Linux-Advocacy Digest #705, Volume #28 Mon, 28 Aug 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Sam
Morris")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:39:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> The sole point I was attempting to apply here was to demonstrate that
> Adam Smith is not always right. And if we accept that point, then why
> were you responding to Joe with the one-liner "Adam Smith say's [sic]
> you're wrong"?
The funny thing is that he hasn't even read Adam Smith's writing.
He's basing his comments on a feeling about what he thought Adam Smith
wrote.
At one point, he argued that since Adam Smith didn't post on Usenet,
he'd be unable to find a reference.
All this time I thought EdLOSE was the epitome of ignorance. Looks like
T. Max may put him to shame.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:40:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [...]
> >> >> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other
> >> >> than
> >> >> as a pseudonym.
> >> >
> >> >You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
> >> >using a pseudonym.
> >>
> >> According to your interpretation, maybe. It is equivalent of saying
> >> "'John Galt' isn't a real person", in my interpretation (and since I'm
> >> the one that said it, I have slightly more say than you in its
> >> meaning.)
> >> You may note that "John Galt" has posted several times to Usenet.
> >>
> >
> >Are you alleging that the posts signed JS/PL are actually written
> >by bogie-men or ghosts or demons or something?
>
> I'm stating, quite plainly, that I have no idea who wrote them, and have
> no interest in finding out. Frankly, I don't care.
That's not what you stated.
You stated over and over that JS/PL is not a real person.
Please answer Aaron's question. Just who or what is posting to Usenet
under that name if not a real person?
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:42:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund) wrote:
>
>
> > Not everybody
> > has a rich daddy who could pay for college. Not everybody qualifies for
> > a
> > scholarship. And not everybody had a life situation that allowed them
> > to
> > get a proper education. Life is tough on some people whetehr they
> > deserve
> > it or not.
>
> Here's a good one: I know somebody whose student aid couldn't be
> released until she was enrolled, but she couldn't pay the tuition (and
> thus couldn't be enrolled) until she got the aid. Go figure.
I went through something similar at Penn State. I can't remember how I
eventually resolved it, though.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:44:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:34:19 +0100,
> C Lund, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > You've never heard of the "working poor", have you? Look it up.
> >> Any body in the United States who "works hard" and has even the
> >> slightest clue about
> >> a) saving money vs. spending habits
> >> and
> >> b) the fluidity of the job market (i.e. you can always go get a
> >> NEW job if don't like what you're getting paid.).
> >> Those who are the working poor are either
> >> a) too stupid to save money (they blow it on shit they can't afford)
> >> and/or
> >> b) too lazy to find a better paying job.
> >
> >Another republican living in an ivory tower.
> >When you work a full-time job and *still* can't afford to pay the rent,
> >you're among the working poor. Some even have *two* full-time jobs and
> >are
> >barely capable of making ends meet. Not because of laziness. Not because
> >they have expencive habits or do drugs or buy crap they can't afford,
> >but
> >simply because they don't get paid very much. When you have two
> >full-time
> >jobs, you don't have the time to go looking for a better job. In fact,
> >those one or two jobs might be the only ones you could get. Not
> >everybody
> >has a rich daddy who could pay for college. Not everybody qualifies for
> >a
> >scholarship. And not everybody had a life situation that allowed them to
> >get a proper education. Life is tough on some people whetehr they
> >deserve
> >it or not.
> >
> >You need to get out more.
> >
> >--
> >
> Since the biggest cost to the poor is taxation of one sort or another,
> why do you think the poor have such a tough time?
The biggest cost to the poor is taxation of one sort or another?
Care to back that up?
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 12:51:08 GMT
In article <fYkq5.20221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > It's simple: FUCK THEM!
> >
> > They had their chance to avail themselves to an
> > education...AND THEY ****CHOSE**** not to partake.
>
> As easy as it sounds, that's not America. America was
> built by successful, hard-working, independant people.
>
> Up until the socialist democrats came into power, is
> continuing in that fashion.
>
> Now we have career welfare familys and single-parent
> households whose only source of income is having
> more children and slinging dope to buy that cadillac
> while their children starve (yes, I've seen this happen
> with my own eyes. I've seen families appear before court
> who wouldn't pay their bills, their children had been
> starving and were seized by Child Services but they had
> two pedigree dogs that they fed gourmet dog food to)
>
> They've created a society of incompetent, uneducated,
> worthless voters with which they can manipulate into
> voting for them every election because "those mean
> spirited Republicans" want to take everything away
> and actually make them productive and self-reliant
> again.
>
There's an interesting case I read about in the paper today. The
government siezed custody of a 3 year old kid who weighed 120 lb, even
though the doctors said that there was no immediate threat to her
health. They claimed that there was no metabolic disorder (although "we
couldn't find a metabolic disorder" would have been more plausible).
So what do they do for an encore? Start taking kids away from parents
who smoke? Start locking people up who are overweight?
It's interesting that the Government who said that Elian should go home
because parents should raise their children (a sentiment I agree with)
was willing to take a kid away from her parents because she was
overweight.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:55:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >That's nonsense. Except for a very small number of people, there are no
> >magical hidden loopholes.
>
> Yes, those would be the ones.
>
> [...]
> >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?
>
> It certainly not a stupid and unfounded assumption to figure that hiring
> an accountant would have reduced my tax bill.
Perhaps. You came up with a specific figure. You said an accountant
could have come up with $4K in extra deductions.
Name them.
>
> [...]
> >> a "shrewd tax accountant" could have no doubt provided me with more
> >> than
> >> a return on investment in his services, had I arranged my finances to
> >> present the least profile to the tax code.
> >
> >"no doubt"??
>
> Well, you haven't refuted it except by conjecture.
I don't have to refute your fantasies.
You keep making up stupid arguments without any evidence, and when
you're asked to provide evidence you shift the blame.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:56:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[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...
>
> What made you think I knew anything specific about submarine accidents?
> I posted on emotional refutation against somebody's contention that they
> were, essentially, quick and painless, as I read it.
So, IOW, you don't know what you're talking about, but you don't mind
spewing your feelings as if they're supposed to replace facts.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:58:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:58:34 -0400,
> > T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> >>Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large
> >>>> market
> >>>> share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way
> >>>> to
> >>>> get large market share in a competitive market.
> >>>
> >>>That's most certainly not true.
> >>>
> >>>A large enough market share (>90% typically) can be considered a
> >>>monopoly.
> >>>
> >>>But to say that there's no way to get that large a share in a
> >>>competitive market is just plain wrong.
> >>
> >>Adam Smith says you're wrong.
> >
> >
> >Where?
>
> In The Wealth of Nations, I would suppose. It seems he argues rather
> persuasively that in a free market, any monopolization of commerce will
> be mitigated by competitive forces.
Eventually.
But nowhere does he claim that a high market share can't occur.
In fact, IIRC (it's been a while since I've read it), I believe he
specifically addresses the issue where such a large market share _can_
occur and what happens in the market to address it.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 ...)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:01:26 GMT
In article <39a9cf83$3$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
>
> >Courageous wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors
> >> > >(who
> >> > >*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
> >> > >from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
> >> > >were actually in the USC.
> >> >
> >> > Documentation please.
> >>
> >> Do you really require this? An important thing to recall when
> >> evaluating the human beings around you is that, indeed, half of
> >> them have I.Q.s under 100. Therefore, it should be no surprise
> >> at all when things like this happen.
> >>
> >> C//
>
> >You bring up a very good point. For those who don't believe this point
> >of
> >view and also live in the states just watch Jay Walking on the Tonight
> >SHow
> >(it is a segment they have on once in a while, but not every show) and
> >you
> >will see just how dumb people are. It is sad but it is hilarious the
> >answers
> >some people give to Jay's questions.
>
> >Kids are being passed to the next grade without really knowing
> >anything. Kids and adults alike go through school without being able to
> >read
> >a single sentence.
>
>
> I keep hearing this and I'm getting tired of it . I've never met such a
> kid
> or adult (and I use to do the hiring), who actually went through school
> and
> couldn't read a single sentence. Lets correctly define the problem and
> the
> extent of it, before deciding its true.
>
Of course, if you look at the slightly less extreme position (that many
people graduate from high school who may be able to read a sentence, but
who clearly have a poor education), I'm sure you can find lots of
examples.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:27:09 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 01:08:38 -0400,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [...]
>>I know people who retire millionaires from investments, I know no-one eating
>>dog-food to survive. Nor have I seen any valid examples of old folks chowing
>>down on purina. Kernunos!, dog-food is more expensive than hamburger.
>
>Nor do I.
>
>>I would happily jump at the chance to invest rather than pay SS, I'd willingly
>>give up the last 20 years of SS ripped out of my (oft times slim) paycheck
>>if only I didn't have to keep getting ripped off by it.
>
>That's why Social Security contributions aren't voluntary. They're not
>there for you, and whether the people you have met need them or not, you
>will only be able to get rid of the system (which I don't at all oppose)
>when you're willing to forfeit every penny you "paid in", and can
>convince everyone else to do the same. So far, I count three people,
>including myself and you, who are willing to do that. Care to start a
>movement?
If they are not volutary, then they are a form of involuntary servitude.
There's a lot more than just thee and I who would like to see SS taper off
into nothing.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 23:29:23 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 00:19:01 -0400,
T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:58:34 -0400,
>> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And with that understanding, I entirely agree. Normally a large market
>>>>> share *can* be considered monopolization, as there is no other way to
>>>>> get large market share in a competitive market.
>>>>
>>>>That's most certainly not true.
>>>>
>>>>A large enough market share (>90% typically) can be considered a
>>>>monopoly.
>>>>
>>>>But to say that there's no way to get that large a share in a
>>>>competitive market is just plain wrong.
>>>
>>>Adam Smith says you're wrong.
>>
>>
>>Where?
>
>In The Wealth of Nations, I would suppose. It seems he argues rather
>persuasively that in a free market, any monopolization of commerce will
>be mitigated by competitive forces.
>
>--
Perhaps you should go back and reread it, He says that there's no
way a monopoly can gouge the customers for a long period of time,
without force. Not that there is no way for a monopoly to exist.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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 23:30:35 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:32:57 GMT,
Chad Irby, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[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.
>
That was the claim by certain foaming at the mouth types, but there
wasn't actually any evidence presented.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:13:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> 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.
>
> Well, that would mean Penn State is not a state college.
No one ever claimed that Penn State was a state college -- except you.
> >> 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.
>
> Its really pathetic what an obnoxious asshole you are. Pretty stupid,
> too, when it comes down to it. I doubt that Penn State was a
> "state-related university", historically, as the very idea not only
> sounds stupid, but doesn't quite explain the moniker "Penn State".
> Chances are, it was a state college at one time, before it built the
> largest alumni organization in the country. But if you have any
> information (you haven't provided any, BTW; I thought you should know)
> on the details of Penn States history, feel free to post them.
Sure. Go to www.psu.edu.
Unlike you, I happen to talk about things I know about. I went to high
school in Pennsylvania and took Civics class. Then I spent 4 years at
Penn State.
In Pennsylvania, there have always been two categories for publicly
funded universities.
The State Colleges (known at one time as the State Teachers' Colleges)
were generally smaller schools scattered all over the state. IIRC, there
were about a dozen of them.
Penn State was categorized as a "State Related University". I don't know
for sure, but I'd guess that this is because it was originally chartered
as a Land Grant College in the 19th century and was already in existence
at the time the State Colleges were set up.
Penn State never was a State College.
If you'd stick to things you know about, you'd look a lot less foolish.
Of course, you'd also post about 95% less, but that's just a side
benefit for the rest of us.
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[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 14:10:06 +0100
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 23:57:50 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >So your proposal is.... stick with the current system which is not
> >merely failing, but failing catastrophically.
>
> If you want to know what *my* proposal would be, it'd be to move towards
> more leftist policies such as those practised in Australia.
>
> BTW, other countries do not employ "social promotion" policies, there
> are requirements for graduation. In Australia ( and England, I think ),
> there are external exams that are *required* for graduation. The
> Universities select students primarily on the basis of tertiary admissions
> scores.
I can clarify this as I live in England: At the age of 16 (the end of
compulsory education), students take their GCSEs - a set of external grades
from awarded based on performance in exams and coursework, the exact
proportion of which varies from subject to subject and exam board to exam
board. Most students do 10 GCSEs in my school. If you fail your GCSEs then
you can still leave school, but you will obviously have a harder time
finding a job anywhere. You can re-sit them the next year if you want to.
What happens next varies, but most students stay another two years to take
A-levels, which are again based on exams and coursework. Until this year it
was the norm to do three A-levels, but as of September students have to do
three A-levels and two AS-levels. An AS level is a short course and is sort
of worth roughly half an A-level.
Anyway, in the September of the year before doing A-level exams, students
apply to their universities, citing their GCSEs and A-level predictions and
a personal statement. Unis then choose students to invite for an interview
and, based on that interview, make an offer to the student of a set of
A-level grades. If the student impressed them then the offer will be lower
and vice-versa. Students which attain the required grades are given a place.
Students which don't can take their exams again or seek employment or other
qualifications.
Universities also offer placements based on other qualifications, but
A-levels are the norm.
> The first thing I'd want to see happen to the American system is a more
> competitive admissions system ( and an end to the athletics scam. )
>
> In conclusion, you are misrepresenting me when you claim I advocate the
> status quo. But I believe that your arguments make a strong case for
> competitive admissions ( *based on academic, not athletci merit* ), and
> an end to social promotion. I do not believe that you've made a strong
case
> ( or any kind of case ) for the massive privatisation you advocate.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Cheers,
Sam
------------------------------
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: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 13:16:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In Pennsylvania's unique system of higher education, Penn State has been
> >defined by statute as a "state-related" institution. This definition
> >means that the University is not entirely public; nor, despite its
> >private charter, is it a private institution. Rather, it combines the
> >best facets of a public entity with those of a private institution.
> >=====
>
> Thanks for the quote. At least now I know where Joe learned the phrase
> 'state-related'.
So, IOW, you called me an ignormaus or something similar for telling you
that Penn State was a state related university and not a state college
as you had claimed.
Of course, you never looked it up. You never bothered to check facts at
all. You merely throw around more of your drivel and call me a name for
correcting you.
When Eric finally shows you that I was right, you thank him, but forget
to apologize to me. And, of course, you'll never change your stripes.
You'll continue to spread lies that you refuse to check merely because
your feeling is that something should be true.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
