Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 15:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (John Sanders)
Re: what happens when an old programmer dies? (John Sanders)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (.)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin! ("MH")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad")
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Linux - - Troll ("Andy")
Re: 2.4!
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Chad")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:24:14 -0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Why would you care? Linux users despise anything MS. Why would you *want* to
>run MS applications? Oh, I get it...if the Linux OS can run MS applications
>in any way, shape, or form, it would validate Linux as an OS somehow? I
>thought it already was valid?
>
>I've come to the inescapable conclusion that linux advocates are similar to
>irrational, disturbed people in love with someone they want one minute,
>don't want the next...but the obsession lives on day after day after day
>after day.. face it...you LOVE MS. If they disappeared tomorrow what you
>have to bray about in here? day after day after day after day......linux
>advocacy == MS bashing. Face it. You really have nothing else to say or do.
>For if you did, you wouldn't be wasting time in here pissing and wringing
>your hands over what MS did 25 years ago, or what it is going to (paranoid)
>do tomorrow.
>
>Sad, actually.
>
After reading Slashdot and some of the posts in here today
I have only this to say to you:
Fuck off you stupid cretinous peice of ass-licking shit!
This forum is a place for 'advocacy' of Linux. If you
have a valid point to make for or against Linux, do so.
But if you are going to invent bullshit (or just pull shit
out of your ass), then by all means, go into the goddamned
MS newsgroups where you will be apreciated.
Not all of us (Linux advocates) obsess over MS. I left
them behind a few years ago, and couldn't really care less
about them. I get upset when people allow themselves to
be bullied or snowed over by them, but that's simply a
fact of any occurence where it appears someone is being an
asshole (and MS is the epitome of the coroprate
asshole/bully).
Advocacy is too disheartening anymore. It isn't about
facts. It isn't about what's good vs. what's bad. It's
all about character assaults and attacks. It's about
accusations that have nothing to do with reality. It's
about making shit up to accuse people of when you can't
come up with something legitimate. It's about spewing
religious rhetoric on both sides of the line. It's about
being as stupid and loud-mouthed, and idiotic as you
possibly can be.
Fuck it! I'm outta here. I've had enough of the
continual bullshit that goes on in here. Nobody gives a
shit. It's all a fucking game. Who can appear more l33t?
Who can come across as the biggest asshole? Who can avoid
reality the longest?
How about, who can actually grow the fuck up and get a
goddamned life!? I used to come in here to discuss a
topic of interest to me with like minded individuals.
Then I went through a period where I spent most of my time
straightening out what I saw as lies (from both sides of
the OS debate line). Over the past couple of months, I
basically have hidden myself away, only occassionally
saying anything when I think it might be of interest. But
the more I read, the more disconnected this whole
'advocacy' bullshit feels like. It's not about advocacy,
or comraderie or any of the other good things that used to
take place here. It's about bitching.
So, add my fucking rant to the pile, and then hold the
door open just long enough to let it hit me on the ass on
the way out. God knows I wouldn't want to get out without
one last gigantic flamefest that follows me into my email
account. See ya later idiots. (And to those that are
legitimately concerned with 'real' advocacy, I apologize.
There are a few of you left, but your voices are drowned
out in the sea of stupidity. Unfortunately, my killfile
is growing exponetially, but the dumb bastaards still
manage to change accounts often enough to prevent me from
blocking them out. So, enough. I'm gone. SEE YA!)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:27:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:54:17 GMT
<ZR_C5.25757$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> adam, gid-day from a fellow kiwi. Here are some sites that use
>> linux/UNIX for their website:
>>
>> WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
>> New Zealand Government Website
>> Telecom
>> ihug
>> zfree
>> majority of proxy servers in New Zealand
>> RNBNZ (IBM AIX)
>
>Wow, what a list. The combined total number of hits/day of all those sites
>is what? 1 million? 2 million?
>
>What about:
>
>Barnesandnoble.com
>Dell.com } The top eCommerce sites in the world
>Gigabuys.com }
>microsoft.com
>ebay.com
>hotmail.com
>and on and on and on...
>
>All of which run NT 4.0 or Windows 2000 and all of which get
>millions of hits per day.
I can verify the fact that they run IIS, anyway. And they do.
Even hotmail.
Interestingly, yahoo (www.yahoo.com) does not report what server
it uses and botched the HEAD request to boot (cf RFC2068, section
9.4). My understanding is that yahoo is one of the busiest servers
in the world, but apparently at this moment it's not one of
the most compliant. :-) (The problem may lie elsewhere;
www.yahoo.com got mutated to www.yahoo.akadns.net when I telnetted
into port 80.)
The problem with Netcraft's basic survey methodology is that it can't
distinguish between a very high traffic website, such as the
ones mentioned above, and a vanity website that's set up on
a 56k line in someone's garage.
Netcraft does try to rectify that, apparently, based on their
explanation further down on their website at:
http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
so perhaps they aren't quite as dumb as I am. :-)
But Microsoft does have 19.56% of the market, and I suspect
many of those are middle-end and high-end corporate websites
(in other words, those that can afford both a license and
a support contract.)
It's ridiculously easy to set up an Apache server (all the default
distributions AFAIK have one as part of their install options, and it
hits the ground running with a "success" page, all ready to be probed
by Netcraft, among others), but it's far from clear how many of them
are actually doing something useful.
I hope Netcraft has the brains to remove hostnames
such as 'paix-alg-gw8-2.ncal.verio.com'. (I'm not quite sure
how one would do such, admittedly; one possibility is a crawler
methodology similar to those employed by Yahoo, Lycos, Webcrawler,
or Infoseek.)
>
>> the list goes on and on, Windows NT is a product that never lived
>> up to its supposed "UNIX Smashing" reputation that was originally
>> declared by bill gates back in 1993-1994.
>
>See above...
NT/W2k is clearly far from being dead. Dunno about WinMe and
"Whistler"; WinMe is a bridge product; "Whistler" has been promised
in some form ever since the Cairo days, eliminating the Win/DOS split
that has existed in some form ever since the Windows 3.1 days,
and possibly even earlier.
We'll see.
>
>-Chad
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [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
Date: 5 Oct 2000 17:51:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:17:07 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>>
>> >There are welfare recipients who have been collecting checks for years.
>> >They increase their income, some of which are:
>> >
>> >- having more children
>>
>> This is legal but questionable.
>>
>> >- pulling food stamp scams for more cash to gamble with
>>
>> Illegal, probably fraud.
>>
>> >- feigning disability to collect disability on top of their welfare
>>
>> This is social security fraud, and it's a criminal offense.
>>
>> >- selling drugs or other illegal products
>>
>> Clearly a criminal offense.
>>
>> My point is that a lot of the things you're complaining about are wrong,
>> should be criminalised, and most importantly, are criminalised.
>>
>> >Several children had health problems that were not being taken
>> >care of because the parents couldn't afford health care because
>>
>> IMO, the current health care system is badly broken. The problem is
>> that it's employer based, and health insurance for individuals is too
>> expensive to be practical. Still, I don't think better health care will
>> cure negligent parents.
>>
>> >Make no bones, these people had been on welfare almost their
>> >whole life and had figured out ways to keep the checks coming
>>
>> Welfare reform has cut the rolls in half.
> AFter much pissing and moaning the by the Commun^H^H^H^HDemocrats...
I love reading political arguments by moronic republicans AND democrats.
(and populists and reformists for that matter). You probably dont even
know what communism is, and have at best a faint notion of how welfare
actually works.
The nice thing is that people like you are generally fairly unhappy.
=====.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:25:40 -0500
Chad wrote:
>
> "John Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
[snip]
> > On the other hand, how many people here that support Windows do you
> > suppose have a good knowledge of Linux/UNIX? I mean people who know the
> > shell well and regexps at a minimum? I bet only a handful.
>
> That's irrelevant.
Oh, man! So it's irrelevant to know about what you are criticizing?
Thanks for proving my point.
[snip]
> -Chad
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: what happens when an old programmer dies?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 12:46:41 -0500
Dan Jacobson wrote:
>
[stuff deleted]
I'm the origninal author of 0xFEED 0xFACE 0xDEAD 0xBEEF (C) 1981, 1982,
1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000.
Those words will live foever.
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: [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
Date: 5 Oct 2000 17:55:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> > >
>> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis
>> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Loren Petrich wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > > And Mr. Kulkis seems to like everything that he professes to
>> > > > > object
>> > > > > to when it's military. So the ideal way to get even the
>> > > > > grossest pork past the Kulkises of the world is to claim some
>> > > > > "national defense" purpose to it.
>> > >
>> > > > I'm one of the first to admit that defense spending is abused.
>> > >
>> > > Praise with faint damns.
>> > >
>> > > > What I can't figure out is why you advocate running the ENTIRE
>> > > > ECONOMY IN THE SAME FASHION.
>> > >
>> > > I've never advocated that.
>> > >
>> > > > Robinhood stole from the tax collectors and returned the money to
>> > > > the people.
>> > >
>> > > Law-abiding means paying taxes. What part of that do you not
>> > > understand?'
>> >
>> > Taxes collected for the purpose of giving the money to someone else
>> > are unjust, and, by the Constitution, Illegal.
>>
>> The first article gives Congress the power to both collect taxes and
>> provide for the general welfare.
> GENERAL WELFARE means running a court system, jails, etc. EVERYBODY
> benefits when criminals are incarcerated.
How does everybody benefit from John Delany being given a 10 year sentence
in los angeles for posession of 2 marijuana cigarettes?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 14:01:12 -0400
Gee, something I said?
"Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Fuck off you stupid cretinous peice of ass-licking shit!
Joe Linux user of the week folks!
>This forum is a place for 'advocacy' of Linux
Really? I'd say about 15% of it is.
> Not all of us (Linux advocates) obsess over MS.
Agreed. The other 85% are.
> Advocacy is too disheartening anymore. It isn't about
> facts. It isn't about what's good vs. what's bad. It's
> all about character assaults and attacks
Exactly my point. Very few posts are positive or exalt Linux.
Most simply put down MS and its user base as 'lusers'.
I figure if I point that out enough, one of the morons will think "gee,
maybe I should just talk about what's good about Linux and ignore the
temptation to bash MS and its users"
Not going to happen though. The 85% will rule & eventually take over I'm
afraid.
> How about, who can actually grow the fuck up and get a
> goddamned life!?
That was also my point. Some of these folks post countless senseless
diatribes that usualy end up so off topic it's ludicrous. And they ALWAYS
attack people personally. That's Linux advocacy.
> So, add my fucking rant to the pile, and then hold the
> door open just long enough to let it hit me on the ass on
> the way out.
OK, will do. Sorry to see you go. You're one of the few who make sense.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:07:14 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> so perhaps they aren't quite as dumb as I am. :-)
> But Microsoft does have 19.56% of the market, and I suspect
> many of those are middle-end and high-end corporate websites
> (in other words, those that can afford both a license and
> a support contract.)
Of course, this counts DOMAINs not actual boxes. So many of
the numbers accounting for Apache are piddly domains hosted
on an ISP's box with 60 other domains on it.
So, you have millions of domains running Apache that get
less than measurable hits, and you have a few million IIS
boxes most of which get many hits. There was a counter study
done by ... damn I forget who ... (there was a post about it
a few weeks ago when Netcraft's study came out) that did a survey
of sites that really mattered (Fortune 500 vs. Bob's Web Page
devoted to worshipping his cat) and a majority of of the sites sampled
used IIS (NT 4 and 2000). I think it was something like 40% used
IIS. Apache on Slowaris was around ~25% or so. Apache on Linux was
< 1%.
> It's ridiculously easy to set up an Apache server (all the default
> distributions AFAIK have one as part of their install options, and it
> hits the ground running with a "success" page, all ready to be probed
> by Netcraft, among others), but it's far from clear how many of them
> are actually doing something useful.
I agree.
> I hope Netcraft has the brains to remove hostnames
> such as 'paix-alg-gw8-2.ncal.verio.com'. (I'm not quite sure
> how one would do such, admittedly; one possibility is a crawler
> methodology similar to those employed by Yahoo, Lycos, Webcrawler,
> or Infoseek.)
>
> >
> >> the list goes on and on, Windows NT is a product that never lived
> >> up to its supposed "UNIX Smashing" reputation that was originally
> >> declared by bill gates back in 1993-1994.
> >
> >See above...
>
> NT/W2k is clearly far from being dead. Dunno about WinMe and
> "Whistler"; WinMe is a bridge product; "Whistler" has been promised
> in some form ever since the Cairo days, eliminating the Win/DOS split
> that has existed in some form ever since the Windows 3.1 days,
> and possibly even earlier.
IIRC, Whistler B1 is due Oct 10-15 (somewhere in there, I forget exactly)
and the release is scheduled for middle of next year, IIRC.
It's already in the works and there have been real alpha releases distributed
to magazine reviewers. It's a real product. This is the foundation for
Microsoft's .NET products.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:16:16 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >immortal = animate object that does not age
> Ok, I suggest you use "ageless". Webster defines it as "not growing old or
> showing the effects of age".
Why the fuck should I, cretin? Haven't you ever been around political
activists long enough to know they *do* call corporations immortal as
a matter of course?
> "Corporations ... are animate beings", you just said, if I agreed with that,
> I would agree with the whole. I won't even guess what animate objects are
> supposed to be, so I won't agree or disagree to that.
Animation is not the same thing as beinghood. Unless of course, you have
a broad definition of will. So in *my* case, animation might be the same
as possession of will. In your case, since you "won't even guess" about
what you're thinking ....
------------------------------
From: "Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk,alt.fan.karl-malden.nose,alt.support.cable-modem.kiddies,alt.usenet.kooks,uk.sport.football
Subject: Re: Linux - - Troll
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 19:15:34 +0100
"Dave Ratcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fecking
> Hill) wrote:
> >>>>>Flaagg escribió en artículo:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I'm downloading all 640 megs of the Linux Mandrake 7 ISO. I
> >>>>>> just might install it, too.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't ask me why.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'd reinstall on *this* computer, but that would mean losing
> >>>>>my pr0n archive hard drive. Two gigs, daily downloads and
> >>>>>I still haven't found any porn stars with clean fingernails.
> >>>>>
> >
> >Unix suxks
>
> Mose people without the capacity to understand things more difficult than
> "pull this tab to open" say that.
>
I dunno, I'm not overly fond of Unix. Still, if everyone used it, who would
you feel superior too? ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:22:30 -0000
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:43:35 +0100, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ...and Todd used the keyboard:
>> >
>> >Although, Windows 2000 provides benefits over UNIX as well, although,
>UNIX
>> >has better hardware available for it. When Windows 2000 is ported to a
>> >64-bit architecture...
>>
>> ...which won't happen, because as you say, you prefer Intel chipware
>> over slow PPC architecture, and "nobody wants Alpha, not even for
>> UNIX"...
>>
>> How's SPARC support going? Is there a running beta for IA64? Is it
>> available? How's ARM? Any RISC machine _AT_ _ALL_????
>
>Why would they do one? The market has already spoken by rejecting the PPC
>and Alpha versions of NT. Microsoft made a commercial decision (they are in
It's not clear that that is what the market rejected. As always,
it seems that being "DOS compatible" is far more useful to too
many consumers than technical merits. Was even Microsoft's full
line of software available on PPC or Alpha?
Should it have even been an issue? It's not that way under Unix.
Supporting another binary platform is not horribly complicated
due to the fact that Unix is designed to be portable in the first
place.
>the business of making money after all) that it wasn't worth them continuing
>with support for non-Intel architectures. Linux is somewhat different in
Microsoft has squandered more money on less useful things than
Alpha NT.
>this respect, as the money making incentive isn't there and ports seem to be
>done for love, so commercial restrictions don't come into it.
>
>I believe MS have demoed Windows 2000 64-bit on the new Intel chip, but
>there is no beta available as yet.
IA64 betas of Linux were available for widespread use (well, as
widespread as you can get on an arch that didn't exist then) at
the beginning of the year.
[deletia]
--
Another good night not to sleep in a eucalyptus tree.
Every path has its puddle.
For most men life is a search for the proper manila envelope in which to
get themselves filed.
-- Clifton Fadiman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:24:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Mike Byrns
<@technologist,.com>
wrote
on Thu, 05 Oct 2000 05:50:02 GMT
<eEUC5.105472$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"." wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8rbsj5$29bm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>> >> No, but DMA is often optional. You can turn it on, you can turn it off.
>>
>> > Why can't you turn it off?
>>
>> I just said you can turn it off, lightbulb.
>
>He did, Chad. I've already made the mistake of being overly
>defensive with DOT.
>He's either not a Penguinista or is choosing not to appear as one.
>I, for one, think his recent posts are both well reasoned and tolerant
>of my "rabid windosis".
>
You make it sound like some virulent disease. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- although "Penguinista" sounds vaguely Argentinian. :-)
"LOOK OUT! It's the Linux Commando Death Squad!!" :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Corel bailed out by MS? Let the games begin!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:25:32 -0000
On Thu, 5 Oct 2000 08:54:34 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why would you care? Linux users despise anything MS. Why would you *want* to
>run MS applications? Oh, I get it...if the Linux OS can run MS applications
>in any way, shape, or form, it would validate Linux as an OS somehow? I
>thought it already was valid?
Selling our future just to run Word is as detestable as selling
our future to run WinDOS. OTOH, I'd love a genuine WordPro port.
[deletia]
AmiPro was my WP of choice before I defected from that "you must
run the one true UI" platform.
--
No one regards what is before his feet; we all gaze at the stars.
-- Quintus Ennius
A day without sunshine is like a day without Anita Bryant.
Generally speaking, the Way of the warrior is resolute acceptance of death.
-- Miyamoto Musashi, 1645
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:28:18 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> What aliens? The aliens that are like hamsters only dumber? No.
Fictional aliens count as aliens. Are Vulcans human?
> >If so then *why*? Produce a FORMAL definition of human that will *NOT*
> > need to be updated regularly (geez, ever heard of mathematics?)
>
> Not everything is mathematics.
What a pathetic excuse for failing to adhere to the highest standards
possible.
> >And if not then can they be psychopaths?
>
> If who not what?
Are Vulcans human? If not, then can they be psychopaths?
> >I'm only rigorous when it's RELEVANT, nitwit. You're only ever concerned
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >with logic when you think you can score a point. I (Richard) am rigorous,
> >you (Roberto) are pedantic. Learn to conjugate that verb properly!
>
> You are doing it again, Richard. You are not rigorous all the time (you said it
> above). You are _sometimes_ rigorous.
Imbecile.
> >> >With *NO* rational reasons. There is no right to have religions since this
> >> >supposed "right" directly contradicts freedom FROM religion.
> >>
> >> My having a religion doesn't impose any religiousness on you.
> >
> >Learn to be consistent, cretin. At least in the same fucking sentence!
>
> I don't see any inconsistence in "My having a religion doesn't impose any
> religiousness on you."
It's a non sequitur meathead. You aren't even talking about the same
thing in the same sentence.
> No. I don't impose the religion's guidelines, values, rites or ablutions on
> you. What am I imposing? You could not even be able to notice the religion,
> even trying.
Such a "religion" is not a religion at all. A religion is a power structure,
that's what differentiates it from spirituality or even mythology.
> > A religion is an inherently public structure, like a corporation.
>
> You have a very limited view of religion.
Spend some time on alt.atheism.moderated, cretin.
> >And now we're ALL the way back to the beginning *AGAIN*.
>
> Because what you said didn't work.
Putting 100 grams of lead in your brain has a better chance of enlightening
you than mere words ever could.
> In that case, what happens if an employee quits?
Their stock is liquidated and the proceeds turned over to the employee.
> >You have a poor grasp of EVERYTHING, including Godel's incompleteness theorem
> I could fax you the 120 page thing I wrote on it.
You can't even say anything intelligent about what it means to be human,
and I'm expected to believe you have anything intelligent to say about
the incompleteness theorem?
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[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
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:28:50 GMT
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rif2d$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 04:17:07 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >There are welfare recipients who have been collecting checks for years.
> >> >They increase their income, some of which are:
> >> >
> >> >- having more children
> >>
> >> This is legal but questionable.
> >>
> >> >- pulling food stamp scams for more cash to gamble with
> >>
> >> Illegal, probably fraud.
> >>
> >> >- feigning disability to collect disability on top of their welfare
> >>
> >> This is social security fraud, and it's a criminal offense.
> >>
> >> >- selling drugs or other illegal products
> >>
> >> Clearly a criminal offense.
> >>
> >> My point is that a lot of the things you're complaining about are wrong,
> >> should be criminalised, and most importantly, are criminalised.
> >>
> >> >Several children had health problems that were not being taken
> >> >care of because the parents couldn't afford health care because
> >>
> >> IMO, the current health care system is badly broken. The problem is
> >> that it's employer based, and health insurance for individuals is too
> >> expensive to be practical. Still, I don't think better health care will
> >> cure negligent parents.
> >>
> >> >Make no bones, these people had been on welfare almost their
> >> >whole life and had figured out ways to keep the checks coming
> >>
> >> Welfare reform has cut the rolls in half.
>
> > AFter much pissing and moaning the by the Commun^H^H^H^HDemocrats...
>
> I love reading political arguments by moronic republicans AND democrats.
> (and populists and reformists for that matter). You probably dont even
> know what communism is, and have at best a faint notion of how welfare
> actually works.
How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
very different indeed.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
