Linux-Advocacy Digest #492, Volume #29 Fri, 6 Oct 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Off Topic Q. for Programmers: HTML renderer in C? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (.)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (.)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Michael Marion)
Re: Off Topic Q. for Programmers: HTML renderer in C? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off Topic Q. for Programmers: HTML renderer in C?
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:28:51 GMT
In article <00100611273403.05775@pc03>,
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use the khtml port to gtk+? I think it's called gtkhtml.
Roberto, I think I love you.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:47:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >But an abstraction is not a metaphor so metaphor != abstraction.
>>
>> No, a metaphor is an abstraction, so a metaphor is an abstraction.
>
>Does this make ANY sense to you? I am appalled at the mere thought
>of a mind that can produce this.
You haven't provided any demonstration of why it doesn't make sense.
Yes, it was a tautology; it was intended to be. Use of such a
self-evident point illustrated how entirely flawed your understanding of
what a metaphor or an abstraction are.
>> Metaphor = abstraction, if that's the only way you can understand it.
>>
>> Not all abstractions are metaphors, I think is what you mean. That
>
>Since you don't even have passing knowledge of formal logic and
>are repulsed at the thought of acquiring such "classic training",
>you wouldn't know that this is EXACTLY what I said, not what I
>"meant".
Since you're a pitiful academic asshole who couldn't synthesize himself
out of a paper bag despite your conceited pretense of over-arching
knowledge of formal logic, you fail to realize that I'm entirely
unconcerned about EXACTLY what you said, and am purely interested in
what you meant. No, that isn't what you said, exactly or otherwise,
though I'm happy to see you agree that it is what you meant to say. I'm
not repulsed by "the thought of acquiring such 'classic training'" as
might turn a person into an egotistical asshole such as yourself; I'm
merely repulsed by people like yourself, who seem to illustrate that
classic training is not enough to ensure that you have the ability to
think clearly and productively.
>> would be abstraction != metaphor. The wonder full lack of symmetry in
>> the pseudo-mathematical terms is what makes epistemology philosophy, and
>> not science.
>
>Ahhh, so "greater than" is a pseudo-mathematical term because it
>is anti-symmetric. I'm glad we cleared that up.
No, "not equal to" is a pseudo-mathematical term in that context because
it is not a mathematical, but a literary, context. Perhaps you should
spend less time imagining fanciful straw men and posturing and more time
thinking, you ignorant fool. You pretend to know something about logic,
so why do you show absolutely no ability to use it. Why did you
*assume* without any logical substantiation that a 'not equal to' is
interchangeable with 'greater than'?
>> >And just what is your mind if not a database? Or is it all 'data'?
>>
>> We don't know yet. Do you presume to have knowledge beyond what
>> cognitive science has yet been able to produce?
>
>Do you presume to have knowledge beyond cognitive science?
That's what I asked you.
>What the hell *COULD* it be other than a database? The human
>brain is a machine!
And all machines work exactly the same, eh? You really are pathetic.
Calling it a database might help you maintain your private delusions,
but it doesn't provide an accurate, consistent, or practical definition
of how human memory works until you can prove that it works just like a
database does. Since the evidence would seem quite broad and obvious
against the idea that human memory works like a database, you're merely
playing tricks with words and making assumptions based on them. My
initial estimation of your intelligence is still declining, I'm sorry to
say. You are looking more and more like someone who is simply an
over-educated jerk, without a single original thought in his head.
>> >So the box booter is responsible for all of those stock trades?
>>
>> "Booter"? No. The one who made the *decision* to apply the
>> configuration *decided* by the person who configured the software
>
>What about the guy who made the decision to have someone decide
>to apply .... [lots of bullshit that I can't even follow along]??
Go figure.
>> written by the programmer who *decided* how the configuration would
>> work, once the person who *decided* to implement an automatic stock
>> system hired him.
>
>> >And what is it that you think a human is if not a machine? YOU
>> >are a machine, are you claiming that you do nothing by yourself?
>>
>> Yes. But I think about it while I'm doing it,
>
>What a load of crap. Keep lying to yourself because you obviously
>know nothing about cognitive science.
>
>What the fuck is it with these imbeciles who keep asking "are you
>saying you know more than X science?" when they don't know the first
>fucking thing about X???
The same thing as what "the fuck it is" with everyone else who can see
you for the intellectual imposture that you are.
>> which a machine doesn't
>> do.
>
>> >Only problem is you don't know what metaphysics is, and I do NOT
>> >believe in "free" will. In fact, the definition of "will" generally
>> >contradicts its being "free".
>>
>> Then what's 'will'? The desire to do something? That's just
>
>I already gave a definition earlier in the thread. You claimed
>to have followed this thread.
And you claim to be reasonable, but won't clearly state what your
current definition is. I said I followed the thread, not that I found
all of it worth remembering.
>> rationalization, not motive cause. I know precisely what metaphysics
>> is: complete and utter bullshit.
>
>There speaks someone who goes to great lengths to explain why he
>will never set foot in a philosophy class. I'm *SURE* you speak
>from personal knowledge.
I really don't know why you make things up like this. I have never said
or explained or mentioned 'setting foot in a philosophy class'.
>> If you mean epistemological formalism, I'm certainly anti-formalist, but
>
>No, you're anti-formalism period.
No, I'm not. It is a measure of your stupidity that you must presume
so, and that you think formalism is worth anyone's concern to begin
with.
>> only because most of the epistemological formalists I've ever read were
>> idiots. But perhaps you could change my opinion by describing how
>> formalism is a solid defense against solipsism, as I wasn't aware there
>> was such a thing.
>
>Perhaps you missed the part where I repeatedly refused to discuss ANY
>philosophical issues with you? That includes, but is not limited to,
>morality, metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy of science.
Perhaps you missed the fact that refusing to discuss things while
posting to Usenet is generally a measure of your ignorance. I think the
readers are more than capable of understanding why you would refuse to
discuss morality, metaphysics, epistemology, or philosophy of science
with me. Because it makes it rather obvious that your long hours of
study were useless in providing you with even a passable understanding
of the actual concepts and ideas inherent in these branches of
philosophy, though you seem to have memorized enough convoluted bullshit
to impress those who give up quickly when you start yelling and
screaming and swearing and calling them 'cretins' because you thought it
meant 'uneducated person'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 20:50:45 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rfp69$r59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> > But, see that "T" in TCO? It's not "CO" which is what your describing
> here.
>> > Sure, it cost $0 "CO" for the open sores(tm) version versus >$0 "CO" for
> the
>> > MS solution but you asked about "TCO" - TOTAL cost of ownership.
> Ahhhhh...
>> > see, after you've got these stacks of CDs sitting there and it comes
> time to
>> > actually install, configure and use these items does the "T" portion
> kick
>> > in. Try sharing those star office files with anyone, what's the
> performance
>> > of that MySQL database? Need replication? Transactions? full SQL-92
> support?
>> > stored procedures worth a damn? Did you want security? Compability with
>> > everything? Support for everything? I argue that Windows is much easier
> to
>> > install, configure and use than Linux. It's the "T" portion of TCO you
> need
>> > to focus on, the "CO" part is easy. Remember, Linux (et. el.) is only
> free
>> > if your time is worth nothing...
>>
>> I need a database that is starts at 1.5 terabytes and is growable to 35
> terabytes
>> with no tweaking, and is also capable of handling 70,000 transactions per
>> second. What would you suggest for hardware, software and OS?
> Hmmm ok, how about something that does more than that?
> http://www.tpc.org/results/individual_results/Compaq/compaq.pl8500.00100601.
> es.pdf
> Posted today. It beats the previously posted IBM DB2/W2K TPC-C record and is
> cheaper. It has 43 terabytes of storage ... big enough for you boyo? Guess
> what - it's the new king. I don't see Sun or *nix even remotely close...
43TB? Thats it? DB2 has no limit. AIX. Sorry about that.
And lets see, according to this document, the measurement interval was 30
minutes. The number of transactions completed in this interval was
33,811,291. Thats with a "ramp up time" (sorry, I work with platforms that
dont use these sorts of terms) of 48 minutes, and a rampdown time of 40
minutes.
But lets be fair: 33,811,291 transactions in 30 minutes. 30 minutes would
be 1800 seconds, which would give us a grand total of 18,784 transactions
per second.
Which is about 25% of what I asked for. I asked for 70,000. And thats AFTER
"ramp-up" time.
And do you realize that compaq is charging over NINE MILLION DOLLARS for
this product?
I could buy 4 IBM machines/licenses/software bundles which could EACH do what
I asked for for that price.
Again, I think its sweet and kind of funny that compaq/microsoft believes it
can compete in the heavy server market.
:)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 20:52:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 17:41:18 +1300, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> >Hi all,
>> >
>> >I've just set up two dual-processor Redhat GNU/Linux 7 computers both
>> >booting with RAID1 for high reliability. I am also making use of the
> newly
>> >GPLed MySQL on both computers.
>> >
>> >One computer provides NAT and IPChains firewalling services. Both also
>> >provide an Apache/PHP development environment.
>> >
>> >To set this all up has cost $0 for the software. Knowing that Microsoft
>> >provides a lower total cost of ownership ;-) I'd be interested to know
> what it
>> >would cost to move these computers to a full Microsoft solution.
>> >
>> >It appears I would need this software:
>> >
>> >1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
> computers.
>> >2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
>> >3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
>> >4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
>> >
>>
>> Don't forget to include biyearly complete replacement of all your software
>> frequently necessitated to use MS's latest'n'greatest operating system.
> Nobody
>> would seriously consider using win31, win9x or even winNT software with
> W2K
>> production environment.
>>
> Not win3x or win9x for servers, duh. But NT/W2K for production? I can't even
> find the strength to type out my laughter and your pathetic stupidity and
> ignorance of the 10s of thousands who are doing just that very successfully
> and less expensively than oracle or ibm solutions.
9 million dollars for the compaq solution. 3 million dollars for the equivalent
IBM solution, and that comes with an engineer who will relocate to your city and
work for you for a year.
My god, you are a huge idiot.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 17:50:36 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >Then you're a benign tumour cell.
>>
>> In what ways is my behaviour akin to a tumour? Am I soaking resources through
>> the analog of vascularization?
>
>The corporate money supply?
I actually produce more money that I consume. Hardly tumour-like.
>You're a tumour because your behaviour is unchecked.
Your analogy is not working very well, I'd say. Do you think cells have some
sort of super-cell that watches over them?
>> >> Not at all. And I don't conform to their ideals any more than theirs conform to
>> >> mine. I call that "choosing where I work".
>> >
>> >Of course you don't.
>>
>> Oh, I do call it that. That's why I work in this corporation and not in others.
>
>And there is such a very WIDE range of corporations; psychopathic, psychopathic
>and psychopathic versus psychopathic.
I could still be working in the university. I could work in another
university. I could have become a school teacher. I could have started working
in the government. I could have joined the army. I could flip burgers in a
street stand. I could start getting welfare. I could make a backpack and travel
by foot across South America. I could have emigrated to Europe. Choice is
abundant.
>> >Does seeing the advertisement count?
>>
>> I don't recall the ad, so I don't know. Maybe you just read too much jingoistic
>> literature of some kind.
>
>I despise the military and am revolted by jingoist literature. Please try again.
Maybe you are just weird.
>> >Corporations in general DO have an EXTREME tendency to be psychopathic, except
>> >under same bizarre circumstances.
>>
>> Such as being in Japan? That's not so bizarre.
>
>No. Such as being JAPANESE. You have no idea how bizarre their culture is,
>do you?
Actually, a coworker (sitting next to me) lived there for years, and we often
share funny conversations about the nature of Japan and its culture.
However, it's not really bizarre. It's just different. I personally know
several Japanese guys (through my coworker) and they all seem pretty ordinary
fellows, with a strange tendency to take off their shoes at home, but then
again, so do I.
>> >In particular, every corporation in South America is going to be psychopathic.
>>
>> Any particular reason why?
>
>Because South America is under the hegemony of the United States of Satan
>(and I thank you for providing this descriptive name)
Thank Khomeini, I am just the vessel for his "wisdom".
> which has destroyed
>any national government that isn't obsequious to American corporate psycho-
>paths (euphemistically called "american national interests" by most people
>in the United States of Satan).
The corporation I work for is only american in some percentage. Is it only
partly psycopath?
>> >> >> rather, the shareholders, (which BTW, in another subthread you declared had no
>> >> >> corporate decision-making power)
>
>> I recall I suggested that a manager quitting the corporation would have some
>> corporate decision making because he could buy stock. I recall you saying I was
>> wrong.
>
>That's correct. Only the biggest shareholders matter at all. As usual,
>you confuse a member of the group with the entirety of the group.
Who said the ex-CEO couldn't become a big shareholder? You are, again, just
making a blanket statement, and blaming me for taking it as such.
>Do you have any problems with egomania?
Some. Not too much.
>> Never said I was. You are suggesting people act in two completely different
>> ways applying totally different values, switching in an instant. That sounds
>> pretty schizoid to me.
>
>And you know that people don't behave this way because you are a psychologist,
>right?
No. I just know several persons who work in companies, and I also see them
off-work, and they seem to be the very same all the time.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 16:54:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
You don't know what you're talking about. Just pretend that instead of
using the made-up term "beingness", you used the correct term
'consciousness'.
>> 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.
My oh my. So you're not just stupid, you're dishonest, is that it? YOU
were the one who said that lack of care for a child within the first
three years of life leads to psychopathy. Since I'd assumed you weren't
simply pretending when you said you knew something of the subject (which
may be questionable, considering you were also supposedly knowledgable
about philosophy, as well) I must wonder why you now seem to deny the
notion so vehemently.
>> >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?
Definitely the former. You're a cretin, most certainly; an archetypical
one, in fact.
>> 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.
[...]
No, you're not ending a philosophical discussion with me. Don't bother;
allow me.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 6 Oct 2000 20:10:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> Hehe. That's funny. It's the same guy who tried to argue that
>> there's an absolute standard for beauty and elegance, remember?
>> Removing that qualifier would definitely improve the truth
>> value of that statement.
>I see you're still watching my movements like a little yipping
>lapdog and following with "me too" after my adversaries every
>so often. Don't you have anything better to do with your time
>or do I fascinate you that much? If it is the latter <shiver>
>then get some help man!
Me too, hah. I completely refuted your nonsensical
stance regarding operating system design before others
were getting at the heart of your nonsense. It's funny
how someone who insists on being logical and rigorous
is completely unable to come up with a single logical
point (and not even a flawed one), when presented with
technical refutations, and continues on rambling. And
no, I have absolutely no time to read all your drivel
here, and with a good assumption that I read about 50
timess faster than you can write, it's you who has way
too much time on your hand. But then again, you seem to
be very productive in introducing more inconsistencies,
so it takes only about two posts before your logical
bankrupcy is exposed in full.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[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: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 20:57:13 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> I'm sorry - but I must remain amazed that the only people who seem to report
> non-stop "mysterious" problems with equipment under Windows
> (version-i-am-currently-slamming) but which work pefectly under
> (os-i-prefer) are "professional" unix users. How come I can get my equipment
> to work equally well under Windows and BSD no problemo? Had some problems
> with RH linux but, hey, I didn't really try that hard I guess...
There are people all over the world who aren't 'unix professionals' that have
issues with windows and hardware every day.. you just don't want to listen.
Did you even read any of the pages people linked to talking about the nvidia
driver issues?
BTW, I _did_ try that hard... I put days into trying every combo of hardware
and drivers I could in the box (we're talking 2 mobos, 2 video cards,
different other cards in or out, etc).. and until Det 3 came out, the nvidia
cards refused to work in w2k for me. Even if I installed from scratch and
installed only the video drivers.
Now I find posts that talk about ACPI perhaps being an issue.. especially with
VIA based mobos.. so I'd like to disable it. Unforunately the only way to
change the HAL reliably in 2k is to reinstall from scratch! What kind of lame
setup is that?!?
Don't belive it requires a reinstall? Check out:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q197/0/55.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
"...In my phone conversation with Microsoft's lawyer I copped to the fact that
just maybe his client might see me as having been in the past just a bit
critical of their products and business practices. This was too bad, he said
with a sigh, because they were having a very hard time finding a reporter who
both knew the industry well enough to be called an expert and who hadn't
written
a negative article about Microsoft." -- Robert X. Cringely
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Off Topic Q. for Programmers: HTML renderer in C?
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 18:07:09 -0300
El vie, 06 oct 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>In article <00100611273403.05775@pc03>,
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why not use the khtml port to gtk+? I think it's called gtkhtml.
>
>Roberto, I think I love you.
And I really, really hope you are a brunette girl around 25 years old.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000 21:00:38 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El vie, 06 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Logic is value-less.
>
> Vulcans do have values. They apply logic to act according to those values. At
> least, that's as much as I gather.
Psychopaths have values as well. Unless you're using the word 'values'
in some kind of fuzzy enobling sense.
> > Psychopaths behave only based on logic as well.
>
> If they did, they wouldn't ever kill people. After all, I don't think they want
> to die in the chair, which is one of the logical outcomes of such actions.
This is probably why most psychopaths never kill people.
> You know, I don't have so much time to spend on hypotheticals. Are pink
> unicorns mammals? Are thinking rocks sentient? I don't care.
You seem to not have much time for any kind of thought at all.
> I gave you one, but I'll give you another: anything that can breed with a human
> is a human, anything that can breed with something that can breed with a human
> is a human, and I am human.
Neanderthals could not breed with humans and yet you claimed that
they were human.
> >Non sequitur is one thing, what you pulled was sleight of hand by being
> >inconsistent with your word usage.
>
> Then say so.
And obviously, you expect me to do all your thinking for you.
It's not enough that you don't know the crap you're pulling, you
also expect me to give detailed explanations of why it's crap?
> >In fact, they usually do but they are never, EVER given the chance to. In
> >many states, it is illegal to offer your corporation to employees before
> >fellow capitalists and of course, it's not like employees can secure bank
> >loans (because banks are corporations and they won't deal with cooperatives).
>
> I am an employee, I can easily get a bank loan. All it takes is a good credit
> history, and a proof of gainful employment. Where do you get that employees
> can't get bank loans?
Employees *AS A GROUP* cannot get bank loans sufficient to buy a corporation.
That *was* the context of my statement, was it not?
> >And you can force someone to liquidate their stock by retaining the stock
> >for them. This is also how you stop them from selling out their stock.
>
> Then it's not quite "their stock", is it?
Oh, so you're one of THOSE people. Do you also believe that if you can't
dump toxic waste on your land then it's not "your land" and that if you can't
sell your organs away then it's not "your body"? Fucking right-wingers.
> In those conditions, you would have
> to sell them the stock cheaper than you buy the stock from outside sources.
Since ultimately there are no "outside sources", this is incorrect.
> That makes the operation even harder, because you won't have enough money to
> keep on buying the stock.
And you base this on ... ?
Owning stock in a cooperative isn't an option, it's an obligation.
> >A "rather dry mathematical thing" that has deep implications for the
> >philosophy of mathematics.
>
> Sure. However, you described it as trivial, didn't you?
Reread what I wrote and get that Alzeihmer's test.
------------------------------
From: [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: 6 Oct 2000 21:04:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gee... Thanks Perry - couldn't have put it better myself.
Or as incorrectly. You really need to read an entire thread before responding.
> See abracadabra... you won't even find support from your own NG...
Actually, there was lots of support. If youd read the entire thread you would
have realized that.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
