From: david@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 21:28:56 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk wrote:   
      
   > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message   
   > news:pan.2004.12.27.08.52.01.11118@edenroad.demon.co.uk...   
   >> On Sun, 26 Dec 2004 22:26:59 -0600, personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk   
   >> wrote:   
   >   
   > snip of pointless argument:   
      
   Good idea.   
      
   > David:  when I grew up, which may be before your time, there were such   
   > things as modify permissions.   
      
   There doubtless are; but they are not what you say they are.   
      
   > You may not have them now, and I'll concede that *for the most part*,   
   > but there are / were modify permissions.  I know, I've used them, and   
   > they were taught in college computer classes, which I don't actually   
   > know if you've ever had any of those or not, but such was the learning   
   > of the day.   
      
   Well, ahem, I do have a degree in Computer Studies, and I've worked as a   
   programmmer/analyst for over 20 years (although my specialities were   
   compiler design and computer graphics, and I tend to work mostly in   
   embedded systems. so I'm more of a unix _user_ rather than a guru, and I'm   
   happy to accept that there's a great deal about the internal workings of   
   unix that I _don't_ know).   
      
   The point is not really whether 'modify' permissions actually exist, it   
   is, at least partly, that you claim authority on subjects about which you   
   know much less than you claim to, and then bluster and obfuscate when   
   you're challenged.   
      
   Every single cogent point about your 666 argument was wrong, and not just   
   a little; which is why you snipped it - but I see you make no apology to   
   your putative audience for completely misleading them, and I suspect that   
   you still believe what you wrote.   
      
   I know that you want to appear authoritative when you post, it appears to   
   be very important to you; but you won't achieve the authority you want by   
   behaving like that.   
      
   You almost certainly know much more about the bible than I do (after all,   
   I'm no biblical scholar :-), but I know what you're like, so I find myself   
   completely unable to believe anything you ever say, because the true   
   stuff, the stuff you're unsure about, and the stuff you just make up, is   
   all intermingled, and without at least some knowledge of the subject   
   there's no way for the typical reader to tell the three apart.   
      
   Another good example is "The Cloud" - when you said what it meant I   
   didn't believe it; when Lonnie agreed, I took the trouble to look it up.   
   Surprise! You're right, (well, half-right, according to the "webopedia"   
   it's a term for _any_ TCP/IP protocol network).   
      
   See how easy that was, I was wrong, and I'm happy to admit it.  (It still   
   isn't a term I've ever heard this side of the pond, mind you ;-)   
      
   > And you KNOW that no two versions of Unix are *exactly* alike.  They   
   > simply aren't, even though (and especially because) the source code is   
   > open.   
      
   They've been part of the POSIX standard since day one.   
   The openness of the source is a red-herring here.   
      
   --   
   =======================================================================   
   = David    --- If you use Microsoft products, you will, inevitably, get   
   = Mitchell --- viruses, so please don't add me to your address book.   
   =======================================================================   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)