🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <92205.145421TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> Turgut Kalfaoglu <TURGUT@FRMOP11.BITNET> writes:
>I think this group would be concerned about this document. I found
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it on a local group.
>
Wrong!  For one thing you cross-posted this to comp.windows.news which has 
absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft Windows.  Second, the comp.windows.ms
group is not the place for this kind of post.  (Actually, this group should
be dead by now since the reorganization is fully in effect, but old groups
die hard)  This crap belongs in the comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy group, where
the OS/2'ers eat this kind of stuff up.
>
>  RESPONSE TO MS DOCUMENT ON WINDOWS 3.1 VS OS/2
>
>           There is so much misleading information in this document
> that it is hard to know where to start.  Following are some brief
> responses to individual items.

[Loads of IBM propaganda deleted]
>
> * SLMR 2.1a * OS/2 Version 2: Windows with bullet proof glass
>
>--- Maximus/2 2.01wb


I am not going to waste my time responding to the points made in this post
(some of them true, some not), but it is obvious that you had nothing in 
mind but to start a flame war.  I sincerely hope your attempt failed and
that everybody ignores this stupid posting.

Lonny
-- 
Lonny McMichael                      | You can do it your own way, if it's
The University of North Texas        | done just how I say.
email:  mcmichel@ponder.csci.unt.edu |      Metallica, "Eye of the Beholder"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------