Linux-Advocacy Digest #483, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: SE is simply unstable!!! ("Osugi Sakae")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Pim van Riezen)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Jarmo Ahonen)
Re: programming languages and design (John Sanders)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 18:26:27 +0900
In article <8rj9em$qvl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PCForrest"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:95sir8.su6.ln@gd2zzx...
>> In article <GTIB5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Bruce Chambers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Greetings --
>> >
>> > If you dislike Windows so much, why do you continue to use it?
>> > The fact
>> > remains that the overwhelming majority of so-called Windows
>> > "problems" are user-induced. "It's a poor workman who blames his
>> > tools."
>>
>> Bollocks. He's a small businessman who bought a PC to help him with his
>> business. Windows is supposed to be as easy to use as any modern
>> consumer appliance.
>
> Windows is software - not an appliance. All software bar the trivial
> contains bugs. In any case, if he wanted stability in Windows for his
> business he wouldn't buy Windows 9x in the first place. He'd buy NT.
> Everyone knows that Windows backwards compatibility comes at a price:
> inherant instability. However, the previous poster is quite correct -
> the bulk of "Windows problems" are user-related, either through
> incompetence, ignorance, or a combination of the two. There are very few
> problems that can't be resolved one way or another.
>
>> What is he supposed to do when it crashes?
>
> Fix it? The solution is right there, between the keyboard and the chair.
You ignore the fact that the MS marketing machine has been taking credit
for making computers "easy to use" - they have simultaniously convinced
people that computers should be easy to use and unstable. Result is that
most windows users do think of their computers as very complicated,
tempermental, easy-to-use VCRs. So of course, they have no idea how to fix
anything.
I have personally met very few Windows users who can even change their
wallpaper, much less a video driver. They don't know how to defrag a
drive, or understand what a partition is.
But you do seem to have the MS mentality down pat - "blame the poor fool
who believed our propaganda".
>> At last people are starting to ask 'why' when these things happen.
>
> No - some of us have been asking, and resolving, for years. Some of us
> have even made quite a good living out of it too. If you can't resolve
> it yourself, find someone who can - then realise how simple it all
> really is. Not everyone is a computer guru, grantyed, but everyone has
> the common sense to realise that logical problems have logical
> solutions.
Anyone who could "realise how simple it is", could switch to Linux and
realise how much they have been missing.
>>
>> For small business / home use I would install Linux and provide
>> staroffice or applixware as the office s/w. My preference would be
>> applixware even though you must pay for it. I haven't used version 5
>> but versions 4.x are very fast, require little memory and do the job.
>
> And you're going to support your recommendation? Provide all the
> additional training and costs involved in changing a company's
> software/operating system? I think not.
>
> When your car gets a puncture do you change the car or the tyre?
When your car is a POS that dies in the middle of busy intersections all
the time, do you keep putting up with it, or do you trade it in for a
better car? (or do you blame the intersection?)
--
Osugi Sakae
a free man
------------------------------
From: Pim van Riezen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 11:25:18 +0200
On Wed, 4 Oct 2000, Chad Myers wrote:
> > Who really believes MS provides a lower TCO?
>
> Hmm... just about everyone that has worked in an enterprise environment
> and had to use Linux for anything.
We run both Linux and Windows workstations in our workplace. Guess which
of those two has a special administrator appointed to fix problems with
the OS *all day long* and which one doesn't need that? :)
Cheers,
Pi
--
A mouse is a device used to focus xterms.
------------------------------
From: Jarmo Ahonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 13:13:51 +0200
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
(munch)
>
> The software cost is but one of the issues when computing TCO;
> other issues are maintenance and hardware costs. Since you've
> alread got the hardware, there's no difference there; maintenance
> costs may depend on whether you're a Unix (or Linux) expert, or
> a Microsoft aficionado, or a total newbie.
>
> My understanding, which to me sounds a bit bizarre (I don't have a
> cite for this either), is that a Microsoft solution can cost up to
> 30% less to administer, mostly because an NT sysadmin is hired on
> at lower wages. Of course, there's the issue of how many NT sysadmins
> are needed to run around rebooting boxes, creating system images,
> or otherwise maintaining a network, compared to how many
> Unix/Linux sysadmins.
Well,
I cannot speak for others, but according to our experience the
most expensive thing to own is a farm of PC servers. In one department
we had quite many NT servers running e.g. Domino, databases, other apps
and fileserving. In addition to that there were one Linux server and one
Sun Solaris server.
We made a drastic move and decided to get a single machine for
the server side. The final contenders (selection based on good performance,
size of disk storage, size of main memory, epandability etc) were
not Windows machines.
Currently we have put more money on HW and SW, but working hours
required for maintenance are only a small part of the original and savings
are remarkable. In this specific case TCO is clearly lower for quite a big
machine than for a bunch of Windows servers.
Of course your case may be completely different.
Best regards
JJA
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 05:46:04 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> C++ certainly isn't the most high-level language out there,
> and it isn't the most low-level language out there. But
> it is the most "wide-ranging" language I've encountered, with
> the greatest coverage of both high and low level tasks. This
> is why I've found it handy. The fact that it achieved this by
> maintaining old C features isn't relevant to me. That was just
> the easiest way to get that wide range of depth.
How can the C features be irrelevant to you? After you defined your
objects and declared your functions, how would you write the function
bodies if the "old C features" were not there?
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 11:51:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> The only time we
> >> don't continue to have conscious thoughts is when we are no longer
> >> receiving sensory input.
> >
> >And not even then.
>
> I think calling them 'conscious' would be a bit unfounded.
Since I now realize you've redefined the word 'consciousness'
in a manner alien to the rest of the planet, I haven't the
faintest clue what you originally meant.
> I think you're reaching when you say that it is empathy for the abusive
> parents (or Alice Miller is reaching, if she says that) which screws up
> children. It seems to me it would be abuse that screws up children, and
> prevents them from having empathy with anyone. Or, if they aren't
> entirely psychopathic, prevents them from having empathy with their
> parents, exclusively, and anyone or anything else they transfer their
> anxiety onto.
But then, you don't know the first thing about psychology, child
abuse or empathy. As proof of this is your assumption that being
abused leads one to be a psychopath. This is total rubbish and you
can ask *ANY* clinical psychologist about this. Make sure you do so
in such a manner that they don't try to commit you for observation.
> >Does this make *ANY* sense to you after you re-read it?
>
> Yes, and I still think its true, too. What other reason is there that
> you are so obnoxious, but yet keep posting?
Because I'm not a very nice person? Because the people I'm dealing
with are morons?
> No, its changing it that makes it a happy happy place. Mostly,
> everybody is doing their very best to improve things for themselves;
> that's where the 'enlightened self-interest' comes in, and we recognize
> that social support is the reason for consciousness.
For some bizarre definition of consciousness naturally. As for
enlightened self-interest, that's philosophy but I'm not even
saying *what* branch of philosophy because I know you disagree
and I'm *not* starting a philosophical discussion with you.
> >> That is not a valid analogy. It is not an abstraction which works. It
> >
> >And of course, you have valid and sound reasons for this? Reasons that
> >go beyond explaining in an oh so patient tone that I am wrong?
>
> Yes, but you can't blame me if I'm patient as I explain it to you. Your
> analogy would require the relationship between cells and the brain to be
> analogous to the relationship between humans and a corporation, to be
> valid. This doesn't seem to be the case, by any means I can think of.
And of course, you have valid and sound reasons for this? Reasons that
go beyond explaining in an oh so patient tone that I am wrong?
> Perhaps you might suggest some, and we can discuss it.
No no no, that's not how it works at all. YOU have to *prove* that the
abstraction doesn't work by demonstrating *definite* flaws.
> No, in point of fact my definition is *consistent*, with every usage I
> can find. It is not perfectly consistent with any one except itself,
> but it is accurate and practical enough to be valid. Morality is just
> what goes on inside your head; ethics is only how you act. It seems a
> rather clear-cut and precise distinction.
And it happens to be inconsistent with the usage of the word. But I
already explained to you why this was so and you gave me some shit
about all philosophers for the last two centuries being wrong.
> >I see. And is "civilization" a metaphor?
>
> Depends on how you use it. In "civilization requires social
> interaction," it is merely a concept. In "civilization is what allows
> modern sewage treatment plants," it is a metaphor.
Can you provide some clear-cut and *precise* way to distinguish
between "merely a concept" and "metaphor" that goes beyond whether
you want to disparage it?
> >What about "the USA"? What
> >about "national borders"? What about "species"? What about "computers"?
> >Is anything *NOT* a metaphor to you?
>
> It isn't the word itself which makes it a metaphor, Richard. Any word
> can be used metaphorically, or can be the object of a metaphor. I guess
> nobody ever explained that to you, huh?
Please give an example of how 'quantumchromodynamics' can be used
metaphorically. Please also provide criteria by which one may judge
whether SOMEONE ELSE is talking literally or metaphorically. Since
you were able to judge everything I say as metaphoric, and how very
convenient for you, then I must assume you know how to distinguish
between the two in a reliable manner.
> >Do you understand analogy and abstraction? Of course not, they're just
> >"metaphors" to you!
>
> No, they are concepts. An analogy is a kind of metaphor. An
Prove this. Produce rigorous definitions of 'metaphor' and 'analogy'
and prove that analogy = metaphor (your claim earlier). In fact you
cannot since a simple rule of language is that if two words are
different then they mean different things. So failing this, since
all you ever do is say "A is B is C is D is E" you have to show
how (and not merely CLAIM) all these things are different. In
particular, produce definitions to differentiate between 'concept'
and 'abstraction'.
> abstraction might be a metaphor, but it doesn't have to be. The
> 'desktop' is a metaphor, the 'stack' is an abstraction. You see?
You only say this because you have absolutely no interest in whether
'desktop' is metaphor or abstraction. Only now do you revert to the
common meaning of the words, and then only because you're trying to
conceal your sleight of hand!
> >In any case, Roberto *does* treat human thought as if it were magical.
> >And so do you.
>
> Not even the tiniest itty bitty bit. Roberto is a separate issue.
Sure you don't.
> >> begin with. We said that thought has a physical reality.
> >
> >It doesn't. Human thought is a PATTERN of neuronal activity. There
> >is absolutely nothing in the laws of physics that dictates that this
> >pattern corresponds with that thought.
>
> No, perception of human thought by other humans is limited to the
> *pattern* of neuronal activity. That doesn't make the pattern the
> thought. Remember the array of lights? Remember how you got it wrong?
Remember how you're an arrogant, posturing, lecturing asshole?
The only thing that has physical reality is the pattern of neuronal
activity. What people experience as "thought" does not have any physical
reality, it is merely an abstraction on that neuronal activity.
> >They didn't use "stupid" although that's what they meant. I used
> >cretin because I'm tired of using "stupid".
>
> No, you've never used 'stupid', you used 'cretin' because you thought an
Stupid is already overused by every other person on the USENET.
> unsophisticated person, and would therefore apply to Roberto, or me.
Thank you for telling me what I think.
> Now you know it means "an offensive, boorish, oaf", and realize it
> applies to you, and that clipping that pointed out that cretins refuse
> to recognize they are because they are was memorable for a reason you
> might not have recognized at the time.
You're pathetic, Max. Roberto is merely an imbecile, you're a cretin.
------------------------------
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
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:52:35 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> 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.
1. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat
2. State-run Welfare is a plank of the communist platform.
3. Property taxes are a plank of the communist platform (they turn
one from an owner into a mere renter with equity interest in the
property...failure to pay property taxes => eviction from the same
property which you *supposedly* own...but the very fact that you
can be evicted from the property proves that you do not own it.)
4. State-run schools are a plank of the communist platform.
5. Social Security is a plank of the communist platform.
6. Prohibition of child labor a plank of the communist platform.
7. Estate taxes are a plank of the communist platform.
8. Graduated income taxes is a plank of the communist platform.
>
> The nice thing is that people like you are generally fairly unhappy.
>
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:53:40 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> 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?
When did I ever hold that contraband laws are proper?
In fact, I have consistantly held the opposite position.
>
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:56:17 -0400
"." wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[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.
>
> I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
>
> One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is that
> in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax dollars goes
> towards welfare at all.
You GODDAMNED FUCKING LIAR.
The back of the 1040 workbook has a pie-chart of how US federal revenues
are spent. A Fulll TWO THIRD (2/3) of all tax dollars go to "entitlements"
> In fact, until the clinton administration, every last
> penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the missisippi
> river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that we
> have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been restructured
> nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards supporting
> anyone on welfare.
>
> Now, if the republicans, democrats, populists and reformists started thinking
> a little bit before they spoke, they may just begin to find these things out.
What we really need is to put every lying communist like you up against
the wall and pump about $5 worth of bullets into every one of your
lousy, traitorous hides.
>
> But even if they do, they probably wont believe them, since they take the
> bottom out of most of their illogical, non-factual arguments.
>
> -----.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 07:56:49 -0400
Chad wrote:
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8riija$23c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How it's SUPPOSED to work or how it actually DOES work? The two are
> > > very different indeed.
> >
> > I suspect that no one in this thread understands the details of either one.
> >
> > One of the very interesting things that people of this type seem to miss is
> that
> > in actuality, only a very tiny percentage (if any at all) of their tax dollars
> goes
> > towards welfare at all. In fact, until the clinton administration, every last
> > penny of the federal income tax of everyone who lived west of the missisippi
> > river went toward paying off the interest on the national debt. Now that we
> > have been running positive for a few years and tax spending has been
> restructured
> > nearly entirely, again, little or no amount of your taxes go towards
> supporting
> > anyone on welfare.
>
> WHAT?! Are you kidding? Have you seen a recent budget? More than 1/3 of the
> U.S. budget goes to supporting Welfare and welfare related programs.
2/3. Check the pie chart on the back of the 1040 workbook.
>
> -Chad
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?2632
H: "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"
I: 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
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: 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
******************************
