Linux-Advocacy Digest #617, Volume #28 Thu, 24 Aug 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Just converted (Voltage Spike)
Re: Just converted (Voltage Spike)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Bruce Scott TOK)
Remote Dump Error ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: seeking advice in distribution choice (aflinsch)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (Tim Hanson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:56:16 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> This who XML hysteria worries me. We have people thinking that it is
> something other than a very inefficient text based file format. Example:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
> <!DOCTYPE RESULTSET SYSTEM "http://fubar.com/fubar.dtd">
> <RESULTSET>
> <RESULT ID="0" >
> <MATCHES>0</MATCHES>
> <TIME>0.1605</TIME>
> <RATINGS>0</RATINGS>
> <MAXSCORE>2510</MAXSCORE>
> <SCORE>6947</SCORE>
> <SIZE>6536</SIZE>
> <LANGUAGE>_LANG1_</LANGUAGE>
> <DATE>957148708</DATE>
> <FORMAT>0</FORMAT>
> <MODDATE>0</MODDATE>
> </RESULT>
> </RESULTSET>
>
> That's all that XML is, nothing more. It can not replace programs, it is
> not a new concept in operating systems.
Even if the original poster got his terminology confused. I imagine that
what was being proposed here is using our computers running web browsers
serving and the frontends of applications programs, with the core of the
programs running on the web servers as webpages using CGI's. And possibly
major programs running say as a replacement for an suite of office
productivity programs which communicate with web browser clients as
webservers in their own right.
Can this work? It depends on the programs being replaced, but it can work
for some programs. This does not eliminate the need for application
programs it just relocates it from you computer to that of the web servers.
But being possible does not make it desireable. This does not eliminate all
programs, and never could unless a user limits their need to software to
only what can be handled this way. However there are too many issues and
concerns for this to be desireable.
Years ago when there was no other viable option for most people and they
needed direct computer interaction, they would rent access on a timeshare
system. Using a teletype terminal or a dumb terminal to communicate via a
modem with the timeshare host. The bandwidth of the connection was low by
today's standards (150 baud or 300 baud), but since it was not a shared
resource it was servicable. The bottle neck was the performance of the
timeshare host. Often you might have to wait from several seconds to a few
minutes and seeing the result of it echoed on the screen. These delays were
caused by the timeshare host becomming too busy to keep up.
As soon as any viable options were available, the timeshare system were
abandoned by the users in droves. People in general found the 8-bit, 8K -
48K RAM, 1Mhz - <2Mhz micros much more desireable over the timeshare
systems.
The proposal offered here has all the hallmarks of returning us to the
timeshare era with all of its problems and issues. The text only ASR-33's
and LS-120's text only terminals would be replaced with web client
terminals. The 150 baud and 300 baud non-shared connection would be replace
by TCP/IP shared connections. The timeshare hosts would be replaced by web
servers running the application programs.
That is all window dressing, what that would really amount to is a return to
yester year's computing. Imagine performance when several thousand or
million (or billion?) users are all competing for the same servers. We
should not forget the past and so we should not be condemed to repeat it.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:07:12 -0400
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash is
> _not_ the way to do that.
It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash" others call
it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if he
mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:10:30 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:42:47 -0400, Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:15:38 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
>> >> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >> A month or so later, I walked in when our secretary was discussing
>> >> women's health care with her. She had spent some time in England, and
>> >> she complained about how some man high-up in the bureacracy set the
>> >> rules on how often the government-supported health plan would let a
>> >> woman get some basic exams. It was much less often than the medical
>> >> community considers adequate, and she spouted off about the evils of
>> >> government-directed health plans where men make ill-informed decisions
>> >> about women's health.
>> >
>> >Yeah, that's much worse than private health plans where men make very
>> >well informed decisions about corporate profits, with little regard for
>> >anyone's health.
>>
>> However, there remains at least the theoretical possibility
>> to sue a corporation. No such alternative exists for the
>> governemnt. Corporations, as large as they are, are simply
>> easier to bully into behaiving reasonably.
>
>Huh? You mean you _can't_ sue the government in the US? Man, that's
>weird...
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> There also exists the small chance that you can simply replace
>> one private provider with a more suitable one.
>
>Small... kinda like finding the holy grail, huh?;)
Not really. Depending on the quality of your medical plan it can
actually be quite easy. This seems to be more true for government
healthcare than it is for private companies however.
IOW: the motivation to switch to an alternate carrier usually just
isn't there even with a mediocre private company. Whereas it's quite
likely to be for a government plan.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:15:48 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 02:43:47 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Christopher Smith wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > > Christopher Smith wrote:
>> > > > *sigh*
>> > > >
>> > > > I meant compelling alternatives for the majority. Obviously if
>you're
>> > > > involved in something like DTP then, say, MacOS has been a
>compelling
>> > > > alternative for years (indeed, it would be the paltform for which
>there
>> > > > haven't been any compelling alternatives).
>> > >
>> > > Well now I ask you to indulge me once more and consider which
>"majority",
>> > > keeping in mind the multitude of corporate users, etc., and not just
>> > > implicitly limiting your scope to the home user crowd.
>> >
>> > The majority that has, thus far, determined Windows to be its platform
>of
>> > choice.
>>
>> So, reapplying this context to your original statement, you have just
>> said that there haven't been any compelling alternatives to Windows for
>> the majority of users that have determined that Windows is their
>> platform of choice. That's about as insightful as saying X=X.
>
>Not at all. Reapplying that context to my original statement, I've simply
>said that for the majority, who have _thus far_ chosen Windows, there has
>not been a compelling alternative.
That's the "kicker". Few actually choose Windows. Usually it's either
the default choice or the only way possible to deal with barriers of
entry intentionally put in place by certain corporations.
"compelling alternative" has had much more to do with dealing with
proprietary interfaces than any quality of the underlying OS.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Voltage Spike)
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: 24 Aug 2000 17:13:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:33:52 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > While the Windows 9x TCP/IP stack is a poor performer, it has no
>> problems
>> > with 1Mb/s. My old cable modem under 98 routinely pushed 1.5-3Mb's
>> without
>> > blinking an eye. Internally, I've gotten as much as 50Mb/s on a 100bT
>> > network. (I'm not bragging about anything here, these are poor
>> numbers, but
>> > nowhere near as poor as you claim).
>> >
>> > There must be some other issue here if this is true.
>> >
>>
>> No other issues - Linux performs better on networks right through the
>> bank. I have plenty examples on site.
>>
>> >
>> > The only reason why this might be true is if you are using some kind
>> of
>> > firewall that is sensitive to Windows generated packets.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You will be amazed at the speed difference in dial-up access between
>> Windows and Linux boxes. The past weekend a budy and me tried it out -
>> a Windows 98 box with 550MHz AMD and 128MB RAM vs a Linux box with
>> 400MHz AMD and 64MB RAM. We first connected with the Windows machine
>> and checked how long it took to download the Norton Antivirus Update
>> Files (each about 2.5MB). We then did exactly the same on the Linux
>> box. In both instances we used the command line FTP applications. Linux
>> performed very roughly 166% faster.
>
>I've never noticed a difference myself (in speed) ... I think
>there are so many factors at play here that you really can't make
>a meaningful comparison; you need a more controlled environment
>for that.
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No more proof here than the guy above, but I would like to point out
that I have seen similar (althought maybe not as drastic as 166%) speed
increases in my working. In many cases, I assume that this is a direct
result of how each operating system handles the initialization string, but
even when I hand-configure Windows it is still slower.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Voltage Spike)
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: 24 Aug 2000 17:23:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 09:33:52 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > While the Windows 9x TCP/IP stack is a poor performer, it has no
>> problems
>> > with 1Mb/s. My old cable modem under 98 routinely pushed 1.5-3Mb's
>> without
>> > blinking an eye. Internally, I've gotten as much as 50Mb/s on a 100bT
>> > network. (I'm not bragging about anything here, these are poor
>> numbers, but
>> > nowhere near as poor as you claim).
>> >
>> > There must be some other issue here if this is true.
>> >
>>
>> No other issues - Linux performs better on networks right through the
>> bank. I have plenty examples on site.
>>
>> >
>> > The only reason why this might be true is if you are using some kind
>> of
>> > firewall that is sensitive to Windows generated packets.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You will be amazed at the speed difference in dial-up access between
>> Windows and Linux boxes. The past weekend a budy and me tried it out -
>> a Windows 98 box with 550MHz AMD and 128MB RAM vs a Linux box with
>> 400MHz AMD and 64MB RAM. We first connected with the Windows machine
>> and checked how long it took to download the Norton Antivirus Update
>> Files (each about 2.5MB). We then did exactly the same on the Linux
>> box. In both instances we used the command line FTP applications. Linux
>> performed very roughly 166% faster.
>
>I've never noticed a difference myself (in speed) ... I think
>there are so many factors at play here that you really can't make
>a meaningful comparison; you need a more controlled environment
>for that.
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
No more proof here than the guy above, but I would like to point out
that I have seen similar (althought maybe not as drastic as 166%) speed
increases in my working. In many cases, I assume that this is a direct
result of how each operating system handles the initialization string, but
even when I hand-configure Windows it is still slower.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: 24 Aug 2000 19:19:08 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the 22 Aug 2000 22:20:46 +0200...
>...and Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Get into books. They are cheaper, they last longer, and nobody is
>> >throwing a hissy fit about buying the latest 'boy-band' type of book.
>>
>> But now there's Harry Potter!
>>
>> (pardon me if I've got the name wrong... I don't participate in these fads)
>
>What's the big deal? We've had low-quality writers such as Stephen
>King and Wolfgang Hohlbein with a community of adolescent "fan"
>readers devouring their books by the dozen for decades now.
I have the same perspective I've seen you posting on: as long as the
existence of those fads is something I can ignore without aftereffects,
then I don't mind. The trouble is, there are indirect effects too
obvious to ignore: everything that leads to a fragmented attention span
also makes educating people more difficult. Running Linux and ignoring
Microsoft is a lot easier than dealing with a culture so dominated by
marketing men and advertising as ours is. With the PR sewage hose in
everyone's face, it is hard for people to get a chance to breathe, let
alone think. The world culture becomes a random collection of sound
bites.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Remote Dump Error
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:21:16 GMT
I am trying to do a remote rdump from one LINUX
machine (redhat) to another that has a tape drive
attached to it. In doing so, I get the following
error message and nothing dumps.
Permission denied.
TCP_MAXSEG setsockopt: Bad file descriptor
Thanks for any help
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 03:47:46 +1000
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8nnuah$pse$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >> I was a DRDOS user and was told by my own IS department at the time
that
> >> I would 'have to' use MSDOS since DRDOS was not 'compatible with
windows'.
> >> I recall that the guy had a slightly smug smile at the time - he'd
never
> >> really approved of my DRDOS massively outperforming his MSDOS.
> >
> >Then blame your stupid IS department. I was a DRDOS user as well, and it
> >worked fine given a couple of bugfixes.
>
> Why? For falling for Microsoft's own publicity?
Which would have been "DRDOS is not supported", which it wasn't and had no
obligation to be.
> For falling for
> the misleading message deliberately inserted by Microsoft into Windows
> to state that DRDOS would not work with Windows?
How was it misleading ?
>
> Can you tell me exactly what they did wrong? (other than believe
> Microsoft).
They did not test to find out whether or not their systems worked. All
Microsoft would have said was "DRDOS is not supported".
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: seeking advice in distribution choice
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:26:39 -0500
Zsolt Zsoldos wrote:
>
> Our current hardware set includes: dual-Pentium II, dual Pentium-III,
> AMD-Athlon 900MHz and single Pentium II and III computers, a Linux laptop
SMP support will be needed
> For hystorical reasons, we currently have 4 different Linux distributions
> installed: Caldera 2.2, Red Hat 6.0, SuSE 6.4 and Mandrake 7.1. However,
> I hate to keep up with the maintenance nightmare of the mixed environments
> (which gets tricky when users use their NFS mounted home directories under
> different versions), therefore I'd like to switch to a single distribution.
> I now have Caldera 2.4, Red Hat 6.2 and Corel Linux CDs at hand as well.
Good idea to settle on a single distro. Makes maintining & upgrading
easier also.
>
> From the installation point of view, I liked Caldera the most - it is neat
> and robust as well in my experience (been using it for 2 years now).
> SuSE seems to provide the largest software tool set in its 6 CDs - although
> it is questionable how much of that we really need.
Never tried Caldera. The current Mandrake installer is fairly easy and
robust also. I just installed SuSE on an older machine last night, the
old installer was quite confusing to me at first. I did not try the
new installer, as my hardware would not completely support it, so I
will not comment on it.
> RedHat is the most widely supported and widespread as far as commercial
> backing goes (IBM, Intel, SGI and other big names).
The Mandrake directory structure is the same as RedHat's. Commercial
support is not quite the same however.
> Mandrake is the only one with X4.0 on the install set (and I need 4.0 to be
> able to benefit from hardware accelerated 3D on the nVidia and ATI chipsets).
Good choice for Mandrake. Since you are also using all Pentium grade
stuff, Mandrake gets another point here as well. The entire system is
Pentium optimized, not just the kernel, this makes a very slight but
noticible performance difference.
>
> Which one do you think is the best distribution for us and why?
> So the candidates again:
>
> Caldera 2.4, RedHat 6.2, SuSE 6.4, Mandrake 7.1 and Corel 1.0.
I would go with Mandrake. Mandrake is also the main Linux distro in my
home network (with the exception of the lone 486 machine running
SuSE). My advice would be to take a "typical" machine and install one
of the distros on it, use it for a week or two, keeping good notes all
along, then try another, on the same hardware. After trying all of
them, compare the notes and select one. Of course after trying 5
distros for 2 weeks each (10 weeks total) some or all of the distros
will have new releases by the end of the time trials :) .
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:42:36 GMT
Glitch wrote:
>
> Is there an equivalent in the Windows world to an X server? Just so
> that users coming from a background of Windows (like myself) can grasp
> the idea little better.
>
> Thanks
> Brandon
>
I forgot to mention the most important attribute of X, the fact that it
is a server. This means that its role is to provide graphics services
to programs hooking to it, regardless of OS or location. The
implications are considerable.
If you've ever used, for example Traveling Software or vnc for remotely
operating a Windows system you can immediately see a problem. Not only
are program commands and responses sent back and forth over the net, the
entire screen must be copied, pixel by pixel, across your connection
from the Windows computer to whatever window you're using locally, and
it has to happen every time something happens on the screen, an
incredibly slow process which consumes massive amounts of resources on
both computers as well as the network. Various schemes have been
employed to lessen the impact, such as sending only that which has
changed, etc., but I've found the workarounds to be cumbersome, even on
my home network with a 100mbs connection.
The X system uses a far better method for managing remote programs. One
can use a remote environment including programs and for graphics
rendering they will use your local copy of X, rather than the remote
graphics as in Windows. This means that the remote program, which
doesn't care where it needs to send graphics or receive mouse or
keyboard events, can be run from anywhere and simply tell your local
computer how it wants the screen to look, rather than painting the whole
screen and sending it verbatum over the network.
So you can be running a Linux box and connect over the int**net to, say
that SGI monster running AIX, run some graphics program requiring lots
of muscle, as fast as your Linux computer will render graphics, rather
than being limited to your bandwidth.
--
Computer Science is merely the post-Turing decline in formal systems
theory.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:44:54 -0400
david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> > http://www.bush2000.com/Issues.asp
> >>
> >> Quoting from there:
> >>
> >> "Under current tax law, low-income workers often pay the highest
> >> marginal rates. For example, a single waitress supporting two children
> >> on an income of $22,000 faces a higher marginal tax rate than a lawyer
> >> making $220,000."
> >>
> >> Sounds good. But:
> >>
> >> http://www.democrats.org/news/actualities/ac082300.html
> >>
> >> "George W. Bush gives 60 percent of his tax cuts to the wealthiest 10
> >> percent of Americans‹those with the highest incomes who need it the
> >> least. But working families that could use the extra dollars, whether
> >> the waitress mom or the cop on your street, would benefit the least. A
> >> waitress earning $22,000/year, for example, does not even pay income
> >> tax, but gets a tax refund. According to CNN, she would only gain about
> >> $114 under the Bush plan, while a $220,000 a year lawyer would get more
> >> than $7,000 in tax breaks, thanks to Bush."
> >>
> >> Somebody is lying. CNN seems to think it's Bush.
> >
> >You're saying the government should actually *give* money to people who
> >currently pay no taxes??? If they currently pay no taxes, it's kind of
> >hard for them to get tax relief, don't you think?
> >
> >Of *course* the absolute dollar amounts saved by the wealthy are higher,
> >but that's only because they're paying a hell of a lot more in absolute
> >terms in the first place.
>
> First off, are you really so certain that "the dollar amounts.. [paid]
> by the wealthy are a hell of a lot more"?
>
> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
> people can avail themselves of, which poor people have no chance of.
This is why the income tax should be abolished in favor of a sales tax.
It's open, honest, and there's no chance for evasion...which means that
EVERYBODY has an interest in keeping the tax rate as low as possible.
It would also mean that most of the millions of accountants across the
country could be reassigned to more productive tasks.
--
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 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:45:45 -0400
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
> > >> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
> > >> people can avail themselves of, ...
> > >
> > >You make it sound so easy.
> > >
> > >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
> > >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
> >
> > I believe that a little research will reveal those lucky Americans who
> > have a net wealth of several tens of millions who paid no tax, none,
> > last year. How they did it I don't know; I am neither an accountant
> > nor an attorney. People who are in a position to know (Cokie Roberts
> > on ABC's "Sunday Morning" and Nina Totenberg on NPR) have said over
> > the years that there are such people (not a hell of a lot, under
> > a thousand), and I believe them.
> >
> > Try Nader's web site, or Google.
>
> Regardless, 5% of Americans paid 50% of the taxes last year and 60% of
> Americans paid 10% of the taxes.
>
> The very rich who pay no taxes are a rarity (although they should be
> dealt with).
>
> How about an honest, progressive income tax and *nothing else* (no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Contradiction in terms.
--
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 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
******************************
