Linux-Advocacy Digest #289, Volume #28 Mon, 7 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: COMMUNIST AGITATOR/DENIER LOREN GETS SPANKED AGAIN ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: THE BELL CURVE (ATTN: BIG DON!) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (T. Max Devlin)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: COMMUNIST AGITATOR/DENIER LOREN GETS SPANKED AGAIN
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:47:56 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> There does not have to be a single one, since if the Yugoslav
> >> pattern held in the Soviet Union, many Soviet Communists are likely to
> >> have been "Communists" just to improve their career.
> >ANSWER THE GODDAMN QUESTION you fucking apologist!
> >Tell me one person who has been able to get anywhere in Russian
> >society without selling their soul to the Communist party.
>
> As I said, I don't have to. In fact, one does have to marvel at
> how former Communists have been willing to become capitalists, even if
> crooked crony capitalists.
In other words, LOREN CAN'T PROVIDE A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO
COUNTER MY MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE...
>
> >> Vietnam vs. Cambodia in the 1980's, for example. And although the
> >> Sino-Soviet split never led to war, it was nevertheless a split.
> >It's a charade. This was proven during the Nixon administration.
>
> >The USS Pueblo was deliberately set-up to be captured, so that
> >a doctored telex coding machine would be captured; Once the
> >ship was captured, intelligence services sent out phony traffic
> >from a similarly doctored machine so that it would be "intercepted"
> >by the Communists. ... and at the height of the "Sino-Soviet Split"
> >the Chinese fed all of the intercepted information directly on
> >to Moscow.
>
> I've never seen anything on this stunt.
Since you're consistently demonstrate that you are a naive idiot who
is utterly clueless about world events and processes....it is not the
slightest bit surprising that you are equally unaware of this
bit of history as well.
The Pueblo Surrender: A Covert Action by the National Security Agency
Robert A. Liston
>
> And two hostile nations can certainly cooperate against a common enemy.
>
The "phony" information provided to the Chinese was of little
use to the Chinese, but of particular use to the Soviets, so
the test was to see if the Chinese would act as true "partners",
not merely opponents who have a common 3rd-enemy.
> >If they were truly enemies, then why hasn't China invaded
> >Russia? Their common border is in the regions of Russia which
> >is hardly inhabited, and China has 8 times the population as
> >does Russia....and, due to the one-child-per-family rule,
> >more than 20 times the number of young men who are suitable
> >for being put under arms.
>
> However, the Soviet Union had had more tanks and airplanes and
> nuclear bombs.
When you have more men under arms than your opponent as people
in the entire country, this matters very little.
>
> >> >Golitsyn specifically said in the 1970's that the first country
> >> >to be "let go" would be Germany...because that would have the
> >> >greatest psychological impact on the West.
> >> He was wrong there, because in 1989, the Communist regimes fell
> >> almost simultaneously, over the space of half a year.
> >E. Germany fell first....exactly as Golitsyn said.
>
> Demonstrably false. Poland and Hungary fell first, and then
> Czechoslovakia. Erich Honecker begged Gorbachev to help keep East Germany
> from going the way of the others, and Gorbachev refused.
NOTHING CHANGED until the Berlin Wall came down.
>
> >> >> on, they would not have been allowed to join NATO.
> >> >You know what ALL con-men have in commmon? The ability to
> >> >convince people that they are sincere, even though they are not.
> >> Look at it this way, if there were problems with their loyalty,
> >> it would have become a big controversy by now.
> >Ever see a movie by a man named Marion Morrison?
> [going under the name John Wayne...]
>
> But that's not some secret conspiracy.
Once again, Loren can't see the forest because of all those
damned trees blocking the view.
>
> >> >Depends. China now has total control of the Panama Canal.
> >> WHAT total control? The most that has happened is that a
> >> China-based company has acquired some concessions in some port areas. And
> >> acquired them in a 100% capitalist fashion.
> >They have control.
> >The Hutchison-Whampoa company is fully owned by the "Chinese
> >People's Army (Translation: Chinese Dictator's Army).
>
> >Hutchison-Whampoa has legal control of:
> >* ALL of the canal machinery (locks, etc.)
> >* The anchorages at both ends
> >* all of the former US Army bases along the Canal.
> >* Exclusive rights to pilot all craft in the Canal zone
>
> News to me.
There are 4 types of people
1. Those who make it happen
2. Those who watch it happen
3. Those who wonder what happened
4. And those who dont' even know something happened.
As usual, Loren is in Group 4.
Do a web search for Hutchison Whampoa you ignorant dolt.
Did you know, for someone who pretends to know ooooooh so much
about how the world runs, you sure do seem to be unaware of a
large number of world events.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,soc.culture.african.american,sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: THE BELL CURVE (ATTN: BIG DON!)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:52:39 -0400
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > > > Check my reply to Arthur.
>
> > > Sorry, it didn't show up on this news
> > > feed, and I'm too disinterested to
> > > check my other news feed to look for
> > > it.
>
> This did show up on my news feed,
> so I'll respond.
>
> > > Your claim was essentially that The Bell Curve was only attacked by
> > > people shouting 'racism'. I provided 2 sites that didn't mention
> > > the word at all. Therefore, as usual you were incorrect.
>
> > The first "critique" argued that two consecutive tests given
> > within the same school district would likely have highly skewed
> > results, because 3 out of 9 ( 33%!!!!) would not be attending
> > school the day of the second test (due to either illness or
> > "harvesting spuds", [When was the last time when a full 33%
> > of a class was absent from school barring an epidemic or
> > natural disaster...and what teacher would administer a test
> > with a full 1/3 of the class absent that day?] and two others
> > (22%!!) would take the second test poorly because they were
> > either "thinking about stealing hubcaps" or "distraught over
> > the death of her cat"
>
> > She never does explain why our hubcap-thieving student would
> > do good on test 1, but poorly on test 2. I mean, wouldn't he
> > also be similarly distracted during test 1?
>
> > In other words..her argument was utterly without any
> > substantiation other than her determination to come up
> > with some contrived scenario, with "accidents" occuring
> > approximately 2 orders of magnitude more frequently than
> > in real life academic situations.
>
> > I found this one on the first page of her multi-part critique.
>
> While your comments are extremely interesting
> (not to mention hilarious), I feel I should
> point out that what you are arguing against is
> what we technical types call an "example". An
> "example" (didn't they cover this at Purdue?)
For an example to have any meaning, it must be worthwhile.
And example which posits that of a typical group of
test-takers 33% are absent for the second test, and another
22% are suffering from psychological impairment at the
time of the test is...silly to say the least.
> is when you make up a set of imaginary data to
> to demonstrate a technical point (in this case
> about statistics). The point being made is not
> about the content or politics of either The Bell
> Curve or student behavior - it is an example about
> the methods used to handle a set of data with
> missing data points.
>
> > Quite obviously one who is so driven by ideology as to commit
> > such an atrociously unrealist scenario to uphold her arguments
> > is not trustworthy, so I saw no reason to continue.
>
> You're arguing that her examples are politcally
> incorrect. I really don't know how to respond
> to this.
No. I'm arguing that her examples are mathematically unsound.
>
> However, had you continued all the way to the
> end you would have found:
>
> "The false prediction rate for cases
> above the POVERTY level is still miniscule,
> around 3%; and for those
> below the POVERTY level, about 90%."
>
> I'm sorry there is no large quote I can post that
> says "The Bell Curve sucks" in all caps, but this
> was a rather lengthy and boring statistical analysis
> that simply demonstrated that The Bell Curve's
> model does not predict income level from IQ very
> well, and that their methods were sloppy. The
> statistical analysis on this site was done using
> the
That 90% may or may not be significant. We would have to
see it in context to be sure.
>
> > The second tried to disprove a conjecture that an assessment,
> > based on an off-the cuff calculation that the turn-of-the-century
> > student body of a Seven Sisters college had an aggregate IQ of
> > 119, but the actual IQ turns up to be 123.
>
> > If one exams the passage in question (where the 119 IQ is
> > mentioned by Murray and Hernstein), the validity of their
> > statement is not changed by substituting 123 for 119.
>
> > 119 puts one in .. oh, let's say the 75th percentile.
> > 123 puts one in .. probably the 77th percentile.
>
> > BIG FREAKING DEAL!
>
> > Again, this "analysis" was on the FIRST PAGE of several which
> > supposedly refute The Bell Curve.
>
> Actually, it was in the first Case Study, and
> it concluded:
>
> "In short, the authors simply leave out basic
> information that would sever any connection
> between the evidence they offer and what it is
> intended to prove."
>
> And the numbers were 117 and 121 (can't you get
> anything right?) - the example serving to
> demonstrate some of the unreliability in their
> data. Not a large difference to be sure, but
> always in a direction to support their hypothesis.
>
> What you missed on the FIRST PAGE:
>
> "What Herrnstein and Murray used to measure IQ is
> actually a measure of education as well as
> intelligence. All the people tracked in he National
> Longitudinal Study of Youth took the Armed Forces
> Qualifying Test, which Herrnstein and Murray treat
> as a good measure of intelligence. Because the
> material covered in the test includes subjects like
> trigonometry, many academic critics of The Bell
> Curve have objected to its use as a measure only of
> IQ and not at all of academic achievement. Herrnstein
> and Murray concede in the footnotes that scores tend
> to rise with the subjects' education--but they
> seriously underestimate the magnitude of this rise,
> as Case Study Three shows. And they resist the
> obvious inference that the test scores are measuring
> something other than intelligence."
>
> "Herrnstein and Murray begin their discussion of
> the National Longitudinal Study of Youth data by
> announcing that they aren't going to analyze the
> effect of education, because education is too much
> a result of IQ. It's not an independent variable.
> (Of course, according to their theory, socioeconomic
> status is also a result of IQ, but somehow, that
> doesn't stop them.) Therefore, what you'd most
> want to know from a policy standpoint--how much
> education can increase opportunity--isn't dealt
> with in the book, except in two obscure footnotes.
> Both would seem to support the liberal,
> pro-education position that Herrnstein and Murray
> say is futile. One footnote shows education
> increasing IQ year by year. The other shows a higher
> correlation between college degree and family
> income than between IQ and family income."
>
> Please nate none of this has anything to with the
> claims of racism, which you said were the ONLY
> criticisms made of The Bell Curve, so again,
> you're wrong. There are a large number of similar
> pages with similar criticisms, none of them
> solely based on claims of "racism".
>
> I had resolved to quit writing long posts, because
> they're boring and I doubt anybody reads them. I
> had also resolved to quit arguing with you, because
> you're stupid. This is NOT an ad hominem - anybody
> who's argument rests on criticizing the political
> correctness of explanatory examples and who can't be
> bothered to read past the first few paragraphs of
> an article he plans to criticize is STUPID - there
> are other words (laxy, ingorant, blinded by dogma,
> etc,) but stupid will suffice.
>
> Lastly you continue to argue by diversion. You're
> claim was the ONLY criticisms of The Bell Curve
> were based on claims of "racism". When you find
> you're losing that argument, you shift to a new
> argument based on incomplete and misleading
> characterization of the data offered (just like
> The Bell Curve - no wonder it's your Bible).
> I suppose next I'll be threatened, or this will
> drift into another set of irrelevant and ignorant
> rebuttals from you.
>
> Arthur
again, you're arguing about a 4 pt difference on what
the authors inherently acknowledge to be a first-order
estimate.
BIG FUCKING DEAL.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:55:25 -0400
Matt Kennel wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:34:45 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :Loren Petrich wrote:
> :>
> :> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> :> MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> >On 3 Aug 2000 17:33:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> :>
> :> >> However, SS has been remarkably efficient at improving the
> :> >>standard of living of the elderly.
> :> >However, SS has negative return for most of people taking part in
> :> >it.
> :>
> :> Tell that to those who claim that SS is about to go broke. If it
> :> has such poor returns, it would not be going broke.
> :
> :Compared to the stock market, SS is an absolute shithole.
>
> True but that's because your social security payment is both investment
> and a whole lot of insurance. If you think it were all going to investment
Oh god. Even the miserable 'investment value' of "whole life"
insurance (a scam if there ever was one) has better returns
than Social security.
And salesmen who push that stuff make 50% commissions!!!!
> then of course it is a bum deal, and thus for people who are unlikely to
> end up 1) very poor 2) disabled 3) poor spouses who didn't work {the primary
> categories of insurance paid by SS} they will obviously get less than if
> they had been able to keep the money.
>
> Even separating that out, it is a semi-bum deal.
>
> :This is why people my age are absolutely enraged by the whole
> :situation. They're stealing money from us because a bunch of
> :dumb-ass senior ran to the polls in a dizzy spree, more eager
> :than ever to get their "free lunch" without ever bothering to
> :see where the hell the money was coming from, or going, and
> :what the hell Congress has been doing all these years.
>
> Right, the ability to pass taxes and effectively raise benefits starting
> immediately for recipients now, regardless of sound demographic and actuarial
> principles is the core of the clusterufck. The fact that taxes only fall
> on wage earners (in contrast to people who earn via capital) is another
> silly anomaly.
>
> The reason of course is that rich old-people have overwhelmingly the most
> power.
>
> Since the stock market is in effect a proxy for GDP, really broad based
> taxation is a similar way (macroeconomically) to get at the same effect as
> selling off stock to pay for benefits.
>
> The critical problem is of course the worker/benefit ratio.
>
> The only legitimate solution is to reduce benefits (increase
> retirement age) proportionally to keep the ratio stable.
Correct. But then the retirement age would be 90, and that
would be VERY unpopular.
>
> --
> * Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
> *
> * "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
> * Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:59:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Stockholder elections are the ultimate means by which workers can
>> >have a DIRECT say about the conditions under which they work.
>> [...]
>>
>> Even amidst such a rant, that sounds like an incredibly silly thing to
>> say.
>
>They can throw out the entire board of directors at any time...
>
>And the probability of the new board of directors firing the CEO
>and his executives is very, very high
The operative word is "can", not "elections". A vote for the loser in
an election of corporate officers doesn't even have the political
consideration that a 'real' vote gets in a government election. So the
only way you can effect the conditions under which you work, unless you
happen to own quite a bit more stock than would be indicated by the fact
that you have to work, is to agree with whatever corporate officers who
get elected by a generally small group of majority stock holders want
your work conditions to be.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:59:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>If enough people feel the same way, the price of the stock drops.
>Besides, the purchasers are people who agree with the decision
>of the board.
And thus guarantee that "enough people" will generally not feel
sufficiently concerned about the ethical character of their investments
to cause anybody's stock to drop. In a world where speculating on stock
prices wasn't the norm, and people actually expected dividends to be an
appreciable value, stock would be an investment, and not a gamble.
Voting of officers is considered an administrative oversight, not a vote
of conscience.
>CONVERSELY, if stockholder dicontent is widespread, ANY STOCKHOLDER
>can call for a special election, and vote the entire board of
>directors out... FOR ANY REASON AT ALL.
Ooh, yea. That happens all the time, doesn't it? I mean, when the
stockholder calling for the vote isn't already a mega-millionaire with
the capital power to directly benefit from the resultant change in
fiscal conditions. Wouldn't surprise me if there were more than a
handful of those in today's corporate society.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:59:07 -0400
SemiScholar wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 16:55:24 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >SemiScholar wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 10:36:10 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >> However, Napster is a bunch of *CAPITALISTS*.
> >> >> >No... they are socialists. They steal other people's labor.
> >> >>
> >> >> However, their executives have discussed how they can expect to
> >> >> make money off of their service, which is a capitalist operation.
> >> >>
> >> >> For Mr. Kulkis, it would seem, bad capitalists are, by definition,
> >> >> not capitalists.
> >> >
> >> >TRUE Capitalists respect intellectual property rights.
> >> >
> >> >This is why both Napster and Microsoft are NOT capitalist companies.
> >>
> >> Tell Hummer Winblad that Napster is not a capitalist endeavor (I
> >> hesitate to call it a "company" at this time).
> >>
> >> And Microsoft "not capitalist"? LOL!
> >
> >No. Capitalism is competition in a free marketplace. Microsofts
> >own documents show that they continually conspire to undermine
> >the free market.
>
> Wrong. The free marketplace is what has allowed them to create their
> monopoly. Free marketplaces result naturally in monopolies. It is
> government intrusion (amongst other things) that breaks up monopolies.
OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE is not a FREE MARKET you fucking idiot!
> >
> >Microsoft actively seeks to build a vertically-integrated
> >economy in the computer market, with themselves at the top,
> >putting both customers and suppliers whims dead last, and
> >collecting ALL of the profit.
> >
> >Thus, Microsoft is FASCIST, not Capitalist.
>
> You are in serious need of education. That is not what fascism is.
>
> - SemiScholar
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
