Linux-Advocacy Digest #695, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane.. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 23:30:03 -0400
Eric Bennett wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett 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?
> >
> > I looked at all of the engineering schools in the US, culled out those
> > that were farther away from home than I wanted to be, and applied
> > to the top of the remaining list.
> >
> > I was turned down by one university (U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign),
> > and so I chose Purdue.
>
> Great. Now could you answer my question?
Local K-12 school districts don't compete for students....they are
essentially government-mandated monopolies.
Publicly-funded universities, on the other hand, are in a VERY
competitive market for the best students...who eventually become
alumni and.....even elected officials.
Since public universities consider their alumni to be a valuable
source of cash, they have a vested interest in producing graduates
who are not only functional in society, but those who can either
recieve high salaries, or wield large influence on money which can
be directed back at the university.
This is why there was such an outcry in the universities when
the first couple of classes of students who had been taught
to write using the "whole language" nonsense started hitting
college campuses. Remedial English went from one 30-student
section to 10 sections in one year.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 22:55:02 -0500
"Douglas D. Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8occ1d$s1s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows95 was the first MS OS to finally utilize multi-tasking and
> networking functions which had been developed in UNIX in the 1970's,
> and from what I've heard, Win2000 might finally be stable, but not
> enough data on that yet.
Wrong. Windows 95 was released in 1995. Windows NT 3.1 was released in
1993, which was fully multi-tasking and SMP, it also included TCP/IP.
OS/2 (written mostly by MS, partially by IBM) was released in 1987. It had
full muti-tasking (though no SMP) and network support.
Xenix, MS's first internally developed OS was released in the early 80's
(1983 springs to mind, but it may have been earlier). This was a fully
liscensed AT&T style Unix for PC's. And yes, it had TCP/IP.
BTW, TCP/IP was not developed on Unix.
> I see you're using Agent, what's wrong with Outlook? <heh>.
Outlook is not a news reader (outlook express is, but it's not nearly as
feature rich as Agent is). Why would you even suggest such a thing, if you
knew what you were talking about?
> Browsers started in UNIX, "Mosaic" was the first, then Netscape a year
later,
More than a year later. Mosaic was released in 1991 (IIRC) while Netscape
wasn't even a company until 1994.
> MS Windows *is* a pretty platform for gamers and accountants, but it is
> totally lame for computing. E.g., Fortran is the only language which can
> handle higher math readily, and is still used by scientists in preference
> to any other, and it comes free with Linux, as does Pascal, C, C++,
> and gui development environments,
Apparently you don't realize that since all those tools are open source,
they are also available for Windows. This is where the argument typically
breaks down. Due to the nature of open source software, *ANYTHING* you
have, Windows can have. But the reverse is not true.
> and if I want to run network tools
> like ntp, traceroute, whois, finger, telnet, etc., I can do it right from
> the bash prompt, but have to pay for utilities such as NWPS's NetScanTools
> to do the same in Windows...
Sorry, a stock Win95 machine has traceroute, telnet, and several other
commands. It doesn't have whois or finger (both of which are virtually
useless today anyways due to dialup services) but the same GNU tools are
available for free for Windows.
> and even then, whois under Windows is Lame,
> doesn't work like it does under UNIX/Linux, and even starting up a ppp
> link, takes a couple of seconds with Linux, compared to a minute or
> two with Windows, which has to thrash through Winsock, when Linux talks
> directly to the net.
It takes 5 seconds to simply *DIAL* a modem. It takes another 2-10 seconds
or so for phone company to connect the call and begin a ring, once the modem
answer it takes 10-15 seconds for the modems to negotiate. That's 17-30
seconds of unavoidable, physical time relating to dialing up an ISP. There
is no way that Linux or any other OS could reduce that time to "a couple of
seconds".
Once past that time, a Windows PPP session may take more or less time
depending on your configuration. If you have IPX/SPX, Netbeui, and "Log
onto network" checked, then it takes time for Windows to figure out that
these services are not available. If you instead, configure it correctly,
it initiates the PPP session immediately. Even so, configured in the worst
possible way, it doesn't take 2 minutes.
Furthermore, Linux doesn't "talk directly to the net". It also has a
sockets library it must use. Apparently, you don't uderstand what a TCP/IP
stack is.
>Well, don't let me bore you, get back to your games. BTW, you might
> want to try out Outlook, and do a report on that.
You might want to figure out what you're talking about first.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 03:40:09 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Local K-12 school districts don't compete for students....they are
> essentially government-mandated monopolies.
Way, way off topic:
Speaking of government-mandated monopolies...
Microsoft Alleges US Government is a Monopoly
http://bbspot.com/News/2000/5/govt_mono.html
-Chad
------------------------------
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 23:33:53 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:04:53 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > > > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > >> Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the
> > > > > >> parents implies the unfitness of their children.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >That's the safe way to bet.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to go on statistics alone, and make blanket assumptions
> > > > > based on averages, I ask you this -- would you endorse a company
> > > > > policy that dictates that African Americans shouldn't be hired due
> > > > > to the fact that the "safe way to bet" is that they have inferior
> > > > > "intelligence" ( despite considerable overlap of different ethnic
> > > > > groups ... ) Oh, I refer you to your "bible" for the relevant
> > > > > statistics.
> > > >
> > > > No. Simply overturn the Supreme Court ruling that disallows IQ tests
> > > > for job placement.
> > >
> > > It's impossible to even come up with a single number to accurately
> > > represent microprocessor performance and you think the same can be done
> > > for the human brain?
> >
> > I'm curious about this Supreme Court ruling. When did they rule that?
> >
> > My company uses entrance exams for executive positions. They've found
> > that people who score higher on the exam tend to do better jobs than
> > those who score poorly.
> >
> > What's wrong with that--either legally or ethically?
>
> Possibly nothing. Depends on the exams and how they're interpreted. IQ
> tests pretend you can determine general intelligence (whatever that is)
> by measuring things like how long it takes you to make block patterns
> and how well you can repeat strings of numbers. Do you consider those
> reasonable criteria for measuring the ability of job applicants?
Well-constructed IQ tests measure:
A) ability to learn
B) ability to solve novel problems
C) memory
D) ability to piece together seemingly disparate ideas.
>
> Sometimes high intelligence isn't even the most important criterion;
> good communication skills or initiative can be more valuable in certain
The ability to communicate is inherent to the idea of intelligence.
> positions. You'd almost certainly be doing yourself a disservice by
> pre-screening applicants based on IQ.
No, you merely screen out people who are quite gifted at communicating
their mediocre thoughts. In other words: no great loss.
>
> All that said, I suspect the reason for the Supreme Court ruling (I'm
> guessing here; I don't know anything about this case specifically) is
> that you can make a reasonably strong case that IQ tests are biased.
> Some of the test relies on "general knowledge," which varies from
> society to society, and contrary to what all the talk of inclusion might
> lead you to believe, the US is far from being a single heterogeneous
> society.
THE S.C. ruling was based on the fashionable myth that IQ tests
are somehow racially discriminatory.
--
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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:23:38 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello Steve||Simon||deadpenguin||Claire,
You still have not posted and apology and retration of your dishonet and
malicious assult on my credibility. Until you have, your credibility is
zero.
This your second phony identity in just one day. Who do you think you are
fooling?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Use Linux?
>
> Yea sure, and I would love to drive that 1975 Chrysler you have sitting in
your
> garage.
>
> Linux is like a visit back in time... It takes operations that are simple
under
> Windows, and turns them into a mess of reading, programming and general
wasting
> of time.....It's all about applications and one quick look at
freshmeat.net
> shows a collection of fragmented and useless applications only a true
idiot
> could love.
>
> Try Netscape some time (Windows version will do) and see what you
think...Oh
> yea, "several" browsers are in the works for Linux...Think they will ever
see
> the light of day?
>
> Doubtful....
>
>
> My advice?
>
> If you are interested, try Linux and see for yourself...
>
> http://www.cheapbytes.com
>
> You will soon become another dis-satisifed customer...
>
> Linux is even worse than a piece of shit, it is more like a septic tank
filled
> with fresh sewerage....
>
> Shit, what do you expect for $1.99?
>
> Billy
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:18:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_6kq5.20208$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
You do realize that is software that gives any meaning to the data on the
storage device beyond just a collection of bytes or bits arranged as fixed
sized records in th case of DASD devices. It is the processor that gives
any meaning to the contents of ROMs, without interpretation the data is just
a random collection of whatever method is used to record the data. Just
like writing is just a random collection of marking for someone who can not
read it.
What do you mean by "other platforms"? It seems that you are not using the
same meaning that is attached to it by the reset of us.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 19:45:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello Steve||Simon||deadpenguin||Claire,
You still have not posted and apology and retration of your dishonet and
malicious assult on my credibility. Until you have, your credibility is
zero.
D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
> >If you want to support a claim Win95 is poorly engineered, you either
> >have
> >to provide some examples of a "better engineered" product that
> >provides the
> >same services whilst operating under the same restrictions or, at the
> >very
> >least, give a credible explanation of how it could be done.
>
> Well you have to first at least make a guess what the design goals
> are. None of the various Windows incarnations touch unix for
> stability, security, or power of course, but for many of them it's not
> reasonable to count that against them. It is clearly not a design goal
> of Windows95 to be exceptionally stable for instance. More of a case
> in this regard could be made against NT Server - whether it was an
> explicit design goal or not to provide a robust and powerful platform
> relative to the hardware investment, given what it's marketed as, it
> should have been. Running video drivers in kernel space, and having no
> gui-less operating mode, are arguably major design flaws for any
> server OS.
>
> But another area is not so debateable. Ease-of-learning and ease of
> use are clearly design goals of any general purpose GUI. All Win32
> implementations have done fairly poorly in that field. All recent
> versions of Mac OS (prior to 10, which I haven't worked with yet, and
> seems to have some major issues from what I have read) have been
> greatly superior in terms of GUI design. The NeXT boxes were clearly
> superior as well. Windows 3.1 was in many ways superior in terms of
> GUI design for that matter, although it's technical limitations
> (particularly in terms of heap space) crippled it.
>
> Examples of these problems are not hard to find. Start with the
> placement of the window control widgets -
> minimise-maximise/restore-close clustered together is a poor design.
> The Mac OS9 and prior layout, placing close on the opposite corner
> from the others is a better design.
>
> The placement of the menus - the Windows design where they are placed
> below the top window border is clearly an inferior design to the Mac
> placement of the menus along the top edge of the desktop.
>
> The windows task-bar/start-menu" is another bundle of joy for the UI
> critic. The MS Interface guidelines even explicitly not that cascading
> menus quickly become unwieldy, and should be limited to 2 layers when
> used at all - yet a cascading menu with far more layers is the
> centerpiece of their desktop! To edit this menu, an inconsistent
> version of explorer is used, and good luck finding it.
>
> Ever try to drag and drop to an app running on the taskbar? Again,
> they went to the trouble to describe how drag and drop should work in
> their own guidelines, then disregard those guidelines entirely
> themselves.
>
> The taskbar tray doesn't even pretend to have any guidelines for use -
> some objects there are manipulable one way, some another, there is no
> way to access them from the keyboard, and no visual clues as to their
> use are required - although some choose to display "tooltips" at
> least.
>
> Consistency - MS tools are hideously inconsistent in dozens of areas.
> In most apps, for instance, alt-e f (menu-edit find) activates the
> find function. But in notepad, it's alt-s f (menu-find search.)
>
> You close (alt-f c) a window, you exit (alt-f x) an application. Well,
> at least in Win3.1 you did. In 95 and later, that's still usually
> true, but not always - another consistency problem detracting from
> useability, and very typical.
>
> The Win95 common dialogs are bad enough (an inexplicable step back
> from the Win3.1 common dialogs in terms of UI design) but then MS puts
> out the Office package, which contains it's own unique and different
> implementations instead of using the common dialogues.
>
> More on the common dialogues, a major usability nightmare even in
> comparison with the 3.1 version, can be found at
> http://www.iarchitect.com/file95.htm - in fact anyone interested in UI
> design should probably take some time to take note of the UI mistakes
> documented here. Most concern MSWindows, but Apple and *nix get some
> time too... *nix mostly gets let off easy for the fact that no one
> expects it to have a good UI, but with recent developments,
> particularly the hype regarding things like GNOME and KDE that is
> changing.
>
> If the actual shipping products don't match the hype there will be a
> backlash. I believe that's already starting to happen. An incomplete
> and inconsistent clone of a bad GUI is inevitably going to be a worse
> GUI, and a GUI that is any worse than Windows simply will not make Joe
> User happy - it's just going to convince him that "linux sucks."
>
>
>
> #####################################################
> My email address is posted for purposes of private
> correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
> to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
> kind.
> Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
> altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
> is barred from archiving my messages.
> #####################################################
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux..a trip down memory lane..
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 20:40:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> You forgot to mention the sblive drivers for Linux in this post,
> Steve. Try again.
She/he/it is back ans is using two new identities, "bill.gates.loves.me" and
"D. Spider".
------------------------------
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 23:41:56 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 16:32:37 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >> If you're asking if the American kid doesn't perform as well on
> >> international tests by the time they enter high school, my answer
> >> is "yes". The American kids are already behind at this stage.
> >>
> >> If you're asking if American kids are less "intelligent" than Japanese
> >> kids, well I refer you to your bible (1)
> >
> >
> >
> >So...based on what YOU have just told us:
> >
> > (A) There is a genetic component to intelligence
>
> Not quite. My point is that if you are prepared to accept the case made
> by your bible, then this is true.
>
> BTW, the differences between the performance of different ethnic groups
> on these tests is not obviously due to genetic factors. Indeed, questions
> regarding the origin of the difference is a contentious issue that is
> worthy of debate.
>
> If you're interested in knowing what *I* personally believe, I find it
> plausible that there is indeed a genetic component to intelligence.
> However, I disagree that you can judge someone's intelligence based on
> genetics alone. (1)
A) I never claimed that intelligence was based "solely" on genetics.
But...tell me, if you decide to scavange random parts from a
1975 AMC gremlin, and a 1935 Volkwagen bug, do you really believe
that the end result will be something that beats a Ferarri?
B) Of course intelligence is not based on genetics *alone*. The son
of a tall parents who is malnourished will probably be short. The
son of smart parents who is brought up in a primative cave will
probably be an illiterate idiot.
BUT! Genetics determine the *POTENTIAL*, not the outcome.
Now...go into any ghetto, and it is quite apparent that the adults
who are permanently living there are...at their maximum potential
(if not exceeding it due to government subsidies).
The point is... you have conceeded, that, just like EVERY OTHER HUMAN
CHARACTERISTIC, there is genetic linkage for intelligence and
intellectual potential.
>
> >AND/OR
> >
> > (B) American schools are fucked up.
> >
> >So...is it (A), (B), or both?
>
> If the American schools are fucked up, it's probably not due to overly
> leftist policies, since there are other education systems that are more
> leftist that report better performance on tests.
But the USA is the only country where the leftists have committed
to causing societal collapse from within. If the US is weakened,
the rest of the world is easily blackmailed.
>
> (1) Your idols, H&M agree with me on this one. They do not argue that
> there is determinism in individual cases; indeed, they caution readers
> that their findings do not justify this sort of simple minded bigotry.
>
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
