🚀 go-pugleaf

Want to see something really funny? Remove all the misspelled words from his
posts and you get about four or five one syllable words. :)

Aaron wrote in message <7posu0$801$1@mochi.lava.net>...
>Wait, we are making a break-thru.  Rod Speed is agreeing with us.
>Keep the fire hose on him, while I poke his feet with this spear.
>I have collected some of his most memorable quotes here,
>which I am sure we will remember seeing, but he will claim
>are not what he said/meant.  -Aaron
>
>Todd wrote in message ...
>>
>>Rod Speed wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>Tom MacIntyre <tmacinty@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:37be8bd1.41615386@news1.ns.sympatico.ca...
>>>> Rod Speed <rodspeed@ozemail.com.au> wrote
>>>
>>>>>> I recently had to look at a laptop computer which had a defective
>>>>>> video circuit, and was a write-off (no display on its own or external
>>>>>> VGA port). I was able to get a directory printout and back up some
>>>>>> files to floppy using DOS... with Windows 3 or 95/98 it would have
>>>>>> been just about impossible, but with DOS it was easy.
>>>
>>>>> Got SFA to do with what was being discussed, the
>>>>> partitioning of the boot drive and how that suits dos
>>>>> prompt ops. It would be completely mad to be partitioning
>>>>> the hard drive so that sort of rare stuff is more convenient.
>>>
>>>>>> It's starting to look like you're so blinded by the opposition
>>>>>> you've gotten to some of your ideas that you're lashing out
>>>>>> without even considering what you're lashing out at.
>>>
>>>>> Its been obvious all along that you cant manage to grasp what was
>>>>> being discussed, how to partition the boot drive for FAT32 Win9x.
>>>
>>>> Hmmm...this thread has moved on,
>>>
>>>Nope. No one ever said that DOS ops arent useful
>>>for techs that are dealing with recalcitrant systems.
>
>See, here he agrees that knowing DOS is not irrelevant, as he tried
>to make us believe earlier.
>>
>>As usual you change the subject.
>>
>>>
>>>ALL I said was that only dinosaurs do much at the DOS prompt in a
>>>working FAT32 Win9x system so it is completely pointless partitioning
>>>the boot drive in a way that makes that particular use more convenient.
>
>Oh, here he is hedging the truth some. He specifically said:
>"Hardly anyone uses the DOS prompt anymore. Dinosaur stuff."
>"Or toss the entire dos command line in the bin for that sort of thing."
>And notice his response to someone:
>"> Not to mention the fact that if you can't get into Windows,
>> you need to know DOS to get Windows working again.
>
> Complete crap.snip..  Your claim that you need to know DOS is complete
crap."
>And again:
>"> DOS maybe old, but it's still an extremely important thing to know.
>
> Wrong, because that hardly ever happens, that you 'cant get into
Windows'."
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>FAT32 has nothing to do with using DOS!!!
>>
>>>
>>>> and yet you don't want to,
>>>
>>>I'm quite happy to discuss whether DOS is any use when dealing
>>>with a system that cant boot etc. I have never ever said that doing
>>>that is a dinosaur approach. Even if you cant manage to grasp that.
>
>See his quote above, and decide for yourself.
>>
>>The only one who can't grasp is you.
>>
>>>
>>>> but still criticise others for not "moving on" from DOS...
>>>
>>>When using a FAT32 Win9x system thats working fine. At least TRY to keep
>>up.
>
>Well, you keep weeving in and out of about four threads.
>" What was being discussed was what to do when using
> FAT32, not FAT16. Thats got lost in the quote snipping."
>
>"What was being discussed was how to organise the boot drive when
>running Win98 with FAT32. "
>
>"And what was being discussed originally was 2-3
>partitions, where there aint gunna be no G drive."
>
>"We werent discussing how to do the boot drive when running NT."
>
>" You dont have to fart around recompiling the kernal,
>unlike unix quite a bit of the time."
>This in response to my mention of volume labels.  I don't see the
connection.
>
>"Having to recompile the kernal is a joke."
>In response to my mention of Active Directory, URLs, and  UNCs.
Connection???
>
>"Completely and utterly irrelevant when what was being discussed
>was the use of a FAT32 Win9x system thats working fine and how
>much sense it makes to be furiously pounding away on the keyboard
>at the DOS prompt in that sort of system today."
>When he finally realized his tirade against knowing how to use the
>DOS prompt was idiotic, he tries to hide behind the original topic.
>Unfortunately, he is too stupid to realize that this WAS NOT the
>original topic.  It was about installing WinNT to dual boot with Win98.
>
>
>And finally, when asked to stick to a topic:
>"> Granted we are argueing here, but can't you please stick to the topic at
hand?
>
>Request denied."
>He admits that he can't stick to a single topic at a time, in one place in
the thread,
>and make valid arguments to support his claim.  He has to throw in quite
irrelevant
>nonsense to try to cover his inability to make any valid statements.
>And besides, I never had to re-compile a kernal in Linux, but I have had to
>reinstall windows dozens of times.  So which is the most likely problem to
face.
>
>And Rod Speed loves these very technical responses to things he
>can't understand:
>"Achieves SFA."
>"Your problem."
>"Careful you dont go blind now."
>"You really should be using punched cards."
>"Got SFA to do with how to train Win users"
>
>
>>
>>I got lost, where were we?
>>
>>>
>>>> you're content to discuss DOS until you have no reply,
>>>
>>>You dont know that either.
>>
>>He's absolutely correct.
>>
>>>
>>>> whereupon you hide behind the original discussion.
>>>
>>>I rub your nose in the fact that you are raving on about what wasnt being
>>discussed.
>>
>>Thus proving what he said is true.
>
>As I said, he weeves from one topic to another, just so he won't have to
>admit that he doesn't have  a leg to stand on.
>>
>>>
>>>> I think you argue in absolutes a bit too much...
>>>
>>>You already know what I think of what you 'think'.
>>
>>We all wish you would get a clue.
>>
>>>
>>>> ok, here...if I was putting together a new system, AND didn't
>>>> have some of the constraints/circumstances that I currently
>>>> have, I probably would go with a single FAT32 partition myself.
>>>
>>>And thats all I ever said in this pathetic excuse for a thread.
>
>Excuse me?  All you ever said?  Hardly.
>And it's pathetic that we have to spend so much time trying to
>explain things to you, only to have you close your eyes, cover
>your ears, and run around the room, humming to yourself.
>
>>>I never even said that anyone else should do that, just said
>>>that thats what *I* would do in a specific situation.
>
>Again, I go to what he has previously posted, which is not what
>he is trying to claim here:
>"The world's move on an it makes absolutely no sense to be
> using FAT16 on a 12GB drive today."
>"Your opinion is your problem."
>"You get no say what so ever on anything at all. "
>
>>
>>Fine, then shut up already.
>>
>>>
>>>> The problem is, my computer is the result of a process of evolution,
and
>>>> is also a family computer, and so I have partitions, to accomodate
>>reality.
>>>
>>>You dont need partitions to accomodate reality. Its just one way to do
>>that.
>
>Hey, he is agreeing that there is more than one way to do something.
>Sounds like he is about to accept an opinion from someone.
>>
>>You don't need a newsgroup to replace reality.
>>
>>>
>>>> The rest of the family is free to simply learn what they can/will
>>>> while using the PC, because Dad's here to wrestle with any serious
>>>> problems...and I usually can, despite the fact that I can't convince
>>>> you that I'm capable of grasping the notion of partitions and FAT32.
>>>
>>>I've never ever said anything remotely resembling that either.
>>
>>Nor should you.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>