Linux-Advocacy Digest #237, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Bennett digest, volume 5 (Tholen) ("Slava Pestov")
Re: The Perestroika Deception. (Loren Petrich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bennett digest, volume 5 (Tholen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 13:53:12 +1000
In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka tholenbot, claims my post
doesn't exist, despite evidence to the contrary.
>> Irrelevant, Eric. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't replied to my post
>> with subject 'Re: Bennett digest, volume 3 (Tholen)'. Why is that,
>> Eric? Have you finally realised that you have lost the argument, but
>> are to embarrassed to admit it?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who failed to repsond to my last Pestov
> digest: http://x56.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=652263710
More lies. See below.
> Where is this alleged post of yours, Slava?
In the article with message-ID <nZLg5.17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
I wrote the below, which I am going to reproduce here, since you seem
to be unable to use DejaNews.
++ ++ ++ Bennett digest, volume 3 ++ ++ ++
In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, fails to
address many points, lies some more, makes hypocritical claims
about "pontification" and "circular reasoning", and fails to
provide a logical argument on many occassions.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <T1yg5.67$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, has trouble
>> identifying himself, denies his lies when the evidence indicates to
>
> What alleged "Bennett digest"? The subject of your message was "Re:
> Pestov lie-gest, volume 1 (Tholen)".
Irrelevant.
>> >> In today's Bennett digest, Eric Bennett, aka Tholenbot, lies at
>> >> least
>> >> 12 times, and repeatedly denies the truth, while continuing to
>> >> engage
>> >> in pontification while hypocritically claiming that I do.
>>
>> Note: no response.
>
> That never appeared on my news server, Slava.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> > "Restoring" more context, eh Slava? See immediately below.
>>
>> Illogical.
>
> Typical pontification.
On the contrary.
>> How ironic, coming from someone who routinely engages in redundancy:
>>
>> tholenbot] Incorrect. tholenbot] Incorrect. tholenbot] Incorrect.
>> tholenbot] Incorrect. tholenbot] Incorrect. tholenbot] Incorrect.
>
> More evidence of your comprehension problems. The statements were not
> redundant, because the nature of what was incorrect varied.
My repeated statements aren't redundant either, Eric. How typical you
fail to recognize that fact.
>> How predictable you resort to invective when faced with a logical
>> argument.
>
> How predictable that you resort to making up false claims about what I
> said, when faced with a logical argument.
Incorrect, given that my claim above is not a false claim. You did, in
fact, resort to invective:
tholenbot] Liar.
When faced with my logical argument:
slava] Incorrect.
>> >> > Liar.
>> >>
>> >> How predictable you resort to invective when faced with a logical
>> >> argument.
>> >
>> > It's the truth, Slava. You lied.
>>
>> Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> I already have.
Where?
>> >> >> Typical invective.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect. See above.
>> >>
>> >> More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric?
>> >
>> > If you had seen above, you would already know the answer to that
>> > question, Slava.
>>
>> Incorrect, as I have in fact seen the above, but still cannot see an
>> answer to your question.
>
> More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
Incorrect, given that reading comprehension skills do not give one an
answer to my question:
slava] More proof by irrelevant reference, Eric?
However, decent logic and relevancy skills, like the ones I possess,
allow one to take a guess, and my guess is that the answer is "Yes".
>> >> >> Irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > How ironic.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Irrelevant.
>>
>> How ironic, coming from someone who once wrote:
>>
>> "Why?"
>
> Irrelevant.
Is that how you view your "Why?" remark now? How ironic.
>> >> >> Incorrect.
>> >> >
>> >> > Typical pontification.
>> >>
>> >> How ironic.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> On the contrary, your remark was rather ironic,
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
See below.
>> given that you accuse me of engaging in pontification when you do it on
>> a regular basis.
>
> Prove it.
First the accusations:
tholenbot] Typical pontification.
tholenbot] Typical pontification.
tholenbot] Typical pontification.
tholenbot] Typical pontification.
tholenbot] Typical pontification.
And now the pontifications:
tholenbot] Incorrect.
tholenbot] Irrelevant.
tholenbot] Illogical.
>> >> > Where is your substantiation? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >>
>> >> My substantiation was there all along, until you snipped it, in
>> >> typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> >
>> > What substantiation did I allegedly "snip"?
>>
>> Check the archive, Eric.
>
> What archive? Typical lack of specificity.
DejaNews, Eric.
>> >> >> How typical you resort to invective when faced with a logical
>> >> >> argument.
>> >> >
>> >> > Non sequitur, given the absence of a logical argument on your
>> >> > part.
>> >>
>> >> My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in
>> >> typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>> >
>> > More redundancy. How predictable. Don't you have anything novel to
>> > say, Slava?
>>
>> Typical invective, laced with irony.
>
> What "invective"?
"More redundancy. How predictable. Don't you have anything novel to
say, Slava?"
>> >> >> Irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > How ironic.
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > Even more redundancy. See above.
>>
>> How ironic.
>
> Glad you agree.
Irrelevant.
>> >> >> Irrelevant, given that none of the material was relevant to
>> >> >> proving the claim in question.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >
>> > The burden of proof is yours, Slava, since you made the incorrect
>> > claim that "none of the material was relevant to proving the claim
>> > in question".
>>
>> How typical that you snipped the material in question, now that you've
>> realised it contains evidence that may be used against you.
>
> I see you didn't address my point. No surprise there. Meanwhile, you
> have still failed to satisfy the burden of proof.
How typical that you snipped the material in question, now that you've
realised it contains evidence that may be used against you.
>> >> >> I see you still haven't noted the difference between implication
>> >> >> and inferrence.
>> >> >
>> >> > Illogical. It is because I recognize the difference that I asked
>> >> > the
>> >> > question, Slava.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "question"?
>> >
>> > Haven't you been paying attention?
>>
>> "More redundancy."
>
> I see you failed to answer the question, Slava. Obviously you haven't
> been paying attention.
I cannot answer an illogical question, Eric. Obviously, I've been paying
attention, because I am currently reading your illogical post.
>> >> >> On the contrary, my claim is quite correct. Of course, anyone
>> >> >> with open eyes would recognize that fact.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the contrary, many people worldwide have their eyes open and do
>> >> > not recognize this fact.
>> >>
>> >> Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >
>> > After you prove your claim that "anyone with open eyes would
>> > recognize that fact", I will do so.
>>
>> I have already proven my claim, Eric. Predictably enough, you snipped
>> it, in typical Eric "master of deletion" Bennett fashion.
>
> Liar. I did not snip your claim. It still appears above:
>
> SP] On the contrary, my claim is quite correct. Of course, anyone with
> SP] open eyes would recognize that fact.
Correct. But the claim that claim refers to, you snipped, predictably
enough.
>> >> >> Feldercarb.
>> >> >
>> >> > Typical invective.
>> >>
>> >> The truth is not invective, Eric.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant, given that "Feldercarb" is not "the truth".
>>
>> Incorrect, given that the truth about some people, like you, is indeed
>> Feldercarb.
>
> Bullshit, Pestov.
Classic invective.
>> >> >> My eyes are already open, Eric. How predictable you fail to
>> >> >> comprehend that fact.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the contrary.
>> >>
>> >> See what I mean?
>> >
>> > Enlightenment comes from within, grasshopper.
>>
>> Typical non-answer.
>
> I see you failed to comprehend my response.
On the contrary. What I meant was not:
tholenbot] Enlightenment comes from within, grasshopper.
>> >> >> More lies.
>> >> >
>> >> > Prove it.
>> >>
>> >> You claimed:
>> >>
>> >> EB] I made no illogical claim.
>> >
>> > What alleged "EB"?
>>
>> EB == Eric Bennett == tholenbot. How typical you fail to recognize that
>> fact.
>
> Illogical, given that Eric Bennett does not equal tholenbot.
Incorrect, given that both are the same person.
>> > Your own statement is therefore a
>> > lie. Hypocrite.
>>
>> Illogical, given that I proved my statement is the truth.
>
> Illogical, given that i proved your statement is a lie.
What alleged "statement"?
>> >> >> On the contrary, quite logical. Of course, someone who takes
>> >> >> logic lessons from Ian "master of illogic" Haakmat would not
>> >> >> know that.
>> >> >
>> >> > Typical invective. Does the use of incorrect names "entertain"
>> >> > you, Slava? Taking posting lessons from Mark Kelley again,
>> >> > Slava?
>> >>
>> >> Typical invective. Meanwhile, I see you still haven't noted the
>> >> logic of my statement. How predictable.
>> >
>> > I see you didn't answer either of my questions. Of course, that is
>> > to be expected from you.
>>
>> You based the questions on an incorrect presumption, hence they are
>> irrelevant, and no answer is necessary.
>
> There was no incorrect presumption. Try to prove otherwise, if you
> think you can.
First, the questions:
tholenbot] Typical invective. Does the use of incorrect names "entertain"
tholenbot] you, Slava?
tholenbot] Taking posting lessons from Mark Kelley again,
tholenbot] Slava?
The first question is illogical. I do not use made up names for
"entertainment", I use them to avoid offending people. I wonder
how Mark Kelley would react to the news that you've been alleging
him giving "posting lessons", Eric.
The second is also based on an incorrect presumption, because I have never
taken "posting lessons" from this alleged "Mark Kelley" and hence could
not possibly be taking them "again".
>> > Unable to curb your tendency to lie, eh Slava "Master of Lies"
>> > Pestov?
>>
>> Incorrect and irrelevant, given that I am not lying.
>
> On the contrary.
Typical pontification.
>> >> >> Irrelevant.
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?
>> >>
>> >> You made the following claim:
>> >>
>> >> EB] Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>> >
>> > Liar. I am not "EB". Five lies so far, Slava.
>>
>> I have already proven that you are "EB". See above.
>
> Illogical. Do you think Batman == Michael Keaton, Slava?
Taking Batman lessons from Marty "master of irrelevant Batman references"
Amodeo again?
>> >> Which is irrelevant, given that you made it on an incorrect basis.
>> >> For proof, see above.
>> >>
>> >> >> Illogical, given that you haven't identified the "claim".
>> >> >
>> >> > Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
>> >>
>> >> I see you still haven't identified this alleged "claim", Eric. No
>> >> surprise there.
>> >
>> > Irrelevant, given that you made the claim.
>>
>> I see now that you've realised your former argument is unattanable, you
>> are resorting to semantic-rich arguments in an attempt to obfuscate the
>> truth. How typical.
>
> Irrelevant, given that you made the claim, and still fail to recognize
> that you made it on an incorrect basis.
You still haven't identified this alleged "claim". Expecting people to
read your mind again, Eric? There are many claims in my posts. Typical
lack of specificy.
>> >> >> I cannot answer an illogical question, Eric.
>> >> >
>> >> > Non sequitur.
>> >>
>> >> So you admit your question was non sequitur, Eric?
>> >
>> > I cannot answer an illogical question, Slava.
>>
>> Irrelevant, given that I did not ask one.
>
> "So you admit your question was non sequitur, Eric?"
Prove that this question is illogical, if you think you can.
>> >> EB] No surpise there.
>> >>
>> >> Indicates that you were expecting to be surprised.
>> >
>> > On the contrary, your statement indicates the increasing severity of
>> > your reading comprehension problems.
>>
>> Pontification doesn't change the truth, Eric.
>
> Irrelevant, given that lack of pontification on my part.
Liar.
tholenbot] On the contrary,
>> >> >> You just replied to the evidence. How predictable you fail to see
>> >> >> that fact.
>> >> >
>> >> > Impossible, given that you never provided any evidence.
>> >>
>> >> A fifth lie. The evidence was the following admission:
>> >>
>> >> SP] It was a typo, Eric.
>> >>
>> >> Because I typed "fact" instead of "claim" in the following
>> >> statement:
>> >>
>> >> SP] Prove that this fact exists, if you think you can.
>> >
>> > Seven lies.
>>
>> Incorrect, given that I have provided evidence of my typo.
>>
>> SP] It was a typo, Eric.
>
> That is not evidence to support your claim, Pestov.
On the contrary.
> Still having
> context comprehension problems?
Typical invective.
>> >> >> You, Eric. How ironic you fail to recognize that fact.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> A sixth lie. I made the following claim:
>> >
>> > On the contrary, this is your eighth lie.
>>
>> Incorrect, given that I did not lie above.
>
> On the contrary.
Prove that I lied above, if you think you can.
>> >> SP] How ironic, coming from someone who routinely fails to use the
>> >> SP] scientific method.
>> >>
>> >> And I implied that the "someone" was you, given that you do indeed
>> >> routinely fail to use the scientific method.
>> >
>> > Typical unsubstantiated argument based on an erroneous presumption.
>>
>> On the contrary, my argument was quite substantiated, given that you do
>> indeed fail to use the scientific method.
>
> Incorrect, given that I use the scientific method.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> >> >> Where?
>> >> >
>> >> > "Your continuing illogic is indeed predictable, Eric."
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, that claim was quite substantiated.
>> >
>> > Where?
>>
>> In one of the many quoted lines you snipped, in typical Eric "master of
>> deletion" Bennett fashion.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Before you changed the subject of the thread to 'Pestov digest' from
'Tinman digest', my message was over 800 lines in length. Then, you
tholed the first 'Pestov digest', which was only 288 lines in length.
Hence you must have snipped a lot of material, Eric.
>> >> >> How predictable you answered the question incorrectly, given your
>> >> >> lack of basic logic and relevacy skills.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's too bad you still fail to recognize how your behavior is
>> >> > perceived,
>> >> > Slava.
>> >>
>> >> What alleged "behaviour"?
>> >
>> > That's not what I wrote, Slava. Having trouble figuring out how to
>> > cut and paste properly?
>>
>> No. Meanwhile, you still haven't identified this alleged "behavior".
>
> Your lying, obviously.
Does not exist.
> Haven't you been paying attention?
Typical illogical question based on an incorrect presumption.
>> >> My logical argument was there all along, until you snipped it, in
>> >> typical Eric "master of deletion" fashion.
>> >
>> > Illogical.
>>
>> Irrelevant. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to
>> be seen!
>
> Open your eyes.
My eyes are already open, and your logical argument is still nowhere in
sight.
>> >> >> Incorrect, given that I have not "deleted" anything.
>> >> >
>> >> > Incorrect.
>> >>
>> >> Then where is your evidence of this alleged "deletion"? Why, nowhere
>> >> to be seen!
>> >
>> > Comprehend context.
>>
>> I comprehend your entertainment perfectly, Eric.
>
> I see you still fail to comprehend the context.
What alleged "context"?
>> How predictable you fail to recognize that fact, given that you once
>> claimed radio waves don't exist.
>
> Liar. I never made any such claim, Pestov.
On the contrary. Here is small part of your discussion with Chris Pott:
tholenbot] I cannot recognize that which does not exist, Chris.
chris] Just because you fail to see it does not mean it doesn't exist.
chris] Doesn't radiation exist, Eric?
tholenbot] Illogical. I can feel radiation, Chris, therefore I can still
tholenbot] recognize it.
Since one cannot feel radio waves, your illogical reasoning implies that
you believe radio waves don't exist.
>> >> >> What you think is shameful is irrelevant, Eric.
>> >> >
>> >> > I see you finally admit that you are irrelevant, given that I
>> >> > think you are shameful. Common sense makes a cameo appearance.
>> >>
>> >> More illogic.
>> >
>> > Prove it.
>>
>> Just because
>>
>> A thinks that B is C
>>
>> And
>>
>> D thinks that what A thinks is C is E,
>>
>> doesn't imply that D thinks that B is E, given that D doesn't also
>> necessarily think that B is C.
>
> That is only true if D is engaging in illogical and inconsistent
> reasoning, Slava, as you are.
Prove that I am engaging in "illogical and inconsistent" reasoning,
if you think you can.
>> >> Taking logic lessons from Eric "master of illogic" Pott, Eric?
>> >
>> > Still strolling down irrelevancy lane?
>>
>> Still jogging down unsubstantiated claim boulevard?
>
> Illogical.
Glad you agree.
>> I do not post lies, Eric.
>
> Another lie.
Prove it, if you think you can.
>> It was a typo, Eric. My statement was actually substantiated.
>
> How predictable that one of your few correct statements was an accident.
I have made many correct statements, Eric, and none of them are accidents.
>> > How long will it take you to recognize that it was also illogical?
>>
>> I'm not going to recognize something that is not true, Eric.
>
> Irrelevant, given that I never asked you to do that.
Liar.
"How long will it take you to recognize that it was also illogical?"
Since my statement is in fact logical, asking me to recognize to the
contrary would be asking me to recognize something that is not true.
>> >> EB] Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
>> >>
>> >> Which further illustrates my point, namely:
>> >>
>> >> SP] How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when
>> >> you SP] have just made one yourself.
>> >
>> > You admit that your claim was unsubstantiated, Slava. How do
>> > unsubstantiated claims illustrate your point?
>>
>> I never made such an admission, Eric.
>
> On the contrary, you did make such an admission, even if it was
> accidental.
Illogical.
>> >> EB] I see you failed to cite a specific example,
>> >>
>> >> My "specific example" was as follows:
>> >
>> > That was not an example of an unsubstantiated claim, Slava. If you
>> > want
>> > an example, see your own claim above, which you admit was
>> > unsubstantiated.
>>
>> What alleged "claim above", Eric? Meanwhile, you still haven't noted
>> that your claim was unsubstantiated.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who admitted to making an
> unsubstantiated claim. Practice what you preach, Slava.
What alleged "admission", Eric? Meanwhile, you still haven't noted
that your claim was unsubstantiated.
>> How ironic, coming from someone who once said:
>>
>> tholenbot] See above.
>>
>> But denied engaging in circular reasoning:
>>
>> tholenbot] Incorrect.
>
> What is "ironic" about it?
You accuse me of circular reasoning while continuing to engage in it
yourself.
>> >> > Taking posting lessons from Chris "Roscoe and Flash" Pott?
>> >
>> > Note: no response.
>>
>> On the contrary, you simply failed to locate it.
>
> Where is the alleged response, Slava? Why, nowhere to be seen!
How typical you attempted to answer your own question, but failed
to do so correctly.
>> >> Not unless you mean to dig yourself deeper into that hole, Eric.
>> >
>> > What alleged "that hole"? Having more specificity problems, I see.
>>
>> The hole your digging yourself into right now, Eric. Once again you are
>> unaware of your immediate surroundings, but that is to be expected,
>> coming from you.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who fails to recognize his presence on
> irrelevancy lane.
Prove my precence on irrelevacy lane, if you think you can.
>> >> >> Illogical, given your remark above.
>> >> >
>> >> > What alleged "remark"?
>> >>
>> >> Reading comprehension problems, Eric? The remark was:
>> >>
>> >> EB] No surprise there.
>> >>
>> >> That implies you were expecting a surprise (otherwise you wouldn't
>> >> point out that there wasn't one).
>> >
>> > Incorrect, and also illogical. The earth did not crash into the sun
>> > yesterday, Slava, but my pointing out this fact does not mean that I
>> > expected the contrary.
>>
>> So you admit that your remark:
>>
>> tholenbot] No surprise there.
>>
>> Is irrelevant?
>
> "I'd prefer not to guess."
So you cannot even judge if your remark is relevant or not, without guessing?
How typical.
>> >> Hence, it was very illogical of you to claim that the following
>> >> remark was irrelevant:
>> >
>> > The continuation of your argument is built on the illogical
>> > foundation above, and hence ineffective, Slava.
>>
>> Prove that my argument is "built" on "the" illogical foundation, if you
>> think you can.
>
> Self-evident, Pestov.
Prove that it is self-evident, if you think you can. Don't forget to use
the scientific method.
>> >> > Circular reasoning is not part of the scientific method.
>> >>
>> >> Correct. Now apply that to the current situation.
>> >
>> > I do not apply circular reasoning, Slava. That I leave to you.
>>
>> Liar. By your own admission, "see above" is an example of circular
>> reasoning.
>>
>> tholenbot] It referred back to a previous point in the discussion,
>> tholenbot] Slava. The reader who followed the discussion from that
>> tholenbot] point would again arrive at your admonition to "see above".
>> tholenbot] Thus, you have engaged in circular reasoning, regardless
>> tholenbot] of the relevance or irrelevance of "the above".
>>
>> Meanwhile, you continue to say "see above":
>>
>> tholenbot] See above.
>>
>> Hence your lie.
>
> Illogical, as my use does not constitute circular reasoning, given that
> you frequently aren't paying attention.
Since I am, in fact, paying attention, you do, indeed, engage in
circular reasoning.
>> >> >> Who is this "someone", Eric? It isn't me.
>> >> >
>> >> > On the contrary.
>> >>
>> >> A tenth lie.
>> >
>> > Your twelfth, Slava.
>>
>> Where?
>
> Open your eyes.
They're open, Eric. Meanwhile, you still haven't answered my question.
>> >> Since me and you are the only people in this dicussion, the only
>> >> logical conclusion, given that you are the only possible "someone",
>> >> is that you, in fact, are the one who fails to provide proof.
>> >
>> > I see you failed to observe that Marty Amodeo is also posting in this
>> > thread, Slava, and therefore is part of the discussion. Of course,
>> > it takes decent usenet comprehension skills to recognize this fact.
>>
>> Marty Amodeo jumped into discussion after I wrote the above, Eric.
>
> He was already part of the discussion, Slava:
> http://x52.deja.com/%5BST_rn=ps%5D/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=651593312
>
> He posted that article before you posted your comments above:
> http://x72.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=652050808&CONTEXT=
>
> DejaNews prove that both articles were in the same thread. Yet another
> of your lies.
There can be more than one "discussion" in a thread, Eric. For example,
in this thread, we have this discussion, and the "batman" discussion.
Marty jumped into this dicussion after my post above, by stating the
following:
marty] Balderdash, Slava.
Hence he jumped into this discussion.
>> >> > Balderdash, Slava.
>> >>
>> >> A twelth lie. My remark:
>> >>
>> >> SP] How ironic, coming from someone who has serious context SP]
>> >> comprehension deficencies.
>> >>
>> >> Was very logical, given that you claimed that I have difficulty
>> >> comprehending context:
>> >>
>> >> EB] Comprehend context, Slava.
>> >
>> > I see you still aren't able to distinguish between actors and
>> > characters, Slava.
>>
>> What alleged "actors" and "characters"?
>
> See what I mean?
No. Meanwhile, where is your logical answer? Why, nowhere to be seen!
>> >> >> Incorrect. See
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=650187557&CONTEXT
>> >> >>=964791392.1436352594&hitnum=0
>> >> >>
>> >> >>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=
>> >> >>964791392.1436352594&hitnum
>> >> >>
>> >> >>http://x55.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=648816277&CONTEXT=9647913
>> >> >>92.
>> >> >>1436352594&hitnum=1=1
>> >> >
>> >> > Illogical, given that in those posts Eric Bennett was posting as
>> >> > Eric
>> >> > Bennett, as clearly show in the headers. Have you ever seen
>> >> > Batman
>> >> > pose
>> >> > as Michael Keaton, Slava?
>> >>
>> >> On the contrary, Eric Bennett was posting as tholenbot, given the
>> >> clearly recognizable Dave Tholen emulation present in those posts.
>> >
>> > I see you failed to answer my question about Michael Keaton and
>> > Batman, instead resorting to diversionary tactics. For shame,
>> > Slava.
>>
>> I see you failed to address my point about posts from Eric Bennett
>> emplying tholen emulation tacticts. For shame, Eric.
>
> Irrelevant, given that your point was irrelevant to the context of your
> failure to answer my question about Michael Keaton and Batman.
Still taking Batman lessons from Marty "master of irrelevant Batman
references" Amodeo?
>> > Dave Tholen emulation is also clearly recognizable in Chris Pott's
>> > posts. Do you think Eric Bennett is Chris Pott? Illogical.
>>
>> Illogical. If A is emulating B and C is also emulating B, it doesn't
>> imply that A is B.
>
> According to your previous illogical argument, Slava, it does. Glad to
> see you changed your mind. More evidence of your inconsistency.
>
>> Joe Malloy couldn't care less, Eric.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can.
Ask Malloy, he will answer to your satisfaction.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: The Perestroika Deception.
Date: 5 Aug 2000 03:54:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> However, by protecting other processes, the OS coddles the user
>> by not hurting whatever other processes a user may have active.
>And so, because ONE user's processes misbehave, ALL USERS should
>suffer? ...
It would provide much better reason to punish than otherwise.
>> This from someone who think that it ought to be trusted with
>> armed force.
>The alternative is facing invasion by any number of nations that
>recognize ZERO individual liberties. ...
The alternative is the Ayn Rand Brigade. Which has yet to defeat
all the statist armies of the world in battle.
>> It also specifies a Navy, but no Air Force.
>The Air Force draws it's lineage from the Army, and thus, legally
>falls under the same Constitutional rules which govern the Army.
Very ingenious.
>> >> >Let's take.....blue-blood Republican Jay Rockefeller, ...
>Wrong. I complained that they are a bunch of FREE-LOADERS...just like
>the welfare-whores that they are so fond of.
So inheriting something makes one a freeloader?
[a lot of stuff about Sergei Golitsyn being in hiding...]
Good Grief! Alexander Solzhenitsyn got to go back to Russia, and
Mr. Golitsyn acts like he's afraid of his own shadow?
> Lenin advised the Communists that they must be prepared to
> "resort to all sorts of stratagems, maneuvers, illegal
> methods, evasions and subterfuge" to achieve their objectives.
That doesn't prove a thing.
>If you examine the backgrounds of prominent Russian figures, you will
>find that they have long Communist Party/ KGB or Komsomol pedigrees.
As my sister had pointed out, Yugoslav Communist Party members
were mostly careerist opportunists, and the same is very likely true in
most cases in the xSU. So it is not surprising that some of them have
become very ardent capitalists.
I'm not saying that they can be trusted to love democracy,
however; it might be possible that some ultranationalist regime would
appear that decides to "rescue" ethnic Russians outside of Russia by
rebuilding some of the old empire (this is inspired by the favorite Nazi
claim that ethnic Germans were being beaten up in eastern Europe).
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
