 | | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) I think Suzanne hates MS more than I do. She's had only bad user-experiences with Windows, whereas I've have mostly good user-experiences in Windows. On the other hand, I've also had many years of bad programming experiences in Windows NT (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) My head's just fine, thanks... no bigger than normal. (...) (URL) that I have a different interpretation. (...) who use older versions of MS browsers OR (...) That'd be nice. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) No difference there except semantically, at least not the way I was using technology in this context, rather broadly. MS got this part of the standard wrong in that the MS web browser saves bookmarks to pages without the trailing slash, and (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Larry, my dear old man, please have your poor head examined. What you've cited above doesn't have anything to do with the choice of server technologies, much less with the choice or non-choice of MS. That page comes up because I specifically (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
(...) Perl. (...) Those have actually been toned down quite a bit compared to 2 years ago. :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:G7MqB3.L0y@lugnet.com... (...) Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand your point here Larry. Surely the page displayed is not the result of a technology decision? I would guess it's more of a (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Not at all a pact with the devil...
|
|
Todd Lehman <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:G7Mo2I.EqK@lugnet.com... (...) What do you use for the database(s)? [snip] (...) bias. (...) too. (...) I think I was probably refering more to your "anti-MS" posts than your technology (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Here you've spelled out very nicely why science is not a religion, and religion is not a science. Thank you. (...) Is that Odin? Brahma? Zoroaster? Allah? Yahweh? Who? And why? This question has been asked countless times, and no one here (or (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
|
(...) Exactly. And maybe I erred semantically-- your assumption (I think) is that when what science tells us disagrees from what the Bible tells us, obviously science's conclusion has erred somehow-- either due to lack of data, incorrect data, or (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | By Request: The Bible--Literal or not?
|
|
(...) and, from another thread: (...) True, but that's not *all* that the literal interpretation states. In addition, you're allowing the possibility for debate about the literal interpretation, which implies if not relativism at least a potential (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
