Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 03:13:05 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: 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: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (Ian Pulsford)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just converted ("Todd")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 02:03:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>How will AlGore "improve" education? That's the jobs of the
>school boards, principles, and teachers. *THEY* can improve
>education any time they want to, merely be re-instituting
>rational curricula and strong discipline within the school.
Why is it always "*THEY*" with you, Aaron? You really border on the
paranoid, at best, you know.
And as for education, I am related to a number of teachers, and consider
myself to be one, as well, though I charge corporations, rather than
taxpayers, for my services (there's more money in it, and I'm lazy).
The fact of the matter is that "they" have instituted rational
curricula, and that is all that they should provide. Discipline which
is not self-discipline is fascistic bullshit, in the end, and I won't
support educators posturing as superior moral authority any more than I
would anyone else.
Which is why, I'll note, that I didn't say "re-institute", because
earlier efforts of public education were obviously atrocious in
confusing "rational curricula" with "strong discipline", as you espouse.
The horrendous approach to education which constituted the
initialization of public education in the last century was neither
rational nor disciplined (intellectually). The science of teaching has
progress far beyond the shallow attempts which provided you with what
you mis-remember as a useful education. The fact is, you learned most
of what you know on your own, by reading books, at least past the very
rudiments of knowledge, and I'm sure you'll be the second to admit it.
It seems obvious from the limited ability you've shown to provide
reasoned and reasonable discussion, which leaves you stuck in the
restrictive libertarianistic attitude you so pointedly effuse, that you
were taught to admire rational inquiry, without being provided the means
of accomplishing it on your own. This legacy of the early concept of
teaching used in public education has generally been overcome, as it is
a simple bootstrapping problem. Even ghetto kids today have a far
better education than you did, professionally speaking.
There is, of course, far more work to be done. Kids in school today
don't really have a much better grasp of science and rational thought
than the average citizen (because, of course, they are taught by average
citizens and are average citizens, basically), and that is an abominable
situation. But its getting better, that's for damn sure. The
tremendously inept science of institutional teaching which existed even
thirty or forty years ago has been advancing as much as any other, and
if reason and justice continue to make headway (as they will and always
have, if at their own staid pace) against the polemics, posturing, and
rhetoric which assail sensible civil awareness, then our grand children
may even manage to fix the mess our grandparents have made, and may even
begin making headway against our own contribution to the problem of
balancing personal autonomy with social ethics. And their grandchildren
might even be able to stop making messes to begin with.
But then, I'm an optimistic idealist, in the end, aren't I?
--
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 02:09:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> How will AlGore "improve" education? That's the jobs of the
>> school boards, principles, and teachers. *THEY* can improve
>> education any time they want to, merely be re-instituting
>> rational curricula and strong discipline within the school.
>
>Wrong.
>
>The government cannot improve the current government provided education,
>only competition in a free market can "improve a product or service".
Great, one clueless libertarian arguing against another. I suppose I
ought to shut my mouth (or still my fingers, as it were) and enjoy, but
I don't see much future in it. The idea that public education can
benefit from private profit-seeking is, well, stupid.
>Any
>polititian that promises to improve education is lying through his/her
>teeth.
No, they're just mistaken.
>The only way the government can "improve education" is to get out of
>the education business.
The government isn't a business, and institutional education isn't a
profitable business, by definition.
>Al Gore WILL NOT improve education, a school board
>will not improve education, a principal will not improve education.
Well, I get the Al Gore part, but....
>A
>business in a competitive market seeking customers WILL improve education.
Yes, that's the problem. Because the customers of an educational system
would be...
>A private school can teach twice as much in half the time.
Any research?
>The way it stands
>now the government needs 12 years to teach 60% of it's students basic math
>and reading skills. That's not a good track record.
Considering it took prior governments several hundred years, if they
were lucky enough to get anywhere near basic math and reading skills for
the entire populace, I'd say its a new world's record.
--
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 02:09:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Personally, I think that sending a kid to public schools these
>days borders on child-abuse.
Personally, I'd say that your sig borders on child-abuse.
--
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 02:15:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
>> > spending it for them!? How absurd!
>>
>> Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
>> healthy and educated.
>
>That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
>democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to say
>95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of 100
>poor that need a hand.
Research? Something other than Cato Institute rhetoric, at least?
[...]
>> > And he wants to defend the country! That's insanity!
>>
>> Yeah, you never know when the Brits might try to invade again!
>>
>> Seriously, the major threat to the US these days is terrorism, and the
>> kind of military spending Bush wants to do doesn't do a damn thing to
>> protect us from that.
>
>Actually the major threat is a first strike nuclear attack from any of the
>ever increasing 3rd world nations who are aquiring the technology. A
>defense that eliminates the strike mid-launch is the cure. Bush want this
>problem eliminated, Gore wants to bury his head in the sand and pretend it
>won't happen, let alone WHEN.
Well, considering "a first strike nuclear attack from any of the ever
increasing 3rd world nations" would be terrorism, I'd say you are
probably setting up a straw man. "A defense that eliminates the strike
mid-launch" sounds like a fantasy, not "a cure". Just how do you stop a
terrorist nuclear attack against a major US city by being able to
putatively destroy 5 out of 7 missiles far after "mid-launch", when a
nuclear bomb can easily fit into a large suitcase these days?
--
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 02:19:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself have been pleny
>broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone - especially "the rich" for my
>problems though, I blamed myself.
>If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own fault. I was
>broke and jobless in 1980 and figuring out who to blame when President Regan
>held up page after page of the help wanted ads on national television in
>response to a question on why so many people were out of work. And he was
>right.
That's positively poignant, JS/PL. Honestly. It goes a long way to
explaining your asinine understanding of modern society. Most other
people figured out they should check the help wanted page without the
services of the President of the United States reminding them they
should get a job.
I assume that by "broke and jobless in 1980", you mean 'recently
graduated from high-school and clueless'?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:23:45 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 04:05:13 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Glitch wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there an equivalent in the Windows world to an X server? Just so
> >
> >Hummingbird X server.
>
Or Starnet's X-Win32, Omni-X or about half a dozen others
>
> I'm not sure that's quite the context; he wasn't asking for an
> implementation of X, IMO. (I could be wrong.)
>
> That said...pcAnywhere seems to be a tool that
> allows for remote console login -- and I suspect that that merely
> polls a virtual console device and throws a bunch of pixels
> to the display session over the Internet -- or perhaps a
> proprietary drawing format ("draw rectangle", "change color",
> "begin bitmap; transmit pixels; end icon; draw bitmap") cobbled
> up from instructions thrown at a GDI hook replaced during installation.
> (Actually, that would be a lot like X, except for the fact that
> the instructions are proprietary as opposed to documented for all
> to view, hack on, sniff, whatever.)
>
> However, pcAnywhere puts up a display session/console window to display
> the remote PC's desktop, and all windows on that desktop think they're
> on the PC's local display more or less; this isn't quite the same as
> an executable on the remote PC opening a window across the network
> using the host name of the display, which is specified to the program
> either explicitly [prog -display remotehost:0] or implicitly
> [DISPLAY=remotehost:0; export DISPLAY; prog].
>
> And of course it's payware, as well. (Dunno how much.)
And then there's the excellent VNC, similar to pcAnywhere or Cosession Remote
in that it is "remote-controlling" a desktop located on another machine except
that it doesn't have the built in dialer. VNC is half an X server, rendering
the desktop in memory and sending the picture through the wire to a remote
viewing window on the other end. The great thing is that it's free (GPL) and
available on many platforms, even DOS. One of it's great features is that it
is persistent on the machine it is hosted on despite the viewer being killed.
I use it to run kppp on a headless firewall/gateway to dialin. I can kill the
viewer from the windows machine I am now using and it doesn't kill kppp. Then
when I want to log off I bring up the viewer and disconnect.
IanP
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:17:22 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > So to put it bluntly if one is unlucky enough to be born into a family
> > > that
> > > cannot support them, then we simply discard them. Right?
> >
> > If you can't support kids, you shouldn't be having them.
> > If you do have kids, then it is your obligation to support
> > them, and YOUR shame if you don't.
> >
> > Don't be laying any guilt trip on *me* for refusing to pay
> > for some DangerAsshole's slew of juvenile delinquent thugs.
>
> Unfortunately society does have an interest in making sure that these
> kids grow up to be productive citizens instead of criminals. Yes, it
A fat chance that will happen.
I'd rather see them starve to death before they start doing damage.
--
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: 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 02:28:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> It's your fault that you grew up poor, had almost no opportunities to
>> better yourself, struggled through a piss-poor educational system geared
>> more toward keeping you disciplined than teaching you important skills,
>> and can't find a job that will help you get the skills you need to get a
>> better-paying job? It's your fault that the odds are stacked even
>> higher against you with such a background to make it _to_ a college,
>> much less _through_ one? It's your fault that perception means a lot in
>> the job market, and you may not fit the perception?
>
>No but....
>It's only your fault that you let those minor distractions hold you back.
Minor distractions? Christ, if you were't posting to Usenet, I'd swear
you were illiterate. How can not being able to earn a livelihood be
considered a "minor distraction"?
>The fact remains, no one owes the person in the example above a damn thing.
Sorry, but call me your official social conscience. You owe every
citizen of this country *everything*, for supporting your freedom to
accumulate wealth.
>No matter how bad you think you have, it can (and probably will) get worse,
>it's just a matter of what YOU do about it, not what someone else is going
>to do about it.
Is point was that you appear to be incapable of recognizing that your
own confusion about what other people should do or have done for YOU is
not what causes poverty. Its what you, having the ability, should do
for THEM, that is at issue. It is people like you that cause communism.
>Try living in a country where you don't have the RIGHT to get ahead.
There is no such country. Its just that the rules for how to get ahead
vary. The US is supposed to be based on merit. But if you say it
wrong, it comes out "ability".
>Look at
>some countries where there are two classes, one generaly drives Rolls
>Royces, the other class generaly WALKS! Those people would DIE to be
>subjected to the laughable "setbacks" you list above.
And many have. What's your point? Why do you think that justifies
ignoring those last few hurdles to human dignity through self-reliance?
--
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: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just converted
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 14:33:02 +0800
"Stephen Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been using Linux for about 2 years now, on and off (mainly off). I
> recently completed a college project which got me using and adjusting
Linux
> a lot. Just after finishing this, I looked at my computer usage and found
> a) Linux is more reliable than windows
Linux has crashed for me when the applications aren't coded very well --
just run Netscape under Linux for example. Many people consider Linux more
reliable because they run undemanding console mode applications - not GUI
apps. or anything remotely complex.
Windows, OTOH, allows many programs to access hardware directly or almost
directly, such as DirectX. This adds an element of instability, because if
the hardware driver isn't absolutely perfect, it can open the system up to
vunerabilities.
> b) Everything I had previously done in windows could be done in Linux with
> an appropriate set of applications
Well DUH! That's the whole point of an application. Windows wins hands
down here with server apps., middleware, and of course your normal desktop
apps. and games. Linux can't even begin to think about considering touching
Windows 3rd party support in both apps. and drivers.
> c) Linux internet access was regularly twice as fast as windows.
I don't believe you. I've got RedHat 6.2 and it isn't any faster or slower
than my Windows 2000 installation (or even my NeXT TurboColor
workstation)... Internet access relies more on your network setup and of
course network conditions.
The Windows 2000 TCP/IP stack (and now the Windows ME stack -- not the 95,98
stack) is highly optimized and is just as fast or faster than Linux's TCP/IP
stack.
> So, i'm another satisfied user though I keep windows around to support
> legacy games and family.
Legacy games? What about the latest games such as MS Allegiance or Diablo
2? And, I agree with you on the last point. Normal people (not OS geeks)
are always going to use Windows because of the easy of setup, ease of use,
wide application support and driver availability and being compatible with
everyone else.
Linux is nothing new or special. If you want a real OS in the UNIX arena,
check out Solaris or HP-UX.
-Todd
> --
> A prig is a fellow who is always making you a present of his opinions.
> -- George Eliot
>
> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
>
> Stephen Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 02:25:53 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Courageous wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
> > > > > > > > > arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
> > > > > > > > > when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As of 1995, Wealth-redistribution "entitlements" made up 45%
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > the budget, and was growing. ( The Republican congress may
> > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > derailed this trend, however :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A bait and switch. When you're talking about Social Security,
> > > > > > > make sure you say so. This isn't what the average person thinks
> > > > > > > of when you say "welfare".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Social Security is *NOT* a retirement plan. It *IS* welfare.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All of these "I paid in for 45 years" arguments are bullshit.
> > > > > > The senior citizens ****FAILED**** to keep tabs on what Congress
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > doing, and ****FAILED**** to investigate SS enough to recognize
> > > > > > it for
> > > > > > the Ponzi scheme that it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, that's not quite true.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once you're a senior citizen, you've already paid in most of what
> > > > > you
> > > > > can expect to pay during your lifetime. Therefore, if they're
> > > > > paying
> > > >
> > > > So, big whoop de doo.
> > > >
> > > > How does the fact that they paid a bunch of con-men for
> > > > several decades obligate *me* to fulfill the con-men's promises????
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > attention, they _would_ want benefits to increase. All that they
> > > > > need to
> > > > > do is set the benefits at a level that can be sustained for their
> > > > > lifetime.
> > > >
> > > > Look, we had a couple generation of socialist "something-for-nothing"
> > > > tooth-fairy believers. I AM *NOT* the fucking tooth fairy, and
> > > > refuse to be gouged as if I were.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree.
> > >
> > > All I'm saying is that for _current_ senior citizens, support for
> > > Social
> > > Security makes financial sense.
> >
> > Why? They are the ones who created the mess in the first place.
>
> Because the mess is paying them money, obviously. You think they want
> the money to stop coming? Hell no.
If you don't stop it now, then when?
It doesn't matter when you stop Soc. Sec....there is going to be a bunch
of pissed of "senior citizens". The only ethical thing to do is to put
the burden on the same group who started the whole mess in the first
place,
and through their failure to responsibly supervise congress, to allow to
grow into the beast it is today.
Look, I knew in 1975 that I would *never* see a dime of Social Security.
I had arrived home from delivering the morning paper, and noticed a
short
article on page A-10 or there about noting that Congress had raided
over $700M from Social Security to pump into AFDC, WIC, and other
subsidize-the-reproduction-of-out-of-wedlock-breeding-sluts programs.
The fact that this was on page 10, and not the headline on the front
page made it VERY clear that this was routine, and that nobody was
alarmed by the blatant chicanery being perpatrated by Congress.
Today's crop of "senior citizens" repeatedly re-elected the same
congressman who pulled this stunt year after year after year for
decade upon decade.
And now they want me to feel sorry for them if the plug gets pulled
on the whole immoral ponzi scheme.
Bullshit.
These people all wanted something for nothing .... they wanted the
government giving handouts for every trifling thing....KNOWING FULL
WELL that these things were causing budget overruns every year....
SCREW THEM.
I am under NO obligation to fulfill their delusional wishes.
--
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: 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 02:35:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Well, let's see.
>
>I grew up with 10 brothers and sisters. There were times when we barely
>had enough to eat and new clothes were a rare treat. We never received a
>penny of welfare.
>
>I went to school in a particularly bad rural school in Western
>Pennsylvania.
>
>Yet I managed to get a scholarship and loans for Penn State, worked my
>way through school, got into graduate school at Cornell, progressed
>through several jobs of increasing responsibility and ended up as
>President of a small company where I'm making quite a lot of money
>(certainly far more than the level that Democrats consider wealthy,
>although I think their cutoff is way too low).
>
>So what part of the things you cited is impossible?
This rampant "personal circumstance" bullshit is driving me crazy. If
you want to go to every poor person and figure out what they're doing
wrong, feel free. But it doesn't have to be impossible to get a
scholarship or a job to cause poverty, despite your testimonial to the
opportunities of our society. And the idea that people need to be
forced to pursue opportunities is ludicrous and counter to your own
experience.
This whole debate is polemic. The Republicans insist that the way to
broaden opportunity is to limit support; the Democrats manage to get it
in the right order, at least.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
