Subj : Synchronet can maybe...? To : Digital Man From : Time Warrior Date : Sun Jul 31 2005 11:33 am From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet To: Digital Man Re: Synchronet can maybe...? By: Digital Man to Time Warrior on Tue Jul 26 2005 04:57 am > To: Time Warrior > Re: Synchronet can maybe...? By: Time Warrior to Digital Man on Wed > Jul 20 2005 03:01 am > > From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet > > To: Digital Man Re: Synchronet can maybe...? By: Digital Man to Time > > Warrior on Wed Jul 20 2005 03:43 am > > > Oh my gawd, do you believe that the moon landing was faked too? > > Neither yes nor no. I'll spare you my opinion on that one. lol > > > autoexec.nt and config.nt are there for when you run an NTVDM (NT Virt > > > Machine) session, they're used to setup the "Virtual DOS" environment > > > programs! If you don't ever run any DOS programs, you don't need those > > > Wow, you're just full of misinformation today! > > Thank you for the explanation however I said what I said mostly as opinio > > and less as fact. Hence the QUESTION I asked, which was: > > "then HOW COME autoexec.bat and config.sys were removed, but instead, > > hidden in the Windows directory and changed to autoexec.nt and > > config.nt? :-)" > > The words HOW and COME were used and the question ended with, low and beh > > a question mark. > > THANK YOU for the answer, seeing as I did *ask a question*. > Immediately following your completely false STATEMENTS: > "Windows 95 through ME needed Dos 7, Dos 8, etc..." FALSE: there > was no "DOS 7, DOS 8". I think I just said "DOS" for that one but I don't recall. Either way, perhaps there was no 7 or 8. However a "DOS" whatever you'd like to call it, was created that supports long filenames. I don't know its proper name apparently, if it even has one. Also, unless I am wrong here too, Windows 9x and ME loaded over DOS version "whatever you'd like to call it". However, albeit this is a vuage memory, but I revall years back typing "ver" (or SOMETHING anyways) in the command prompt on Windows 95 and it saying something about DOS 7. Now, seeing as there HAPPENS TO BE a Windows 98 machine down stairs, i'm gonna mess with that and see if it says it or not. Even if I remeber right and 95 did, I currently do not have a Win95 machine anywhere. > "now some say the NT Kernel isn't built on top of Dos and others say it is." > FALSE: No one but you "says it is". I've spoken with plenty of other people who also have said it is. I've seen websites that say similar things. Now perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps the people I spoke with are wrong and perhaps those website are wrong. However, that does not mean I am the only person on the planet who has or has ever had that opinion. To make THAT claim is giving some misinformation of your own :-) > "No *real* way to prove it" FALSE: There are *many* "real" ways to > prove it. But it'd be like proving th the moon isn't made of cheese. > It'd be a stupid point to prove. Ok there is "no real way for non-programmers who lack the skill, time, resources or desire and / or ability to obtain those things, to go about proving it". Hows that? lol > "and i'm sure it's not something M$ would be too quick to admit." > FALSE: That's just absurd. You're right. Microsoft admits everything and corporations always tell the truth. Thanks for reminding me! :-) > So are you saying that the fact that you followed these utterly false > statements with a question meant that you were in fact not making any statme > at all? Should I treat every message of yours that contains a question mark > complete conjecture devoid of any actual statements of fact? No, I think you should treat any question as a question and give the answer without belittling the person asking the question. I *want* you to correct me if i'm wrong. I already KNOW you're ALOT more knowledgable than me. However, just because I don't know all that you do, nor am I as skilled as you are, does not make me a complete twit either. For those who have obtained really durable asbestos suits (i've upgraded mine over the years :-) you're vast resource for very useful information that someone would have to be a fool to shut you out or not listen to you. If one can learn to get past the "no, you're wrong, you moron" type responces (it took me awhile but i've managed! :-) then there is ALOT a person stands to learn from someone as knowledgable as you are. As far as your technical insights, I take what you say very seriously. You may not know this (maybe not even beleive it) but I have ALOT of respect for you. > If you think by just removing your false statements from your quoted text wi > somehow change the history of the thread, you're wrong (again). As i said, I WANT you to tell me when i'm wrong. Thats how I learn. I just wish that when I ask for a lump or two, that you put sugar cubes in my coffe, as opposed to administering those lumps to my forehead with a baseball bat :-) -- .---------------------------------------------------------------. | [TiME WaRRiOR] aka [Dave Kelso] AIM: Twar782 | +o Malkavia BBS | | www : synchsupport.net - malkaviabbs.com - xpresit.net | | www$: josephsjewelersonline.com - preferedinsurance.com | | @: time.warrior@malkaviabbs. com | \______________________________________________________________/ --- Synchronet 3.12a-Win32 NewsLink 1.76 * Malkavia - Chicago, IL - telnet://malkaviabbs.com --- Synchronet 3.12b-Win32 NewsLink 1.83 .