From: Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP (Paula Lieberman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Is This Enough Quoting??
Distribution: world
Date: 12 Dec 92 23:24:04 EDT
Organization: Amiga Colony BBS


Just for those of you complaining about lackaquotes  [not quite the same
thing as "quote whores" in the publishing industry, I imagine.....], I did
did some off-line advocacy reading......

So, up in the North American city with the clean subways and trains that 
run on time, there's a fellow who wants -QUOTING- ......

>From: jagrizza@uncc.edu (James A Grizzard)
>Message-ID: <Byw8tJ.6MB@unccsun.uncc.edu>
>References: <11366@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
>Sender: usenet@unccsun.uncc.edu
>Reply-To: jagrizza@uncc.edu
>Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
>In article 11366@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au, warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
>writes:
>
>>   Did you know that "Amiga" basically means "Girlfriend"?

>ok, so I'm madly in love with my computer... your point?

>>   That's why the Amiga owners get so frustrated with their machines.

>we are??  hey guys, you hear that?? all these years, and we were supposed
to
>be -frustrated!-  same on me for being beyond amazed...

>>Get a real one guys.

>i have 2 things to say..  either 

>1) you have a gf, yet you're neglecting her by taking your time to post
here

>or 

>2) you don't have a gf, which would make more sense for someone like
you...
>perhaps
>   YOU should get an amiga?

>:)

WARNING: DO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH PEOPLE YOU MEET IN AMIGA STORES.....

[lots of tackiness involving Pondscum deleted, in a sudden attack of 
taste.... however, I'll leave:
 
Frankly, I would have been better off being involved with Marc Barrett, 
who at least one can depend upon for SOME amount of consistency and 
staying with 
the same set of excuses, and who may not -listen- but one is assured he 
won't shove one out the door to make arrangements with a buddy to go out 
chasing bimboes who use MS-DOS and who're so brain dead they confuse 
Elizabethan courtiers with nineteenth century Scottish poets! [well, it 
was a LOT crasser than that, but....] 

Anyway, computers and phosphor are safer. 


For those so uninured as to think otherwise, some -hints- of Things To Not
Do unless you would really prefer computers in your bed to other people:

1. Do not tell the other person about all the neat places you've taken 
-other- people but aren't going to take them,

2. Do not tell the person she [or he] should go do something on her or his
own by themselves that you have taken or are taking -other- people to. 

3. Do not show the person pictures of you and you ex[es] on trips, having
good times, with children, doing couple things, etc., and tell the person
how LONELY and miserable you are.

4. Do not leave pictures of ex[es] up on the wall and in your bedroom.

5. Do not show the person pictures of your children and say how wonderful 
they are and how rotten your ex[es] are for not letting you see them or 
have custody, and say how they're the most important things in your 
life.

6. Do not shove the other person out the door to call up your buddy 
after.....

Anyway, the above are but a few reasons why your popularity and 
reputation may be deservingly shredded, and why you may find that no one 
of your preferred sexual preference other than a braindead bimbo wants 
anything to do with you, and that you are instead reduced to spending your 
evenings playing with your computer instead.


>From: root@rkamiga.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>Subject: Re:  4 Colour Interfaces :-(
>Distribution: world
>Message-ID: <root.033t@rkamiga.UUCP>
>References:  <Paula_Lieberman.07e0@amicol.UUCP>
>Date: 6 Dec 92 21:40:32 EST
>Organization: Rick's Amiga
>Lines: 32

>In article <Paula_Lieberman.07e0@amicol.UUCP> Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP
>(Paula Lieberman) writes:
>>re article by Tim Ciceran:  But there are those of us who very intensely
>>dislike computer lines descended from Steven Jobs designs and user
>>interface paradigms: translation -- I dislike Apple II machines, I
dislike
>>Macintoshes, and I don't like NeXts, either -- don't like the hardware,
>>don't like the users interfaces, and don't like any of them as systems. 
I
>>don't DO things/don't WANT to do things the Macintosh/Jobs way!

>You give the impression of not really liking computers at all.

I don't like the way a lot of system designers and applications program
designers think they have the One True Way of computing.  A computer's a
tool -- if it takes me longer to do something on the computer than by 
hand, that defeats the purpose of using a computer!  

>The Apple II interface was based on standard ASCII characters and terminal
>control sequences that were common on most terminals, CPM, and DEC
equipment
>at the time.  The Apple II was designed by Steve Wozniak.  He was also a
>major architect of the Apple IIe and GS.

The damned things didn't have cursors keys until the later models.  No 
cursor keys, it's not even up to VT100 level! I want cursor keys, a 
keypad, and function keys. 

>Not liking the Apple II interface means not liking decades of computer
>development.

I don't like APPLE'S way of doing things. I've got this old Exidy --
IT had cursor keys!

>Macs and Nexts use Motorola processors, just like Amigas.

And so do various HP machines, VMEbus single board computers, OLD laser 
printers, and lots of embedded controller systems running factory 
automation applications. You trying to tell me the processor cares about 
the user interface, or that the UI appearance is processor dependent? 
Lots of different microprocessors have Unix and X.11 implementations 
running on them.  The Amiga operating system, NeXtStep, and Macintosh 
Finder are ALL very different implementations of computer systems, which 
happen to use the same CPU.  All the other wiring and architecture in the 
machines is different.

>The NeXT interface is X-11 with display postscript on top.

I -HATE- WIMPs.  Graphics, yes, -icons- NO!  multiple wdows, yes, 
-guess- which place you have to move a mouse to to get at pop-up menus, 
and guess where what is at what sub-sub-sub-menu, yetch!  

>Steven Jobs has never designed a computer.  He's a marketing man.

Was his CONCEPT for the Mac.

>What exactly do you do?

I"m an ex-defense systems engineer.  I scrape by on consulting work, 
mostly doing electronic market forecasting research.  Not a very awe 
inspiring life, is it.  But who the hell wants female ex-defense 
engineers on their professional staff.... 

By the way, I was using a Xerox 1186 for a while a few years ago. 
NoteCards was quite nice, unfortunately, Xerox wanted $3000 for it AND 
never fully turned it into a real product!  Eventually a small company 
picked it up off of Xerox; that was three years ago, and I don't know 
what's happened with it since. 


  From: fheitkamp@desire.wright.edu
  Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
  Subject: Re: Usual offtopic junk
  Message-ID: <1992Dec7.065331.6096@desire.wright.edu>
  Date: 7 Dec 92 06:53:31 EST
  References: <Paula_Lieberman.07ey@amicol.UUCP>
  Distribution: world
  Organization:  Wright State University 
  Lines: 53

  {In article <Paula_Lieberman.07ey@amicol.UUCP>,
Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP
  (Paula Lieberman) writes:
  > somebody was saying the the US should keep drugs illegal because of
crack
  > babies -- maybe if the stuff were legalized and controlled, the number
of
  > crack babies would DROP, because there'd be big fat warnings on opiates
  > that they're bad news for fetuses, and because the distribution
channels
  > would be different?!  Also, the number of thefts would drop
precipitously

Gee, I didn't know drug users were as thoughtful as you to read
warning labels.  That's the problem with you liberals, you just
can't understand why people don't use your superior logic and
think exactly like you.

  > -- the price of drugs would drop, and people wouldn't have to steal to
  > support their habits. Dope being illegal isn't stopping anybody from
  > getting it, it's merely making fortunes for drug dealers and turning
people
  > outside the illegal pharmaceuticals business into prey, to siphon off

This is true.

  > assets to the drug trade.  Pfeh. Someone wants to get narced out,
that's
  > their business, as long as they don't endanger anyone else's life,
liberty
  > and the pursuit of happiness. Blasted malevolent moralists ought to go
back

This while sounding very noble will not work in reality.  Why?
Because drug users don't think like you, don't care about you, and
just don't care.  Why do liberals constantly think they have some
kind of supernatural insight into the mind and hearts of man?

Me, liberal, you gotta be BLAZEMONGERING!  I'm registered as not 
affiliated with any political party.  I didn't vote for Dukakis for 
President, but I was real tempted, because it would have gotten him OUT 
of Massachusetts, along with a bunch of -liberal- political cronies of 
his, who were getting big bucks off the state finances.

I tell you what.  I'll let YOU stand in front of the out-of-control
car that the crack user is driving and you can also be mugged by
the crack user who can't get his fix.  Yeah and you can pay for the
welfare of the coke user that lo his wife, job and house, and had
to have a divorce.  Yeah, I knew you would.  And you can adopt the
brain damaged kids left behind.

You mean, there aren't people full of illegal pharmaceuticals out there 
on the road right now?!  <sarcasm mode ON> Oh, what about the boyfriend 
of the crack user, doesn't he have to worry about losing his girlfriend's
income?  Personally, I think the stuff ought to be legalized and cut with
RU-486 -- use it and lose it!    

What about my liberty and right to pursuit happiness without fear?

What about YOUR liberty and right to pursuit <sic> liberty without fear? 
I can't walk down a street without being afraid that some carful of gorfs 
is going to yell things out the window at me or drive down a street 
without having a carful of gorfs chase me, or as I'm driving home at night 
getting back from a business trip, a pervert in a pickup truck drives 
alongside my car and stay parallel to me, masturbating himself to 
orgasm.....  yeah, sure, -you're- worried about being afraid of someone 
on dope on the highway that isn't already on dope on the highway.... Have 
YOU ever had a pervert in a pickup truck driving next to you?!  Like, 
people in that situation have more control of their pickup trucks that 
someone on illegal pharmaceuticals?!

> and reread the Declaration of Independence and THe US Constitution, and
get
> their damn interfering fingers out of other people's lives!  Let them go
> spend their lives on computer networks flaming instead, and get the hell
> out of legislating morality and behavior that doesn't/shouldn't affect
> them, except that they think they're morally superior.....

Oh, and you don't?  It's pretty obvious to me that you consider
yourself morally superior.  I'm perfectly willing to leave anybody
alone as long as I'm not expected to pick up the tab when things
go to hell.  Are you?

Why the hell should -I- pay to rescue someone from the folly they got 
themselves in? Hey, I object to Social Security taxes, and to tax breaks 
for spouses and kids.  You want a family YOU pay for them!  [Like I said, 
I'm NOT a liberal!]  You screw up, go pay for the results of your fuckup 
yourself.

>From: Chris "Slothman" Stoy <CMS129@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Message-ID: <92342.020608CMS129@psuvm.psu.edu>
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
>Subject: Stupidity on Drugs (was:Re: Usual offtopic junk)
>Distribution: world
>References:  <Paula_Lieberman.07ey@amicol.UUCP>
>Lines: 81

>(Sorry, I just had to respond to this load of stupidity)

>In article <Paula_Lieberman.07ey@amicol.UUCP>, Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP
>(Paula Lieberman) says:
>>
>>somebody was saying the the US should keep drugs illegal because of crack
>>babies -- maybe if the stuff were legalized and controlled, the number of
>>crack babies would DROP, because there'd be big fat warnings on opiates
>>that they're bad news for fetuses, and because the distribution channels

>>Obviously you were high when you wrote this.

NFW.  I do NOT do illegal pharmaceuticals, and as for alcohol, maybe in a 
year I'll finish off the bottle of wine that's been sitting opened in the 
refrigerator for the past six months, or maybe I'll toss it out first. 
Or I'll have an occasional sip of Scotch -- I opened a bottle of it 2 1/2 
years ago, and have barely touched it since them.  That's the extent of
my drinking alone.  Sometimes I'll drink alcohol socially at parties. 
Other than that..... the days of playing 21 Aces in bars for me are long 
since past. 

>Anyone who hasn't just crawled
>out from under a rock knows that cigerett smoking leads to lung desease
and
>hurt unborn babies. Hell, they come out and tell you on the package, yet
>people
>still go along and smoke the stuff, killing themselves, their babies, and
the
>people around them.

>>would be different?!  Also, the number of thefts would drop precipitously
>>-- the price of drugs would drop, and people wouldn't have to steal to
>>support their habits. Dope being illegal isn't stopping anybody from

>Yet a again, a brillient display of stupidity. 

Try learning how to spell.  It's "brilliant".

>   Sure, legalize drugs and who
>gets rich?  The government and the drug companies who shove this stuff
down
>everyones throat with their "Hey, go ahead and try crack. Everyone else
is"
>and
>"If you want to be cool, do coke" adds.  The moment the government
legalizes
>addictive drugs for recreational use, then they are giving people the
message
>that they aren't harmful and that they're ok to use.  People trust the
govern-
>ment to look after them, whether they should or not.

>You show me one person who holds down a good paying job and does crack.

What, Richard Pryor's poor?  And one of the people in the mail room at a 
place I used to work said that there was a guy he'd worked with who could 
operate a mail sorting machine accurately high on heroin that he [the 
person I was acquainted with] couldn't keep up with under sober, 
inebriated, or anywhere in between.


>It
>doesn't happen.  You do drugs, you loose your job, and you have to steal
to
>get the money for your know "legal" habit.  Good idea...

Huh? They're ALREADY stealing!

>>getting it, it's merely making fortunes for drug dealers and turning
people
>>outside the illegal pharmaceuticals business into prey, to siphon off
>>assets to the drug trade.  Pfeh. Someone wants to get narced out, that's
>>their business, as long as they don't endanger anyone else's life,
liberty
>>and the pursuit of happiness. Blasted malevolent moralists ought to go
back
>>and reread the Declaration of Independence and THe US Constitution, and
get
>>their damn interfering fingers out of other people's lives!  Let them go
>>spend their lives on computer networks flaming instead, and get the hell
>>out of legislating morality and behavior that doesn't/shouldn't affect
>>them, except that they think they're morally superior.....
>
>Ok, this person has no concept of reality. 

Oh, really?! 

>The moment you get high

Oh, really?  I -don't- "get high".  

>you are
>emparing your judgements and reflexes.  The more drugged up you get, the
less
>you are able to control your own actions.  The minute you lose control of
>yourself you endanger not only yourself, but people you come into contact
>with.

"impairing", not "emparing".  Are you sure YOU'RE literate? Are -you- 
sober?  Or are you merely depraved in the area of literacy?

>If you go out and get wasted, then hope in your car to go home, you
endanger
>EVERYONE one the road.  You hit someone head-on and kill them, then tell
me
>you

I had said WHAT PEOPLE DO IN THEIR OWN HOMES WITH 
CONSENTING ADULTS. I didn't say "go out and DRIVE in that condition!  

>aren't hurting anyone but yourself.  Go out and get addicted to crack,
spend
>all your money, then tell me were your gonna get the cash to pay for your
next
>hit. "Gee, mom's silverware is looking kinda nice. She never uses it
anyway."

>You don't live in a vacuum buddy.

Maybe you do?!

> Every action you do affects others.  How
>about your friends?  How do you think it makes them feel to see you 
>go out and get wasted all the time?

Me, the person who has a bottle of wine in the refrigetor that I opened a 
YEAR ago that's still nearly full, and who doesn't smoke, except for a few 
puffs of a cigar every few years out of sheer perversity against cigarette 
smokers and the smoking mystique? [I'm -allergic- to cigarette smoke. It 
gives me nasty asthma attacks.  As for me smoking cigarettes, I was 
persuaded to take ONE PUFF of one at an end-of-shift [equal to "end of 
week" for people working schedules that aren't weekdays] party at 3 AM 
years ago. One puff, and I was on the floor choking.  I don't smoke 
cigarettes of ANY type.   

>Especially when you lose control and take life's
>problems out on them...

>The Constitution is there to protect EVERYONE's rights, not just yours. If
you
>want to sit at home and smoke pot all day, fine go ahead, waste you life. 
But
>if there is anyone else living there, then you are invading their rights
by
>endangering their health.

>And another thing: What the hell does the Declaration of Independance have
to
>do with personal freedoms?  It was a document that declared our
independance
>from England.  Maybe you mean the Bill of Rights.  I don't ever remember
>reading in there anything about life, liberty, and the pursute 

"pursuit"

>of drug abuse.

>>Why don't you go do some reseach and come back when you are capable of
having
>>an intelligent discussion.

>I do not think I am "morally superior" to anyone. I have my morality. I
>believe it to be right. I live by it. I am also willing to admit when I'm
>wrong.  If I'm proved wrong, then I rethink my ideas.  Prove me wrong.  I
>dare you.

I expect an apology for libel -- I do not and have not ever been an 
illegal cocaine user.  I do not smoke, inject, drink, inhale, sniff, etc. 
etc. illegal pharmaceuticals.  I expect an apology for being called an 
illegal drug user.  In the work I used to do, using such things was 
grounds for immediate firing.  Again, I expect an apology. 

>From: philip@utstat.toronto.edu (Philip McDunnough)
>Subject: Re: Children and computers
>Message-ID: <1992Dec7.074919.9757@utstat.toronto.edu>
>Organization: University of Toronto, Dept. of Statistics
>References: <Paula_Lieberman.07em@amicol.UUCP>
>Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 07:49:19 GMT
>Lines: 29

>In article <Paula_Lieberman.07em@amicol.UUCP> Paula_Lieberman@amicol.UUCP
>(Paula Lieberman) writes:
>>re article by Philip McDunnough <1992Dec5092215.731{etc}>

>Again it's hard to know what you are referring to. Please quote. However,
>you'veraised an issue I'm interested in, as are my children.
>
>>Denise Gaudino reported that her son Jason, age 4, knows that he is not
>>supposed to use the computers without permission first. Recently the
family
>>received an IBM PC compatible that runs MS-DOS.  The household has Amigas
>>-- Fran, the father, wrote HamItUp!, and does CDTV-based kiosk
>>applications. Anyway, Jason was caught using the PC clone with having
asked
>>permission first. " But it's not a real computer, it's an IMAGINARY
>>computer!" complained Jason. Jason's view is that a real computer has
sound
>>and graphics and games. he PC clone doesn't give him that, so in his
view,
>>"It's not a real computer."

>Well then clearly their PC clone wasn't equipped with even the basic 
>environment that most would think of.

Most PC clones -aren't- equippe with sound cards and Windows and the 
oomph to run it decently/

> There are a zillion sound cards out 
>there and any one of them which was Sound Blaster compatible would open
>up Jason's world to an interesting assortment of software not currently
>available on the Amiga.

But that costs money for upgrading the machine!  It was an as-is clone!

>I have my gripes about the PC, but the above is simply off base.   
As for sound, if you really want to hear pa

-- Via DLG Pro v0.992

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy