Linux-Advocacy Digest #661, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
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")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 18:28:24 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:05:48 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
> >> >>
> >> >> Until the owner(s) don't make money, then some of the overhead costs are
> >> >> cut, which may or may not mean employee cuts or layoffs.
> >> >>
> >> >> > OWNERS only get paid if there's anything left over after paying
> >> >> > workers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sometimes owners lose money, employees do not take that risk in a general
> >> >> sense, therefore are not entitled to sudden gains.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >The truth is somewhere in between.
> >> >
> >> >Sure, owners sometimes lay off employees even when the company is
> >> >profitable.
> >> >
> >> >But, essentially, an employee gets paid regardless of company profits
> >> >while an owner's compensation is completely dependent on company
> >> >profits. There are many, many, many examples where (at least for the
> >> >short term), employees continue to draw a salary when the owner doesn't.
> >>
> >> You talk like owners are generally somehow involved in things. And, of
> >> course, they do, in the rare case that a large successful company has
> >> owners. Corporations don't have owners; they only have investors.
> >
> >Stockholders are all co-owners of the corporate bank account.
> >
> >When that account is bleeding like a stuck pig....so are they.
>
> Actually, they are insulated from liabilities.
>
> That's the whole point of a corporation.
Look, mr. I-don't-understand-business man.
The stockholders are the collective owners of a company's assets,
INCLUDING the corporation's bank account.
If the corporation is taking losses, the the sum of the company's
assets is decreasing. Usually, the FIRST aspect is the corporation's
bank accounts proper.
Thus, the owners (stockholders) literally are being bled dry.
>
> Plus, the value of a corporation may or may not be related to it's
> solvency or profitability: especially these days.
>
>
> --
> Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
>
> That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
> |||
> / | \
>
>
--
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: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:37:45 -0400
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > JS/PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "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".
> >
> > And the scary thing is...Some people look up to Carter..
> >
> > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAAHHA
>
> It's funny how many people forget *why* things were so bad during
> Carter's Presidency.
>
> We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
...Democrat...
> Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
The OPEC embargo only lasted for 6 months or so.
> Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them arms in a
> technically-treasonous exchange, and Carter admitted to having lust in
The very absence of evidence makes it all the more suspictous.
By the way, what is Carter's excuse for the 10 months BEFORE
Reagan was nominated?
> his heart for women, versus Reagan's denial of same (while not
> mentioning that his daughter was conceived out of wedlock, and he was
> sleeping with Nancy while he was still married to Jane Wyman).
>
> The economy was starting to pull out of it, Reagan got elected, and
> while he was still formulating policy, Carter's economic strategies
You misspelled Paul Volker.
> started to take hold. Three or four years later, Reagan's policies took
You misspelled Alan Greenspan...
> effect, and we had the mid-80s recession.
>
> Reagan also pushed SDI and the B-1 and B-2 bombers (which have been a
> big boondoggle so far), and Carter's military initiatives included the
Funny...Gorbechev *STILL* complains about how Reagan's behavior
(pushing those programs) gave him no choice but to enter into
*sincere* arms control negotiations. [Isn't it funny how the
*only* arms control treaties the Soviets/Russians have ever
honored are the ones that Reagan negotiated.....]
> F-117, the Patriot missile, and a half-dozen others which helped Bush
The Patriot missile was almost scrapped until it was saved by
a much-maligned foresighted Senator from Indiana: Dan Quayle.
The F-117 would have been built with or without Carter.
> kick so much ass in the Gulf War.
>
> So tell us again why you thought Carter was a dud as President?
He was a micro-managing feeb, whose ineffectiveness would be a
saving grace if it wasn't for the fact that this meant getting
runover roughshod by the Tipsy O'Niel-led Congress.
>
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:43:41 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 15:35:31 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good.
The major problems with missle defense are:
1. It is horrifically expensive and the threat is vague. The stated
threats of "third world nukes" and "terrorist nukes" are bullshit
because those groups will deliver nukes, if they deliver them, through
means other than the ICBM's they don't have. Can you say "Maginot
Line"?
2. Offense is much cheaper than defense. A warhead is orders of
magnitude cheaper than the interceptor that's supposed to stop it.
Decoys are effective and cheaper still. Therefore, a defense that is
at all effective, or claimed to be, simply invites the adversary to
build a bigger and more varied offense. This will make it more
difficult to get meaningful reductions in arsenals from the countries
that *do* have ICBM's, thereby decreasing our security and world
stability rather than increasing it.
3. There is no known way to make it work. Even with the spending of
infinite money, nobody knows how to make a system that will work and
that can't be spoofed by cheap decoys or overwhelmed by large numbers
of incoming warheads. And it has to work the first time it is ever
used, not having ever been tested to full-scale.
So we will use propaganda to scare our enemies into thinking that our
costly system works, and they will counter with relatively cheap
measures like building more missiles and deploying more MIRVs. But the
system won't actually work and we will end up in a worse strategic
position than before. All the while nobody is actually threatening
anything, except us (as the rest of the world will see it).
I think the whole program is based on misplaced Cold-War paranoia and
is a colossal waste of money.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 21:13:03 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nope- the big reason to have an SDI program is for Ivan Klutzsky in
>North Pathetigrad, who shorts some wires and fires off an SS-20...
That's a bigger reason to try to eliminate as many of the damn things
as possible. The fewer there are, the easier it is for governments to
keep them well secured. This approach is a lot cheaper than SDI, and
probably more effective.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:43:43 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:27:02 GMT, Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> At best, this system will waste $60 billion of US tax payer money.
>
>Many incidental technologies generally flow from such efforts.
Except they are usually classified. If we must give $60 billion to the
aerospace industry to get spinoffs, please lets give it to NASA instead.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:43:16 -0400
Chad Irby wrote:
>
> Courageous
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > We were having to pay off the Vietnam War buildup, we had an Energy
> > > Crisis that was out of anyone's control (in this hemisphere, anyway),
> > > Iran kept the hostages because Reagan gave them...
> >
> > You are woefully confused about certain things, like the
> > order in which certain Presidents were elected, for example.
>
> The Vietnam War was expanded in the '60s, ran through '73, and the
> payments on it were stalled until after Ford lost in 1976, dropping the
> financial issues for it into Carter's lap.
The Vietnam War was DEMOCRAT Johnson's baby.
In case you don't recall...
REPUBLICAN Nixon got us ***OUT*** of that boondoggle.
>
> The Energy Crisis was during Carter's Presidency.
The OPEC embargo lasted less than 6 months.
>
> The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
> Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
They were released shortly after the election....only about
180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
What about the preceeding 260 days ***BEFORE** Reagan became
the nominee-apparent?
Why couldn't Carter accomplish in 9 MONTHS AS PRESIDENT what
Reagan supposedly accomplished in 6 months as a mere nominee???
Hmmmmmmmmmmm?
>
> Now which part to you think I got wrong, and why?
>
> --
>
> Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:46:58 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:39:13 -0400
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:16:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> >however you choose to characterize it), and of course, the welfare
> >> >slobs themselves (who are demonstrate culpability every time they
> >> >cash a "gimme dat welfare" check.
> >>
> >> You make it sound as though the national budget is spent entirely
> >> on these "welfare slobs" that you keep demonising. This is woefully
> >> innaccurate, especially now that the welfare reform laws have gone
> >> through.
> >
> >They are decreasing, but we are still subsidizing out-of-wedlock
> >pregnancies for high school girls.
>
> [1] AFDC comprised only 8% of the federal budget, IIRC.
That's 8% too much.
> This isn't that much -- although it's enough to raise ire.
> (By comparison, debt service is about 17%, as is military
> funding.)
>
> [2] AFDC has already been replaced by TANF, with limits of
> 5 years total, 2 years contiguous, if I'm not mistaken.
> I do not know what effect this will have on costs.
That's 5 years too many.
>
> [3] One could make a case for the boys fathering the babies paying
> all attendant costs thereof; many teenage pregnancies
I'm all for that.
> (about 66%, in fact) are caused by 18 to 24-year-old men.
> These are crimes, in most areas (statutory rape); the birth
> of the babe might be construed to give the man an automatic
> $117K liability, amortized over 20 years (the minimum cost of
> raising a child in the US), with additional costs tacked on
> for finding the man, garnishing his wages, and general
> administrative costs. At 7% interest, this works out to
> $892.06 a month, which would be 35% of his income if he makes
> the median $31K / year -- and he probably will not, as the
> US median age is 36 years IIRC, although a worker at the median age
> does not necessarily mean he's making the median income.
> This liability would of course make him a very bad credit risk,
> further mucking things up for him -- $117K is the price of
> a good house in many areas of the country!
Fine. Garnish whatever wages are necessary. If they can't
provide it, then make these men wards of the state, doing whatever
labor under state supervision until they have caught up on their
child support bills.
As for the women....if they can't find the father...then, tough
toogies girl...shouldn't be spreading your legs for assholes
>
> Would it be worthwhile to enforce something like this?
> Probably not in its proposed form. But 4 million babies
> are born each year in the US; the minimum total liability
> for taking care of all of them would most likely be about
> $470B, again amortized over 20 years.
>
> Somebody's paying that. (My guess is that the women currently
> shoulder half the costs, but I could be wrong.)
half????? don't be silly.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:48:11 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Their tax rate is 25% greater than yours. That's a good bit higher,
> > > don't you think?
> > >
> > > And in some states--like here in New York--the same thing is true for
> > > state income taxes.
> >
> > Not to mention that the wealthy lose many or most of their deductions
> > through the Alternative Minimum Tax.
>
> And I find it mind-boggling when Gov. Pataki talks about how much he's
> cut taxes here in New York. My tax bracket in NY is over 50% higher
> than what I paid in Pennsylvania. How ridiculously high were taxes here
> *before* Pataki? And it's not like PA is simply recouping the
There's a reason they call it "The People's Republic of New York"
> difference in other takes... sales tax is lower in PA too. Where's all
> the money going?
>
> --
> Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
> Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
--
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: [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 22:54:47 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:06:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Actually, public education usually has the *highest* per-pupil spending
>[for "average" kids] while still having lousy results.
>
>Why is that?
What do you mean by "lousy results" ? The kids in public schools probably
aren't as good on average, so using things like SAT scores as a measure
is not terribly meaningful.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 23:05:06 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 17:11:01 -0400, Eric Bennett wrote:
>Various social and development programs, including Social Security and
>Medicare, account for 62%. (This was broken down into three categories,
>perhaps to make it look like less: "Social Security, Medicare, and other
Or perhaps it was broken down because (a) each of the items was fairly
large and (b) the three items are in fact quite different, though they
may be the same to the right wing nuts and the neo-feudalists.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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 23:00:22 GMT
> > In fact, I do. But this is neither here nor there. As a progressive
> > Libertarian, it truly pains me to see people like you associated with
> > Libertarianism. There's virtually no chance of making political
> > progress with publicate advocates like you, who don't blink at
> > loudly esposing they'd like to see children die, and not considering
> > for one moment the sensibilities of such statements vice the sensitivities
> > of their audience. It's almost as if your political views are etherically
> > connected to some delusional fantasy that you will one day be Dictator
> > of America, and the opinions of those you rule therefore won't matter,
> > because you'll just lay down the legal system you desire in some
> > crazy fascist temper tantrum of absolute power.
> >
> > This isn't going to happen, Aaron. You are a fool. You are three
> > times over a fool.
> I'll put it this way...
[snip--Aaron dodging the subject]
Did what I write sting you so much you had to avoid it?
C//
------------------------------
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 23:01:30 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:04:53 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the parents
>> implies the unfitness of their children.
>
>That's the safe way to bet.
If you want to go on statistics alone, and make blanket assumptions based
on averages, I ask you this -- would you endorse a company policy that
dictates that African Americans shouldn't be hired due to the fact that
the "safe way to bet" is that they have inferior "intelligence" ( despite
considerable overlap of different ethnic groups ... ) Oh, I refer you to
your "bible" for the relevant statistics.
BTW, I'm going to quote or paraphrase part of your bible here -- the authors
caution against making "judgements about individuals" based on averages.
( See the "controversial" chapter where they talk about race and intelligence )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
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 23:03:12 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:03:57 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >>Name *ONE* welfare-state program which has made superior students
>> >>out of ghetto and trailer park trash....
>>
>> Tarhe Elementary School, Lancaster Ohio.
>
>Your elementary school was a welfare program?
His point is completely pertinent, since we were on the subject of
educating children. So do you or do you not oppose public education ?
If so, why are you evading his point ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 26 Aug 2000 23:07:59 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:29:24 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>My question is, why doesn't Troll Tech have competition on their API?
What do you mean ?
--
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
******************************
