Linux-Advocacy Digest #672, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
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 ...) (ZnU)
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 ...) (Mike
Marion)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Courageous)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:39:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] AFDC comprised only 8% of the federal budget, IIRC.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let's see. 8% of $1.7 trillion is $136 BILLION. Or $500 for every
> > > man, woman, and child in the U.S.
> > >
> > > Not to mention the billions being spent by the states, as well.
> > >
> > > And the other welfare programs.
> > >
> > > "Only" 8%, indeed.
> >
> > What do you pay in taxes? Take 8% of that. Ask yourself if it's
> > worth that amount to prevent millions of children from starving to
> > death.
>
> Cut the crap. Nobody is in danger of starving in this country.
It seems you have to lie to yourself quite a lot to maintain your
political position.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:34:19 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > > >You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any
> > > > > >taxes.
> > > > > >Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes
> > > > > >combined).
> > > > > >
> > > > > >That's an absurd difference.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
> > > > > family
> > > > > of 3.
> > > >
> > > > It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
> > > > YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
> > >
> > > I think people are pretty clear on the issue. But they have the kids
> > > anyway. What are you going to do? Let the kids starve?
> >
> > Let's send them to your house, you love paying for them.
>
> So what do you think should be done with them?
LET THEIR PARENTS FEED THEM
And if their parents let them starve to death, then throw those
same parents in the clink for child neglect.
Why do you think *I* have any responsibility for some teenage slut
and her litter of criminals-in-training.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:41:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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,
> > >
> > > And why is that?
> >
> > Because private schools are typically quite selective about who
> > they'll accept, obviously.
>
> Yes...they boot out anybody who misbehaves, and the boot out anybody
> who refuses to do the work.
>
> What's keeping the public schools from doing the same, other than a
> tenacious belief in hippy-dippy liberal clap-trap.
And what do we do with all these kids who get booted out? Let them
starve? Force them to work in sweatshops? Kill them?
Are you saying these people stand no chance of ever contributing to
society?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:34:54 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Eric
> > > > Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > >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.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are lots of private universities parents can send their
> > > > > children to. They are organized as nonprofit organizations.
> > > > > Government-run institutions are not *necessary* there. So, why
> > > > > should they be necessary in other areas?
> > > >
> > > > There are also private elementary and high schools which don't
> > > > receive government funding.
> > > >
> > > > In many cases, they provide superior education for less cost per
> > > > student.
> > >
> > > They can only do that because they get to reject the more expensive
> > > students. Who deals with them in a privatized educational system?
> > >
> > > Mr. Kulkis will probably say we should execute them.
> >
> > No... but neither should we abnormally prolong their lives.
>
> We should slowly let them starve to death? That's worse!
NAME ONE PERSON who is starving to death in the United States....
--
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: Mike Marion <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:42:20 GMT
david raoul derbes wrote:
> While I admit that this seems to me excessive, the law is the law,
> and my family will obey it.
True, then again the choices are to obey, suffer the consequencies (prison,
financial destruction, or both), or leave the country. None of which is
great, but for now, most of us will follow the law.
> This government has the right to levy taxes. I think that they could
> be more fair. Frankly, I am not sure how to achieve fairness, and it
> may be that I'd do even worse if the laws were made more equitable.
I also agree that taxes are necessary.. I just think they've gotten way out of
hand, and that the money is mostly wasted nowadays.
> Better to have something on which to pay taxes, of course, than to
> not have anything at all, like many, many people in this country.
> My sister and I try to count our blessings, which are many...
Again, I agree with you. I too realize that I'm lucky, but also that I have
what I do due to my hard work and the sacrifices my parents made to give me
the opportunities I had. There was a period there where my mom (my parents
divorced for a few years, then remarried each other again) was really scraping
to get by. I didn't realize this until I was a few years older and then knew
what had happened. This is probably why I still do what I can to help my
parents, because I know what they went through for my sister and myself.
However, it kills me to see how much they have to pay in taxes now. My father
has his own business now, and is one of the best at what he does.. but damn
they get nailed each year! And no, they aren't "rich" by any means.
Oh, and when we went through that rough time, my mom (IIRC) did use one of the
few social programs that I actually think works: unemployment. That's one of
the only programs that you basically get out what you've put into it, and it's
limited to help you until you get another job.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://miguelito.org
"Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible
argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than
commercial alternatives." - Microsoft lamenting Open Source Software in the
"Halloween Document"
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:36:08 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >
> > > Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >> 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?
> > > >
> > > >According to Liberals....it's not fair...because...YOU SUCCEEDED!
> > >
> > > According to the liberals, he's a data point. You don't run
> > > government based on anecdotal evidence.
> >
> > Ah yes, whenever anyone points out that the liberal "gloom and doom"
> > scenarios don't jive with reality, it's always the old 'anecdotal
> > evidence' routine.
>
> You should talk. Your hero Reagan was the king of anecdotal evidence.
Anything which contradicts Leftist propaganda is "anectdotal evidence"
Puhhhhhhhhhlease.
We can all see through that rouse.
It's old
Really old
And it doesn't work any more...
> Your only argument in support of your sick economic policies is that
> very rarely some people from the bottom manage to pull themselves to the
> top.
>
> > Don't you get sick of repeating yourself so many times per day, every
> > time reality smacks you in the face yet again?
> >
> >
> > The plural of anecdotal evidence is DATA.
>
> --
> This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
> occurred during shipment.
>
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:44:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Pat McCann in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>So here is where I see this standing:
>
>Copyright (and other IP) law doesn't have to make common sense or
>ethical sense or any other such subjective thing. Law is what it is
>(Constitution, statues, court's handling of those, etc.) and the best we
>can do is try to predict how courts will rule on any given license from
>the available documentary evidence of what the law is. We have to give
>precedence to court rulings because they so often (esp. in case of the
>constitution) seem to conflict and the Guys With Guns obey the courts.
And here is where I'm standing: All laws, Constitutional or otherwise,
are ethically based and accessible by common sense, or they are
intolerable. The amount of knowledge necessary to recognize their
ethical basis is large (thus, the law as specialty), but *properly
guided* common sense is and must be sufficient for following the ethical
structure laid out. The reason law is set by precedent as it is, and
the reason we see the kind of cases we do as precedent, are because
commercial interests are known to act unethically. This is why the law
is necessary to begin with, in this case. Intellectual property is a
commercial activity used to promote social development of science and
art. It derives its basis from that development, not from its pretense
as a profitable enterprise. So long as the authors are paid a fair (as
defined by a free and open market, which, as you've noted, can even
include "compulsory licensing" of IP) and equitable amount for the first
use, there is no further guidance needed on copyright or other IP than
common sense.
The problem is, so many people believe that ethics are re-interpretable
or flexible due to morals, their personal desires and beliefs. So the
court has to mitigate and mediate clashes over profit-seekers, one who
has been wronged, in dealing with intellectual property. But as long as
you aren't preventing an author from profiting in order to promote the
sciences and useful arts, you aren't violating copyright law, because
the government has been given no power to restrict access to information
or works beyond that point.
[...]
>That's what I said; it isn't a program. It's a partial program. Like
>the HISWORD partial program I just downloaded. It doesn't run unless
>I have certain libraries installed. Do you want to call HISWORD a ruse
>or a bit of trivial packaging?
I want you to recognize that the whole discussion about libraries,
programs, and intellectual property is something that can only be
answered one way: is that a program or isn't it. If it is, its a
program, not a partial program. If it isn't, it isn't a program,
partial or otherwise, because you may as well call the library a partial
program.
[...]
>So that HISWORD thing I downloaded isn't copyrightable? I don't get you.
I don't know if it is or isn't. If you would clarify whether it is a
program or not, that would help, but still not be definitive, really, as
even calling it a program is begging the question. If its software, its
copyrightable according to law. But since that only requires it to be
literary code, not even functional, if the author is protecting it as
*software*, rather than a literary work in its own right, I'd say
something fishy is going on, at least. In the end, it doesn't matter
about downloads and libraries; what matters is where are authors
profiting from their works, and if they are, everything's copacetic. No
guarantees about how much they might be profiting; the market decides
what is valuable in copyrighted works. The purpose of copyrighted works
isn't to make money for authors, though; its to promote the arts and
sciences. Even if the author isn't making money, if the arts and
sciences are being promoted, the security of the copyright is valid,
independent of the question of whether there is sufficient profitability
in the work itself. Its still published, whether the author gets paid
big bucks or not.
>> B) if it is acceptable, it is a program; a partial program doesn't
>> function at all. Even if it uses a library, if it executes and provides
>> functionality, it is a program.
>
>Like I said: fine, if you're willing to live with the implications. You
>didn't say that you were or not.
I can live with what I think the implications are, and look forward to
doing so, even though I recognize it may mean a potentially drastic
redefinition of popular business models. Many such models and instances
are matters of profiteering, anyway, not providing sufficient value as
product or fee-for-services to be either promotive of science or art or
ethical commercial enterprises.
>If that HISWORD partial program is to
>be called a program, then I won't let you start calling HISWORD plus the
>libraries (or selected parts of them) the program.
I never did. I'm not sure what the implication is, according to your
thinking. This is the "the entire work" thing, and that would make
HISWORD+libraries a compilation, in a way. This is a separate type of
IP, somewhat independent of the underlying program and library, which
might still be derivative of each other.
>If the HISWORD code
>by itself is the program, will you not call HISWORD+libraries the
>program? What WILL you call that? We need to agree on terms to avoid
>confusion.
A compilation.
>> >We could also play with "application", but it's probably the same as
>> >program. There is also the problem that the GPL (and statutes?) refer
>> >to any software as a "program".
>>
>> No, that isn't a problem, you see. :-) "Application" is a whole other
>> level of abstraction, as it were, and I refuse to get into it.
>
>Why should I see now? You haven't said anything to even try to enlighten
>me. Maybe we need another level of abstraction, but since you refuse....
I don't refuse, so much as wish to avoid spurious levels of abstraction.
If you could describe one which is necessary and sufficient, as well as
being accurate, consistent, and practical, I'd be happy to go along with
it. We don't need another level of abstraction, and are not at liberty
to apply one if we wish to consider this a discussion of copyright law.
[...]
>> Free and clear, as it is derivative of public domain, and is therefore
>> public domain. Of course, that would limit the ability of the "author"
>> to demand restrictive licensing, in the eyes of the consumer (we would
>> hope) and the court (we generally know for a fact, if we can presume
>> based on precedent).
>
>You sure do bring up a lot of controversial stuff. I guess that's your
>right, so we'll just have to pause and work it out.
>
>It seems to me that you are claiming that the entire program (the
>partial program and the library) must be in the public domain if the
>API is in the public domain. Surely you can't mean that! You force
>me to discuss important issues before I had intended to. So be it.
Well, yes. I guess you're right. Since all software on a modern
computer system can be considered in some way dependant in construction
on much other software, if a reasonable line of derivation exists to a
public domain API (if there is such a thing, which I guess we're getting
to), software on that line are public domain in their literal code. The
use of trade secret licenses to protect software is not abhorrent to me;
in fact, I prefer it in many regards. But if that is the nature of
things, than no copyright should protect that code, and calling it
unprotectable, public domain, or GPL are all generally indicative of
that same fact, as dealt with by various existent aspects of law.
>As I'm tearing at my hair and about to give up the whole project, I'll
>ask you to process this message before I try to figure out how to
>formulate a "claim" about API's that we can discuss since we seem to
>be unable to discuss the other claim yet. I'm open to suggestions.
I'm not sure what you're trying to explore, so I'm not sure if this
response will provide any such suggestions.
>BTW, please choose one:
>
>1) We'll use "partial program" for an executable binary without support
>libraries and "program" for one with libraries.
>
>2) We'll use "program" for an executable binary without support
>libraries and "program plus libraries" for one with libraries. (That
>includes all of the software it takes to run the program including
>OS software. We'll have to say "the program plus libraries is a
>word processor, for example. The program alone is useless.)
>
>3) Max suggests something else.
Thank you. I suggest that we call the program a program, and call the
program plus libraries a compilation, and mutually recognize that the
compilation and its literal and functional aspects are irrelevant for
considering the intellectual property characteristics of the program
itself.
>I don't remember changing followups on this; I was asking if I could.
>Sorry. If you don't want to change subscriptions, COLA matches the
>Subject a lot better than a.d.m. so please put it back if you're still
>on COLA. My preference would be to put it on comp.software.licensing
>alone; I'd like to see that NG get more use. It's the first NG I read.
And adm is the first I read, and it doesn't get much use, either. What
confused me is that the reply I was making was only directed to
gnu.misc.discuss. I assumed you had set followups. I am adding
comp.software.licensing and COLA back to the groups line. Feel free to
direct followups as you like, but I'll lose you unless you include
either adm or COLA.
--
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: Chad Irby <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:54:19 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> NAME ONE PERSON who is starving to death in the United States....
Calista Flockhart?
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:54:39 GMT
> The mullahs were so angry at Carter for the abortive hostage rescue
> that they were never, ever going to release their captives so long
> as Carter was president.
They also knew that Reagan would have gladly issued orders
to kill them all. Unleashed special forces teams when given
free reign are... not pretty.
C//
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:56:13 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Don't try to bullshit me.
>
> I've been in Russia on 3 occasions for a total of 45 days.
> It certainly is NOT a 3rd world country.
Then it's a new "world" country, let's call it the "Fourth World," made
up of counrties that used to be important, but are now broke, declining
in population, overrun by criminals and fools...
NOT a place you want with a full nuclear arsenal.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
