Linux-Advocacy Digest #693, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (OSguy)
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows ("paul snow")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Gary
Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:39:48 -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 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.
The problem only occurs with your posts though.
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:46:33 -0500
In fairness too, I forgot another popular distro:
Mandrake 7.1 - Deluxe $60
Mandrake 7.1 - Complete $30
or $3.99 just for the 2 disks on Cheapbytes.
And Mandrake 7.1 can also be downloaded.
OSguy wrote:
> Glitch wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
> > >
> > > Billy
> >
> > RH charges upwards of $180 I believe for a version of their distro.
>
> Glitch, you just lost all credibility in quoting prices. Anything to
> make your $170 Win2K upgrade look cheap huh?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Aug 2000 19:47:51 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You forgot to mention the sblive drivers for Linux in this post,
Steve. Try again.
> Use Linux?
>
> Yea sure, and I would love to drive that 1975 Chrysler you have
> sitting in your garage.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:25:32 -0400
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>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 are full of you own biased bullshit -- that you are using as a substitute
for real knowledge about people and their lives.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:06:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The solution is to properly fund inner city schools, not drain even
> > > > more
> > > > money away from them.
> > >
> > > The city of Detroit spends $11,000 per pupil...almost TRIPLE what
> > > many private schools spend.
> > >
> > > And yet, the Detroit Public Schools are among the worst in the
> > > country.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The small private school my kids used to go to cost $3,300 per student.
> > I believe the tuition was about half the expense (an endowment paid the
> > rest). So, for $6,600 per student, we got class sizes of no more than
> > 20
> > students, quite adequate facilities, and an education that put the kids
> > (on average) at about the 75th percentile, based on SAT scores.
> >
> > It's not about money.
>
> That private school gets to pick who it accepts, right? Will it take
> kids with serious learning disabilities? Behavioral/emotional problems?
> Below average intelligence? You can't just leave these people out of the
> system; if you don't do your best to educate them they'll only be even
> more of a burden on society later.
My kids' old school took a number of below average students and a few
with behavioral problems. They also offered scholarships to a number of
kids and had a policy not to turn down kids who were otherwise
acceptable but couldn't afford to pay.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:11:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> 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
Actually, the reason would be that Penn State employees are employed by
the University and not by the state--unlike the State colleges.
> 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.
Wrong. As usual.
Penn State was never one of the state colleges. It was a "state-related"
university.
Big difference.
But it's pretty obvious that facts don't mean anything to you.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:12:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Arthur Frain wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have
> > > > > > fundamental
> > > > > > disagreements with their religious dogma.
> > > > >
> > > > > > However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic
> > > > > > school
> > > > > > before sending them to a public school.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
> > > > > nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
> > > >
> > > > 1. I'm talking about K-12 education.
> > >
> > > We're talking about education, period. If public schools can do a
> > > good
> > > job at the college level, what is the reason you think they couldn't
> > > do
> > > well elsewhere?
> >
> > While I agree that public schools can do OK at any level (and they do,
> > at least some of the time), there are some significant differences
> > between K-12 and college that might make the situation different.
> >
> > The biggest one is that people have to be there in K-12 whether they
> > want to or not. No one's making them go to college.
>
> But that doesn't explain why a private school would have more luck than
> a public school when it comes to teaching someone who doesn't want to be
> there.
Oh, I agree completely. Just pointing out a need to keep the issues
clear.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:50:12 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:09:12 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Every now and then some M$ preacher refers to netcraft for this or that
>> stat. Well, am I the only one that find it strange that Apache is the
>> only platform currently with a obvious positive trendline? Even the M$
>> line has a downward curve since just before 2000.
>
>Actually, netcrafts survey is not a very accurate representation. Since the
>advent of "domain squating", there are companies that own literally 10's of
>thousands of domains that all point to the same "You can buy this domain"
>page on the same server. This really skews the statistics.
>
>The number of IIS servers being installed are still growing. And it seems
>to be growing at a fairly regular rate. The Apache servers are growing at a
>faster rate, which increases overall marketshare, causing it to appear that
>IIS's market share is going down, when it's growing at the same rate it was
>the previous month.
Which, since the market is growing faster, means that IIS's market share
_IS_ going down.
>
>> And Linux remain the dominant OS platform, no matter how you look at it.
>
>No, not really. If you look at it the correct way, you see that Linux is
>not the dominant OS platform. Most IIS sites are single user sites (though
>there are a few big multi-host sites on IIS). We don't know how many of
>those Linux sites are really the same site with a different domain. *IF*
>(and i'm making these number up obviously), the average number of sites per
>server is 3 for Linux, and the average for IIS is 1.5, then there are half
>as many Linux servers as there are NT servers. But since we don't know this
>information (Netcraft doesn't break out unique IP's, just Unique domain
>names... and even if they did it wouldn't prove much since you can have
>multiple IP's on the same server) it's hard for these numbers to really mean
>anything.
Go visit netcraft, and look for their comparison when taking into account
the size of the site. Not just wethere there is a web page there holding
place.
>> Don't you people find this funny?
>
>Yes, but not in the same way you do.
What I find amusing, is that no matter how you play with the numbers, 2 facts
remain, IIS is losing marketshare (yes, absolute numbers are increasing,
but market share is down) and Apache is increasing market share, and this
is a trend that is least 1 year old.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:16:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> 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.
> >
> >But you somehow believe that the system allows people who want to do so
> >to escape their tax burden. In general, that's not true.
>
> No, it is true in general, because it is true typically; citizens can
> lower their tax burden using exemptions, deductions, and loopholes. I
> did it to the tune of several hundred dollars myself, and feel no
> remorse, because that is the tax code. I believe hiring an accountant
> to work the numbers to decrease my apparent debt to society in directly
> inverse proportion to my true debt to society an ethical affront, and a
And once again, you're assuming that a clever accountant could have
saved you money.
That's nonsense. Except for a very small number of people, there are no
magical hidden loopholes.
> sign that tax reform is sorely necessary. But if you approach tax
> reform with the initial intent to simply lower the amount of taxes
> people pay, in the hopes that this will decrease the expenditures in a
> just and fair fashion, you are going to cause more trouble than you seek
> to avoid. Indeed, if the Republicans could truly "rule" this country as
I haven't seen anyone in this group make such a suggestion.
> they desire, there would be a bloody revolution within an eye-blink of
> historical time.
Uh huh.
Another of your "feelings"?
>
> [...]
> >Please explain which loopholes you're talking about that a clever
> >accountant could have used to save you $4 K on your taxes.
>
> I didn't say they could (and the 4K wasn't my taxes, but the deductions
> from income which saved me taxes), I said that it was reasonable to
> assume that they typically could. I make a decent amount of money, and
And that's exactly the problem. You keep making these absolutely stupid,
unfounded assumptions, then going on to base extended arguments on them.
Why don't you point to all those deductions that a clever accountant
could have found for you?
> a "shrewd tax accountant" could have no doubt provided me with more than
> a return on investment in his services, had I arranged my finances to
> present the least profile to the tax code.
"no doubt"??
Another of your unsupported feelings?
>
> [...]
> >Wait a second.
> >
> >You're the one who said that a clever accountant could have saved you
> >$4,000 on your taxes. YOU made the claim. Please tell us exactly which
> >loopholes you're referring to.
>
> No, I didn't make any such claim, Joe. Try to improve those reading
> skills, 'nkay?
OK. You said he could have found another $4 K in deductions. Evidence?
>
> [...]
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:17:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >Then you need help. He's a real person -- even if you don't know his
> >real name.
>
> As much as you wish to insist that there is a real person behind the
> pseudonym, you're just playing with amphiboly.
>
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/amphib.htm
>
> Or maybe I am. Either way, "JS/PL is not a real person" is an accurate
> and consistent (if ambiguous) statement,
It only proves that your grasp on reality is very, very weak.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "paul snow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:28:10 GMT
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:13:31 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >What is the deal here? I write a post or two that claims that we can
> >manage computer systems directly, on their storage, outside the
> >abstractions of the Operating Systems and their Services.
>
> You've got it exactly backwards. Raw storage is just numbered blocks
> on the disk. Filesystems are an abstraction created by the OS. There
> is no "structured storage" without the OS. Without the OS, the highest
> leve of abstraction is about at the level of instructing the SCSI
> controller to fetch block 123456 from device 0 on buss 0. Managing
> storage is one of the most important tasks of the OS, why re-create it
> inside your installation tool? What does that have to do with making
> installation and system management easier?
No, you have it backwards. Where is the OS when your computer is off? You
got no processor, you got no memory, you got no I/O... All you have is
storage (your system's eproms and its the disk).
You turn your computer on. Where does the OS come from? Magic? Or the
storage in your computer system? This isn't a chicken and the egg problem.
The OS in its initial install constructs most of the file system. But one
don't *have* to use the OS to contstruct the file system. It can be
constructed from other platforms, disk images, network downloads, etc.
In fact, given the same file system (no matter how it was constructed), you
get the same behavior once the computer is turned on.
That is because your file system is nothing more than a persistent data
structure. Nothing more. No magic.
But your file system is also the data structure that defines your OS and its
applications. All the abstractions come into existence only after your
software is loaded into memory from these data structures, and your software
begins to run.
If you can't see this, there is no point in discussing what one can do by
managing a computer system by managing its storage as structured data. You
have to let go of this magical idea that a file system doesn't exist without
the operating system that it defines.
Then we can talk about how we can better manage this data structure that is
the storage in a computer system.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:29:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> >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?
Start with the Thresher.
It's interesting how you know so much about submarine accidents, but
don't know about either of the two major American ones of the last
half-century...
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:30:18 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Glitch wrote:
>
>
> You bring up a very good point. For those who don't believe this point
> of view and also live in the states just watch Jay Walking on the
> Tonight SHow (it is a segment they have on once in a while, but not
> every show) and you will see just how dumb people are. It is sad but it
> is hilarious the answers some people give to Jay's questions.
>
It is a funny segment, but I hope you don't take it seriously. It is
obviously staged.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:30:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >Then you need help. He's a real person -- even if you don't know his
> >real name.
>
> As much as you wish to insist that there is a real person behind the
> pseudonym, you're just playing with amphiboly.
>
> http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/amphib.htm
>
> Or maybe I am. Either way, "JS/PL is not a real person" is an accurate
> and consistent (if ambiguous) statement,
It only proves that your grasp on reality is very, very weak.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:32:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Reagan was bribing them how exactly? Iran-Contra was about what happend
> whilst Ronnie was in office, not while Carter was.
Actually, a lot of what evolved into "Iran-Contra" had its foundations
laid while Reagan was still trying to get elected. The gist is that
some folks went to Iran and told them that if they held onto the
hostages until after the election, Iran would get some financial and
military concessions after Reagan got in.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:35:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[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.
>
> You cannot economically prevent people from having kids. They are free to
> have as many kids as they like, the fact that society doesn't feed their
> existing kids doesn't stop anyone from having more (until being put in
> jail
> when the kids start dying of starvation). How is your warped view of
> society
> economically preventing anything?
Actually, he could.
He could, for example, insist that a woman is unable to collect welfare
unless she submits to Norplant insertion before receiving her check and
an examination before each subsequent check to ensure that it hadn't
been removed.
I'm not saying whether this would be a good idea or not, but it's
certainly feasible.
>
> > >
> > >So, IOW, the concept of personal responsibility means nothing to you.
> >
> > That depends on which concept of personal responsibility you are
> > referring to.
>
> How can you possibly argue on personal responsibility when you pretend
> not
> to know or in fact do not know the meaning of it?
> You have no clue about personal responsibility, you show that loud and
> clear
> with each of your posts.
>
Of course he doesn't have any clue what personal responsibility is. His
entire argument style is making up new meanings for words, circular
logic, and basically dodging any logical argument.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
