Re: MS Access 2.0

acpizer@mach.unseen.org
Wed, 1 Jul 1998 10:35:12 +0100 (BST)

• Next message: acpizer@mach.unseen.org: "Re: Re[2]: MS Access 2.0"
• Previous message: Lewis McCarthy: "Re: truncated hashes and MACs"
• Next in thread: Werner Koch: "Re: MS Access 2.0"
• Reply: Werner Koch: "Re: MS Access 2.0"
• Reply: William H. Geiger III: "Re: MS Access 2.0"

Hi people,

 1. I think share of knowledge is great. everything should be free,
especially knowledge.

 2. Mike asked a question for his *commercial* product, that's why I was
so bitter, if it was a free product I'd help him, w/o questions.

 3. everything should be GNU and commercial products should be banned.

 4. usenet FAQs are great, I am just a lamer, please remove me from this
list if you'd be so kind.

 goodbye and please damage micro$oft.

On Sat, 27 Jun 1998, C Matthew Curtin wrote:

> >>>>> "acpizer" == acpizer <acpizer@mach.unseen.org> writes:
>
> acpizer> he's making money on your account, maybe it doesn't bother
> acpizer> you, but it does bother me.
>
> It bothers you that Adam shares useful information? Or that Mike
> could make some money using it? What difference does it make to you?
>
> Would you do away with USENET FAQs, because they contain information
> that someone could learn from and make money using?
>
> With that sort of attitude, you could very well do away with the
> Internet itself, and apparently be just as happy as you are (or are
> not) now. So why are you on the net, anyway?
>
> You seem awfully eager to criticize people for using the Internet in
> the way it was intended. A few pokes at DejaNews show that your harsh
> words to Mike and subsequent followup are the only things you've
> posted, at least as `acpizer'. If you have something to contribute,
> you're welcome to, but if you're only here to drown the signal with
> your noise, with needless criticism of those who do actively
> contribute, then maybe you should just leave the party. We don't need
> that kind of nonsense here; it's precisely the reason why `CodherPlunks'
> exists today, in addition to `cypherpunks'.
>
> Don't be lame. It isn't the least bit becoming.
>
> --
> Matt Curtin cmcurtin@interhack.net http://www.interhack.net/people/cmcurtin/
>

• Next message: acpizer@mach.unseen.org: "Re: Re[2]: MS Access 2.0"
• Previous message: Lewis McCarthy: "Re: truncated hashes and MACs"
• Next in thread: Werner Koch: "Re: MS Access 2.0"
• Reply: Werner Koch: "Re: MS Access 2.0"
• Reply: William H. Geiger III: "Re: MS Access 2.0"