TACKER: barnacle
SUBJECT: vacation message
DATE: 31-Aug-04 11:16:26
HOST: sverige
i read the man page for vacation, and this is what I came up with:
1. Make a .vacation.db file by typing $ vacation -i
2. Add this line to my .forward file (and comment-out all other lines with
#):
\barnacle, "|/usr/pkg/bin/vacation"
3. Create a .vacation.msg file, including headers:
From: barnacle@beevomit.org
Subject: not answering my mail
i won't be answering my mail for a few days. Call if necessary.
...i tested it out with a yahoo account, and this error message was
returned:
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
"|/usr/pkg/bin/vacation"
(reason: Command line usage error)
...any guidance?
[ to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE
TACKER: plewylli (Peter Lewyllie)
SUBJECT: .. Vacation message
DATE: 31-Aug-04 11:57:06
HOST: droog
\barnacle, "/usr/pkg/bin/vacation barnacle"
You can just run vacation from the shell, and it will replace your .forward
for you.
[ to follow thread, (R)EPLY or (Q)UIT ] CONTINUE
TACKER: barnacle
SUBJECT: .. Vacation message
DATE: 31-Aug-04 12:06:55
HOST: sverige
ok...i typed:
$ vacation
...and nothing happened (my .forward file was the same). I'm not sure why
this has to be so difficult, and why the man page can't simply contain
step-by-step instructions.
I'm starting to come around to aeoe's side here; accomplishing even simple
tasks in unix requires one to wade through a jungle of syntax and
scripting. In order to get the fluency required to accomplish anything
creatively (and not through copy-pasting commands), one has to devote one's
life to learning programming, or hope one's mind simply works in a certain
way.
oh well...i guess unix is for smart people.
all annoyance aside, if anyone else could offer some suggestions, or
preferrably instructions, on how to get an email vacation message going,
I'd appreciate it. I'm still interested in accomplishing this task, believe
it or not.
if and when I get my vacation message up, I'm going to take an indefinite
break from computers. Perhaps it's ironic that this is contigent upon
accomplishing another unix-y computer-goal, the likes of which sort of
drove me to want to take a break in the first place.
you know, the only reason I was able to learn as much as I did about unix
(ha) is because I've been unemployed for the past 2 years, and can sit here
downloading sample .muttrc files. I think unix is for the enthusiast: s/he
who is willing to devote the extra time and effort into learning a more
complicated OS (that arguably returns better results, depending on the
goals of the user).
Here's why I am angry and resentful. 1. I could have left gaithersburg when I had extra money. I would have been motivated to get a job and start a life by the life-push initiated by simply leaving. Now, I can't do that. 2. Katy is gone, and she was the only thing that mattered to me, that was at all important. Now, I don't have to do anything for anybody, ever again.
I still haven't started a non-published diary, because I'm sort of addicted to blogging. I like having an audience I can abuse; it sort of makes me feel better in a sadistic way.
Lately, I've been blogging with posts on the SDF bbs. I see nothing wrong with this -- it's simply where I've taken to doing most of my writing. This archives it in some personal way.
TACKER: barnacle SUBJECT: sihkism? DATE: 05-Aug-04 00:16:17 HOST: sverige if anyone is knowledgeable on this and/or practices sikhism, I have a question. Of course, if anyone who doesn't fit into the aforementioned categories wants to randomly comment, I will eagerly read your posts. i realize that sikhism sometimes seeks (haha, pun) to avoid being classified or described as an amalgamation of hinduism and islam, but historically and philosophically it's hard to avoid arriving at that conclusion. The content of sikhism is more, of course, than simply a compromise between discongruous indian religious traditions, but I believe that's where its historical roots lie. my question is related to the hindu and moslem views on god: islam worships allah, who is scripturally similar to yahweh (please dont use this thread to debate this point -- start another one if necessary). Allah is a supreme being: conscious, loving, just, and separate from all of reality. on the other hand, the hindu concept of brahmin is similar to buddhism's ultimate reality, and the pantheon of hindu gods are merely personal vehicles for achieving a true understanding of that reality. The hindu concept of all the universe being one (a concept that I happen to like, and that we see in buddhism) is known as 'monism' (the universe is of one fundamental 'substance'). it would seem to me that monism is incompatible with the view of allah as a supreme being, for similar reasons that I mentioned in earlier posts: if brahmin is all one ultimate reality, and worthy of reverence, then this undermines the existence of allah as a 'supreme being' -- allah can't be god under monism; the job is already taken by a concept that encompasses allah: everything that exists. my question is (finally): how do sikhs resolve this? Do they acknowledge brahmin as ultimate reality, or do they worship one god as separate deity? are they pantheistic (like hinduism) or monotheistic (like islam)? I see them defined in various places as 'monotheistic,' but I wonder, then, what sikhism could possible borrow from hinduism, as they purport to do. i think it's safe to assume that sikhs do not worship allah, but is their concept of the godhead similar to the abrahamic concept of a deity that is distinct from all reality, or the buddhist/hindu/shinto/pagan concept that that the 'godhead' is synonymous with all reality? if indeed there is an ideological compromise, what could it possibly be? how can pantheism/monism and monotheism be reconciled? if indeed sikhism is monotheistic, then what do they call their god? I can't imagine that sikhism doesn't introduce at least some pantheistic, hindu principles into the strict abrahamic monotheism from which islam grew. or maybe it varies a lot from sikh to sikh -- one of the central tennents of sikhism (a reaction against hindu society) is the rejection of a priestly caste/class. So, at least to some degree revelation is personal rather than authoritarian.