Linux-Advocacy Digest #675, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
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: Malloy digest, volume 2451784 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:08:09 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >Your ISP seemed to have agreed with me, now didn't they.
> >>
> >> No, they sent me an email. I have threatened them with legal action
> >> should it turn out that you did not provide them with your real name
and
> >> identity, though obviously not much will come of an email.
> >>
> >> I will remind you, again, that I will not be warning you via Usenet if
I
> >> have decided to pursue legal action against you.
> >>
> >> >Death threats,
> >> >whether or not you actually now the persons name are highly illegal,
(and
> >> >lame). Now drop it or I'll forward the second threat you posted and
you'll
> >> >be searching for a new ISP by Monday.
> >>
> >> Go ahead. Make my day.
> >
> >I would call this "agreeing" that your continuing to abuse their network
> >with your unlawfull acts.
>
> That's not what you said last time. Before you got a copy of their
> email, you just said "pffftt" (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
No thats the first thing I said, you once again assume wrongly.
I've had that email for a couple days. 8-25-2000 1:23PM to be exact.
>
> >To: T. Max Devlin:
> [...]
> >Also please note that newsgroup postings
> >are archived, and that anything posted by
> >you can be found by legal authorities, future
> >employers, and anyone else who wants to check
> >into your personal history.
>
> This is the part that I pointed out to them, which opens them up to
> legal liability, as it might easily be read as a clear threat to someone
> for posting their honest views on Usenet.
Looks to me like some clear advice that you should heed.
They have no legal obligation to provide you with a vehicle for making death
threats. They do however have the default right to refuse service.
>The question, I guess, is how
> someone who *didn't* already know this would interpret it. Not being
> one, I'd have to admit that I can't conclusively say whether it could be
> interpreted as a suppression of free speech to email them such a veiled
> threat. If it comes down to it, I'm quite willing to let a judge
> decide.
Well once you find me, sue the hell out of me. Sue me like you've never sued
before. You see....you will lose handily....and in my state - the loser
foots both parties legal bills and court costs to boot. :-) My lawyer would
love some of that Pennsylvania money.
Matter of fact you have so little of a case I'm sure my lawyer (who's also
the county prosecutor, and a good friend of mine) will successfully "kick
your ass" so to speak. And jury's round heea don't take to kindly to out of
town, rude plaitiffs with no case.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:16:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I see. So the Republican policies of the 1980's were completely
>responsible for the current income inequality, but had no impact on the
>economy's growth?
>
>Can you say "hypocrite"?
Can you say "false dichotomy"? Or how about "complex question"
Complex Question
Definition:
Two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single
proposition. The reader is expected to accept or reject both together,
when in reality one is acceptable while the other is not. A complex
question is an illegitimate use of the "and" operator.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.htm
My statement was, and still is, that neither Republicans nor Democrats
can "take credit" for anything, simply because of their political
beliefs or moral certitude.
>> >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?
>
>So, it's pretty obvious that the poverty level is too high. It doesn't
>really reflect "poverty".
Let me get this straight: as a former starving graduate student, you
feel you have a right to proclaim what is subsistence level pay for
someone who has to earn a living?
>> >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.
>
>Nope. But I've learned enough economics to be able to discuss things
>rationally -- something you've failed to master.
I don't think knowledge of economics provides any particular ability to
discuss things rationally, actually. Not that I'm endorsing that you
have any such knowledge. I'm assuming you were a CS student, not an
economics student, given your choice of newsgroups.
[...]
>> 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.
>
>About ignorance? Sure.
No "about"; one can't be smarter "about" something, though one might
certainly be more knowledgable or experienced. No, I'm simply smarter
than you are.
>About virtually anything else, I doubt it.
>
>You ceratainly haven't shown much knowledge in this thread.
Knowledge is not the issue in this thread; understanding and wisdom are.
At least as far as I am concerned.
[...]
>No, I haven't. I've advocated that businesses should be able to set
>whatever price they want on their product (unless they're breaking a
>predatory pricing law) and the customer can then choose to buy it or not.
There are no predatory pricing laws; only laws against monopolization
and restraint of trade, for which predatory pricing is considered
evidence of a crime.
>YOU somehow defined that as unethical since you keep advocating that
>prices should be limited by some party outside of the transaction.
Well, if you think there are "predatory pricing laws", then I don't
understand why you wouldn't recognize predatory pricing as unethical.
>> 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,
>
>Your impression was wrong.
Perhaps, but you've provided no further explanation or information to
support that possibility, and I'm afraid I'm not going to be simply
taking your word for it.
>> and correcting my interpretation if you think I've got it wrong, or
>> posturing and insisting you've never said such a thing.
>
>I'm saying that business and ethics each have their own rules. You're
>trying to apply your personal ethics to everybody else.
I don't believe there is such a thing as "personal ethics". Perhaps you
mean "morality". I've not discussed, and don't intend to discuss, at
this point, anyway, morality. I'm not even discussing ethics; it is a
point of law which is the root of this argument. Profiteering is
evidence of monopolization, which is illegal.
>>
>> You advocate monopolies, but only because you don't know what a monopoly
>> is.
>
>Nope. I advocate that a business should be able to set their own prices,
>in general. You are the one saying that that makes them a monopoly.
>Which is absurd, btw.
The market sets prices if its a free market; a business is constrained
by the competition in setting its prices.
See United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391
(1956) ("Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude
competition.").
Willfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power is illegal, BTW.
>>
>> >> 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.
>
>That's funny, I just quoted what you said above.
I'm afraid you appear to be ignorant of the meaning of the term
"quoted".
[...]
>> 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.
>
>That's possibly true.
>
>But you go one step further and say that if I make more money than you
>think is appropriate, I'm guilty of unethical behavior and should face
>civil injunctions.
No, I can't go one step further and say that, because it wouldn't be
true, and I'm not a dishonest person. If I were a dishonest person,
yes, I could certainly say that, but you'll notice that I didn't. I'm
not saying you did, but that your saying that I did would still indicate
that you are a dishonest (or merely asinine) person, since I didn't say
that.
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:20:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >God damn profiteering! Everybody gets to profiteer except you Max. Some
>> >day
>> >you'll get even with all those god damn profiteers! You probably fall
>> >asleep
>> >at night grumbling about all the god damn profiteers.
>>
>> No, everybody seems to *want* to profiteer except me. I figure they
>> just don't have any confidence in their ability to provide fair value
>> for an honest profit.
>
>No. It's just that for most people, earning fair value for an honest
>profit means charging the price you want to charge and seeing if
>customers will pay it.
For all people, it means that. Your straw man not-withstanding, it is
for the customer, not the vendor, to determine whether it was "fair
value".
>You seem to be the only one (plus maybe letour) who thinks that some
>outside group should decide when prices are too high.
That "outside group" is called "the market". It isn't only one vendor
and one customer involved in the issue. If no reasonable and
knowledgable person considered the price too high, I doubt there'd be
any investigation to determine if there was monopolization or restraint
of trade involved. (Or collusion, or any of the other anti-competitive
behaviors outlawed by anti-trust statutes.)
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:27:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other than
>> >> as a pseudonym.
>> >
>> >You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
>> >using a pseudonym.
>>
>> According to your interpretation, maybe. It is equivalent of saying
>> "'John Galt' isn't a real person", in my interpretation (and since I'm
>> the one that said it, I have slightly more say than you in its meaning.)
>> You may note that "John Galt" has posted several times to Usenet.
>
>The "John Galt" who posts to Usenet is a real person.
>
>The "John Galt" in Ayn Rand's novels is not.
>
>What part of that is too complicated for you?
The part where you can demonstrate that the "John Galt" who posts isn't
simply a pseudonym for a real person.
[...]
>A person who calls himself "JS/PL" posts to usenet. You claimed that he
>wasn't a real person.
>
>He is.
No, I state, quite truthfully, that "JS/PL" isn't a real person.
Whoever the real person is that is using that pseudonym is not taking
responsibility for their words, so I am not really considered with who
he is as a real person.
>The fact that there are _some_ imaginary "people" out there doesn't
>change that fact.
I'm afraid it does, as "JS/PL" trying to get me in trouble for speaking
honestly and without malice might well be considered harassment, and an
attempt to suppress free speech.
>> >You need to learn that some people can read so you're not going to get
>> >away with nonsense like that
>>
>> You need to realize that there are literally millions of people on this
>> planet, and only thousands posting to Usenet. And neither group would
>> for a second consider that I actually threatened "JS/PL's" life, whoever
>> he might be.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>But that's not the issue.
It is as far as I am concerned. Keep your pretenses to yourself.
>All I said was that if he felt threatened, he had every right to
>complain. If your words were not a threat, you'll be vindicated. But
>that doesn't remove his right to complain.
Yes, it does. If his complaint is dishonest (and it is, as I've
obviously not done anything to actually threaten whoever posts as
"JS/PL", though I can't say he hasn't threatened me) then he hasn't a
right to make it. Its posturing, pure and simple, and its going to get
him into trouble if he chooses to make an issue of it.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451784
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 07:26:50 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the
evidence for his reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain
why he's ignored Slava's question; indeed, he continues to feign
ignorance about Slava. And he's still plagued with "parrot" syndrome,
lying about me responding one article at a time in the process (as
these multi-article digests prove). Lastly, he clearly doesn't
understand the concept of a digest, given that he keeps posting a
so-called "Tholen digest", yet still responds one article at a time.
Here are three more such examples:
183> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
183> fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
183> reading comprehension problem. Nor did he explain why he's apparently
183> parroted "Slava's" question; indeed, he continues to hide
183> information about this "Slava." And he's still plagued with "parrot"
183> syndrome, as well as his illogical conclusion regarding misattributions.
183> Lastly, he clearly doesn't understand the concept of a digest, given that he
183> keeps posting so-called "digests", yet still responds one
183> article at a time. Typical! With such material as he provides -- and so
183> much! -- one can't resist poking the body to see if it's alive. It's not,
183> folks.
183>
183> To the digest improper:
183>
183> [0]
183>
183> What can you expect, eh? Thanks for reading!
184> Tholen tholes again:
184>
184> The only "education" you provide here is how *not* to behave, Tholen. In
184> that case, a dog is an "educator."
184>
184> It's sad that a supposedly grown man such as yourself is reduced to
184> claptrapping his way around, Tholen.
184>
184> No, of course not, you just "misunderstand" and argue semantics, Tholen.
185> Tholen tholes:
185>
185> Aw, go ahead, Tholen, we have a few microseconds.
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:28:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >You're making so many absurd assumptions that it's hard to know where to
>> >start:
>>
>> Am I?
>>
>> >1. You assume that a temporary monopoly can't be harmful. It can.
>>
>> Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
>
>Adam Smith also says antitrust laws are not viable. Do you believe him?
Do you have a quote?
>> >4. You assume that a temporary monopoly can be overcome by a free
>> >market. It may not.
>>
>> Adam Smith say's you're wrong.
>
>Adam Smith also says antitrust laws are not viable. Do you believe him?
I don't believe you when you say that he says that, if that's what
you're asking. Adam Smith might be thought, in some ingenuous theory,
to say that anti-trust laws are not necessary. In that, alas, he was
idealistic, if it is indeed the case.
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:29:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>And you've already admitted in this thread that you're an expert on
>ignorance, so your opinion is pretty worthless.
My expertise is more than sufficient to recognize how ignorant you are,
though I can't see why you think that reflects on my opinions.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 03:34:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >But, again, T. Max is arguing that charging a lot of money is prima
>> >facie evidence of guilt.
>>
>> Where? I never claimed any such thing.
>
>Sure you did--over and over.
I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to substantiate that statement with some
direct quotes, or you're just setting up a straw man.
>You claimed that if my profits where too high, I should be given a civil
>injunction.
Did I say precisely that, or did I say that profiteering is subject to
civil injunction? I don't recall making any statement about *your*
actual profits and whether they were too high, but I'd have to go along
with your statement, in the end, and consider it self-evident.
If your profits are too high, you are subject to civil injunction, if
you are lucky. The question, obviously, is what "too high" means, and
you seem to think that the vendor's word should be taken for granted on
that matter; as long as they have sales, it can't be too high. But that
is merely begging the question, and posturing ignorance of the reality
that not all markets are necessarily free markets.
[...]
>> If your marketing, rather than your competitive merit, is responsible
>> for that perception, you have committed a crime.
>
>What crime? Please be specific.
That would depend on the specifics, yes. The details are what determine
how the law responds to unethical behavior.
>You sound less and less informed about business every day (if that's
>possible).
Yes, its possible for me to sound entirely uninformed, to you. It is
more a measure of your ignorance than my level of knowledge, quite
frankly.
--
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
******************************
