Linux-Advocacy Digest #681, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Ted Brown)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: philosophy != science. (Richard)
how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Richard)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ted Brown <[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 16:25:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Equipment and facilities are overrated. A good teacher can do a great
> job with less than state of the art equipment. And I'm not aware of any
> evidence at all that says that teacher quality is directly related to
> salary. If you can find it, you've lost your argument, btw. Many, many
> private schools (particularly Catholic schools) pay their teachers less
> than the public school salaries. Yet their students outperform. (and
> don't assume that it's equipment, either. The school my kids used to go
> to had lousy equipment and teacher salaries around $16 K and the kids
> excelled by any standard).
>
> So why are high teacher salaries only important in public schools?
My god-son goes to catholic school. I will attest that they do not have
the best equipment, and scamble for what they get. And anyone who thinks
that you need a spiffy new computer to teach young kids is deluded. This
is not where to spend the money.
But I also have to say that his school controls to a fairly large extent,
who goes there. They are pretty good about helping people from the church
afford the school, and they do not directly turn anyone away, though
sometime the classes fill up and some are turned away.
In any event, the children are largely self-selected. Those parents that
care about the environment their child goes to school in and what the child
is taught, are the ones that seek out private schools. This means that
you compare a school filled with children who have attentive parents vs.
shcools that have a mixture from totally ignored children to the same
loving care.
It's *much* harder to teach children who have lousy parents. Catholic
schools do try to add some of those students into the mix as they take
community work seriously. But, even so, they do not make a large
percentage of the student body.
This is not the entire story, but before comparing "private" vs "public" we
need to take such differences into account.
That being said, public schools do need an overhaul, and money is only part
of the problem.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2000 10:49:38 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper) writes:
> On 26 Aug 2000 10:36:22 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > With bundles, you can pop in a CD and drag it to wherever you want to
> > put it, and it will all work. I hope Apple hasn't screwed them up in
> > MacOS X, but we'll see.
>
> RISC OS used bundles which were called Applications. ROXFiler
> (rox.sourceforge.net) has support for a similar system.
Interesting. In NeXT-style bundles, an "application bundle" is a
specifict kind of bundle (next to libraries and other types).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
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 18:57:07 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. What I "innately ABHOR" is the idea that some people get tons of
> > money without doing a thing to earn it while others work hard their
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > entire lives and stay poor.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Spot the lie.
You've never heard of the "working poor", have you? Look it up.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2000 10:54:42 -0600
"paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip about ditching "package managers" all together]
> Ah those simple days of yore! But we can't and we won't go back.
>
> Today we have Java VMs and Adobe Acrobat viewers, and browsers, and browser
> plug-ins, word processing packages, and stock tickers, Internet based games,
> etc. Never mind that we are going to be configuring systems to connect with
> other systems, and use databases, and database clients, and we need to set
> up security, and down load the new versions of our clients, etc.
... enter NeXT-style bundles. They can handle all the above, and you
only need to know how to use cp(1) to install them.
> It isn't going to be simple in the future. It is going to get worse. In
> another post I list a set of requirements we are going to need from a
> package manager. Not want, need. Typewriters are out for good. And
> Redmond may be at fault to some degree, but if so they only pushed us ahead
> in time a bit. It was going to happen to us anyway.
>
> We have to have package managers, but they need to be based on open
> standards. And they need to operate in an environment outside the execution
> environment of the supported computer systems. They need to be able to
> manage cross platform, distributed applications. Why? Because we are on
> the Internet already! We want to bank, we want to order hamburgers on the
> Interstate Hwy so I don't wait for my order! I want to use my PDA to adjust
> my lights in my hotel (cause I don't know where the switches are, but I have
> my PDA), I want to listen to my MP3 files on the rental car's stereo, from
> the station I programmed on the Internet.
>
> We can't do all of this by coping all our files onto our bin directory.
> Sorry.
Why not? Isn't the operating system supposed to do the mundane
things for us anyway?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy != science.
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:17:30 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:53:01 GMT,
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >1) if a person views other human beings merely as tools to be exploited
> > then they are a psychopath (this is the point at which bright people will
> > say to themselves "yup, businesses are psychopaths")
>
> This is not the definition of a psychopath, even in a liberal sense.
Clinical Description of the Psychopath
"Egocentric, arrogant, deceitful, shallow, impulsive individuals who
callously use and manipulate others with little sense of shame, guilt,
remorse"
Unguided by dictates of "conscience"
Lack of empathy; only an abstract, intellectual awareness of others
feelings ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
No loyalty to any person, group, code, organization, or philosophy;
self-interest
Not psychotic or intellectually dull
1% of general population; 10-25% of correctional populations (Hart &
Hare, 1997)
[Make that 90% of corporations!]
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991)
20 items scored from interview and file data
Each item scored on a 3-point scale. Score >= 30 indicates psychopathy.
Total score 0-40; Reflects extent to which an individual matches the
prototypical psychopath
PCL-R developed for forensic use, but now used in variety of contexts
[Let's score the Typical Corporation owned by Mr. Ty Coon]
PCL-R Items
Glibness/ superficial charm
[2 out of 2]
Grandiose sense of self-worth
[2]
Proneness to boredom
[2 - note the recent wave of mergers, acquisitions and layoffs!
movement for movements' sake]
Pathological lying
[anyone who denies this is a 5 out of 3 needs a slap to wake them up]
Conning/ manipulative
[2 - does anyone not understand the meaning of "marketing"?]
Lack of remorse
[2 - this is so not fucking funny]
Shallow affect
[2 - I guess *NO* emotions qualifies as weak emotions!]
Lack of empathy
[2 - much worse than most human psychopaths, corporations
*define* lack of empathy]
Parasitic lifestyle
[2 out of 2]
Poor behavioral controls
[has anyone not gotten the pattern yet? - 2!]
Promiscuous behavior
[2 - the way MS goes from one "ally" to another ...]
Early behavior problems
[1 - depends]
Lack of realistic long-term plans
[2 - I think everyone knows what "next quarter" thinking refers to]
Impulsivity
[2 - can you say "management fad"?]
Irresponsibility
[10 out of 2]
Failure to accept responsibility for actions
[20 out of 2]
Many marital relations
[2 - there's so many relations it's like incest! Think holding corporations.]
Juvenile delinquency
[I can't think of an analogue]
Poor risk for conditional release
[HAHAHAHA]
Criminal versatility
[2 - The way large corps easily acquire new technology]
What's important to note about the checklist is that I can *easily* provide
you examples of (non-typical) corporations that *aren't* psychopaths. They're
called "co-operatives". Cooperatives don't go around fucking everybody and
their dog. They don't go on wild merger or spending sprees. They don't act
irresponsibly. They don't act impulsively. They don't get bored. They keep
very realistic expectations about the future. And they aren't parasites!
A cooperative can be stupid and lazy and even neurotic but you'll have a
hard time finding one that's psychopathic.
Typical Corporation scored > 35 out of 40 on the Psychopathy Checklist!
Typical large corporations are not only psychopaths, they're MODELS for
human psychopaths! (which explains why people like William Gates III are
so common in corporations -- you guessed it, there's an even chance that
Gates is a psychopath or partial psychopath...)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:20:03 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:53:01 GMT,
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >1) if a person views other human beings merely as tools to be exploited
> > then they are a psychopath (this is the point at which bright people will
> > say to themselves "yup, businesses are psychopaths")
>
> This is not the definition of a psychopath, even in a liberal sense.
Clinical Description of the Psychopath
"Egocentric, arrogant, deceitful, shallow, impulsive individuals who
callously use and manipulate others with little sense of shame, guilt,
remorse"
Unguided by dictates of "conscience"
Lack of empathy; only an abstract, intellectual awareness of others
feelings ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^
No loyalty to any person, group, code, organization, or philosophy;
self-interest
Not psychotic or intellectually dull
1% of general population; 10-25% of correctional populations (Hart &
Hare, 1997)
[Make that 90% of corporations!]
The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hare, 1991)
20 items scored from interview and file data
Each item scored on a 3-point scale. Score >= 30 indicates psychopathy.
Total score 0-40; Reflects extent to which an individual matches the
prototypical psychopath
PCL-R developed for forensic use, but now used in variety of contexts
[Let's score the Typical Corporation owned by Mr. Ty Coon]
PCL-R Items
Glibness/ superficial charm
[2 out of 2]
Grandiose sense of self-worth
[2]
Proneness to boredom
[2 - note the recent wave of mergers, acquisitions and layoffs!
movement for movements' sake]
Pathological lying
[anyone who denies this is a 5 out of 3 needs a slap to wake them up]
Conning/ manipulative
[2 - does anyone not understand the meaning of "marketing"?]
Lack of remorse
[2 - this is so not fucking funny]
Shallow affect
[2 - I guess *NO* emotions qualifies as weak emotions!]
Lack of empathy
[2 - much worse than most human psychopaths, corporations
*define* lack of empathy]
Parasitic lifestyle
[2 out of 2]
Poor behavioral controls
[has anyone not gotten the pattern yet? - 2!]
Promiscuous behavior
[2 - the way MS goes from one "ally" to another ...]
Early behavior problems
[1 - depends]
Lack of realistic long-term plans
[2 - I think everyone knows what "next quarter" thinking refers to]
Impulsivity
[2 - can you say "management fad"?]
Irresponsibility
[10 out of 2]
Failure to accept responsibility for actions
[20 out of 2]
Many marital relations
[2 - there's so many relations it's like incest! Think holding corporations.]
Juvenile delinquency
[I can't think of an analogue]
Poor risk for conditional release
[HAHAHAHA]
Criminal versatility
[2 - The way large corps easily acquire new technology]
What's important to note about the checklist is that I can *easily* provide
you examples of (non-typical) corporations that *aren't* psychopaths. They're
called "co-operatives". Cooperatives don't go around fucking everybody and
their dog. They don't go on wild merger or spending sprees. They don't act
irresponsibly. They don't act impulsively. They don't get bored. They keep
very realistic expectations about the future. And they aren't parasites!
A cooperative can be stupid and lazy and even neurotic but you'll have a
hard time finding one that's psychopathic.
Typical Corporation scored > 35 out of 40 on the Psychopathy Checklist!
Typical large corporations are not only psychopaths, they're MODELS for
human psychopaths! (which explains why people like William Gates III are
so common in corporations -- you guessed it, there's an even chance that
Gates is a psychopath or partial psychopath...)
------------------------------
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 17:06:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >My biggest worry is about accidental or one-off (crazy general fires
> >one at Washington to make a point) launches.
>
> There is no nation in the world with an ICBM that can reach our
> shores, that does not have a system that prevents any one man from
> launching one.
There are "systems" and there are "systems." The Russians have admitted
that their command and control system is *very* weak compared to the
American one, and it's quite possible for one or a few people to arrange
for a missile launch.
> The idea that one nut can do so, comes from
> Hollywood or some nut job palace. Its not something can really
> happen.
According to too many ex-Soviets, it's something that can.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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 13:27:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>
>> I still don't understand why you think this would even support my
>> position. It is my contention that there are no "natural monopolies" in
>> the way that the word "monopoly" is used in anti-trust law. It is true
>> you need to act predatorially before your market position could be
>> considered "a monopoly", but unless you can provide some example of a
>> company which has a dominant market position and does not use it
>> predatorially, I'm afraid you've got things backwards. I'm saying that
>> you cannot acquire a monopoly through 'fair means', that's why "attempts
>> to monopolize" are just as illegal has monopolizing is.
>>
>>
>
>IBM clearly has a monopoly in the mainframe market. Hitachi, IBM's main
>competitor for mainframes, lost most of it's market share to IBM with the
>introduction of the S/390 G5 and with the introduction of the G6, IBM had
>grabbed 95% of the mainframe market. Hitachi has now dropped out of this
>market. Is IBM in violation of the law because of this? The answer is no.
I've already responded to this through quoted text, basically, but
seeing it in its original form makes the problem with it clear. If your
last sentence is true, Gary, they your first sentence cannot be.
Presuming, as I am, that we should reserve the term "monopoly" for
companies which are guilty of monopolization. I'd love to see the court
case, though. Do you have an url?
--
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:29:48 -0700
From: josco <[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?
JS/PL wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Bob Hauck wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > So...then, your idea is...
> >
> > Expand the number of ICBM's in the American arsenal, AND
> > build large numbers of decoys, and blast China to hell if
> > they launch even one missile.
>
> No new missiles, we have enough right now to destroy the entire earth. No
> decoys. Blast China to hell even if they launch a single missile is a
> promise.
> Now if there was a way to stop missiles immediately after launch.....
There isn't. That's the point, there isn't the capability and the scientific
community knows it's not possible or economically feasible.
> The current plan is to launch a full counter strike. It is the only plan,
> and MUST be the only plan. The only thing worse than that plan is to NOT
> launch a counter strike. Not very desirable options. A way to stop attacks
> before they happen is the only other way. The cost is impossible to
> calculate because of the technology gained from most major endeavors such as
> this. Who can tell what the payoff on this investment would be in the long
> run.
It is far cheaper to build more offensvie missles than it is to build the
defense capability. The arms race would bankrupt anyone building the defensive
capability. This defense is also designed for Ballistic missles. Ballistic
missles are not the only kinds of rocket technology or propulsion system for
delivering nuclear warheads.
------------------------------
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 13:36:06 -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:
[...]
>> >> Not really. It is impossible to have a monopoly which does not abuse
>> >> its position, by definition.
>> >
>> >Wrong. Show me your definition.
>>
>> "The threshold question in this analysis is whether the defendant's
>> conduct is "exclusionary" - that is, whether it has restricted
>> significantly, or threatens to restrict significantly, the ability of
>> other firms to compete in the relevant market on the merits of what they
>> offer customers. "
>>
>> That's a decent head start on a *description*. I don't argue by
>> *definition*.
>
>That's your problem. You don't sit down and think about what things mean
>before you start posting.
My only problem is you don't even bother thinking about what things mean
before you start replying. I've already "thought about" what these
things mean for several years, and yet you think that knee-jerk
recitations of 'popular wisdom' and dictionary definitions are going to
somehow poke holes in my argument.
>You have some kind of emotional reaction against profitable companies
>and wealthy people and start spewing hatred and venom without
>understanding what you're talking about.
You obviously have some sort of emotional reaction against people
expressing their opinion on anti-trust law.
>Since you don't have any definitions, you can spin the argument however
>you want and contradict yourself left and right and think you can get
>away with it.
See, you are not even reading what you're responding to. I said I don't
argue "by" definitions, not that I don't use definitions. Stop trying
to bait me and proving yourself a troll, Joe. It isn't my fault that
you think a dictionary definition is enough to end an argument; I'm not
the one that taught you this overly simplified 'popular wisdom'
understanding of the law.
[...]
>> >What if I were an ultimately benevolent person who really didn't need
>> >money and I ruled a monopoly with an iron fist. I set prices as low as
>> >they'd be with enormous competition. How would that be abuse of my
>> >position?
>>
>> What fucking if what?
>
>Few of your arguments make any sense, but this one is below average --
>even for you.
LOL. I guess you don't bother reading what you wrote, either.
>> >I didn't say it's likely. But you keep coming up with premises that make
>> >certain assumptions, then use them to prove the same assumptions. It's
>> >called "circular logic".
>>
>> Point out the assumption, don't give me straw men based on asinine
>> thought experiments where someone is an ultimate benevolent person.
>
>You make the assumption that what you call a permanent monopoly is
>always harmful. Then, you use that to prove that permanent monopolies
>are bad.
I had a feeling you'd just pick out any of my *conclusions* and insist
that it is an assumption. I make no such assumption, Joe. Try
practicing your reading comprehension skills, and then start over from
where you started posting "there can be no monopolies in a free market".
--
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 13:41:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> >No. You just give money away without doing anything about the real
>> >problem.
>>
>> What real problem would that be, Joe?
>
>Lots of things. Lack of discipline. Lack of expectations. Lack of parent
>involvement. And so on.
And how do you personally expect to tackle these 'problems' without
paying someone to deal with them?
>Some very, very poor kids in some very, very poor school districts do
>very well. And some very rich kids in expensive private schools do
>poorly.
>
>Money isn't always the answer.
Money isn't ever the answer. Education is always the answer, or at
least the best one we've got. But education costs money. Fascism, in
the end, is much cheaper, which is why we see people like you and Aaron
Kulkis spewing this kind of regressive bullshit. It is opportunity, not
"discipline" or "expectations", which spur learning.
--
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: "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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:37:39 -0400
C Lund wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No. What I "innately ABHOR" is the idea that some people get tons of
> > > money without doing a thing to earn it while others work hard their
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > entire lives and stay poor.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > Spot the lie.
>
> You've never heard of the "working poor", have you? Look it up.
>
Any body in the United States who "works hard" and has even the
slightest clue about
a) saving money vs. spending habits
and
b) the fluidity of the job market (i.e. you can always go get a
NEW job if don't like what you're getting paid.).
Those who are the working poor are either
a) too stupid to save money (they blow it on shit they can't afford)
and/or
b) too lazy to find a better paying job.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
