Linux-Advocacy Digest #640, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (david
raoul derbes)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Tim Hanson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:16:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Still, it isn't taxes that cause this disparity. Its unthinking people
>> like you, Joe, that feel that ethics takes a back seat to
>> profit-mongering, that are mostly responsible. The 'popular wisdom'
>> which allows rampant monopolization and restraint of trade to be
>> confused with competition and free markets.
>
>You mean like people who think that any form of monopolization is fair,
>as long as it's called "competition?" or the sort that complains about
>some poor monopoly that's getting in trouble because "they couldn't
>avoid being a monopoly?"
Yes, that's what I mean. Mostly, its more related to people who don't
understand what 'monopolization' is. Most people, of course, recognize
*what* is unfair ("competition" which isn't fair is not competition).
They're just a bit confused about *why* its unfair.
The Sherman Act outlaws two specific and fundamental things. Restraint
of trade, and monopolization. There's nothing in the statue to explain
what these things are. For that, we have to rely on the 'court
precedent' part of law. And that is capable of being misunderstood for
one of two reasons. The courts themselves can make the law unusable (as
I think may have partially occurred) by relying on mechanistic and
intellectualized understanding. The judicial process, of course, must
practice a form of "intentional ignorance", and since the law is
precise, and life is not, there can be problems. The greater problem,
though, is this "popular wisdom" thing I've been harping about.
By "re-interpreting" the court precedent which interprets the law, it is
all too easy to mistake legal definitions with truthful reasoning. This
results in a great deal of difficulty in many areas, though I'm happy to
admit that I haven't really even started exploring the details of these
problems. The end result, however, is clear. People don't know what
the Sherman Act says.
It says that if your business strategy considers market share, you're
preventing competition, and that's not tolerable. If your plan is to
decrease someone else's business, you are restraining trade. And if
your approach is geared towards increasing your market dominance, rather
than your sales or profitability, you're committing a crime of
monopolization. A competitive business does not need to try to increase
its market share, and, in fact, is not allowed to even attempt to do so,
purposefully (actually, the legal term is "willfully", but I've already
mentioned how dangerous presuming that legal terms are useful words
outside of legal decisions can be; legal text cannot be translated to
common speech, it must be, as it is within the courtroom and chambers,
interpreted).
I think the problem with the Sherman Act is that it was misunderstood in
its intention of enforcement, not its definitions (by the courts; the
public certainly misunderstands it). It was remarked recently that the
current fine for monopolization (when criminally disposed, which has
hardly ever happened) is ten million dollars. It doesn't even take a
Microsoft to make that kind of "fine" useless in deterring attempts to
prevent competition in today's marketplace, where the actions of a
profiteer can be far more lucrative than simple profit-seeking. The
original fine was, I believe $300. Three hundred dollars. Even in 1890
dollars, that would hardly be enough to slow down the trusts from
overtaking the free market.
I think the intent of the Sherman Act was fast and swift justice for
"commercially unfeasible" business conduct. The fine was intended to be
low (though the three years in jail would certainly make any individual
capitalist double-check himself in formulating market strategy). It was
supposed to be, I think, a 'speeding ticket' kind of offense. Frequent
if not routine convictions wouldn't even necessarily sully the
reputation of a business; basic human nature is to maximize efficiency,
and restraining or monopolistic strategies are a natural outcome of the
very competitive spirit which the free market seeks to use to society's
advantage. Some think that this competitive spirit is driven by greed,
but even that is a false understanding. Humans are driven by a need for
comfort and acceptance from others, from which we derive "pride in
workmanship". The problem is that without limitations on the exercise
of capitalism in an industrial society, the pride in workmanship, the
competitive spirit, of the capitalists themselves becomes the very
"maximizing strategies", namely restraint of trade and monopolization,
which prevents the market from being driven by simple supply and demand
and reward for efficiency in production. It becomes this huge
"marketing game" which we are all subject to, and many find intolerable
in so many little and large ways. It is the efficiency of production
and distribution which is supposed to be rewarded and thereby maximized
by the capitalist free market, not control of supply or ability to
influence demand.
"Market share" is not the way to run an honest and ethical business.
"Market size", of course, is a whole different thing. The distinction
may be subtle, but only because it is the difference between competing
and merely pretending to compete.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:17:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Have you compared the income disparity during the Reagan years to the
>> administrations before that?
>
>Yea EVERYONE had the privilege of being poor under Carter, I remember
>well....you could finance a home loan for a mere 18% annual interst. And
>inflation was at about the same level.
>
>Income tax was ungodly, nobody could find a job, energy crisis, Iran was
>making the US the laughing stock of the world, the Presidents alcoholic
>brother was pissing on peoples lawns while the president was busy talking of
>his own "lustfull urges".
I said "have you compared the income disparity", not whatever bullshit
'popular wisdom' you may wish to reduce the complexities of civilization
to in order to pretend you have a point.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
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 ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:29:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>david raoul derbes wrote:
>>
>> In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
>> Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
>> >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
>> >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
>> >farmers.
>>
>> You are very much mistaken.
>>
>> At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the government
>> for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the government,
>> she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
>>
>> She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
>> the process.
>>
>> And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax.
>
>I don't think that inheritance taxes are wicked per se. What I do
>think is that the entry point ought to be very, very high (and,
>to turn over a new legislative leaf, have the entry point be
>in year-indexed dollars).
In fact, the entrance point for inheritance tax *is* very high,
1.3 million. Unfortunately, we crossed it. But that is the law,
and I intend to obey it.
If you don't like the laws in this country, you have several avenues.
You can try to change them, indirectly by appeals to those who have
been elected, or directly by becoming a lawmaker yourself. Or you
can decide that other parts of the world have laws you prefer, and
take up residence there.
Me, I've lived in other countries, and this one, my native country,
seems to me the fairest. I don't like all the laws, but I obey 'em.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>
>C//
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:33:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
[...]
>> Have you compared the income disparity during the Reagan years to the
>> administrations before that? The tax structure the Republicans set up
>> is what the Demos had to work with during the past 8 years. It wasn't
>
>So you're saying that the Democrats can't take credit for the economy's
>growth for the past 8 years?
No.
>> like they could *raise* taxes, to prevent this kind of "piss on the poor
>> economics" from being successful in broadening the disparity.
>
>Sorry. You're throwing around accusations which are completely unfounded.
So is everyone else. Why do I have to follow special rules?
>I spent 5 years in graduate school earning well under $5,000 per year,
>living in Ithaca, NY (which isn't a cheap place to live). Not only did I
>have to pay my living expenses, about 20% of that gross income went for
>books.
So?
>I know what it's like to be broke. I also know what it's like to make
>soemthing of yourself.
And you assume that you can generalize your personal experience to make
you somehow an expert in economics for no apparent reason.
>> Still, it isn't taxes that cause this disparity. Its unthinking people
>> like you, Joe, that feel that ethics takes a back seat to
>> profit-mongering, that are mostly responsible. The 'popular wisdom'
>
>Nope. I just don't confuse business with left wing social re-engineering
>as you want to do.
I don't confuse free inquiry and reasoned understanding with political
posturing, as you do.
>> which allows rampant monopolization and restraint of trade to be
>> confused with competition and free markets. The "growth by acquisition"
>> method being institutionalized. The rampant ignorance, and even more
>> rampant encouragement of ignorance, within the market.
>
>You seem to be an expert on ignorance.
I've studied it quite a bit. I have a lot of knowledge about ignorance,
it turns out. As well as some personal experience, of course. I'm not
pretending to be omniscient. Just smarter than you are.
>Where have I advocated monopolies?
Why does everyone always insist that I have to quote things back to them
in order for them to know what they said? You have blatantly and
specifically advocated unethical business conduct. I am not going to go
back and get the quote for you, but it was quite direct. Something
about ethics taking a back seat to profits, or at least that was my
impression. You can either try to remember what quote I'm thinking of,
and correcting my interpretation if you think I've got it wrong, or
posturing and insisting you've never said such a thing.
You advocate monopolies, but only because you don't know what a monopoly
is.
>I'm merely pointing out to you (over and over since you're apparently
>too slow to grasp the concept) that the fact that my company makes a lot
>of money doesn't prove that it's a monopoly.
No, that isn't what you've been trying to point out all. But if you're
willing to reduce your argument to no more than that, than I certainly
cannot argue further. In fact, you've been trying to get me to disagree
with this as a straw man argument from the very first, and I've
frustrated, I hope, your every chance to do so. You company is free to
make as much money as it wants. But if it formulates its business
strategy based on market share, it's a monopoly.
>> Its got very little to do with politics, or the capital gains tax, or
>> the income tax, or any other tax. Its profiteering, plain and simple;
>> that's what increases the disparity between the profiteers and the
>> consumers.
>
>I see. So your position is that making a lot of money is wrong, by
>definition. [...]
Still unable to present anything but straw men, eh? Why the hell do you
even bother posting.
>It doesn't matter how I make lots of money (or how my
>company makes lots of money). As long as someone else is making less
>money, I must be profiteering.
It doesn't matter how much money you or anyone else is making. If you
are conducting business unethically, you are conducting business
unethically, and it cannot to be tolerated in a civilized society.
>You ought to talk to 118 widows of Russian sailors to see what the
>eventual outcome of that philosophy is
I read an interesting piece in the WSJ on my way back from South
Carolina today on how the desire to control the populace without ethical
compunction was the root of the Russia's unwillingness to help those
horribly doomed submariners, or handle the situation better, at least.
Also some interesting bits on intellectual property rights, which I'll
comment on in a new thread.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:35:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Read what I said again. Wouldn't you expect that when the number of
>people needing welfare drops by 75% that there might be a reduction in
>government welfare expenditures?
Well, you didn't say there was a drop in the number of people "needing"
welfare, certainly, because I would have jumped on you at the time,
instead of waiting until now to point out how blatantly false and even
preposterous your position is.
What makes you think there was any reduction at all in the number of
people needing welfare, just because there was a 75% reduction in the
support of public welfare?
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:40:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>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.
I disagree. Corporations can only be bullied into behaving by the
government. The government can be bullied into reasonable behavior by
one honest citizen.
And if worse comes to worse, and guns are necessary, if you try to take
down the corporation, the government will defend them. The opposite,
however, is not necessarily the case.
> There also exists the small chance that you can simply replace
> one private provider with a more suitable one.
Kind of like you can replace on OS with a more suitable one?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 Aug 2000 04:40:38 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:09:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> I believe he made his position clear in other threads. Mr Kulkis is an
>> industrial feudalist. He believes that education is the responsibility
>
>Wrong. I oppose feudalism.
What aspects of feudalism do you oppose ?
>> of the parents, and if children have stupid parents, the chances are
>> that they are stupid as well ( since according to Kulkis, your IQ is
>> determined by that of your parents ) and since they are stupid, educating
>> them would be a waste of taxpayers money.
>
>Hey, if parents don't want their own offspring to do well,
>then their genetic lineage should be allowed to fulfill that wish.
>This eliminates the whole branch of losers from the family tree.
Thanks for making my point.
>> This mindset is a convenient crutch for those who oppose social mobility --
>> you simply declare the poor to be stupid and hence "justifiably" poor,
>> and the children of the wealthy to be more intelligent, hence "entitled"
>> to inherit positions of wealth and power in society.
>
>Name *ONE* welfare-state program which has made superior students
>out of ghetto and trailer park trash....
The world isn't neatly partitioned into wealthy and
enlightened philosopher-kings and a group of stupid, disgusting bums.
If it were, I'd be forced to file you under the latter group for fear
of insulting the former.
Are you really such an insufferable moron or are you just playing dumb
to amuse us ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:43:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
[...]
>Can't say I'm too confident about Gore either. If you think the fact
>that he's promised to do it means he will actually do it, well, I have a
>few bridges to sell you. Truth of the matter is, they both assume the
>good economic times will continue, and if they don't, their promises go
>out the window even if they really *did* intend to keep them.
I'd say given your cogent argument, you're ethically required at this
point to provide us with your reasonable alternative to Gore or Bush.
We all know they're both unacceptable. The question for the voter is
which is least unacceptable, I'm afraid.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 04:44:36 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> [*] There are proper ways of using GOTO, mostly to get out of a
> >>> deeply-nested inner loop. IMO, of course.
> >>
> >> Better to use a labelled continue/break or an exception.
> >
> > C doesn't have such, but for languages that support labelled
> > continue/breaks, that's an option. C also doesn't support
> > exceptions (C++ does, but I don't know how well). I forget whether
> > Java has labelled continue/breaks; I don't use them at present
> > (blame it on my C/C++ background :-) ).
>
> Java does. One of the better features of the language.
>
> >> <reminiscing>
> >> Ah, the happy memories I have of my first program. It drew a picture
> >> of an open envelope on the screen, one pixel at a time...
> >> </reminiscing>
> >
> > Luxury!
>
> Oh, it was. It was. I can still remember the first game I wrote too;
> it was *amazingly* bad (winning was a matter of placing a marble on
> the correct key on the keyboard and resting a book on top to hold that
> key down...) Not even MS could make a profit selling something of
> that quality...
>
> > The first program I wrote displayed numbers on a Wang calculator;
> > seven-segment displays, if my memory serves. (Dunno precisely what
> > it did; probably something stupid like "hello world".)
>
> Never had one of those. I lead a most deprived life... <sob>
>
> Donal.
Mine was on the Radio Shack PC-2, one of the first handheld (if you have
a really big hand) computers. One line display. BASIC full of line
numbers which allowed two character variables, like AB and Z1. I pumped
mine all the way up to the dizzying heights of 16K. I've still got it
around someplace for historical purposes.
--
"Life to you is a bold and dashing responsibility"
-- a Mary Chung's fortune cookie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:47:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>As far as I know, the Republicans haven't put out any figures regarding
>the effect of the tax cut on the average family. They just talk in
>broad, general terms about "giving the money back to the people,"
>without specifying which people.
I shouldn't have left it on the plane, but the Wall Street Journal today
did have something to say on the subject. Bush presented a real-life
family of four and proudly proclaimed that they would save N dollars
under his plan. Gore pointed out that since they would be saving for
the kids education, under his plan they would pay even less in taxes,
due to his educational tax credits initiative.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 Aug 2000 04:49:21 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:05:23 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>I get to keep the money I earn, and personally direct what money I
>feel to those in need of help WHO I SEE MAKING AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE
>THEMSELVES.
Bullshit. At least have the decency to admit that you just want more
money.
>I can send my kids to the school of my choosing, without having to
>pay "double" .... due to the fact that my money is no longer being
>stolen to finance a corrupt school system which is mostly interested
>in disseminating leftist propaganda, homosexuality advocacy, and
Since you seem to be concerned about the less intelligent people breeding,
why are you so strongly against the supposed "advocacy" of homosexuality ?
It would seem that your position on population would be more consistent
with a position that homosexuality should be advocated, as it would make
the so-called "defectives" less prone to breeding.
>other destructive ideas, at the expense of basic reading, writing,
>mathematics and history.
On what grounds do you make the claim that "basic reading, writing,
mathematics and history" have suffered ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
