Linux-Advocacy Digest #682, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux? (mlw)
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")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Large disks still not supported on Linux?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:44:00 -0400
RCS wrote:
>
> I was wondering if the upcoming kernel 2.4 supports larger harddisks than
> previously?
> ( or maybe its lilo that needs to be updated for this?)
>
> As it is today, it is some hassle to install Windows and Linux on the same
> machine due to this.
>
> Also, since you don't get newer computers with harddisks less 6 GB (more or
> less) any more, it is some hassle also to install Linux by itself on one
> harddisk.
>
> Of course, you could get through the partitioning if you have some
> experience, but for beginners this is something that will turn them of
> trying Linux.
>
> Of course, as always, I could have missed something :-)
>
> RCS
I have not seen any problem like this with Linux. I have seen problems
with "IBM Compatible BIOS" booting any operating system, regardless of
whether or not they can handle large disks.
The issue is the BIOS's ability to address and load the OS.
My solution for this is to put a small 'boot' partition at the beginning
of the hard disk and have this mounted as "/boot" under linux. Using
LILO, one can boot anything.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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 13:45:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
>> >> family
>> >> of 3.
>> >
>> >It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
>> >YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
>>
>> Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you indicate.
>> Every citizen has the right to have children if they desire, and a
>> society which prevents them from doing so economically is no less
>> unsatisfactory than one that does so through any other means.
>
>So, IOW, the concept of personal responsibility means nothing to you.
That depends on which concept of personal responsibility you are
referring to. Being that any concept of personal responsibility is
necessarily self-motivated, and thus tied to personal morality, I'm not
willing to second-guess others whether they "have any", though I try to
double-check that I take responsibility for my actions, to the furthest
extent of my capabilities.
>I didn't think so.
You didn't think at all, I'm quite sure. BTW, I'd appreciate any
conclusive evidence you may have that thinking is a component of
personal responsibility; last I heard, mental activity alone is not
sufficient to prevent humans from doing what they shouldn't do (in your
limited thinking, this would be summarized as "taking responsibility for
their actions"). If it were, statutes would be called "guidelines",
rather than "laws".
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:49:39 -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]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Isn't it funny that the party that is oooooooooooooh so fucking worried
>> >> about debt reduction is the SAME goddamn party that ran up the debt
>> >> in the first place....
>> >> --
>> >
>> >Actually, in all fairness, both the Republicans and Democrats
>> >contributed to the National Debt. They just want to spend the money in
>> >different ways.
>> >
>> >To that extent, the Libertarians are right.
>>
>> I'll agree with both of you on that. But I'm sure the extent of that
>> argument is not as large as either of you might figure.
>
>It's not? So the $7 trillion national debt is imaginary?
You really should watch those false dilemmas.
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm
The debt need not be imaginary for the extent of that *argument* to be
smaller than you figure. You're beginning to bore me, Joe, with your
apparent inability to read and understand the statements you're
responding to.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:54:59 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 10:43:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >ZnU wrote:
> >>
>
> >The problem with the public schools is *NOT* the quality of the
> >facilities...no...the problem with the public schools is what
> >material is being presented by the teachers...and what is not.
>
> Repeating the same falsehoods is not going to make them true. See my
> other post.
>
> I spent a year of high school in the US public school system ( well-to-do
> yuppie district, but still, definitely a public school ), and it was quite
> good. The school let everyone move at their own pace. The smart kids were
> taking college calc in high school, the slow kids were free to amble along
> and do algebra-trig in final year. There was nothing in the school system
> that forced students to do badly, in fact quite the opposite, the school
> did an excellent job at creating opportunities for gifted students.
>
> The material presented by the teachers depended on the ability of the
> students.
>
> I'd argue that the inclusiveness of both America and its education system
> makes it look considerably worse than it really is. I'd conjecture that
> if you were to take two children of *equal ability* and put one through
> Japan's system and one through America's, there wouldn't be a substantial
> difference in the end result.
So, you are saying that the typical Japanese student is of
higher ability than the typical American student...
>
> You cannot make meaningful claims about the performance of an education system
> unless you control for the ability of incoming students !!!
>
> The problem with these arguments that America's high schools are "poor
> performers" is that by way of either deceit or ignorance, they misapply
> statistics that do not in anyway control for the ability of incoming
> students.
If American high schools are doing such a good job, then why have
American universities found it necessary to put larger and larger
percentage of incoming freshman (AMERICAN CITIZENS, not foreign
exchange students) through remedial english classes.
In fact, why is it RARE to find foreign-born students in collegiate
remedial english classes?
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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: "Chad Myers" <[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 18:07:57 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
This seems all too common, unfortunately...
> b) too lazy to find a better paying job.
This is fairly common, however many bothered not to get an education
(despite the billions of dollars in social funding for poor or
minority education grants and scholarships) and don't see the necessity,
yet they complain that they can't make more money and they're stuck
flipping burgers.
Thanks to Clinton and the social democrats of yesteryear for making
welfare more profitable than minimum wage and for continuting to
increase minimum wage and encourage the division of social classes
and making it lucrative for poor, uneducated Americans to stay poor
and uneducated rather than educating themselves and becoming rich.
Socialist Democrats say they're for the poor, minorities and lower-
middle class workers/blue-collar, but their policies speak a
different tune.
-Chad
------------------------------
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 14:20:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Oh, yea! Remember when we figured we'd have desktop applications
>> aplenty from *everybody* who wanted to make applications competing for
>> our business, instead of just Microsoft pushing new crap on top of old
>> crap? Hoo-WEEE! I can't *wait* for that OS pre-load market to open up.
>
>Been down in a hole for the past five years or what? OEM computers are
>jammed full of non Microsoft software
Apparently, you read "OS", but decided it meant "all pre-load software".
How convenient that this makes it seem like you have a point. Too bad
that first impression doesn't last very long past recognizing that
you're setting up a straw man.
--
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 14:27:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> >Really? Count your standard deduction and personal exemption and that's
>> >$7000 tax free. If you make $21,000 and have no dependents, a third of
>> >your income is tax-free right off the bat. Now let's say you make
>> >$80,000... where do you come up with $24,000 in itemized deductions?
>>
>> The question is where do I come up with $7000, not $24,000. And I
>> don't; I generally come up with about $3000, but my goal is not to
>> minimize the amount I contribute to society. Most others in my shoes
>> might easily pay a crafty accountant to shave another $4K off my tax
>> bill, through whatever means necessary.
>
>You have a strange concept of the tax laws. There's no way that a
>"crafty accountant" is going to find an extra $4K in deductions unless
>you've missed some very, very obvious things.
That's my point. I may very well have done so, or been able to find
greater loopholes with which to lower my tax bill in some other way. I
don't even bother to try, as I don't get any kind of "warm and fuzzy"
feeling by trying to minimize my taxes.
>That's a very common misconception. For the vast majority of "wealthy",
>there are no magic loopholes or no way to hide your money. Sure, they
>can lie about what they contribute to charity, but the poor can do that,
>too and no one's advocating cheating.
Sorry, I've enough money, and dealt enough with those who have even more
money, to know that the loopholes may not be magic, but they do exist
and they are taken advantage of by the wealthy and inaccessible to the
poor.
>Given that you think that the poor pay a higher percentage of their tax
>bracket than the rich, you really ought to learn how the tax laws work
>before spouting off so much.
Screw your clueless assumptions about how tax laws work; give me data or
shut the hell up. I'm not going to waste even more time chasing down
your logical fallacies on this topic as well as the others I've trampled
on your putatively intellectual arguments.
[...]
>> You're flipping facilely back and forth between amounts and percentages
>> so fast, I can't tell what would be an equitable burden.
>
>That's the problem. Facts seem to confuse you.
How would you know? You've never presented a one of them, as far as I
can see. Just endless posturing, straw men, begging the question, false
dilemmas, ad hominem attack, and other logical fallacies.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2000 11:34:04 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Pat McCann in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >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.
I'd be glad to call a library a partial program because that's what it
is. Usually multiple partial programs.
BTW, please proof-read your posts. I had to read that several times to
make sense of it. First, discussions don't have or need answers.
Second, Your answer was another question, but without a question mark.
The first few readings of that answer/question I was trying to figure
out what words had been left out or typoed. Then you come up with this
beauty that "if it's a program it's a program, if it isn't it isn't".
You're practicing typing again. Please have mercy.
> [...]
> >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.
I don't know what's fishy, but then I doubt it matters to me. Here you
say "if its [sic] software, its [sic] copyrightable", but in your
paragraph I was complaining about you said something about it not being
copyrightable if it wasn't useful as-is (without supporting libraries)
to the user. You too often try to have things "both ways".
> >> 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,[...]
I told you what implications I was worried about. You didn't bother
commenting on them. I'm quite sure you will continue to use "program"
as you've always used it and continue to leave me wondering what you
mean. I don't expect you to know what I'm talking about just now, but
I'm not going to bother explaining it again.
> >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.
This is the kind of thing I wanted to discuss, but I can see it's going
to be too too much effort (or impossible) to do it in a careful manner
in which we do more than go around in circles.
> >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.
You mean "the compilation"? As in "the xclock compilation"? I guess
that word is better than many, but it would be easily confused with
the same term's more general meaning as given by USC 17/101.
> >> 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.
You "don't refuse", but we "are not at liberty"? OK. So there's no need
for me to describe another level of abstraction since we can't apply 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.
If you have studied copyright law as much as you seemed to have and then
can make a statement like the above, then that is the last straw as far
as I am concerned. It is just too much work trying to get us to where
we can communicate within the same conceptual framework. Lee might find
it entertaining; I don't.
I think my time will be better spent doing other things. I plan to
eventually (in months) finish putting together something worthy of
posting and putting up on the web for potential free software licensors.
> 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.
Thank you for finally addressing the point head on, but I can't accept
that mutual recognition stuff since I'm quite sure that you don't mean
what I read. (It's counter to much of what you've been arguing.) And
if the "compilation" is a compilation in the copyright law sense, then
I don't believe it either.
It's a shame we've (or I've) wasted so much of our time on this over
the last week, but it's time to cut our losses and move on. No hard
feelings, I hope.
------------------------------
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 14:35:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> The wealthiest do not pay anywhere near as much [of their income] as
>> their tax bracket base percentage indicates, while the middle and lower
>> income people generally do.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Statistics bear it out, as does my anecdotal data.
>
>Since you're too slow to figure it out, let me to the math for you.
How about you just post the statics and save us the bother of figuring
out which logical fallacy you're committing this time.
>When I was in the 21% bracket, my federal income tax was 25% of the
>bracket level.
>
>Now that I'm in a higher bracket, my tax is about 60% of the bracket
>level.
I don't think anybody more familiar with tax laws will understand this
any more than I do. What does "when I was in the 21% bracket, my tax
was 25% of the bracket level" mean?
And why are you unable to comprehend that a few hundred dollars saved by
various deductions, exemptions, and loopholes by lower income people is
substantially less in dollar value than the few thousand dollars which
is saved by upper income people with their typical deductions,
exemptions, and loophole-inspired money-shifting? All your posturing
and agonizing violence to logic and reason will not change the fact that
this is a correct statement, and is irrefutably the position I have been
stating, despite the insistent claim that it isn't "what I said" which I
anticipate will be your response.
--
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: Joe Ragosta <[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 18:38:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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?
Yet another stupid T. Max non-sequitor.
More money doesn't make those problems go away. Period.
>
> >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
True.
But what makes you think that more money equals better education? That's
what this discussion was about before you started polluting it.
> the end, is much cheaper, which is why we see people like you and Aaron
I see you still haven't learned how to read.
Where have I ever favored any fascist attitudes?
> Kulkis spewing this kind of regressive bullshit. It is opportunity, not
And where have I ever favored a regressive fund raising scheme? The
scheme I favor is very progressive.
But that won't stop you from spreading lies, I guess.
> "discipline" or "expectations", which spur learning.
I see. And how does throwing more money at the problem fix that?
And you're wrong, anyway. There are plenty of studies that show that
students learn better when expectations are high and discipline is
maintained.
But that doesn't fit your Robin Hood attitude.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 18:40:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> 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?
> >>
> >> Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you indicate.
> >> Every citizen has the right to have children if they desire, and a
> >> society which prevents them from doing so economically is no less
> >> unsatisfactory than one that does so through any other means.
> >
> >So, IOW, the concept of personal responsibility means nothing to you.
>
> That depends on which concept of personal responsibility you are
> referring to. Being that any concept of personal responsibility is
> necessarily self-motivated, and thus tied to personal morality, I'm not
> willing to second-guess others whether they "have any", though I try to
> double-check that I take responsibility for my actions, to the furthest
> extent of my capabilities.
IOW, you think that muddying the water with 100 words or so will fool
people into thinking you're saying something different.
Personal responsibility means taking responsibility for your own
actions. Just one of the many elements of Personal Responsibility would
mean being sure you can take care of children before having them.
You seem to think that people should have as many children as they want
whether they can take care of them or not.
Only a fool would consider that to be personal responsibility.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
