naive to think that WinZip would not successfully
>>>>>> extract my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Curtis.

>>>>> On *your* copy?

>>>> Having trouble being certain of what I wrote, Curtis?

>>> Having trouble believing it, yes.

>> That's your problem, Curtis.

> If it were a "problem" I would agree.

It is, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> Look it up in that fancy dictionary of your.

>> That won't help, Curtis, as there are several definitions, and my
>> dictionary won't tell me which one you're using.

> Using context, you could infer the correct definition.

After you snipped the context?

> After all, you have in the past determined "correct" interpretations
> of what people wrote with far less.

Incorrect, given that you can't have "far less" than zero.

> -- snip --

>>>>> Feel free to elaborate.

>>>> Sure thing, after you meaningfully answer the question:

> I have, here and elsewhere.

What happened to the intermediate text, Curtis?  More selective editing
for effect?

> -- snip --

>>> You're bluffing, Dave,

>> Wrong again, Curtis.

>>> and I'm not buying.

>> Must be worried then.  It's when one is confident that the opponent is
>> bluffing that they continue to buy into the hand.

> Believe what you will. This isn't the first time you've misinterpreted
> what I wrote.

I didn't misinterpret what you wrote, Curtis.  You clearly indicated that
you're not buying.

> What I meant was that I am not buying your story that you actually have
> anything on which to elaborate.

That's not what you wrote, Curtis.  You made no reference to any story;
you made reference to "bluffing" and proceeded to state that you're not
buying.

> -- snip --

>>>> What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.  What you can prove is
>>>> relevant.

>>> Yeah, gee golly.  Like I indicated earlier, proof itself is irrelevant
>>> in the face if ignorance/obstinance.

>> In which case I don't need to prove anything to you, Curtis.

> You have no need to prove anything to me in any case, Dave, my alleged
> "ignorance/obstinance" notwithstanding.

Then why do you keep asking for proof?

> OTOH, I have yet to see anything which even resembles credible evidence
> from you,

Try opening your eyes, Curtis.

> let alone "proof,"

Try opening your eyes, Curtis.

> whereas I have proven than WinZip can indeed extract the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE

You didn't use my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.  How ironic, coming from
someone who criticized me for not duplicating the "same environment",
yet here you are, using a different file.

> (even though it, supposedly, cannot do so on *your* copy - LOL!).

It can't, Curtis, given that it can't make bytes magically appear.

> -- snip --

>>> Well? Am I getting warm, Dave?

>> Why do you ask, Curtis, given your insistence that there is no other
>> possibility?

> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

Obviously not, Curtis.

> I revised my statement to "no relevant possibility."

My response still applies, Curtis, given that a relevant possibility
exists.

> I ask if I am getting closer to your *irrelevant* possibility,
> that's all.

You're erroneously presupposing the existence of my "irrelevant
possibility".

> -- snip --

>>>> Watching you avoid answering my question about what you would conclude
>>>> indicates that you're worried about having overlooked something.

>>> I've answered it.

>> On the contrary, you told me what you wouldn't conclude.  But I didn't
>> ask about what you wouldn't conclude.

> As I've stated elsewhere, I would be unable to conclude anything because

Incorrect, given that you already did reach a conclusion, Curtis.

> I wouldn't have gone through that scenario (your claims that I "already
> have" notwithstanding).

The fact that you concluded that I am "inept" in dealing with an analogous
scenario proves that you did go through that scenario, Curtis.

> -- [remainder of Dave's repetitious denials and unsubstantiated claims
> snipped] --

What allegedly "repetitious denials and unsubstantiated claims", Curtis?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 09:33:04
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>>>> Nor does it need to.

>>>> On the contrary, it does.

>>> Explain why.

>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.

> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
> some other way,

I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.

> but you did not realize it at first?

Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
claimed that you looked at its contents.

> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?

It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
copy.  Interestingly enough, it also couldn't be unzipped with InfoZip,
but the file size was indeed different.  So I downloaded a third copy,
and it also had yet a third unique file size.  A fourth download, and
a fourth unique file size.  A fifth download, and that file size
matched the third download.

Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it makes
OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
from people in this newsgroup.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 10:26:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>> Again, you're resorting to the earlier, incorrect description.  The n
>>>>>>> ewer description is more accurate.  I've referred to the newer 
>>>>>>> description several times.  I'll do so again here:

>>>>>> Unnecessary, Mike.

>>>>> I see you're conceding defeat on this point as well.  You present the 
>>>>> earlier, incorrect description, which I've refuted several times based 
>>>>> on the contents of the JDK, and based on IBM's newer, more accurate 
>>>>> description.

>>>> What makes it allegedly more accurate, Mike?

>>> The fact that it is closer to reality than the outdated description
>>> you like to use (and which you have chosen to post three *more* times).

>> What makes it allegedly closer to reality, Mike?

> Tell me, Dave, if you claim San Francisco is in Montana, and I tell you
> that San Francisco is in California, what makes my claim closer to
> reality?

Tell me, Mike, if you claim Moscow is in Russia, and I tell you that
Moscow is in Idaho, what makes your claim closer to reality?

>>>>> You refuse to address that at all,

>>>> On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to substantiate your
>>>> claim.

>>> I've already done so several times, in part by posting the new 
>>> description which you continutally delete without addressing.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who continutally [sic] deletes the
>> proof that my original response was so short because *you* deleted
>> most of Joseph's article.

> On the contrary, I've addressed that several times.

By trying to divert attention away from the relevant postings.

> Each time, you've deleted my explanation,

You mean your attempted diversion.

> and simply reiterated your incorrect argument.  

There's nothing incorrect about my argument, Mike, given that it
consists of three articles in their entirety.

> I'll refresh your memory below.

You mean you'll try your diversionary tactic again.

>>>>> instead choosing to delete it
>>>>> and merely repeat your incorrect description four more times.

>>>> What's allegedly incorrect about my description, Mike?

>>> The fact that what it claims is untrue.  It claims the JDK includes 
>>> "Java 2 security classes", when it does not.  When presented with 
>>> this fact, you merely point back to the original, incorrect claim as 
>>> "proof" that "Java 2 security classes" are included.

>> What's allegedly incorrect about it, Mike?

> What's allegedly incorrect about the claim that San Francisco is in 
> Montana?

What's allegedly incorrect about the claim that Moscow is in Idaho?

>>> Circular logic.

>> Nothing circular about it, Mike.  I'm pointing directly to evidence,

> ....and when I explain that it's wrong, you merely point back to the
> original "evidence".

Which shows that it's not wrong, Mike.

> That's circular.

What's allegedly circular about the evidence that you are wrong, Mike?

> Amazing that you don't understand this.

Amazing that you don't understand what circular reasoning is.

> It's like pointing to an early atlas that has a misprint, accidently 
> labeling a city in Montana as "San Francisco".

It's not like that at all, Mike.  You're erroneously presupposing the
existence of a misprint in that "atlas".

> When I point out that it is incorrect,

You're pontificating that it is incorrect, Mike.

> you refuse to believe me,

Why should I believe in your pontification, Mike?

> pointing back to your mistaken atlas as "proof".

What is allegedly mistaken about my "atlas", Mike?

>> while you simply pontificate that it is wrong, and try to use a
>> semantic argument over what is "in" the JDK to justify ignoring the
>> Java 2 security classes.

> When I tell you that San Francisco is not in Montana, that's not 
> pontification.

Yes it is, Mike, given that you haven't provided any evidence.

>>> Note that the description you present differs from the description
>>> IBM has available on their web site.  Note that the description I 
>>> present, from IBM's web site, is more recent than the one you cling to.
>>> Yet, for obvious and pathetic reasons, you favor the first description.

>> What's allegedly "pathetic" about my reasons, Mike?

> The fact that you cling to the earlier description because you think
> it makes you look like you actually have an argument,

What you think I think is irrelevant, Mike.  I know I have an argument.

> when you clearly don't.

Yet another example of your pontification.

>>>>>>>>> "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

>>>>>>>> In IBM's words:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
>>>>>>>> ] applets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
>>>>>>>> browsing, Mike.

>>>>>>> Incorrect, Dave; one does not execute Java applications when browsing.

>>>>>> Balderdash, Mike.  I've executed Java applications when browsing on
>>>>>> several occasions.

>>>>> Tell me, then, the web page which contains one of these "Java 
>>>>> applications" that you've executed while browsing.

>>>> Baseball season is over, Mike.  It'll be a few months before they use
>>>> GameCast for baseball games again.

>>> Then name another one.  Or is that the only page you can name that you 
>>> claim contains "Java applications" that you execute while browsing?  

>> Irrelevant, given that one is sufficient, Mike.

> I'll just note that you're refusing to substantiate you claim,

How is the providing of an example a "refusal", Mike?

> probably because someone more clued in than you told you your claim
> is wrong.

Nobody told me that my claim is wrong, Mike.  Why should anyone?

>>> Convienient that the single example you name can't be verified, eh?

>> Sure it can be, Mike.  Wait until next season.

> Fairly transparent tactic, Dave.

It's not a tactic, Mike, but rather the truth.

> I'll just point out, again, that you do not run Java applications
> while browsing,

Sure I do, Mike.  GameCast, for example, comes up in a separate window,
which allows me to continue browsing while it runs.  Even if it didn't
launch a separate window, I could launch a separate instance of Netscape.

> thus your claim is, once again, incorrect.

Yet another example of your pontification, Mike.

> It's Java applets which are run in browsers, not applications.

It figures you'd rely on yet another semantic argument.  Too embarassed
to admit that I was right, Mike?  After all, I did originally write:

] In IBM's words:
]
] ] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
] ] applets.
]
] Most people encounter those Java applications and applets when
] browsing, Mike.

> If GameCast is written in Java, and it runs in your browser, it is
> an applet.

It launches a separate window, Mike, so I could turn the tables on you
and use a semantic argument to claim that it isn't "in" the browser.
Clearly you're engaging in this semantic argument to divert attention
away from the issue, just like you did last time.  Just more USENET
"entertainment" for you, eh Mike?

> I'm now waiting for you to claim that this is merely a "semantic
> argument"

Obviously it is, Mike.

> since you clearly don't understand the difference between Java applets
> and applications.

I wasn't trying to indicate the difference between applets and
applications, Mike, thus there is no "understanding" of mine to
evaluate.  I was simply answering your question:

MT] "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

Obviously the runtime environment can be utilized when browsing, as
you've just admitted, indirectly, by claiming that applets run in
browsers, and by referring to IBM's statement:

] A Runtime package is required to execute Java applications and
] applets.

So why did you even bother to ask:

MT] "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

Showing off your own ignorance, Mike?

>>>>>>> Come up with some new evidence, Dave -- all you're doing right now
>>>>>>> is repeating your incorrect claims.

>>>>>> I'm responding to your repeated incorrect claims, Mike. 

>>>>> Yet all of my claims are correct, based on IBM's up-to-date description 
>>>>> of the JDK, plus the contents of the actual JDK itself.  

>>>> IBM did not describe javainuf.exe as the JDK, Mike.

>>> Here's how IBM *did* describe their JDK:
>>>
>>>  IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8
>>>  incorporates the latest IBM JIT 3.5 compiler technology with MMI 
>>>  function. New to this release are security enhancements based on the 
>>>  Java 2 security model; Swing, Supported by IBM; RMI-IIOP, Supported by 
>>>  IBM; and the Java COMM API for OS/2 providing serial and parallel device
>>>  support and enabling JavaPOS and JavaXFS. 
>>>
>>>  Updated 07/30/99 
>>>
>>> Note a number of things:

>>>  1. "security enhancements based on the Java 2 security model" *not*
>>>     "Java 2 security classes".

>> What's the significance of the difference, Mike?  

> The significance is that the newer version is correct, wherease the earlier
> version is not.

On what basis do you claim that the earlier version is not correct, Mike?

> You've had every opportunity to simply name one of the "Java 2 security
> classes" allegedly included, yet you could not do so.

Incorrect, Mike:

DT] Invoking com.ibm.security12.sun.misc.Main instantiates the aid's version
DT] of the 1.2 sun.misc.Launcher class

>> If I refer to something
>> as an asteroid in one abstract and as a minor planet in another abstract,
>> are you going to attach some significance to that difference?

> Typical Tholen inappropriate analogy.

What's allegedly inappropriate about it, Mike?

> Suppose you refer to it as a piece of fruit in one abstract, then as a
> minor planet in the current abstract.

Now *that's* an inappropriate analogy, given that I haven't referred to
it as a piece of fruit in one abstract.

>>>  2. "Java 2" clearly refers to the "security model", and *ONLY* the
>>>     security model.  It clearly does *not* refer to "Swing", "RMI-IIOP",
>>>     and "the Java COMM API".  Those are *not* Java 2 features.

>> Are you claiming that there have been no changes to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and
>> COMM between 1.1.8 and 1.2, Mike?

> Does it look like I'm claiming that?

Either that, or that IBM's Swing, RMI-IIOP, and COMM don't include some
of those changes.

>>>  3. "Updated 07/30/99", which is more recent than the newsgroup article
>>>     you refer to.

>> So what, Mike?  The abstracts in my journal publications are usually
>> more recent than the ones prepared for meetings.  What does that
>> prove?

> It proves that your analogy has nothing to do with the case at hand.

How does it allegedly do that, Mike?

>>> Why is this description more accurate than the one you cling to?
>>> Because the JDK does not contain "Java 2 security classes",
>>> nor does it contain "Java 2 versions" of the other named features.

>> Are you claiming that there have been no changes to Swing, RMI-IIOP, and
>> COMM between 1.1.8 and 1.2, Mike?

> Again, I see you have no argument.

Again, I see you can't comprehend my argument.

> I'm curious, Dave: If you were a rational person, what would you accept
> as evidence for the following items:
>
>  1. There are no "Java 2 security classes" in IBM's JDK 1.1.8.

A statement from IBM claiming that there are no "Java 2 security
classes" in IBM's JDK 1.1.8.  I already have one that states the
opposite.

>  2. There are no "Java 2 versions" of Swing, RMI-IIOP, and the COMM
>     API in IBM's JDK 1.1.8.

A statement from IBM claiming that there is no new functionality
in any of those corresponding to the new functionality provided in
the Java 2 versions of those.

>  3. Java applications are not run while browsing.

Amazing that you want to continue your semantic argument.  GameCast
doesn't run "in" the browser, Mike.  Two can use the same tactic,
Mike.

>  4. You do *not* need to be running OS/2 to examine the contents of
>     javainuf.exe in a meaningful fashion.

javainuf.exe isn't the JDK, Mike.

> I eagerly await your response, since it will undoubtedly save me much 
> time in the future.

If you're so interested in saving time, Mike, why persist with your
use of USENET for entertainment purposes?  Why not simply retract your
"bullshit" response to Joseph?  After all, you already did admit that
"some" Java 1.2 functionality was implemented in OS/2 Java 1.1.8.
The only logical reason you could have for not retracting your
"bullshit" response is if you want to illogically claim that Joseph
meant "all" functionality.

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
>> MT] you deleted it,
>>
>> DT] I never deleted that section, Mike
>>
>> MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
>> MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.
>>
>> Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
>> its entirety:

> Note the fatal flaw of Dave's manufactured response here:

I didn't manufacture any response, Mike.  You can find the quoted
articles at deja.com.

> He reproduces a small exchange, takes it completely out of context,

How did I allegedly take it completely out of context, Mike?

> and claims that *I* am referring to the posts *he* indicates.

You are referring to the posts that I indicated, Mike.

> This is clearly wrong...

On your part, Mike.

>>> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

>> Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
>> appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
>> another one of your lies.

> In fact, there is a clear indication that I am *not* referring to 
> the posts he indicates,

Having been proven that you are wrong, you tried to find a way to save
face, so you started referring to some other article rather than the
original one, despite the fact that I didn't get involved in the
discussion on the basis of that other article.

> since I had included an excerpt of the post I *am* referring to

Having been proven that you are wrong, you tried to find a way to save
face, so you started referring to some other article rather than the
original one, despite the fact that I didn't get involved in the
discussion on the basis of that other article.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 10:26:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> (which was, in fact, preserved in the article from which Dave
> extracted the exchange above), which does not exist in the posts
> Dave claims I am referring to.

Of course the excerpt does not exist in the posts to which you
should be referring to, because they came earlier.  I didn't get
involved in the discussion on the basis of your later response to
Joseph, Mike.  I simply noted that you continued to deny the
existence of Java 1.2 functionality in the OS/2 Java 1.1.8
implementation, despite the evidence I had provided following
your "bullshit" response.

>   Mike: "Yes, officer, I saw that man do it."  (Points to the red-haired
>         man on the right)  "The guy with the red hair."
>
>   Dave: "Mike is clearly lying!  This man could not have done it!"
>         (Points to the brown-haired man on the left)  "He doesn't even 
>         have red hair!"
>
> What's wrong with this picture?

The inappropriateness of your analogy, that's what.  Here, let's
restore the entire evidence:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 10:52:20
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451488

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty recently claimed that he would stick to the issue so that I
couldn't accuse him of playing an "infantile game", yet not only did
he not stick to the issue, he has responded with the Eliza lines:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
"Are you sure those are Eliza's?"

For further evidence that he is indeed playing an "infantile game",
note how he quoted nearly 2000 lines but added only a single new line.
Time to digestify his postings.

1> I see you've decided to loose this argument.

How does one "loose" an argument, Marty?

2> It becomes my example when I change its meaning.  If you used unzip,
2> what would you have concluded?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> Typical pontification.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> Incorrect.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

3> That's something you have to ask yourself.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> See below.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> There was none, as the replies were inappropriate.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Then what do you call the material quoted above?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Yeah, you don't seem to mind your own.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> What's allegedly illogical about it Dave?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

5> You got it.  Dave still doesn't.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> Yes, but not all is known about some of the CPUs emulated.

 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> If it is running in MAME, it has to because it cannot execute natively.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> Your loss, I suppose.  What functionality is it allegedly missing?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> MAME is the core of MESS.  MESS contains several "driver" additions
6> putting the various pieces of MAME together in such a way that consoles
6> and PCs can be emulated.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> I said that my interest was threefold, and that the game aspect is
6> independent of the other two.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> Synthetic Audio Library, and a few old DOS proggies of mine that I never
6> released.  I've also ported and never released Retrocade, but that is
6> another arcade emulator.  In addition, I've created my own (not ported)
6> audio mixer from scratch which is currently used by MAME and will
6> eventually be used to implement DirectSound in OS/2.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> Not with the other two aspects.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> Whenever I can and desire to do so.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> Irrelevant.  I see you failed to answer the question.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> Irrelevant.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> Incorrect, as this demonstrates a reason that I do not dislike PacMan
6> and therefore would not insult him.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> Already have.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
6> And it is, as I have already stated.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> Such as?  I told you I'm really bad at infantile guessing games.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
7> In what way?  Time to put your cards out on the table so we can laugh
7> at your pair of 2's.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> Perhaps you can send one of us "your" copy so we can see for ourselves
7> how "different" it allegedly is.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> That which you continue to promulgate.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
7> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish
to
7> keep challenging this fact?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted
7> to deflect it again:  javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as
7> illustrated by http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.
7> Do you wish to keep challenging this fact?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> The evidence is quite clear.  Prove that you are not avoiding the point by
7> addressing it.  Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after
you
7> attempted to deflect it again:  javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by
7> WinZip, as illustrated by
7> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish
to
7> keep challenging this fact?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
7> You haven't given me the opportunity to do so.  You simply report that your
7> copy is different while presenting no evidence to make anyone believe so. 
If
7> your copy is different, prove it.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
7> You haven't presented any documented evidence that your copy is different.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> I'd be more than will to accept it if any were presented.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> So it must be the same file.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> In what way?
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> In that case, I already know all that I need to about your game.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> "Are you sure those are Eliza's?"
 
"I see you've decided to loose this argument."

7> So you desire to lose another argument?  How unfortunate for you.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> I was pointing out the irony of your claim.  I have no desire to partake
7> of your infantile game with Eric.
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> Why would it need to?  No magic is involved.  It's called "decompression".
 
"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> "This program must be run in OS/2." != "This archive must be extracted in
8> OS/2."

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> The message is oxymoronic in that in order to display it, you have to be
8> running the EXE file in DOS.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> That doesn't change the fact that the screen output, if present (as it was
8> when you ran it), can be used as evidence (as I have done).

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Still relying on a semantic argument, Dave?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Prove it, if you think you can.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> As was yours.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> "Run" is sufficiently ambiguous to cover the execution of a DOS stub Dave.
8> My statement stands, yet again and still.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Irrelevant, and quite ironic, coming from someone who even now refuses
8> to admit obvious mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Illogical.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Incorrect.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> The real skill is in doing such a thing such that your opponents don't
9> notice and take your bait.  Dave fails miserably using this tactic.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

10> Sorry, but I beat you to it by a couple of hours.  Guess my Spanish
10> Inquisitors were on a faster bus.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: theqcc@hotmail.com                                05-Nov-99 11:02:10
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Voodoo 3 2000

From: "Chris D." <theqcc@hotmail.com>

Ok cheers I will have a look!


Chris D.


hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu wrote in message
<7vt2pm$h2p$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7vslkg$h6a$1@supernews.com>,
>  "Chris D." <chris@network23.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sorry if the wrong group, but Im new to OS/2 warp 4 and wondered if
>> there are any drivers compat with Voodoo 2000?
>
>Check out: http://www.scitechsoft.com/
>
>--
>-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
>hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu *AMD K6-2 400* |
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: RemarQ http://www.remarQ.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           05-Nov-99 06:55:24
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <HN2tEbdbtdhk-pn2-tvGMczQxgCSi@localhost>, on 11/05/99 at 07:18 AM,
   rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane) said:

> Lets clarify:
> A.	Win3.1 or 3.11 over DOS is brilliant - as far as it goes  - push it
> and there are all sorts of problems

Windows 3.x running over DOS, any version, is not brilliant unless one
thinks that constantly producing GPF's is Einsteinian behavior. Otherwise,
it was and remains a very large pain in the posterior.

> B.	Not everyone running Windows is impressed with it (or has a say in
> the operating system they use)

Since Windows 3.x and 9x are nothing more than DOS add-ons, this is true.
However, it is not generally recognized as a benefit to anyone other than
Bill Gates.

> C.	Windows is (apparently) great for games

Games are for toys. Unless one makes his or her money selling toys, why
would any sane individual run Windows?

> D.	Some people just want what everyone else us using

Ah, yes, the lemmings of the world.

> Richard A Crane
> Barrister & Solicitor

Jack of all trades, master of none? My English friends consider this prima
facia proof of Multiple Personality Disorder.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          05-Nov-99 07:19:09
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Bob Germer posted :

<snip>
> Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal machine
> is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
> between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
> marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.

*You* are the stupid Bob and you know why? You have the knowledge to
know better than what you claim above. Sad really.

-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          05-Nov-99 07:19:12
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, Richard A Crane posted :

<snip>
> Apology noted, Having been unable to install successfully 
> windows 95 (well I do assume it should boot for more than 49
> seconds without freezing requireing a reboot- is this 
> presumptous) since 1995 I c annot comment on Windows 
> registry - does it hurt?

That's a sadly typical OS/2 shallow advocacy statement.

No, it doesn't hurt in the least. If I cared about you it would. :)

-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          05-Nov-99 07:27:25
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>
> >The position you're defending is absurd.
> 
> It was not absurd for Marty to claim that the executable runs under
> DOS. Indeed, he and others ran it under DOS and it actually did
> exactly what it's supposed to do: It displayed a message.

Exactly my point, too.  I also have stated repeatedly that the
executable runs in DOS.  What is absurd is for you to maintain
that I have stated the opposite case: namely, that the executable
does not run in DOS.

> 
> It's also not absurd for Mike Timbol to claim that he doesn't need
> OS/2 in order to examine the contents of a self-extracting zip
> archive. Indeed, he and others have proven that they can examine it
> upon NT.

I have also agreed with Mike and Marty concerning this point.  

> 
> What is absurd is your failure to grasp the truth in such simple,
> logical statements, accompanied by proof. Why, you don't know logic at
> all. You're about as "clever" as your buddy Tholen, which is to say,
> not clever at all. You're just yet another OS/2 loonie who wants to
> align himself with a notorious kook and mentally ill social misfit,
> strictly because you're "emotionally blocked" over your niche market,
> dying pet product. The absurdity is you, Bennie, and we're laughing at
> your buffoonish attempts to prop up the idiocy of Ian Tholen

What is absurd is that you have taken my statements and interpreted
them to mean the opposite of what I wrote.  Marty understood what I
wrote.  So did David Sutherland.  What's up with Jeff Glatt?

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          05-Nov-99 07:42:10
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Marty wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bennie Nelson writes [to David Sutherland]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > But, since you asked, I'll state it this way, if Tholen stated
that
> > > > > > > the executable would not run in DOS, then he is incorrect.  If
he stated
> > > > > > > that the self-extracting archive would not run in DOS, then he
is
> > > > > > > correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What I actually did was correct Marty's claim that the
self-extracting
> > > > > > archive would run in a DOS session.
> > > > >
> > > > > What you actually did is assume my use and definition of said terms
were the
> > > > > same as yours and Bennie's.
> > > >
> > > > Then please define your terms for me.  Do you equate the entire
> > > > executable to the self-extracting archive?  Does running the DOS
> > > > stub equate to running the executable which in turn equates to
> > > > running the self-extracting archive?
> > >
> > > You got it.  Dave still doesn't.
> >
> > Do you also "get" why I do not agree with that view and that I prefer
> > to be more specific in distinguishing between the various components
> > of the executable?
> 
> As you've defined your terms I see that my view would be incorrect.  I
don't,
> however, believe that your definitions are any more or less valid or more or
> less ambiguous than my own.

Thanks for the replies.  I wanted to see how long it would take to arrive
at this point.  It didn't take long; which is what I'd expected.  I wanted to
demonstrate an alternative to these lengthy threads that seem to never get 
resolved.  It has been my observation that one of the major factors in those
threads is terminology: the participants are working from their own set of
definitions.  In general, those participants whose definitions tend to agree 
will side together, or, at least, will be able to communicate with one
another.
Those who definitions do not agree will not communicate so well.

In other words, language is an impediment to communication.  More
specifically,
each person's "flavor" of language predisposes him or her such that
communicating
with some people is facilitated while communicating with others is hindered.

So, in this case with Marty, we agreed to disagree on terminology, but we
agreed upon the substance.  Communication occurred because we did an end run
around the barrier that language had placed between us.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         05-Nov-99 13:07:03
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 10:29:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes [to Marty]:

> In other words, language is an impediment to communication.

So are "infantile games".  For example, I took exactly what Marty wrote,
namely:

M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
M] DOS session, it will run.

and explained that the self-extracting archive, which is the subject
of his "it", does not run, using his own definition of "run", which
contradicts his claim that it does run.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:13
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:09:31, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen) 
wrote:

> Karel Jansens writes:
> 
> 
> >>> It seems we're making Him up as we go along here.
> 
> >> Whoa!  Isn't the capitalized "Him" reserved for the "Creator"?
> 
> > I thought we were making H/him the god of damp patches and small 
> > things that slither in the dark.
> > Maybe best to leave the god-creation business over to the 
> > professionals...
> 
> And who might they be?  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?
> 
I was thinking more along the lines of Larry Niven, Greg Bear, John 
Varley and Terry Pratchett. (the latter one actually did give a recepy
for making a (Voodoo) god in his book "Witches Abroad").

Your statement is either testimony of a very deep knowledge of early 
Christianity, or an expression of true atheism. In any case, it would 
have earned you a first-row seat at your burning a couple of centuries
ago (come to think of it, I'd probably be right next to you, passing 
the roasted peanuts - well, they'd bound to be roasted, wouldn't 
they?)

> >>> [snip]
> 
> >> Wasn't it some long, whiny complaint from some concerned citizen
> >> during the Weekend Update segment, only to be told that the complaint
> >> was based on a misunderstanding?  Following the realization came
> >> "Never mind".  They used it rather frequently.
> 
> > I hear the bell, but I can't find the tongue (attempt at traduction of
> > a Flemish proverb).
> 
> Which Flemish proverb?
> 
"Hij heeft de bel horen luiden, maar hij weet niet waar de klepel 
hangt".
You asked for it, remember.

> >>> [snip]
> 
 
> >>> Well, the original series isn't rerun anywhere at the moment,
> 
> >> No SciFi channel available over the satellite?
> 
> > Heh. No satellite dish to begin with.
> 
> The cable companies usually provide those.
> 
You obviously don't know anything about Belgian cable providers. Over 
here, we consider ourselves lucky if we can get the *national* 
channels. Anything from across the border is extra. Right now I can 
get some 35-odd channels, about 15 of which are sort of foreign, and 
most of *those* are Dutch, German and French (AKA rubbish). We used to
get the international version of NBC, but they changed that for the 
Discovery Channel. I miss Conan O'Brien...

> > I tried to plug in directly, but nobody wants to sell me 36,000 km
> > of coax.
> 
> I will.  I've also got a bridge on the market, in case you're
> interested.
> 
Fab! Which one? How much? Where do I sign?

> > And I don't know what plug the Astra takes.
> 
> Is it 110 V/60 Hz or 220 V/50 Hz?
> 
SCART or regular?

> >>> and one can watch only so many reruns of TNG. It was that or serious 
> >>> withdrawal symptoms. The one thing I don't like is all this PC stuff, 
> >>> you know: Be nice to the poor aliens; don't blast planets away with 
> >>> your foton torpedos; Prime Directive this and that...(Grmbl! Grmbl! 
> >>> Stupid Prime Directive thing...)
> 
> >> That spelling made me think of "futon" torpedos.  Hilarious!
> 
> >>> Kirk was a lot more fun. And in that respect, so was Babylon 5 (it's 
> >>> probably a mortal sin to mention Star Trek and Babylon 5 in the same 
> >>> sentence,
> 
> >> Not as far as I am concerned.
> 
> >>> but there you go) (Babylon 5 dissapeared from Belgian 
> >>> screens a long time ago, BTW).
> 
> >> How long ago?  The fifth and final season wrapped up many months ago.
> >> TNT is still doing reruns on Saturday morning.  Two episodes, back
> >> to back.
> 
> > No help for me (see above).
> 
> You just might have to move.
> 
> >>>>> BTW, is it only me or is the Star Trek universe really getting darker 
> >>>>> and gloomier? Janeway is beginning to behave like a female version of 
> >>>>> Bligh and DS9 is turning into a militarist's dream come true. Even the
> >>>>> new Enterprise looks like something a cyberpunk could have come up 
> >>>>> with.
> 
> >>>> Deep Space Nine has finished its run over here.  Only Voyager remains.
> >>>> At least they've gotten away from having the Kazon chase them across
> >>>> the quadrant.
> 
> >>> Oh yes. And now we have the "new improved Borg", with queen. It's just
> >>> not the same anymore.
> 
> >> But the queen was introduced in a TNG movie.  Don't blame Voyager.
> 
> > I blame the freaking creators. IIRC, it was Gene who came up with the 
> > original Borg. Those were consequent. Bringing in some fotogenic queen
> > to spice up a movie is an insult to his memory (may he orbit in peace)
> > <snif snif>.
> 
> But she did make quite a memorable entrance.
> 
Twice...

> >>> Mind you, any show that spends an entire episode on the slow decay of 
> >>> a copy of ship and crew (last week's episode over here, "Course: 
> >>> Oblivion" IIRC) deserves being put out of its misery.
> 
> >> It was episode with Janeway and Paris as lizards that hit bottom for
> >> me.
> 
> > Was that before the copy-meltdown? I don't remember it.
> 
> I don't remember a copy-meltdown.
> 
The one I referred to above. OK, it was more of a disassociation, or 
whatever you call it when mimetic matter returns to its original 
computer-effects-stage.

> >>> You know what would be funny: the final episode of Voyager ends with 
> >>> the crew arriving in what they think is the Alpha Quadrant, only to 
> >>> find out they've been going in circles and are back at the ruins of 
> >>> the Caretaker's station. Heh heh heh!
> 
> >> There's a rumor going around that they will actually make it back to
> >> the Alpha Quadrant this season, now that Deep Space Nine has finished
> >> its run.
> 
> > So what's next? Starfleet Kintergarten, the ongoing perils of a 
> > daycare center in the 24th century? Or maybe they'll jump another 
> > century and we'll have "Buck Rogers blasts Starfleet to Oblivion"?
> 
> Well, we just saw Tuvok with emotions.  Variation on a theme.  Next
> we'll have Borg rooks, knights, and bishops.
> 
Don't give them ideas for merchandising. It's bad enough as it is with
Star Wars.

> > Actually, I'd love it if they would go back a little bit. Do you 
> > remember the TNG episode with the short appearance of Kelsey Grammer? 
> > The one with the time traveling sequence where they re-lived the same 
> > day over and over? I'd like to see a series in that era. Should be 
> > cheaper too: earlier time, simpler special effects <G>.
> 
> Actually, I'd love it if they would go back a little bit. Do you 
> remember the TNG episode with the short appearance of Kelsey Grammer? 
> The one with the time traveling sequence where they re-lived the same 
> day over and over? I'd like to see a series in that era. Should be 
> cheaper too: earlier time, simpler special effects <G>.
> 
Threethreethreethreethreethreethree...
Now if only I knew what that meant... <crash!>
..
Actually, I'd love it if they would go back a little bit. Do you 
remember the TNG episode with the short appearance of Kelsey Grammer? 
The one with the time traveling sequence where they re-lived the same 
day over and over? I'd like to see a series in that era. Should be 
cheaper too: earlier time, simpler special effects <G>.


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:15
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:59:38, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 23:51:08, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > Karel Jansens writes:
> > >
> > > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >>>> Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> > >
> > > >>> Err... It makes my day?
> > >
> > > >> By playing games?
> > >
> > > > Indeed, my good man. Indeed.
> > > > Many's been the long winding evening turned into bliss and joy by the
> > > > simple, yet sofisticated virtue of the odd session of "Bomb Jack",
> > > > "Galaxian" or even "Mr Do" (not "Donkey Kong" however; I never liked
> > > > that ape).
> > >
> > > PacMan?  Or Ms. PacMan?  (Why didn't they call it PacWoman?)
> > >
> > An unmarried woman running down alleys, followed by a bunch of horny
> > ghosts?! Besides, "Pacwoman" has too many connotations of spandex and
> > high heels. The contrast with a circle with a mouth is just too big.
> > 
> > There was one version, "PacManland" or "PacManworld" IIRC, I quite
> > liked. It was more graphical, with bigger mazes, and PacMan had a real
> > face.
> 
> PacLand didn't have any mazes, but PacMan had legs and a face, and could run
> and jump in a sidescroller environment.  PacMania was an isometric psuedo-3D
> view of standard PacMan with 16 bit color, nice graphics, and good sound. 
> PacMan had a face, but no arms or legs and could jump over ghosts, but
> eventually some of the ghosts figure out how to jump too.  Both games are
> supported by MAME.
> 
"PacMania", that's the one! Never played it long enough to get the 
jumping ghosts (I said I liked arcade games, not that I'm any good at 
them).

The only "arcade" game I ever conquered was the original 
"DragonSlayer" (with video CD). The owner of the local arcade asked me
to write a walk-through for other frustrated gamers. It was my finest 
hour...
Sad, innit?

> > > Hmm.  That last line of mine sounds like Victor Borge.
> > >
> > Or the Spanish Inquisition...
> 
> NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

That's their funniest sketch, with the Dead Parrot - one of their two!
funniest sketches, the Spanish Inquisition, the Dead Parrot and Funny 
Walks - THREE! three most funny sketches...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:16
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 02:17:04, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.  Our weapon is fear and surprise.
> > Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise; and a fanatical devotion to the
Pope.
> > Our THREE weapons...  Amongst our weaponry..."
> 
> Sorry, but I beat you to it by a couple of hours.  Guess my Spanish
Inquisitors
> were on a faster bus.

Mine's funnier...
(Hey! I just got up.)

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:17
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 00:02:35, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 05:56:24, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 3 Nov 1999 22:31:18, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does MAME do anything besides play games?
> > > > >
> > > > > In spite of the obvious sentiment behind this question, I will
answer it
> > > > > as if you earnestly wanted to know.  MAME does not play games.  It
> > > > > emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It creates an environment in
> > > > > which the video and sound hardware of various kinds of machines,
arcade
> > > > > games among them, can be accurately reproduced, provided that the
> > > > > program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip dump
> > > > > files or "ROMs" for short).  The MAME platform has been used to
emulate
> > > > > various kinds of arcade games, PCs, and long dead as well as
semi-modern
> > > > > architectures.
> > > > >
> > > > > As far as the speculations on which part of this project my
interests
> > > > > lie, there are several aspects of it that I enjoy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly, I am interested in the emulation aspect.  I find it
fascinating
> > > > > that, through software, the response of many different pieces of
> > > > > hardware can be accurately reproduced in real-time (in most cases
> > > > > anyway).  Since joining the MAME team, I have learned an enormous
amount
> > > > > about architectures I never knew existed, as well as interesting
tricks
> > > > > used in the hardware of these systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > Secondly, I enjoy taking a large, complex, multimedia program and
making
> > > > > it run on OS/2.  With the limited availability of adequate tools and
> > > > > example code, the project took on a "frontiersman" feel to it.  I
> > > > > invented several tools and learned quite a bit about OS/2 along the
way,
> > > > > making the experience quite satisfying.  I have also shared what I
> > > > > learned with anyone who asked me, and helped several other projects
come
> > > > > into being as a result.  In some ways, this is even more satisfying.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thirdly, when all my work is done and all the dust settles, I can
test
> > > > > my code by relaxing and playing some of my old favorites.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does any of this indicate an affinity to play "infantile games" on
> > > > > Usenet?
> > > >
> > > > Allright. But MAME still plays games, yes? Please?
> > >
> > > I already stated above:
> > > MAME does not play games.  It emulates many different kinds of CPUs.  It
> > > creates an environment in which the video and sound hardware of various
kinds
> > > of machines, arcade games among them, can be accurately reproduced,
provided
> > > that the program code for said CPUs is present (in the form of ROM chip
dump
> > > files or "ROMs" for short).
> > >
> > > The user plays the games.  MAME creates an environment in which they can 
run.
> > 
> > Aaooww! But I wanna play games!
> > 
> > (Actually, all of the above is just a - rather infantile - plea to
> > keep MAME what it is: an excellent arcade machine emulator. Please
> > don't go fot the featuritis thing and try to incorporate every micro-
> > or home-computer that ever existed. It's fine right now. Really.)
> 
> Too late, as the incorporation of every micro in existence is (one of) their
> ultimate goals.  All that means to you as an end-user is that the executable
> will be a bit bigger and more games and software will be supported.

Now where did we hear that one before?
I remember: wasn't it just before the introduction of Window 95?

Only kidding, only kidding.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:19
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 07:18:04, rcrane@octa4.net.au (Richard A Crane) 
wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 20:09:13, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel 
> Jansens) wrote:
> 
> > I've removed the NT-crosspost. Just a precaution.
> > 
> Why? Scared of letting the small limp users know what you 
> think - courage person courage!
> The poster started this here (comp.os.os2.advocacy) and 
> there (small limp stuff newgroup) Here the only readers here
> are likely to be OS/2 users or those that still miss it/cant
> tear themselves away form it (eg McCoy) Let the mob there 
> read the full story-( I assume that they have a newsreader 
> that can filter if they want to?), maybe "hobyist" was 
> unwise to post to both but I wont criticise him/her for that
> - but if you want to go ahead- but do it as such - not some 
> arbitrary attempt to "limit" the dialogue.
> If someone starts a thread in a number  of groups let it 
> happen- or are you claiming some omniscent ability to 
> determine whats advocacy?
> Who knows this small point about Unimaint/Win reg may 
> persuade a NT user to try OS/2? I doubt it but I let the 
> thread speak for itself.

I got tired of having to discuss my tagline instead of the subject of 
the thread (whatever that was; I forget).

So I had a non-NT-friendly tagline. They complained. I changed it (a 
bit). They complained again. I changed it again. They complained even 
more. I quit.

I have to admit that from a certain viewpoint my "changes" could be 
perceived as making things worse. I never said I'm not a bastard.


Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:20
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 06:10:23, "Brent Davies" 
<brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:

> 
> Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
> news:38206e99$2$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> | On <19991102.9141946@mis.configured.host>, on 11/02/99 at 09:14 AM,
> |    Joseph <josco@ibm.net> said:
> |
> [snip]
> |
> | Anyone stupid enough to be running Windows on his or her personal machine
> | is entirely too ignorant, stupid, or dumb to understand the difference
> | between a real operating system and an overbloated, poorly designed,
> | marginally capable menu and switching program added on top of DOS.
> 
> I shining example of an unbiased and well thought out argument, totally
> emersed in technical merit!
> 
> Job well done!!
> 
I don't agree. He obviously dumbed it down for the benefit of 
"viewing-through-walls-implements"-O/S's.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 13:15:23
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

Excuse me, but you two are making a mockery of all that cooa stands 
for, by having these rational, polite and to-the-point discussions!

Frankly, you disgust me.

And what's with all this admitting to being wrong? Who has ever heard 
of such a thing?! And where are the swear-words? Why, nowhere to be 
seen!

Please stop it.


On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:35:23, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > 
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> > > > > > posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> > > > > > the points, as I see them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has not been shown to be true.
> > > >
> > > > Dave quoted from the "readme.sma" file that came with
> > > > Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  I'll also quote the relevant
> > > > portion:
> > > >
> > > > "The Security considerations (Security) are based on enhancements from
> > > > the Java 2 security model. Security is shipped with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > > > Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 (Developer
> > > > Kit). Security is integrated into the Runtime package and is
> > > > disabled by default.
> > > >
> > > > Note:  Security is only supported on systems with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > > >        Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8."
> > > >
> > > > To me, "based on enhancements from the Java 2 security model" and
> > > > "JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality" are both
> > > > true statements.  The first, from IBM, proves the second.
> > >
> > > The first, from IBM, does not prove anything.  I can make a movie based
on a
> > > novel, yet tell a very different story than the novel told, as we often
see
> > > happening.
> > 
> > If the first portion proves nothing, that is, if IBM's words mean nothing,
> > then your words prove nothing and mean nothing.  Marty, words do have
> > meanings.  IBM's words have meanings.  Furthermore, IBM's words as part of
> > a distributed and licensed product carry far more weight than yours or
> > mine.  Why?  Because those words have a multi-billion dollar international
> > corporation behind them.
> 
> IBM's words were that their JDK will have security enhancements "based on"
> those of Java 2.  That doesn't mean they will implement Java 2 functionality
> nor that they lied.
> 
> > There are only three choices here concerning the quote from IBM:
> > 
> > 1) IBM's words as quoted above are false
> > 2) IBM's words as quoted above are true
> > 3) combination of 1 and 2 (i.e., there are elements that are false and
> > elements that are true)
> 
> I go with #2, however this is not proof of Java 2 functionality being
> implemented in their 1.1.8 JDK.
>  
> > You have simply brushed them away, while offering no proof.
> 
> I've offered an example of how something can be "based on" something else,
yet
> be very different in nature and implementation.
> 
> > By the same manner, you've established the basis for brushing away all 
> > that you have written.
> 
> Not so, Bennie.
> 
> > You've simply dismissed the words from IBM based solely upon the authority 

> > of your word.  Bad news, Marty: your words don't carry that much weight.
> 
> I haven't dismissed their words at all.  Saying that the JDK is based on
> functionality from Java 2 does not mean, and certainly doesn't prove that it
> implements said functionality.
> 
> > You're going to have to submit evidence to support your claim.  You did
> > that with the .jpg file.  Why are you waving-your-hands-abracadabra-and-
> > IBM's-words-vanish this time?
>  
> Have you understood the novel/movie analogy?
> 
> > > > Are you saying that the first does NOT prove the second statement
> > > > to be true?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > > > It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> > > > > > changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> > > > > > Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> > > > > > not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> > > > > > by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> > > > > > executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> > > > > > classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) The self-extracting archive
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> > > > > > is in an OS/2 native format.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
> > > >
> > > > I wrote "SELF-EXTRACTING" to emphasize that I was referring only
> > > > to the OS/2-specific code.  This code is what gives the executable
> > > > it's functionality and purpose.
> > >
> > > We differ in definitions, hence our disagreement.  Neither of us is
> > > inconsistent with our own use of these definitions of the terms in
question.
> > 
> > I have no problem with this.  You may define your terms and use them
> > consistently and I will understand what you've written.  That is the
> > essence of good communication.  That is why I offered my set of
definitions
> > and have made my points based upon them.
> > 
> > So, in this case, I would say that we really don't have any substantive
> > disagreement.  We both agree, in our own words, that the executable runs
> > in DOS, but that the self-extraction code does not.  The self-extraction
> > code only executes in OS/2.  We also agree that the executable itself is
> > able to be processed (e.g., viewed) by various tools.  Finally, the
> > archived files included in the executable file are able to be extracted
> > in a non-OS2 environment using non-OS2 software.
> 
> Check.
> 
> > > > > > b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The
archive
> > > > > as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.
> > > >
> > > > And I disagree.  The SELF-EXTRACTING archive will not execute, as
> > > > a whole.  Only the DOS stub executes.  If the SELF-EXTRACTING code
> > > > and the archive are removed, the executable will "run" in DOS
> > > > exactly the way it does with the SE code included.  Thus, what
> > > > is executed in DOS is not a SE archive.
> > >
> > > Again, we differ in our definitions of the terms in question.
> > 
> > But knowing the definitions I've given, do you disagree with anything
> > substantive in my post?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > > > > > c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> > > > > > format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> > > > > > that have archive utilities that implement support for
> > > > > > the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> > > > > > the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> > > > > > d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> > > > > > for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.
> > > >
> > > > But, it is ancillary in nature, and has no direct relation
> > > > or value to the SELF-EXTRACTION code.
> > >
> > > I never claimed it was not.
> > >
> > > > The SE code is the purpose, the raison d'etre, for the
> > > > executable program.  If the DOS stub was replaced with x'90' (NOP)
> > > > instructions, there would be no loss of functionality for the SE
> > > > program.  The executable would crash and burn if loaded in DOS,
> > >
> > > If you forgot to cap it off with a RET instruction, that is.  ;-)
> > 
> > That was implied.  Simply replacing the DOS stub with repeated x'90'
> > wouldn't "cap it off with a RET instruction."
> 
> To play devil's advocate, I could point out that perhaps a RET is
encountered
> in the "random" bytes comprising the rest of the executable before the stack
> frame is destroyed.
> 
> > > > but that has no bearing on the fact that the SE code is OS/2
> > > > only. The program with the DOS stub "NOP'ed" would execute
> > > > flawlessly in OS/2.
> > >
> > > Again, the shism in the definition of our terms lead to this
disagreement.
> > 
> > The important fact is that you've understood what I've said because
> > you know the definitions I've used, and vice versa.  We agree about
> > the main points.  We simply want to say them in our own ways.
> 
> Yup.  No problem.
> 
> > > > > > e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> > > > > > viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> > > > > > such as editors, viewers, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> > > > > > confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> > > > > > if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> > > > > > are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> > > > > > OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> > > >
> > 
> > Bennie Nelson

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      05-Nov-99 13:33:04
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Esther asks the $64 Question! (Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: Esth

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (5 Nov 1999 04:54:43 GMT):
>Uno, I'm a founder, vice president, and program chair of the Phoenix 
>OS/2 Society, the largest OS/2 user group on the planet. I'm sysop in

Yeah, that is impressive.  Next time be sure to mention "with
subscribers in 17 countries".  Wooo-hooo!

>And you think I'm not an OS/2 supporter?!

Well said.

>I think OS/2 is wonderful. It's still my favorite choice of OS, and as

Obviously not, else you'd use it more than 10% of the time, or did you
say 40.  Yeah, what-ever.  I'm trying to think what apps you use those
10%.  Oh, a newsreader, at least while you post here.  Smart move.

>You didn't answer my question. Why are you here?

If I don't answer do you promise to keep asking?  I mean, I have
nothing as grand as "to keep in touch with the little people",
so it would take a lot of brain cells to come up with a reason
as good as yours.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               05-Nov-99 09:02:01
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson writes [to Marty]:
> 
> > In other words, language is an impediment to communication.
> 
> So are "infantile games".  For example, I took exactly what Marty wrote,
> namely:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> and explained that the self-extracting archive, which is the subject
> of his "it", does not run, using his own definition of "run", which
> contradicts his claim that it does run.

I'm sorry... who's definition of "run" are you using again?  And while you're
at it, who's definition of "stub", "display", and "bound executable" are you
using?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               05-Nov-99 09:29:13
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: (1/2) Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451488

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Picking another fight that you're going to lose?  I see you've given up on
addressing the issues at hand, as usual.  I'm not surprised.  I take your
non-responses to my other posts to mean that you have been dumb-founded by the
obvious nature of your mistakes and are too embarassed to reply. 
Understandable in your situation.

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty recently claimed that he would stick to the issue so that I
> couldn't accuse him of playing an "infantile game",

And where have I stated this?

> yet not only did he not stick to the issue, he has responded with the 
> Eliza lines:
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> "Are you sure those are Eliza's?"

And to what was I responding?  Accusations of playing an infantile game.  I
was
pointing out how hypocritical it was for you to accuse me of playing one when
you engaged in one yourself, denoted by the Eliza quote.  I don't expect
someone of your intellect to grasp that, however.

> For further evidence that he is indeed playing an "infantile game",
> note how he quoted nearly 2000 lines but added only a single new line.

If I had not, you would have restored the entire posting placing a "Note: no
response" after each of your infantile Eliza responses.

> Time to digestify his postings.

Be my guest.

> 1> I see you've decided to loose this argument.
> 
> How does one "loose" an argument, Marty?

You seem to not be able to find the other arguments.  Either that or you're
too
embarassed to respond.

> 2> It becomes my example when I change its meaning.  If you used unzip,
> 2> what would you have concluded?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?

> 3> Typical pontification.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 3> Incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 3> That's something you have to ask yourself.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 4> See below.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 4> There was none, as the replies were inappropriate.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 4> Then what do you call the material quoted above?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 4> Yeah, you don't seem to mind your own.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 4> What's allegedly illogical about it Dave?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
> 
> 5> You got it.  Dave still doesn't.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Yes, but not all is known about some of the CPUs emulated.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> If it is running in MAME, it has to because it cannot execute natively.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Your loss, I suppose.  What functionality is it allegedly missing?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> MAME is the core of MESS.  MESS contains several "driver" additions
> 6> putting the various pieces of MAME together in such a way that consoles
> 6> and PCs can be emulated.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> I said that my interest was threefold, and that the game aspect is
> 6> independent of the other two.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Synthetic Audio Library, and a few old DOS proggies of mine that I never
> 6> released.  I've also ported and never released Retrocade, but that is
> 6> another arcade emulator.  In addition, I've created my own (not ported)
> 6> audio mixer from scratch which is currently used by MAME and will
> 6> eventually be used to implement DirectSound in OS/2.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Not with the other two aspects.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Whenever I can and desire to do so.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Irrelevant.  I see you failed to answer the question.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Irrelevant.
>
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?

> 6> Incorrect, as this demonstrates a reason that I do not dislike PacMan
> 6> and therefore would not insult him.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> Already have.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 6> And it is, as I have already stated.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> Such as?  I told you I'm really bad at infantile guessing games.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> In what way?  Time to put your cards out on the table so we can laugh
> 7> at your pair of 2's.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> Perhaps you can send one of us "your" copy so we can see for ourselves
> 7> how "different" it allegedly is.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> That which you continue to promulgate.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip, as illustrated by
> 7> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish 
to
> 7> keep challenging this fact?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again, after you attempted
> 7> to deflect it again:  javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by WinZip,
as
> 7> illustrated by
http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.
> 7> Do you wish to keep challenging this fact?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> The evidence is quite clear.  Prove that you are not avoiding the point
by
> 7> addressing it.  Here's the issue you're supposedly discussing again,
after you
> 7> attempted to deflect it again:  javainuf.exe is in a format recognized by
> 7> WinZip, as illustrated by
> 7> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg.  Do you wish 
to
> 7> keep challenging this fact?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> You haven't given me the opportunity to do so.  You simply report that
your
> 7> copy is different while presenting no evidence to make anyone believe so. 
 If
> 7> your copy is different, prove it.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> You haven't presented any documented evidence that your copy is
different.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> I'd be more than will to accept it if any were presented.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> So it must be the same file.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
> 
> 7> In what way?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> In that case, I already know all that I need to about your game.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> "Are you sure those are Eliza's?"
> 
> "I see you've decided to loose this argument."

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> So you desire to lose another argument?  How unfortunate for you.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> I was pointing out the irony of your claim.  I have no desire to partake
> 7> of your infantile game with Eric.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 7> Why would it need to?  No magic is involved.  It's called
"decompression".
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> "This program must be run in OS/2." != "This archive must be extracted in
> 8> OS/2."
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> The message is oxymoronic in that in order to display it, you have to be
> 8> running the EXE file in DOS.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> That doesn't change the fact that the screen output, if present (as it
was
> 8> when you ran it), can be used as evidence (as I have done).
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> Still relying on a semantic argument, Dave?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> Incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
> 
> 8> Prove it, if you think you can.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> As was yours.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> "Run" is sufficiently ambiguous to cover the execution of a DOS stub
Dave.
> 8> My statement stands, yet again and still.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               05-Nov-99 09:29:13
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: (2/2) Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451488

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> Irrelevant, and quite ironic, coming from someone who even now refuses
> 8> to admit obvious mistakes as they are continually being pointed out.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> Illogical.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> Incorrect.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 8> Still wish to claim that a stub is being "displayed"?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 9> The real skill is in doing such a thing such that your opponents don't
> 9> notice and take your bait.  Dave fails miserably using this tactic.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?
 
> 10> Sorry, but I beat you to it by a couple of hours.  Guess my Spanish
> 10> Inquisitors were on a faster bus.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
> 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

I'm sorry, is this evidence of *my* infantile game?

Thank you Dave, for so completely and easily demonstrating how you took the
logical arguments I was posing and turned them into your own infantile game. 
Note to the other readers that (since Dave removed the attributions) the
numerically quoted stuff (#>) were my words and the singly indented words were
Dave's.  Dave has made it quite clear who is playing the games around here.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hyperon@bhil.com                                  05-Nov-99 08:37:16
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re: 

From: K M Hopkins <hyperon@bhil.com>

New to this newgroup, but why are there people in this group that don't like
OS/2?
Is this not an advocacy group, or am I in the wrong group? All I here is
people
bashing OS/2. I must have forgot the definition of  'advocacy'.

PS Hey Esther, I remember your name from OS/2 magazine. Wow feel like I am
meeting a celebrity. No honest, really. Kudos to your dedication.

Esther Schindler wrote:

> Say WHAT?
>
> Uno, I'm a founder, vice president, and program chair of the Phoenix
> OS/2 Society, the largest OS/2 user group on the planet. I'm sysop in
> the OS/2 Central forum on Compuserve. I write for _extended
> attributes_, POSSI's magazine, every month, and I'm assistant editor.
> I just returned from a meeting where we were discussing logistics for
> the WarpTech conference (which POSSI is sponsoring, to be held
> Memorial Day Weekend 2000 -- see http://www.possi.org for details).
> I'm the minor co-author of Teach Yourself REXX in 21 Days. I was
> senior contributing editor at OS/2 Magazine and, for several years, I
> wrote a high percentage of OS/2 product reviews for PC Magazine and
> other mainstream publications.
>
> And you think I'm not an OS/2 supporter?!
>
> I think OS/2 is wonderful. It's still my favorite choice of OS, and as
> I mentioned earlier it's where I do a significant part of my work. But
> I'm also a realist who thinks it's important to acknowledge problems
> in order to address them and fix them.
>
> I said earlier that I'm here so that I stay honest.
>
> You didn't answer my question. Why are you here?
>
> --Esther
>
> On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 17:22:02, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
> | >Why are *you* here? I'm an OS/2 user. You no longer are. What's the
> | >appeal?
> |
> | You are?  I thought you were here to keep in touch with the 'little
> | people' -- to keep yourself from being full assimilated.  Or maybe you
> | don't get enough respect at your workplace and come here to play your
> | self-titled Queen of OS2 role (or is it OS2 godess?).  I think you know
> | what I mean.  Besides, I can't recall you actually doing much in the way
> | of OS2 cheerleading, but I do see you put lots of dampers on it everywhere
> | (except here).
> |
> | Anyway, don't take things so personally.  And quit making things up;
> | it's not good for a writer to be known for making up stories.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             05-Nov-99 14:29:25
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <7vtfpu$8os$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:

> > Your misunderstanding of the term "multi-level" is clear.
>
> What alleged "misunderstanding", Lucien?

See below.

> > Read the pertinent sections of those references and you'll discern
> > a meaning congruent with mine.
>
> Impossible, given that you haven't explained your meaning.

Irrelevant, given that my meaning is already clear here. The seeming
opacity of my meaning is merely a figment your own reading
comprehension problems.

> Congruence
> cannot be determined when only one of the two is a known.

More proof that you do not understand. Both are discernable (mine from
this thread, those of the authors of the references in their respective
writings) and a simple comparison would yield the congruence.

> >> So why do you continue to ignore the portion that provides the
> >> additional information, Lucien?
>
> > It is irrelevant to the issue,
>
> Incorrect, Lucien, given that additional information is central to the
> issue.

But it is irrelevant WRT to the presence of the underlying ambiguity.

> > Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):
> >
> > "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
> > 'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
> > information.]]]"
>
> That statement does not concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, given that
> the JDK statement involves the presence of other information.

Wrong. It does directly concern the JDK sentence; it (correctly) points
out the presence of the underlying ambiguity and (correctly) describes
the alternation WRT quantification according to peri-verbal
information, AKA "other information".

Let's review it again:

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):

"The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
information.]]]"

Here is my thesis statement again (emphasis mine):

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
information.]]]

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          05-Nov-99 10:02:25
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson writes [to Marty]:
> 
> > In other words, language is an impediment to communication.
> 
> So are "infantile games".  For example, I took exactly what Marty wrote,
> namely:
> 
> M] Incidentally, if you try to run that self-extracting archive in a
> M] DOS session, it will run.
> 
> and explained that the self-extracting archive, which is the subject
> of his "it", does not run, using his own definition of "run", which
> contradicts his claim that it does run.

Except that Marty has pointed out that when he used the words 
"self-extracting archive" in conjunction with running in DOS, he 
only meant the DOS stub.  So, for Marty when the program runs in 
DOS, self-extracting archive means DOS stub, and when the program 
runs in OS/2, self-extracting archive means self-extracting archive. 

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: greeneggsnspam@micron.net                         05-Nov-99 20:04:19
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Warp 4.5 "client" a mere $1600US

From: Nathan Herren <greeneggsnspam@micron.net>

David T. Johnson,

Remember your post titled "New Warp v4.5 Client..."?  I do.  Here it
is...
-----
Warpcast today posted notice of an upcoming announcement by IBM of an
Aurora Warp v4.5 client:
                           
	"There IS a service offering from IBM for installation and support of
an official Aurora Client to be officially announced within the next
couple of days."
                           
	Read more at:
                           
	http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4321.html
                           
	Does this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following on
9/18/99:
                           
                           
	"The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock
and IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client
of their own."
                           
                           
	Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.  Wait, I know!  IBM must
have just CHANGED THEIR MIND a couple of weeks ago and told their
developers to crank out a client.  Man, those IBM developers in Austin
are QUICK!!
-----

You should check out Esther's announcement in comp.os.os2.announce.  I'd
say it pretty much confirms that your post was out of line, wouldn't
you?  All things considered, Brad summed it up quite well.

-Nathan
-- 
***Replace greeneggsnspam in e-mail address with nherren***

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Subscriber, Micron Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             05-Nov-99 15:28:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <7vticf$b7c$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

-- snip --

> Suppose you deprived a human being of oxygen for an hour.  Would you
> expect all human beings to behave the same way (that is, die)?  Now,
> that's a more appropriate analogy.  All unzip tools should indeed
> behave the same way (that is, die) in response to my copy of the
> javainuf.exe file.  The details may differ (wording of error messages,
> assuming the implementation is smart enough to recognize the error),
> but the ultimate response will be the same.

Okay.  *IF* what you are saying is true, namely, that *ALL* unzip tools
absolutely *MUST* die with your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then what I would
suspect is that *YOUR* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is corrupted in some way,
especially in light of the fact that *MY* InzoZip unzip.exe did, in
fact, correctly extract the contents of *MY* JAVAINUF.EXE file.

Would your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE extract it's contents if it were run in
an OS/2 session?  If what you say above is true, it would have to die
with some kind of error, since the self-extraction module contained in
JAVAINUF.EXE is indeed an implementation of an unzip tool, and you did
say that "the ultimate response would be the same" and that "all unzip
tools should indeed behave the same way."

Ergo, it is reasonable to suspect (not necessarily "conclude") that your
JAVAINUF.EXE is, indeed, corrupt.

But I suspect that you will deny this as well, for it still doesn't let
you off the hook regarding your error in claiming that one had to run
OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

It still doesn't let you off the hook regarding the fact that, as a
response to Mike's and Marty's claim that they could view the contents
of JAVAINUF.EXE using a Windows-based tool, you responded by posting
InfoZip's error messages indicating that JAVAINUF.EXE's contents
couldn't be extracted, as if that countered Mike's and Marty's claims,
which, for the record, were made as a response to your erroneous claim
that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE.

As far as my calling you "inept" is concerned, it is inept to post your
InfoZip error messages as a response to the claim that WinZip can
extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, rather than to simply admit that
one didn't have to run OS/2 in order to obtain said contents of said
file.  It is also inept to claim, universally speaking, that "it is
logical to expect all zip tools" to fail in the same fashion with any
generic, given copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, even if you knew, a priori, that
your version was corrupt.

So, like I said, you will reject/deny this as well, in all likelihood.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               05-Nov-99 10:27:15
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Java, OS/2's savior? 

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Darin McBride wrote:
> >Darin McBride wrote:
> >> I'd be wary about telling anyone the size of a Java app ... because us
cynics
> >> like to point out that you're not including the JRE...

[...snip...]

> I'm talking about what isn't necessarily already on someone's system.
> Something that, if you want everyone to be able to use your program, you
have
> to ship with it, or explicitly pre-req it.  For example, ship it on the CD.

	Strange - last I checked OS/2 has shipped a JRE with its base OS since
v4.  As do several other operating systems, including Linux, Solaris,
and even Windows (if you call that Microsoft abomination "Java" :).

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               05-Nov-99 10:38:12
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs Strike it Rich with Windows?

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Jim Frost wrote:
> 
> flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
> > Anyone coding Java is coding for OS/2 for a living.
> 
> The demand for Java applications on OS/2 is effectively zero.  Nobody asks
for
> it.

	Well, it's bigger than zero, but certainly not extremely high.

	At least in the horizontal software market.  In the vertical software
market, it's a whole different story.  Corporations are generally
pleased to not be tied to any one specific operating system or hardware
platform.  Nearly all modern tools used by corporate users (such as
DBMS's, web servers, etc.) have built-in support for Java.

	This is a very big deal.  Customers are now building their DB
applications in Java for deployment on fat-clients and network
computers, and on the server side.  On the server side, they can start
off with an Intel based box, and scale all the way up to the big iron,
without having to rewrite their applications.

	And very few people realize that it isn't shrink-wrapped applications
which drives technologies like Java.  It's the vertical, in house
application development market, and it is driving it hard.

	The fact that OS/2 fits into this vision is a good thing for OS/2.  It
won't be OS/2's saviour per se, but people have taken notice that OS/2's
JVM outperforms other OS's JVM's on the same hardware.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mdk@agad.purdue.edu                               05-Nov-99 11:09:13
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Esther asks the $64 Question! (Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: 

From: Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu>

Uno, you seem only interested in picking a fight with Esther.  She's answered
you honestly and openly, and you respond very unkindly.  Are you angry that
Brad is now gone and you don't have him to harrass?

You quote the phrase "to keep in touch with the little people," but it was
you who wrote it, not Esther.  You said she's the self-proclaimed "goddess of
OS/2" or "queen of OS/2", but I don't believe she's ever called herself by
those titles.  You are attempting to malign her in a personal way; evidently
you feel unmatched if you limit your discussion to a disagreement based on
real issues (something which Esther can handle very politely and reasonably,
by the way).

Why are you hanging out here?

Have you changed your socks lately?

"uno@40th.com" wrote:

> Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (5 Nov 1999 04:54:43 GMT):
> >Uno, I'm a founder, vice president, and program chair of the Phoenix
> >OS/2 Society, the largest OS/2 user group on the planet. I'm sysop in
>
> Yeah, that is impressive.  Next time be sure to mention "with
> subscribers in 17 countries".  Wooo-hooo!
>
> >And you think I'm not an OS/2 supporter?!
>
> Well said.
>
> >I think OS/2 is wonderful. It's still my favorite choice of OS, and as
>
> Obviously not, else you'd use it more than 10% of the time, or did you
> say 40.  Yeah, what-ever.  I'm trying to think what apps you use those
> 10%.  Oh, a newsreader, at least while you post here.  Smart move.
>
> >You didn't answer my question. Why are you here?
>
> If I don't answer do you promise to keep asking?  I mean, I have
> nothing as grand as "to keep in touch with the little people",
> so it would take a lot of brain cells to come up with a reason
> as good as yours.

--
Mark Kelley


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Purdue University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             05-Nov-99 08:24:21
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 14:49:07
Subj: Re: Warp 4.5 "client" a mere $1600US

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Nathan Herren wrote:
> 
> David T. Johnson,
> 
> Remember your post titled "New Warp v4.5 Client..."?  I do.  Here it
> is...
> -----
> Warpcast today posted notice of an upcoming announcement by IBM of an
> Aurora Warp v4.5 client:
> 
>         "There IS a service offering from IBM for installation and support
of
> an official Aurora Client to be officially announced within the next
> couple of days."
> 
>         Read more at:
> 
>         http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4321.html
> 
>         Does this mean Brad Wardell was wrong when he posted the following
on
> 9/18/99:
> 
> 
>         "The call has been made -- there will be no new client from Stardock
> and IBM has indicated that they have no plans for an OS/2-based client
> of their own."
> 
> 
>         Of course, that couldn't possibly be the case.  Wait, I know!  IBM
must
> have just CHANGED THEIR MIND a couple of weeks ago and told their
> developers to crank out a client.  Man, those IBM developers in Austin
> are QUICK!!
> -----
> 
> You should check out Esther's announcement in comp.os.os2.announce.  I'd
> say it pretty much confirms that your post was out of line, wouldn't
> you?  All things considered, Brad summed it up quite well.
> 
Well, I'm not sure which summation you're referring to but it does look
like I was too quick on the draw regarding a new Warp client. 
Personally, I still expect to see IBM offer a new OS/2 client but I
don't think everyone at IBM knows they are going to do this, yet.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          05-Nov-99 13:07:11
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Marty wrote:
> 
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bennie Nelson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This thread has gone on for quite a while with numerous
> > > > > > posts from various individuals, so I'd like to summarize
> > > > > > the points, as I see them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Java 1.2 functionality in IBM's JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality.
> > > > >
> > > > > This has not been shown to be true.
> > > >
> > > > Dave quoted from the "readme.sma" file that came with
> > > > Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  I'll also quote the relevant
> > > > portion:
> > > >
> > > > "The Security considerations (Security) are based on enhancements from
> > > > the Java 2 security model. Security is shipped with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > > > Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 (Developer
> > > > Kit). Security is integrated into the Runtime package and is
> > > > disabled by default.
> > > >
> > > > Note:  Security is only supported on systems with the IBM OS/2 Warp
> > > >        Developer Kit, Java(TM) Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8."
> > > >
> > > > To me, "based on enhancements from the Java 2 security model" and
> > > > "JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 has Java 1.2 security functionality" are both
> > > > true statements.  The first, from IBM, proves the second.
> > >
> > > The first, from IBM, does not prove anything.  I can make a movie based
on a
> > > novel, yet tell a very different story than the novel told, as we often
see
> > > happening.
> >
> > If the first portion proves nothing, that is, if IBM's words mean nothing,
> > then your words prove nothing and mean nothing.  Marty, words do have
> > meanings.  IBM's words have meanings.  Furthermore, IBM's words as part of
> > a distributed and licensed product carry far more weight than yours or
> > mine.  Why?  Because those words have a multi-billion dollar international
> > corporation behind them.
> 
> IBM's words were that their JDK will have security enhancements "based on"
> those of Java 2.  That doesn't mean they will implement Java 2 functionality
> nor that they lied.
> 
> > There are only three choices here concerning the quote from IBM:
> >
> > 1) IBM's words as quoted above are false
> > 2) IBM's words as quoted above are true
> > 3) combination of 1 and 2 (i.e., there are elements that are false and
> > elements that are true)
> 
> I go with #2, however this is not proof of Java 2 functionality being
> implemented in their 1.1.8 JDK.

So, an "enhancement" requires NO "implementation" to exist?  The text
from IBM indicates that the security enhancements are in the Runtime
but are disabled by default.  That makes sense: IBM has left the security
at 1.1.8 level by default, but has provided 1.2 security for those who
want the added level of security.  

For me, IBM must have implemented level 1.2 security in the Runtime for
the enhancements to exist in the Runtime.  How else could the 1.2 Security
enhancements be included except through implementation?

Define implements, please.

> 
> > You have simply brushed them away, while offering no proof.
> 
> I've offered an example of how something can be "based on" something else,
yet
> be very different in nature and implementation.

But, IBM is committed to Java's promise of compatibility.  Nothing they
have stated concerning this implies that the implementation violates
compatibility.  If IBM's implementation deviates from 1.2 Security in
any way, there will be a document that discusses this.  I've seen no
evidence that such documentation exists.

> 
> > By the same manner, you've established the basis for brushing away all
> > that you have written.
> 
> Not so, Bennie.
> 
> > You've simply dismissed the words from IBM based solely upon the authority
> > of your word.  Bad news, Marty: your words don't carry that much weight.
> 
> I haven't dismissed their words at all.  Saying that the JDK is based on
> functionality from Java 2 does not mean, and certainly doesn't prove that it
> implements said functionality.

In the absence of any qualifying remarks to the contrary, the literal
interpretation of IBM's words is that IBM did not deviate from the 1.2 
Security model.

> 
> > You're going to have to submit evidence to support your claim.  You did
> > that with the .jpg file.  Why are you waving-your-hands-abracadabra-and-
> > IBM's-words-vanish this time?
> 
> Have you understood the novel/movie analogy?

Yes.  But IBM is contractually obligated to produce Java implementations
that do not violate Java compatibility.  This is why Sun sued MS over
MS' attempts to subvert Java compatibility in the Windows environment by
producing not-so-compatible versions of Java for Windows.  So, I don't 
think the novel/movie analogy is applicable.

> 
> > > > Are you saying that the first does NOT prove the second statement
> > > > to be true?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > > > It is not clear whether this functionality involves
> > > > > > changes made to Java classes or changes made to the
> > > > > > Java Virtual Machine or both.  But this distinction is
> > > > > > not significant to the fact that the Java classes provided
> > > > > > by IBM in the JDK 1.1.8 for OS/2 and any other classes
> > > > > > executed within the 1.18 JVM are affected such that the
> > > > > > classes must abide by the Java 1.2 security implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) The self-extracting archive
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) The SELF-EXTRACTING archive being discussed in this thread
> > > > > > is in an OS/2 native format.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.
> > > >
> > > > I wrote "SELF-EXTRACTING" to emphasize that I was referring only
> > > > to the OS/2-specific code.  This code is what gives the executable
> > > > it's functionality and purpose.
> > >
> > > We differ in definitions, hence our disagreement.  Neither of us is
> > > inconsistent with our own use of these definitions of the terms in
question.
> >
> > I have no problem with this.  You may define your terms and use them
> > consistently and I will understand what you've written.  That is the
> > essence of good communication.  That is why I offered my set of
definitions
> > and have made my points based upon them.
> >
> > So, in this case, I would say that we really don't have any substantive
> > disagreement.  We both agree, in our own words, that the executable runs
> > in DOS, but that the self-extraction code does not.  The self-extraction
> > code only executes in OS/2.  We also agree that the executable itself is
> > able to be processed (e.g., viewed) by various tools.  Finally, the
> > archived files included in the executable file are able to be extracted
> > in a non-OS2 environment using non-OS2 software.
> 
> Check.
> 
> > > > > > b) This SELF-EXTRACTING archive will only execute in OS/2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the code which extracts the archive is OS/2-exclusive.  The
archive
> > > > > as a whole, as contained by the EXE file will execute in DOS.
> > > >
> > > > And I disagree.  The SELF-EXTRACTING archive will not execute, as
> > > > a whole.  Only the DOS stub executes.  If the SELF-EXTRACTING code
> > > > and the archive are removed, the executable will "run" in DOS
> > > > exactly the way it does with the SE code included.  Thus, what
> > > > is executed in DOS is not a SE archive.
> > >
> > > Again, we differ in our definitions of the terms in question.
> >
> > But knowing the definitions I've given, do you disagree with anything
> > substantive in my post?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > > > > > c) The self-extracting ARCHIVE is in a standard ARCHIVE
> > > > > > format that can be processed on OS/2 or other platforms
> > > > > > that have archive utilities that implement support for
> > > > > > the standard ARCHIVE format employed by IBM in building
> > > > > > the SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE for Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
> > > > > > d) The SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE contains ancillary code
> > > > > > for execution on non-OS2 systems.
> > > > >
> > > > > This code is known as a stub.  It is executed, not displayed.
> > > >
> > > > But, it is ancillary in nature, and has no direct relation
> > > > or value to the SELF-EXTRACTION code.
> > >
> > > I never claimed it was not.
> > >
> > > > The SE code is the purpose, the raison d'etre, for the
> > > > executable program.  If the DOS stub was replaced with x'90' (NOP)
> > > > instructions, there would be no loss of functionality for the SE
> > > > program.  The executable would crash and burn if loaded in DOS,
> > >
> > > If you forgot to cap it off with a RET instruction, that is.  ;-)
> >
> > That was implied.  Simply replacing the DOS stub with repeated x'90'
> > wouldn't "cap it off with a RET instruction."
> 
> To play devil's advocate, I could point out that perhaps a RET is
encountered
> in the "random" bytes comprising the rest of the executable before the stack
> frame is destroyed.

Perhaps a RETF is required?  Might get some beeps out of it, too, as
it crashes and burns.  Perhaps I was being a little "flamboyant" in
my description.<g>  I merely meant that the program would not run normally,
especially if the DOS code preceeds the OS/2 code.  In that case, the
NOPs would lead to attempted execution of the OS/2 code.

> 
> > > > but that has no bearing on the fact that the SE code is OS/2
> > > > only. The program with the DOS stub "NOP'ed" would execute
> > > > flawlessly in OS/2.
> > >
> > > Again, the shism in the definition of our terms lead to this
disagreement.
> >
> > The important fact is that you've understood what I've said because
> > you know the definitions I've used, and vice versa.  We agree about
> > the main points.  We simply want to say them in our own ways.
> 
> Yup.  No problem.
> 
> > > > > > e) The contents of this SELF-EXTRACTING ARCHIVE may be
> > > > > > viewed with varying degrees of detail using many tools,
> > > > > > such as editors, viewers, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Many posts containing some or all of these points are
> > > > > > confusing the points by ignoring essential distinctions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example, some in this thread are arguing for 2.c as
> > > > > > if that is a rebuttal to 2.b.  However, both 2.b AND 2.c
> > > > > > are true.  The SELF-EXTRACTING code can only execute in
> > > > > > OS/2.  The ARCHIVE can be processed on other platforms.
> > > >
> >

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: curtisb@bestnet.com                               05-Nov-99 18:51:21
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <curtisb@bestnet.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip

You are the one who posted InfoZip's failure as "evidence" to support
your claim that one had to run OS/2 in order to obtain the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE.  I simply took your "evidence" at face value.  Are we to
blame if you post bogus evidence to support your claims?

> and that it makes OS/2 look bad.

Which it does.

> But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions from people in this
newsgroup.

Oh, you mean like Dave Tholen's erroneous conclusion that one has to run
OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE?

Or, that even OS/2 *could* extract the contents of that file when it was
corrupted?

Yes, these types of things do make OS/2 look bad.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 18:45:10
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>cbass2112@my-deja.com
>Okay.  *IF* what you are saying is true, namely, that *ALL* unzip tools
>absolutely *MUST* die with your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then what I would
>suspect is that *YOUR* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is corrupted in some way,
>especially in light of the fact that *MY* InzoZip unzip.exe did, in
>fact, correctly extract the contents of *MY* JAVAINUF.EXE file.

>Would your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE extract it's contents if it were run in
>an OS/2 session?  If what you say above is true, it would have to die
>with some kind of error, since the self-extraction module contained in
>JAVAINUF.EXE is indeed an implementation of an unzip tool, and you did
>say that "the ultimate response would be the same" and that "all unzip
>tools should indeed behave the same way."

Moreover, this just demonstrates that Tholen operates from a position
of abject ignorance. He's been arguing about what is contained in
JAVAINUF.EXE and insisting that it can only be extracted using OS/2,
and OBVIOUSLY HE NEVER EVEN BOTHERED TO EXTRACT THE CONTENTS OF HIS
COPY OF JAVAINUF.EXE UNTIL AFTER SPOUTING HIS IGNORANT OPINIONS IN
THIS THREAD. Otherwise, he would have discovered that he had a corrupt
file well before he spouted his nonsense in this thread.

Perhaps if Tholen were smarter and more knowledgeable, he wouldn't be
the way that he is. But, it's clear that he is both ignorant and
stupid and yes, VERY INEPT.

And the amazing thing is that people like Bennie Nelson and Karel laud
this dummy's sense of "logic" and "competence". hahahahahaha!!!!! No
wonder why OS/2 went nowhere with "clever" people like that behind it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: curtisb@bestnet.com                               05-Nov-99 18:45:00
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <curtisb@bestnet.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> > On the basis of watching you avoid acknowledging your error via repeated
> > attempts at semantic hair split conundra
> 
> What alleged "semantic hair split conundra", Curtis?

One example is the alleged fact of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE being
corrupt, or otherwise inaccessable wrt its contents.  It is not logical
to assume that your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is corrupt when you claim that
one has to run JAVAINUF.EXE in OS/2 in order to extract its contents. 
Furthermore, it is still not logical to conclude that your copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE is corrupt when you post a failed attempt at extracting its
contents using InfoZip's unzip tool ***as a response to someone else's
claim that they could make said extraction using WinZip.***

In fact, if I am correct in my belief that your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is
corrupt (the basis of said belief being your analogy of a burn-out
(i.e., corrupted) light bulb, and the subsequent evidence I obtained by
successfully using InfoZip's unzip tool to extract the contents of *MY*
copy of JAVAINUF.EXE), then I can correctly claim that your posting of
the InfoZip error messages are non sequitur, in that they cannot counter
the claim that WinZip *can* extract the contents of an *uncorrupted*
JAVAINUF.EXE.  Furthermore, the very act of focusing on your corrupted
copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is itself non sequitur, in that one could not
extract its contents *even if they were to run it in OS/2,* ergo it can
neither support nor disprove your claim that one must run OS/2 in order
to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, since the contents of your copy
are not extractable in *any* case.

-- snip --

> You claimed that I'm "inept", Curtis.  There is no "ample basis" for
> such a claim.  Rather, there is ample basis for concluding that you
> jumped to a conclusion, thereby demonstrating that you are inept.

You failed to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using InfoZip, and
posted that failed attempt in order to support your earlier claim that
one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE (by
challenging the claim that others could make the extraction using
WinZip).  You alone knew whether your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt,
and it was not logical on my part to assume said corruption. If you
didn't know a priori that your file was corrupt, you still jumped to the
erroneous conclusion that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, and it was inept to assume at that point that
all unzip tools would fail to extract its contents, especially in light
of claims to the contrary. If you did know a priori that your copy was
corrupt, posting a failed attempt at extracting the contents of a known
corrupt archive was non sequitur, as I have already explained, and shows
ineptitude in that by claiming one must run OS/2 in order to extract the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, you failed to realize that, even using the
"proper tool" of OS/2, you still would be unable to extract the contents
of your corrupted copy of the file.

If your copy is indeed corrupt, then it's completely irrelevant to the
discussion, based on the arguments above. I could create a JAVAINUF.EXE
file that contained nothing but the DOS stub and a few extra random
bytes, but arguing over that version of the file wouldn't prove anything
either, although all unzip tools would still fail to "extract" it
"contents," and running it in a DOS session would still produce the same
message.

All of this just to avoid saying, "I stand corrected; one can obtain the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE without running OS/2."

Sheesh.

-- snip --

> You answered by telling me what you would *not* conclude, but I didn't
> ask you what you would *not* conclude.  You're also supposed to answer
> in a relevant way, Curtis.

"Relevant" to whom, Dave? In that I would not make those steps, the
whole scenario is irrelevant to me, yet you feel that you can still
impose it on me. Fine. I will still answer it in a sense that is
relevant to me, regardless of whether you consider it relevant or not.

> > I would not run ABC.EXE in DOS,
> 
> Irrelevant, Curtis.

Irrelevant to you, but again, the whole scenario is irrelevant to me.

> > since I already know that it's an OS/2 self extracting archive.
> 
> I didn't specify that in my scenario, Curtis.

Then the scenario must be existing in a vacuum, since you did know that
JAVAINUF.EXE was as OS/2 self extracting archive..

> > But, even if I did go that far down *your* path, I would not then use
> > "an unzipper" to try and extract the contents of ABC.EXE; I would simply
> > execute the program in an OS/2 session and be done with it.
> 
> Why not, if somebody told you they were able to unzip it?

Why would I care about that? What motive would I have?

> > Because of this, I wouldn't necessarily *conclude* anything, Dave.
> 
> But you already have, Curtis.

Not about this. You have even complained that you "asked what I would
conclude, not what I wouldn't conclude," the obvious implication being
that I didn't conclude anything, otherwise you would have had no basis
to complain.

-- snip --

> Balderdash.  Since when is an unzipper the wrong tool to unzip a zip
> archive, Curtis?

Since when is a failed attempt to unzip a corrupted archive evidence of
anything?

> > Really. You are supposed to be a scientist.
> 
> And what are you, Curtis?  And where do you get this "supposed to be"
> nonsense?
> 
> > When verifying another scientist's experiment, does it not make
> > sense to duplicate the other scientist's environment as faithfully
> > as possible?
> 
> That depends on what you consider a "faithful duplication".  If one
> experiment reports a 3 volt potential, one could verify that result
> using either a Simpson voltmeter or a Fluke voltmeter, for example,
> but is it really necessary to find out which brand of voltmeter the
> original experimenter used?  After all, a voltmeter known to be in
> working condition should produce a useful result, eh Curtis?

But you are using a corrupted copy of JAVAINUF.EXE as a basis for your
argument. That's hardly what I would call a "faithful" reproduction.

> > If you don't, then how much faith can you have in the results of
> > your verification?
> 
> That depends on what you consider a "faithful duplication".  See above
> for an example.

I have, and I can concede this point, in light of the fact that
InfoZip's unzip tool does, in fact, extract the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE. However, this still doesn't address using a corrupted file
as the subject, which is, most emphatically, not a faithful duplication.

> > Using InfoZip when I, Marty and Mike used WinZip is not very
> > scientific.
> 
> Illogical, Curtis.  See above for an example.  Furthermore, WinZip
> won't work any better on my copy of the javainuf.exe file.

Of course it won't. Neither will OS/2 itself, in this case.

-- snip --

> > No, it cannot, because your claim is that one has to run OS/2 in
> > order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,
> 
> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
> choices do you have, Curtis?

If the file is corrupt, you have no choices whatsoever, because, if all
unzip tools fail, that means that the self-extraction module contained
within the JAVAINUF.EXE file would also have to fail.

So the only "choice" would be to get an uncorrupted copy.

-- snip --

> >> DOS happens to be a non-OS/2 platform, Curtis.  Running it on an OS/2
> >> platform won't generate the message.
> 
> > Why worry about generating the message?
> 
> Why not?
> 
> > Why not just run it in OS/2 and proceed to install it?
> 
> Because Timbol claims to be an NT user, Curtis.  You really are lost,
> aren't you?

Yet you used the OS/2 based InfoZip unzip utility in order to support
your argument.

Who is lost, Dave?

And, in terms of platform, how is running the JAVAINUF.EXE executable
any different from using InfoZip?

Claiming that I "really [am] lost" is abusive. You are hurling insults.
Typical invective, the usual course for someone who lacks a logical
argument.

-- [snip of lots of boring, repetitious stuff] --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 18:58:14
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Mike Timbol
>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>> some other way,

>I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.

>> but you did not realize it at first?

>Ian Tholen
>I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>claimed that you looked at its contents.

And after everyone else pointed out how WRONG your ignorant opinions
were.

This is standard operating procedure for Tholen. He expresses
astounding ignorance in some thread, and then spends several weeks
ineptly excusing/compounding his ignorance with some truly dim-witted,
overly pedantic nonsense whose only purpose seems to be to try and
wear down the patience of everyone reading the thread so that they
move on to other things and hopefully never have to get to the point
where he has to finally admit that he's a moron who made a bone-headed
statement.

The only problem is that his vaudeville routine isn't working. Except
for overly impressionable, and none too clever gungho OS/2 salesmen
such as Bennie Nelson and Karel, everyone else has long since
concluded that Tholen is a moron.

And I'll give myself a pat on the back, since I very much believe that
the start of Tholen's downfall began with my documentation of his lack
of intelligence and common sense, inconsistency, contradictory
positions, mindless use of empty platitudes, lack of imagination and
creativity, etc. As soon as people had a concise source of his most
moronic moments, it became painfully clear that Tholen was a stupid,
mentally disturbed person.

And now, the *only* people who think otherwise, are people who
themselves aren't that clever, and/or who are so "emotionally blocked"
(as Bennie would say) about their niche market, pet product that they
would willingly agree with, praise, and even run interference for a
renowned kook and fool like Tholen.

How awful for OS/2 to have such inept fools advocating it. No wonder
why it never took off.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 19:04:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Karel Jansens
>I never said I'm not a bastard.

You also never said that you were a naive, pointless, none-too-clever
unpaid-salesman-for-a-dying-IBM-product.

But that's what you are, and we figured that out from your posts

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: curtisb@bestnet.com                               05-Nov-99 19:07:24
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <curtisb@bestnet.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip

Uh, the fact of the matter is that InfoZip's unzip utility is indeed far
less capable than WinZip, and knowledge of this fact, along with the
apparently bogus "evidence" you posted involving the use of the tool in
a failed attempt at unzipping a file that I, Marty and Mike know WinZip
to be capable of unzipping, does indeed lead to the logical conclusion
that InfoZip is less capable of unzipping that particular file.

As I asked elsewhere, are we to blame for your posting bogus evidence?

And, as Jeff Glatt pointed out to me, you apparently didn't even realize
you *had* a corrupt file until after viewing our (Marty's, Mike's and
my) non-bogus evidence, namely, the JPEG of WinZip displaying the
contents of the JAVAINUF.EXE file, which means that you hadn't even
extracted its contents yet, but still argued about what the file
contained, and that one had to use OS/2 to extract the contents in the
first place!!!

> and that it makes OS/2 look bad.

Considering that you are an OS/2 user, you bet it does.

> But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
> from people in this newsgroup.

Such as your own erroneous conclusion about needing to run OS/2 in order
to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 19:11:19
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451488

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty
>Thank you Dave, for so completely and easily demonstrating how you took the
>logical arguments I was posing and turned them into your own infantile game. 
>Note to the other readers that (since Dave removed the attributions) the
>numerically quoted stuff (#>) were my words and the singly indented words
were
>Dave's.  Dave has made it quite clear who is playing the games around here.

Yes and no, Marty. It's quite clear to *most* people that Tholen is a
moron playing infantile games on Usenet. But, there are some clueless
people, for example, Bennie Nelson and Karel, who have yet to figure
that out (and may never do so -- I'm not impressed with the "insight"
shown by either one, and certainly not impressed with their attempts
to run interference for Tholen, for example:

"Tholen's detractors are unskilled at logic... [and] emotionally
blocked".
-- Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               05-Nov-99 19:19:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Esther asks the $64 Question! (Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: 

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:33:08, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:
| Esther Schindler? (esther@bitranch.com?) wrote (5 Nov 1999 04:54:43 GMT):
| >Uno, I'm a founder, vice president, and program chair of the Phoenix 
| >OS/2 Society, the largest OS/2 user group on the planet. I'm sysop in
| Yeah, that is impressive.  Next time be sure to mention "with
| subscribers in 17 countries".  Wooo-hooo!
| >And you think I'm not an OS/2 supporter?!
| Well said.

Huh? Uno, you aren't making sense.

First you try to say that I'm not an OS/2 supporter. Then, when I 
answer your question by giving evidence that I *am*, you deride me for
doing so. What's your point?

| >I think OS/2 is wonderful. It's still my favorite choice of OS, and as
| Obviously not, else you'd use it more than 10% of the time, or did you
| say 40.  Yeah, what-ever.  I'm trying to think what apps you use those
| 10%.  Oh, a newsreader, at least while you post here.  Smart move.

I did say 40%. And my job requires that I review hardware and software
that works on, well, whatever it works on. Unfortunately, I can't 
review intranet-building apps or discussion servers or survey software
on OS/2... there aren't many, and when there *are* I have to review 
them on the "common" platform which is nearly always Windows.

When I have a choice, I use OS/2, and I use native OS/2 applications. 
(The exception is my accounting programs, which are both old DOS 
apps.)

| >You didn't answer my question. Why are you here?
| 
| If I don't answer do you promise to keep asking?  I mean, I have
| nothing as grand as "to keep in touch with the little people",
| so it would take a lot of brain cells to come up with a reason
| as good as yours.

Well, it's strange that you feel it necessary to deflect from the 
question by getting insulting. I'm an OS/2 user; it's not a surprise 
that I hang out in an OS/2 discussion area. You're not, so it's 
surprising that you do.

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 20:49:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 16:48:27
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 19:04:45, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >Karel Jansens
> >I never said I'm not a bastard.
> 
> You also never said that you were a naive, pointless, none-too-clever
> unpaid-salesman-for-a-dying-IBM-product.
> 
> But that's what you are, and we figured that out from your posts

You may have noticed by now that I don't really bother answering your 
posts to/about me anymore. The reason being they get rather tedious 
and repetitive after a while. But I'd like to answer part of this one.
I'm not going to react to all the personal stuff because... well, I 
can't be bothered, really.

But "unpaid-salesman-for-a-dying-IBM-product"??? Have you ever taken 
the time to notice the title of this newsgroup? It's called 
comp.os.OS2.ADVOCACY! I'm *supposed* to defend the O/S I use here. The
suspects in this NG are not the people applauding OS/2, they're only 
doing the correct thing for the NG, it's the "kewl dudes" using 
Windows-in-different-flavours coming here telling everyone how stupid 
they are for using OS/2 that I suspect to be on some payroll or 
another (not you, rest assured. I'm quite certain Microsoft would 
never hire *you*.)

That was it. I'll go back to ignoring you now.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ispy@groovyshow.com                               05-Nov-99 14:38:28
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: New Microsoft keyboard

From: "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com>

Yup, and superior operating systems like OS/2, BeOSX, Linux, etc, never ever
ever EVER ever EVER ever have a use for those keystrokes?

Squish off... your comment might be perfect for Win95, but Win98 has been
friendly to me and, quite honestly, NT kicks the shit out of OS/2 in terms
of stability and I haven't mentioned OS/2's system input queue yet!

Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:3820AE36.3853ECDC@agad.purdue.edu...
> Have you seen the new Microsoft keyboard design?  This one really looks
> pretty good:
>
> http://www.ext.vt.edu/~pgr/images/new_microsoft_keyboard.jpg
>
> --
> Mark Kelley
> Agriculture Information Systems
> Purdue University
>
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  05-Nov-99 16:16:12
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451488

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

> > Time to digestify his postings.
>
> Be my guest.

Congratulations, Marty, on making it to the winner's circle!  Tholen can't
admit he was wrong but he doesn't want to keep opposing you in your many
messages (gads, did you see how many messages he had to non-invent over the
past two days?!), so he picks and chooses your comments, devoid, as usual,
of all salient quotations, to respond to in his wrong and inimical ways.

You've made it the penultimate step, Marty: the only thing left for him to
do is to stop responding to your messages completely, thus giving you free
reign to point out his stupidity.  You're almost there -- congratulations!

- Joe



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ispy@groovyshow.com                               05-Nov-99 14:44:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Neat tagline I lifted...

From: "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com>

yes but you cannot seperate the message from the messenger.

And, you will agree, that even Hitler, Rush Limbaugh, Bill gates, Louis
Farrakhan, any star trek writer, etc, etc, have said something which is
actually POSITIVE at one point.

Hitler was for getting Germany out of a depression which the idiots of the
world gave them at the Treaty of Versailles in 1918.

Rush Limbaugh says he's concerned for morality.

Bill Gates wants a computer in every home (you have one in your home, right?
Forget which OS is on it, Gates' comment is  - as always - generic.)

Louis Farakhan wants Blacks to be assertive.

And some of us have seen enough star trek to want to go to paramount and
shoot them down.

I'm getting to the point.

ANYWAY, these same people who I mentioned OFTEM combine good statements with
their own true feelings on issues and cause nothing but hell.

So, for those people, can we seperate the message from the messanger?

Now apply *that* answer to OS/2 and IBM or vice-versa.

You cannot seperate one from the other.

May as well try to get Microsoft to ditch MS-DOS.

Jerry McBride <mcbrides@erols.com> wrote in message
news:bimI48D5wS5c090yn@erols.com...
> I just lifted this line of text from a message off a mailing list...
>
> It makes a great tagline...
>
> --
>
> OS/2 is like being in love with a woman and can't stand her father and
other
> members of the family.
>
> /----------------------------------------\
> | From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
> |         mcbrides@erols.com             |
> \----------------------------------------/
>
> --
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mdk@agad.purdue.edu                               05-Nov-99 17:02:08
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: New Microsoft keyboard

From: Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu>

"Squish off?"  Hmmm ... I think you're taking things a bit too seriously here.
When devotion to a particular OS becomes so important that you can no longer
take a joke, then you are about ready to hop into the back of the padded white
van with someone who wears his socks on his hands and with an illogical
logic-obsessed pedant.  They're OS/2 fans and you're not, but there's room in
the plenty of room in the asylum for everyone.

Quick ... get a life before it's too late!

Kelly Robinson wrote:

> Yup, and superior operating systems like OS/2, BeOSX, Linux, etc, never ever
> ever EVER ever EVER ever have a use for those keystrokes?
>
> Squish off... your comment might be perfect for Win95, but Win98 has been
> friendly to me and, quite honestly, NT kicks the shit out of OS/2 in terms
> of stability and I haven't mentioned OS/2's system input queue yet!
>
> Mark Kelley <mdk@agad.purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:3820AE36.3853ECDC@agad.purdue.edu...
> > Have you seen the new Microsoft keyboard design?  This one really looks
> > pretty good:
> >
> > http://www.ext.vt.edu/~pgr/images/new_microsoft_keyboard.jpg
> >
> > --
> > Mark Kelley
> > Agriculture Information Systems
> > Purdue University
> >
> >
> >

--
Mark Kelley
Agriculture Information Systems
Purdue University
Phone:(765)494-8333
Fax:(765)494-8342


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Purdue University (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: esther@bitranch.com                               05-Nov-99 22:23:26
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Esther: Queen of the Blues (Re: Esther lays it on the line (Re:   E

From: esther@bitranch.com (Esther Schindler)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:37:32, K M Hopkins <hyperon@bhil.com> wrote:
| New to this newgroup, but why are there people in this group that don't like
| OS/2?
| Is this not an advocacy group, or am I in the wrong group? All I here is
people
| bashing OS/2. I must have forgot the definition of  'advocacy'.

The technical term is "cognitive dissonance." It's the same 
psychological response that people have when they check out Consumer 
Reports *after* they buy a car, to prove to themselves that they got a
great deal, made the right choice, etc. We all want to believe that 
we're right... and, in some cases, folks feel that they have to prove 
others _wrong_ in order to demonstrate our own rightness.

| PS Hey Esther, I remember your name from OS/2 magazine. Wow feel like I am
| meeting a celebrity. No honest, really. Kudos to your dedication.

Thanks, KM. It's very kind of you to say so!

--Esther

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Frontier GlobalCenter Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               05-Nov-99 17:50:10
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 19:04:45, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)
> wrote:
> 
> > >Karel Jansens
> > >I never said I'm not a bastard.
> >
> > You also never said that you were a naive, pointless, none-too-clever
> > unpaid-salesman-for-a-dying-IBM-product.
> >
> > But that's what you are, and we figured that out from your posts
> 
> You may have noticed by now that I don't really bother answering your
> posts to/about me anymore. The reason being they get rather tedious
> and repetitive after a while.

Yet you willingly engage in a discussion with Dave???

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.no...               05-Nov-99 17:45:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

Message sender: workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam

From: "Drestin Black" <workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:3822c6ee$2$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
>
> Games are for toys. Unless one makes his or her money selling toys, why
> would any sane individual run Windows?
>
> > D. Some people just want what everyone else us using
>
> Ah, yes, the lemmings of the world.
>
Wow, you really are quite the zealous linux advocate aren't you? Why would
any sane individual run Unix? yawn...


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 23:04:22
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Curtis Bass <curtisb@bestnet.com>
>And, as Jeff Glatt pointed out to me, you apparently didn't even realize
>you *had* a corrupt file until after viewing our (Marty's, Mike's and
>my) non-bogus evidence, namely, the JPEG of WinZip displaying the
>contents of the JAVAINUF.EXE file, which means that you hadn't even
>extracted its contents yet, but still argued about what the file
>contained, and that one had to use OS/2 to extract the contents in the
>first place!!!

The really scary part is that this Tholen lunatic claims to be doing
important work in the astronomy field. If he pursues his avocation as
clumsily and ineptly as he pursued gathering "evidence" to support his
now-known-to-be-exceedingly-ignorant claims here in this newsgroup,
then he must truly be doing a pathetic job. (Perhaps he is getting by
on the assistance of naive grad students who don't realize how easy it
is for them to have their own hard work usurped by manipulative
college instructors who obviously suffer from megalomania? Wasn't that
"new comet" discovery actually made "in conjunction" with a University
of Hawaii student? I think that the U of Hawaii dean should launch an
investigation into whether Tholen is suitable to be on the college
staff. Personally, I think that it shows a remarkable lack of good
judgment for the university to have hired such a kook at all)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               05-Nov-99 17:56:04
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

cbass2112@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <7vticf$b7c$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
>   tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > Suppose you deprived a human being of oxygen for an hour.  Would you
> > expect all human beings to behave the same way (that is, die)?  Now,
> > that's a more appropriate analogy.  All unzip tools should indeed
> > behave the same way (that is, die) in response to my copy of the
> > javainuf.exe file.  The details may differ (wording of error messages,
> > assuming the implementation is smart enough to recognize the error),
> > but the ultimate response will be the same.
> 
> Okay.  *IF* what you are saying is true, namely, that *ALL* unzip tools
> absolutely *MUST* die with your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then what I would
> suspect is that *YOUR* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is corrupted in some way,
> especially in light of the fact that *MY* InzoZip unzip.exe did, in
> fact, correctly extract the contents of *MY* JAVAINUF.EXE file.

Like I said... the last round of betting is over and it's time to put our
cards
down on the table.  Dave proudly presented his pair of 2's.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            05-Nov-99 23:11:07
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 19:55:03
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:50:21, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 19:04:45, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > >Karel Jansens
> > > >I never said I'm not a bastard.
> > >
> > > You also never said that you were a naive, pointless, none-too-clever
> > > unpaid-salesman-for-a-dying-IBM-product.
> > >
> > > But that's what you are, and we figured that out from your posts
> > 
> > You may have noticed by now that I don't really bother answering your
> > posts to/about me anymore. The reason being they get rather tedious
> > and repetitive after a while.
> 
> Yet you willingly engage in a discussion with Dave???

Ahh, that's different (*). Dave has a sense of humour. OK, so maybe 
you don't think so; but that's not really the point, is it? Besides, 
we don't discuss, we exchange wits - of a post-modern, 
neo-surrealistic, hyper-synergetic nature. There you go.

I - surprise! surprise! - also *learn* things from him. But we tend to
keep the serious conversations out of the NG, what with people 
complaining about off-topicness and such (although if you beat the 
hell out of me (**) I still couldn't say how one could *get* off-topic
on this NG - it seems to only apply to certain people).

Anyway, try to disagree with Jeff (or just wait: you're bound to p*ss 
him off some time or other), see what happens and compare *that* to 
your discussions with Dave.


(*) OK, so some repetition was involved. It was intended, trust me. 
Just watch the episode "Cause and Effect" from Star Trek, the Next 
Generation.

(**) Please don't. It was a mettyfore.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 05-Nov-99 23:18:06
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Interesting Claim by Tholen

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>

On Sunday, November 1, 1999, Dave Tholen wrote the following, in
response to Mike Timbol:

Mike T > > > > I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with
WinZip.
Mike T > > > >
Mike T > > > > classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed
at 57%
Mike T > > > > so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is
d7312638.
Mike T > > > > The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
Mike T > > > > AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.

Dave T > > > Irrelevant, Mike.

Mike T > > It's quite relevant.  It demonstrates that I am able to read
the file.

Dave T > I can read the file as well, Mike.  Does that prove that I ran
WinZip?

For the record, the file in question is JAVAINUF.EXE, the one Dave made
such a big deal over, saying, "WinZip didn't read *MY* copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE" (emphasis mine). Dave repeated, over and over, to both
Marty and myself, that WinZip did not extract the contents of Dave's
JAVAINUF.EXE copy.  Later, we all learn that Dave's copy, indeed, would
have choked WinZip because it was, now hang on, ***CORRUPTED!!!***

Yet here, referring to the exact same file, he claims that he can "read
the file," the obvious implication being that he could extract its
contents, the basis of said implication being that he's using the same
language as Mike Timbol (i.e., "read the file"), when Mike's use of the
language obviously means "to extract the contents."

So, either Dave lied about being able to extract the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE in this exchange with Mike, or he "jumped to an erroneous
conclusion" by saying that he could do so, as the file in question was
corrupted.

And if it's the latter case, then, if the rest of us "jumped to an
erroneous conclusion" regarding InfoZip's ability to extract the
contents of the file, we have only Tholen to blame, as he is the one who
implied that the file was uncorrupted by stating, "I can read the file
[i.e., extract the contents of the file] as well, Mike," then
subsequently posting the error messages from InfoZip's failed attempt to
do so, while ***NOT*** revealing that his JAVAINUF.EXE file was corrupt,
and ***NOT*** retracting the statement that he could "read the file as
well."

Instead, Dave chose to make a game out of it, in an apparent attempt to
avoid the admission of his own mistake, namely, claiming that one had to
run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          05-Nov-99 23:18:25
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Karel Jansens
>You may have noticed by now that I don't really bother answering your 
>posts to/about me anymore. The reason being they get rather tedious 
>and repetitive after a while.

Speaking of tedious and repetitive, just how many times today has one
heard the same anti-everything-associated-with-Microsoft vaudeville
routine on the internet that you spew? 30? 50? 100? It's the #1 trend
among kooks who otherwise have no life outside of a nerdy and somewhat
unhealthy emotional attachment to some esoteric computer pet product.
Except for the fact that you're ranting about MS instead of Creative
Labs, there is absolutely no difference between the OS/2 Advocate and
some drooling, living-in-the-past GUS sound card owner who is still
desperately hyping his pet product.

Get a clue. No one cares about the opinions of self-inflicted-socially
ostracized malcontents and misfits who have nothing but complaints
about the rest of the world outside of their exceedingly small
niche/cult.

>But "unpaid-salesman-for-a-dying-IBM-product"?

Yes indeed.

Oh look! There's some broken glass. Why don't you crawl over it some
more for the entertainment of IBM executives? They could probably use
a good laugh

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: nospam@h8it.org                                   05-Nov-99 18:59:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Caldera 4, Microsoft 0. The chickens come home to roost

From: "Jerry Rowe" <nospam@h8it.org>

And all indications are Microsoft will be declared a monopoly by the judge in
the DOJ case as well.

Special Caldera case report: Microsoft's smoking pistols
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000019.html

Dos 5 vapourware campaign: 'I am not a crook,' says MS exec
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000020.html

Kill Novell! Allchin fingers the real competition
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000021.html

How MS played the incompatibility card against DR-DOS
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html

Win95 - is it just Dos 7 plus Windows 4 after all?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000024.html

DR-Dos is terrific, says MS [inside] tester
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000025.html

The best product endorsement that Digital Research ever obtained for DR-DOS
 was from Microsoft, it turns out, and we know this thanks to a disclosure by
Judge
 Benson in his 4-0 decision this week for Caldera. 

 Phil Barrett, who was managing Windows 3.1 in 1990, received an email from a
 subordinate about DR-DOS 5.0, which said: "You asked me for a user's view of
DR
 DOS 5.0... I used DR DOS 5.0 with a huge number of apps. I found it
incredibly
 superior to MS DOS 3.31 and IBM DOS 4.01. ... The most important reason to
use
 any version of DOS is to run DOS apps. DR DOS 5.0 runs every DOS app I know.
 DR DOS 5.0 works successfully with Windows (2.11, Win 386 2.11 and Windows
 3.0 and 3.0a). ... Conclusion: DR DOS is vastly superior to MS dos 5.0."
  -=-         -=-        -=-       -=-        -=-       -=-       -=-     -=-
Jerry L. Rowe - Certified OS/2 Engineer V 2.1,3,4
Certified OS/2 Lan Server/Warp Server Administrator/Engineer
jerry.rowe@{delete.this}usa.net - http://www.iquest.net/~jlrowe
Team OS/2 - Warping the Internet
  -=-         -=-        -=-       -=-        -=-       -=-       -=-     -=-
Is Microsoft a Tiger?

There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a Tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the Tiger.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NowhereHere (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se                  06-Nov-99 00:11:08
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: finding of facts

From: "Lennart Gahm" <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se>

Lets hope that excellent technology like OS/2 now will have a real chance
instead of garbage forced on us from a monopoly company.

http://news.cnet.com
BULLETIN WASHINGTON--A federal judge has determined that Microsoft holds a
monopoly in PC operating systems in an unusually decisive statement that
could signal the outcome of the landmark antitrust case.
The ruling, called a "finding of fact," was not a verdict. But the widely
anticipated statement appeared to indicate that U.S. District Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson was leaning heavily in favor of the Justice Department (DOJ)
prosecutors arguing against the software giant. 

"Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC
operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of
price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above taht which
could be charged in a competitive market," Jackson wrote. 

"Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an
unacceptable amount of business to competitors," he added. "In other words,
Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market." 

"Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to
every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry,"
Jackson said. "Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and
others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market
power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing
initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core
products." 

Jackson also took Microsoft to task in describing their past business
practices. The Redmond, Washington, empire has been infamous throughout the
high-tech industry for its strong-arm tactics, though the company has
steadfastly maintained that it has never violated any laws. 

"Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation
deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential
to threaten Microsoft," the judge wrote.
"The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit
consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with
Microsoft's self-interest." 



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 06-Nov-99 00:14:02
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:50:21, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

-- snip --

> > Yet you willingly engage in a discussion with Dave???
> 
> Ahh, that's different (*). Dave has a sense of humour. OK, so maybe
> you don't think so; but that's not really the point, is it? Besides,
> we don't discuss, we exchange wits - of a post-modern,
> neo-surrealistic, hyper-synergetic nature. There you go.

I suppose that, as long as you steer clear of technical issues, and
disagreements thereof, you'll be fine (i.e., continue to discuss BBC
comedy and Sci-Fi, and you'll be quite safe).

-- snip --

> Anyway, try to disagree with Jeff (or just wait: you're bound to p*ss
> him off some time or other), see what happens and compare *that* to
> your discussions with Dave.

Yes, Jeff can be quite, how shall we say, unbridled in his contempt for
what he sees as misguided devotion to a product which, quite clearly, is
not targeted to the general consumer, and therefore should not be
advocated as such.

And, although I do use OS/2 at every opportunity, simply because I like
the environment, I agree with his assessments, for the most part.  I
don't advocate OS/2 as a rule, any more than I would "advocate" AIX or
AS/400 or MVS. They are all decent products, but not a one is truly
geared for the general consumer (although OS/2 Warp comes closest).

OTOH, try to disagree with Tholen on a substantial issue (which is to
say, something other than the quality of ST Voyager as a Sci-Fi series),
or, better yet, point out one of his erroneous statements, and see how
"humorous" he is then.

-- snip --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            06-Nov-99 00:31:17
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:14:04, Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 22:50:21, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > > Yet you willingly engage in a discussion with Dave???
> > 
> > Ahh, that's different (*). Dave has a sense of humour. OK, so maybe
> > you don't think so; but that's not really the point, is it? Besides,
> > we don't discuss, we exchange wits - of a post-modern,
> > neo-surrealistic, hyper-synergetic nature. There you go.
> 
> I suppose that, as long as you steer clear of technical issues, and
> disagreements thereof, you'll be fine (i.e., continue to discuss BBC
> comedy and Sci-Fi, and you'll be quite safe).
> 
> -- snip --
> 
> > Anyway, try to disagree with Jeff (or just wait: you're bound to p*ss
> > him off some time or other), see what happens and compare *that* to
> > your discussions with Dave.
> 
> Yes, Jeff can be quite, how shall we say, unbridled in his contempt for
> what he sees as misguided devotion to a product which, quite clearly, is
> not targeted to the general consumer, and therefore should not be
> advocated as such.
> 
> And, although I do use OS/2 at every opportunity, simply because I like
> the environment, I agree with his assessments, for the most part.  I
> don't advocate OS/2 as a rule, any more than I would "advocate" AIX or
> AS/400 or MVS. They are all decent products, but not a one is truly
> geared for the general consumer (although OS/2 Warp comes closest).
> 
> OTOH, try to disagree with Tholen on a substantial issue (which is to
> say, something other than the quality of ST Voyager as a Sci-Fi series),
> or, better yet, point out one of his erroneous statements, and see how
> "humorous" he is then.
> 
Look, I talk with Dave about subjects we both like. It's usually not 
about operating systems (because we tend to agree on that point), or 
about zip or java things (that I know nothing about), so you probably 
don't consider those subjects important. But we're clearly having fun,
so I think I'll just continue. If I feel the need to disagree, I will 
speak up, but generally I'm not really into that "fighting for the fun
of it" thing. We'll see how it goes then.

Oh, and I don't advocate OS/2 for general use, for the same reason I 
don't advocate Linux for general use. Have you seen the kind of 
moronic questions popping up in the Linux groups these days? I say: 
let Microsoft keep the lusers.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: huffd@nls.net                                     06-Nov-99 00:55:04
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>

The book has already (literally) been written on this one. I just wonder if
the judgement (award) will be sufficient to make M$ suffer any. It probably
won't. The real hero who wrote the "other OS" got screwed out of the deal
with IBM died in 1994 I wish he would have been here to see this.
The one thing that super pissed me off was that I had the original DR. DOS
compile date 12/10/1990 and it was better than anything M$ had until MS-DOS
6.2 (mid 1994) guaranteed. M$ will pay for their mis-deeds when the
government proves that they did make a slight incompatibility that caused Win
3.1 not to run on DR. DOS. Of course it only took DR a few days to figure it
out and make the patch available. But remember in 1992 very few people had
ever used a BBS. I would love to be in the court room when the verdict is
read!

Even with billg's money I don't know how I could live with myself or even
sleep at night.
This can be a great time in history.


Eric Bennett wrote:

> A jury trial in Caldera's lawsuit against Microsoft is scheduled to begin
> in January 2000:
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19991104S0009
>
> --
> Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
> Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
>
> Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
> -Robert Benchley

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 06-Nov-99 01:10:11
  To: All                                               05-Nov-99 21:23:14
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:14:04, Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com> wrote:

-- snip --

> > OTOH, try to disagree with Tholen on a substantial issue (which is to
> > say, something other than the quality of ST Voyager as a Sci-Fi series),
> > or, better yet, point out one of his erroneous statements, and see how
> > "humorous" he is then.
> >
> Look, I talk with Dave about subjects we both like. It's usually not
> about operating systems (because we tend to agree on that point), or
> about zip or java things (that I know nothing about), so you probably
> don't consider those subjects important.

Well, with all due respect, in the context of comp.os.os2.advocacy, they
really aren't important. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy Sci-Fi and some BBC
comedy myself, so my intention is not to devalue these things, but do
understand that this is c.o.o.a and the discussion of these topics
(i.e., SF and BBS comedy) are quite clearly off topic.

> But we're clearly having fun, so I think I'll just continue.

That's fine, but, again, there are more appropriate ng's in which to
discuss what you and Dave are discussing.  I don't really *mind* if you
continue your off topic thread here in c.o.o.a, but, again, do
understand why I consider it unimportant.

> If I feel the need to disagree, I will speak up, but generally I'm not
really into that
> "fighting for the fun of it" thing.

Sometimes, one feels compelled to point out something that's blatantly
erroneous.  If someone said something that you ***KNEW*** was completely
wrong, on a public forum no less, would you simply let it pass?

> We'll see how it goes then.

I suppose we will.

-- snip --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+
