Linux-Advocacy Digest #690, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
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: 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: 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: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 19:16:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <39a920af$13$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > In article
>> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > > Is it also theft any time I pay taxes to the government, and I
>> >> > > > don't get back all that money in the form of government
>> >> > > > services?
>> >> > > > If so, then we have a society Robin Hood would be quite proud
>> >> > > > of.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The more fortunate are paying for the benefit of not having the
>> >> > > less fortunate starving in the streets.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, isn't that exactly an argument I could use to say that even if
>> >> > you never get paid social security benefits, they payroll tax wasn't
>> >> > stolen from you, because you got the benefit of not having the less
>> >> > fortunate starving in the streets?
>> >>
>> >> Yes. But what comes along with the idea of preventing people from
>> >> starving in the streets in the assumption that you yourself won't be
>> >> allowed to starve if it ever comes down to that. If you eliminate
>> >> social
>> >> security you eliminate that safety net.
>>
>> >There are several problems with that.
>>
>> >1. A "safety net" can mean a lot of different things. For some people,
>> >it's
>> >only meant to cover the most dire emergencies. For others, it's meant
>> >to
>> >cover every little thing that could go wrong -- and ends up being a way
>> >of
>> >life.
>>
>> >2. I have sufficient savings and insurance to provide my own safety net.
>> >Barring that, I have a family. Then a church. The argument you're facing
>> > is
>> >that people should rely on their own resources _first_. What's
>> >happening is
>> >that they're relying on the government first.
>>
>> You can't get enough government assistance to live, if you have your own
>> resources. Those who do are about as far down the ladder as a person can
>> be
>> in this society.
>
>Wrong. The government "poverty levels" are too high.
>
>I earned far less than the poverty level (not much more than half) when
>I was in graduate school and I did just fine. Even had some money for
>luxuries.
You were a single person with no major expenses outside of school, you
idiot. "Poverty levels" are defined for working people, not students.
--
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 19:17:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>
>> They should present at least an accurate, if not consistent, set
>> of statistics, and take the average percentage of non-voters off the top
>> when identifying "support" for either candidate, or neither. It
>> wouldn't sound right, though, to describe BOTH major candidates
>> "backing" to be such low numbers as "7%" or even "19%", or whatever they
>> might come out to.
>
>
>That could be very useful in some ways, but they way it is done now is
>the best way for the polls to answer the question they are trying to
>answre, which is "who is going to win?"
That's the problem; they are determining the answer, rather than merely
asking the question, in their presentation of the inability to elect
anyone besides Gore.
--
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 19:18:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>So are BeOS, OS/2, and Linux an alternate supply in the relevant market?
They could be. Obviously, they aren't. The court doesn't second-guess
the market as to why they aren't considered an alternate supply, nor
does it need to. The point is that it isn't for Microsoft to demand the
ability to claim whether they are or not, either.
>I would point out that if you use those OSes you will likely have to
>replace a lot of your Windows software, which could *easily* cost more
>than the $800 you'd have to spend to buy an iMac.
Precisely. If that were simply another form of OS on intel-compatible
PCs in a competitive market, this probably wouldn't be the case. What I
mean is, if the "monopoly" had been just another from of Unix, there may
be almost no switching costs to the consumer (though obviously the
developers would be expected to product ported versions with minimal
transition costs.)
The fact that Microsoft has raised such an application barrier through
intentional effort that it is cheaper to buy an entirely different type
of computer than to try to replace their product is apparently why Judge
Jackson seems to think that they've been monopolizing.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:18:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...endless ad hominem and style over substance arguments deleted...]
>> >OK. Then where's the factual evidence to back up your position. You
>> >don't have any. You merely assume that it's true.
>>
>> I presume it is true, as it fits all of the available evidence, so far
>> as I am aware. I have justified my position through reason and evidence
>> (you might not have realized what all that "quoting from precedent" was
>> all about, but that's called 'backing up your position' among those less
>> prone to heated squabbling and more interested in reasoned discussion
>> than yourself), and still await any attempt to confront, let alone
>> refute, that position. Your protests that no argument against my
>> position is necessary is simply yet another of your logical failures.
>> I'm reasonably sure that it is based on your inability to even
>> comprehend what my position is, and your implied insistence that this is
>> not due to your own lack of ability is rather empty in that regard.
>
>Do you employ the use of a random word generator in your posts? Or are you
>just unable to form sentences?
>Which is it?
I take that to mean you were unable to follow what I was saying. So it
might be reasonable to conclude that you are incapable of following a
complex legal argument, as well. Yet you've claimed to be able to
second-guess and double-check the findings of a federal judge.
Something doesn't make sense, and it certainly isn't my statement. Take
it to somebody who can "decode" such "high-falutin' words" and parse it
correctly, and perhaps they'll be able to explain it to you.
--
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 19:18:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Carter has devoted his post-presidential life to public service, for
>> > which he's been widely given honors and respect, as he deserves.
>>
>> Quite true. Carter was an awful President, but seems to be
>> an outstanding humanitarian. Credit where credit is due.
>
>Actually, in retrospect, Carter was a decent President. He didn't do
>much.
And considering how much was going on in the world, that speaks quite
eloquently of the fact that he may indeed have been one of our greatest
Presidents ever, in retrospect. How easy would it have been, do you
think, to start WW[] when the Iranians had the hostages for so long and
gas lines were still three blocks long and society was beginning to come
to grips with the fact that we're all we've got, and we need to act
sensibly, not simply morally?
In hind-sight, of course, the fact that the hostages were returned
immediately after his removal from office (I imagine a note taped to one
of them, "Ron - Nice doing business with you. Call me.") only
discredits the theory, because much of the "ineffectiveness" of Carter
was merely manufactured issues and political maneuvering. The country
didn't *want* to know what the President was actually doing (I'm sure a
fascinating study could be made of the day-to-day press coverage of the
President during Carter's and Clinton's first term, and a startling
contrast would be evident.) The only thing saving Bush and Reagan and
Ollie North from treason charges is the fact that Carter didn't (or
couldn't, or wouldn't, or did but was unsuccessful) petition Congress to
declare war on Iran.
But I guess avoiding war and restoring frank and honest intellectual
concern to the presidency might be considered "not doing much", if you
are looking to live in interesting times. Consider Ford's own entirely
lame stay in office. He was responsible, we might say, for ensuring
that Nixon's egregious activity didn't entirely destroy any faith in the
presidency. The fact that the entire country needed to pretend he was a
clumsy buffoon in order to maintain our sanity and belief in the
Constitution is a testament to the greatness of the man, who as I recall
never made even a token effort to contradict the illusion, outside of
his actions themselves, which were again merely acting as the
administrative head of all government in our country. But he did
receive the office by default, not election, and is simply not the
statesman that Jimmy Carter is. He didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize, at
least. I think he is still a great man. Because it isn't winning a
Nobel Peace Price which is important. Its competing for one that
counts.
--
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 19:18:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Adam Smith didn't think antitrust laws were viable because he thought
>> >that powerful monopolist lobbyists would be able to prevent any
>> >government from ever enacting them. Obviously he was wrong.
>>
>> I'm afraid you'd have to provide a quotation if you expect me to believe
>> that, Eric.
>
>
>From "Understanding the Antitrust Laws" by Jerrold Van Cise:
>
>=====
>[Smith and Marx agreed] that a free competitive economy was in the
>public interest so long as the competing sellers and buyers were
>individual persons. . . . The error of Adam Smith and Karl Marx--in
>rejecting the possibility that monopoly could be curbed by law--arose
>from their common belief that the lobbies of the monopolists would block
>the enactment of any such legislation. [In The Wealth of Nations, Smith
>writes that] 'neither the most acknowledged probity, nor the highest
>rank, nor the greatest public services, protect [the legislator] from
>the most infamous abuse and detraction, from personal insults, nor
>sometimes from real danger arising from the insolent outrage of furious
>and disappointed monopolists.'
>====
Thanks, Eric! I can agree entirely with your interpretation, Mr. Cise's
understanding, and Adam Smiths putative sentiment. But I can't agree
with its application in this discussion.
I'm not sure if he did actually "reject the possibility that monopoly
could be curbed by law", precisely, and don't believe the quote mandates
that this be true. He was correct in demonstrating that law itself
could not curb monopoly, and a free market was necessary. I don't
believe that this would translate into an insistence that government
laws designed to ensure that a free market exists are not "viable".
--
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 19:18:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>"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
>
>You've been around long enough to have read the Findings of Fact. It's the
>forced loading of the OS that controls the sale of other software -- Your
>statement begs the question; are you an M$ paid shrill or just an idiot who
>refuses to learn.
As I've stated before on this threadlet, I believe he's simply incapable
of learning. He just isn't smart enough to grasp abstractions well
enough to understand the Findings of Fact, or the Conclusions of Law, it
seems. I'd be pleased to find out I'm wrong, of course, though not if
it turns out he actually does refuse to learn, even if he could, though
it might take some effort.
--
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 19:18:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >Then why do you keep saying that merely "profiteering" should bring a
>> >civil punishment on a company?
>>
>> You misunderstand, still, the phrase "civil injunction" as I have used
>> it.
>
>Oh, I get it.
I'll bet you don't.
>That's another of those words that you want to change the meaning of
>because your feelings are different than the way everyone else in the
>universe defines it.
It isn't a word, its a phrase. It isn't a colloquialism, and I'm not
using it as a replacement for a colloquialism. I'm using it literally,
so, no, I don't wish to change the meaning of the word 'civil' or
'injunction' when I use the phrase 'civil injunction'. Nor am I
confusing the phrase, as you are, with the idiom "court injunction",
often abbreviated to 'injunction' in similar contexts to what we are
discussing. So I'm aware of your confusion, but I'm growing weary of
the effort it takes to try to dissuade it.
Perhaps I should give in, and begin to discuss whether a court
injunction is called for against a company merely on the grounds that
they are charging exorbitant profits using restraint of trade or
monopolization strategies. But I'd want someone a lot more knowledgable
in the specifics than you, Joe, to argue against.
>If you'd stick to terminology that the rest of the world uses, perhaps
>you wouldn't look so foolish.
If you'd stop making assumptions based on your difficulty grasping
abstractions, you wouldn't be so stupid.
[...]
>> >> >Wrong. It means that consumers value a product highly.
>> >>
>> >> Adam Smith disagrees with you.
>> >
>> >You're misquoting him.
>>
>> I don't think I'm misrepresenting him, at all, though I obviously am not
>> quoting him, as he never met you or responded to you on Usenet, AFAIK.
>
>There's this thing called a "book". If you really believe that Smith
>said that, feel free to do this thing called "read" to see what he said.
Based on your request, I found an on-line think to The Wealth of
Nations? I don't have a copy handy, I'm afraid. So it will take me a
few days (they don't have a downloadable copy nor a concise search
facility), but I'll post them as I find them. I'm as familiar with what
Smith said as I am with what Steven Hawking has said, and feel far more
confident in my grasp of Smith's work. You seem to have ignored the
fact that I've already told you I've not quoted nor misrepresented him.
Do you have a quotation or citation which might contradict my statement?
Have you read The Wealth of Nations, in its entirety?
>Last time I checked, Usenet is not the only source of information in the
>world. Perhaps that's your problem. You never realized that there's a
>world outside of Usenet.
I'll tell you, dog-brain, it really does make a DYNAMITE mechanism for
determining just where else throughout the unlimited extent of modern
information sources a cogent bit of data might be found. I had no idea
that The Wealth of Nations was actually posted in relatively clear text
on the Internet. Well, I shouldn't say I had no idea; I figured it
might be, which is why I searched for "The Wealth of Nations full text"
in WebFerret using "exact phrase".
This actually came from something called: Adam Smith, An Inquiry into
the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 Vols., Everyman's
Library (London: Dent & Sons, 1904), Vol. I, passim.
I found it at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/adamsmith-summary.html
[Don't you just love when people post links?]
"The actual price at which any commodity is commonly sold is called its
market price. It may either be above, or below, or exactly the same with
its natural price. The market price of every particular commodity is
regulated by the proportion between the quantity which is actually
brought to market, and the demand of those who are willing to pay the
natural price of the commodity, or the whole value of the rent, labor,
and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it thither. When the
quantity of any commodity which is brought to market falls short of the
effectual demand, all those who are willing to pay the whole value of
the rent, wages, and profit, which must be paid in order to bring it
thither, cannot be supplied with the quantity which they want. Rather
than want it altogether, some of them will be willing to give more. A
competition will immediately begin among them, and the market price will
rise more or less above the natural price, according as either the
greatness of the deficiency, or the wealth and wanton luxury of the
competitors, happen to animate more or less the eagerness of the
competition."
Note that "a competition will immediately begin among them" is a
consequence, not a premise, of the argument. They weren't arguing that
it couldn't be prevented, merely that it would have to be.
Monopolization and restraint of trade and numerous other anti-trust
transgressions are how it is easily prevented, if government does not
act to assure a free market for all vendors and consumers.
[...]
>> It isn't "hit with" a civil injunction, its "subject to" civil
>> injunction, which means courts, judges, police, press reports, and the
>> full array of mechanisms for uncovering and preventing unethical
>> behavior in society.
>
>So your feelings lead you to change the meaning again.
No, I'm trying to clarify the same meaning I've been using all along so
that your simple mind can comprehend it, moron.
>NOW, you're taking an absolutely simplistic position. "If you charge
>lots of money for a product, the government might look into whether you
>have a monopoly or not".
>
>That's a syllogism. Look it up -- if you can find a dictionary on Usenet.
Yes, it is a syllogism. My dictionary on Usenet has three definitions.
Based on them, it would seem that you never got past the first one you
read yourself.
1. Logic.an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two
premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term)
that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise)
contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion;
common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from
the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore all
B is C.”
2. deductive reasoning.
3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument.
The first, I'm sure you learned by induction; you were taught the
typical form, and assumed you understood the principle. You were
unaware, it appears, that this is an oversimplification of the basis of
deductive reasoning. If all A is C, and all B is A, it is worth
investigating, or even possibly presuming, based on the circumstances,
that B is C.
The fact that it is a subtle and sophisticated argument is why matters
of law often come down to this (for example, Microsoft's own
conviction). That it is often used deceptively by people who wish to
insist that all B must therefore be C, as you do in your attempt to
misrepresent practically every statement I have made, is relevant but
not cogent, I believe.
--
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 19:19:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Penn State, in fact, has such a large alumni association that it is not
>> considered a public institution.
>
>And T. Max proves once more that his ignorance won't stop him from
>posting lies.
>
>Penn State _is_ considered a public institution. At least by anyone who
>knows what they're talking about.
>
>Please point to a single source that considers Penn State to be Private.
Well, seeing as my wife is a student at Penn State, and the Pennsylvania
State Employees Credit Union told me that Penn State is not classified
as a public institution, because it derives too large a proportion of
its income from alumni grants, that would be one source. But it is,
indeed, one among many. What might be confusing you is that, since you
are from around these parts from what you've said, I think I recall,
this wasn't always the case. Several decades ago, Penn State was a
state college. Now, it isn't. A trivial thing, but one which seemed
poignant in pointing out the lack of validity in popular wisdom. Who
would figure that Penn State University isn't a state university, by the
definition of the term?
--
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 19:19:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
>> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 23:33:45 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >"First-world" nations have nuclear submarines that work, and don't
>> > > >screw
>> > > >around for a week before asking for help in rescuing the crew.
>> > >
>> > > The US has lost two nuclear subs over the years. I don't know how
>> > > long
>> > > they "screwed around" though.
>> >
>> > For the ten to twelve seconds that it took for the crews of those subs
>> > to die horribly?
>>
>> Which is apparently what happened here?
>
>We don't know yet, except that due to the Russians screwing around, we
>didn't get anyone down there in time to find out.
>
>Note that the two major US sub disasters of the last half-century
>occurred in deeper waters, and were over in a couple of seconds.
Well, that's the story you heard, at least. When and where were they,
precisely?
--
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
******************************
