Linux-Advocacy Digest #204, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Communism (GreyCloud)
Re: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linus for a 386???? (Mike Sabin)
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (GreyCloud)
Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:07:04 GMT
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I thought your point was that bugs didn't get fixed in the closed-vendor
> >branches, or that they didn't get merged back to the open version.
>
> No, my point was that even though the bug may have been fixed in the
> versions of the code as included with free systems, I am still at the
> mercy of the closed software vendor to fix the bug in the version I'm
> using. This instantiation of free code can not be used freely.
One reason for paying extra for closed source software is
that the vendor does in fact fix the bugs before you get it and
does a better job than you can do yourself. Of course there
are popular examples where this has not been the case, but
that does not mean you should eliminate the possibility.
> Still, the purpose of the GPL (i.e. unencumbered/free *use* of every
> copy of the software) is clearly met. You can consider the software
> non-free because you are restricted in distributing it, but don't call
> me a lyer or deceiver because I have a different point of view. The
> *use* *is* free so I have every right to call it free software.
You can't use something that can't be distributed to you. You are
skewing your view by only considering the existing software that
meets the GPL requirements and is thus not affected by the restrictions.
Consider instead all of the potential combinations that might exist
and without the restrictions might be allowed to be distributed to
you. Then you might understand that the GPL'd code is not at
all free to be distributed or used by you in those situations.
> >> Where have I ever stated that it is? BTW, I view BDSLed software as
> >> free. Can *you* give examples of how the GPL has ever prevented a user
> >> from using a program the way he pleases?
> >
> >Yes, and I've mentioned it here before.
> [ networked tar for DOS example ]
> > Combined
> >in a working program, the GPL prevented giving it away to all the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >other users who might have had DOS machines on a network.
>
> I asked for an example where the GPL has prevented *using*, not
> *sharing* the software.
Everyone who could not obtain that program was prevented from
using it. You can play all the word games you want, but they could
not use it as a direct result of the GPL.
> >> >Of course you can. Count the real examples where the respective
licenses
> >> >have prevented actual programs from being distributed and used.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Rehashed topic. You can freely distribute BSDLed software but not
freely
> >> use every instantiation of the software. You can freely use every
> >> instantiation of GPLed software but not freely distribute it.
> >
> >If something can't be distributed to you, how do you manage to use it?
>
> You can't. Does that make distributing and using the same thing? Does
> that mean that GPLed software cannot be distributed at all?
Unless you are a programmer and willing to repeat the work of building
a program that combines GPL and non-GPL components, you cannot
use it. Thus for most people, the ability for someone to distribute a
program to you is an absolute requirement for using it. GPLed software
where the 'work as a whole' meets the GPL requirements is not affected
by the restrictions and can thus be distributed and used. But those very
non-free restrictions prevent any of that code from being used in a
near-infinite set of combinations with other code by people who are unable
to build those programs themselves.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:04:56 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> cHip wrote:
> >>
> >> Being a guy who has researched this a lot I'd like to comment on a few
> >> things.
> >>
> >> First of all, anyone who mentions Russian Communism, Chinese Communism,
> >> North Korean Communism, etc. as communism---sorry but you're wrong.
> >> Those are NOT communism, they are totalitarian governments. Basically
> >> they're dictaror governments (layman term, really authoritarian). Anyone
> >> who critisizes communism for anything there just doesn't get it.
> >>
>
> Aaron> Ah yes, the usual "that isn't *real* communism" lie.
>
> Aaron> So...tell us, Mr Wise guy...why are there not *ANY* "real communist"
> Aaron> countries in existance....and why is every country which calls itself
> Aaron> Communist also a police state?
>
> Aaron> Accuracy counts, so be precise.
>
> Communism is a utopian idea which is completely incompatible with
> human nature. Hence any attempt to implement it will end in either
> capitulation or tyranny. Generally the latter, as anyone driven to
> take power is not likely to give it up.
>
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
Very well said.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:14:34 -0800
You were going pretty good until you got off on your little conspiracy
thing. The "both have *knowingly* caused massive loss of life, liberty,,,"
part. Complete bullshit. Same for your Political Science 101 theories. It
may be your desire to (1) describe this country in simple terms and (2) to
cause damage to this country, but you just aren't up to it no matter how
much you need that simplicity in vision in your life. And "blatant" guilt
isn't how the US justice system works. You have to be able to prove guilt
in a court for a specific law. Simply not doing what aaron wants is no
where close to a crime. And he did say he'd shoot those who wouldn't do
what he wanted.
Now, your "so called government" comment really pisses me off. It isn't "so
called" it is duly elected. And frankly, if you don't like it you are free
to leave. Please take advantage of that right as you are taking advantage
of other rights to advocate the overthrow of the elected government. I have
not remorse for those people at Waco, in the Sudan, certainly not even a
tiny bit for Iraq. I think our government, while it sometimes makes
mistakes, it is usually in the process of trying to do good. That is in
strong contrast to just about every other government in the world and
certainly those in the Middle East. People like you, for whatever reason,
find that hard to accept. That would be your problem. Same for you comment
on traitors. The term describes those who knowingly aid our enemies, not
those who you disagree with. You really need to mature to the point where
you understand that the way this country works is through compromise, not on
fanatical adherence to one's point of view without regard to the
consequences.
Oh yeah, I think your kind are ignorant assholes. Couldn't get away without
that, could I?
Roger
AIRBORNE!
> and property,
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9a2snv$kv6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Lets see... anti-constitutional subversive activity. Like you saying
those
> : who believe in a different economic system should be shot? Now that's
real
> : "constitutional" of you, aaron. You can't have it both ways -
> : constitutionally and your way. And that is why you are considered
ignorant
> : and a nazi by the adults here.
>
>
> Actually, according to the U.S. Constitution and federal law, Aaron is
> mostly correct.
>
> If you're a U.S. Citizen, but choose to make war against your own
> country, or give aid and comfort to its very numerous enemies (foreign
> or domestic), then you're guilty of treason, a capital crime.
>
> Also, if you conspire to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed
> rights of any U.S. Citizen under color of law, you're guilty of a
> felony, which becomes a capital crime if loss of life results.
>
> Regarding the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), membership in it was once
> held to be illegal for this reason - not because you aren't entitled
> to hold and express any opinions you wish, but because you are not
> entitled to conspire to violate the rights of others.
>
> But right now the CPUSA, though obnoxious, is among the very least of
> our problems. Both of the "mainstream" parties are much worse, since
> they have much more power.
>
> Both major parties advocate and practice socialism (in varying
> degrees), both have *knowingly* caused massive loss of life, liberty
> and property, which they were supposed to protect, and both have
> conspired, very successfully, to make this nation an oligarchy
> masquerading as a democracy, rather than the Republic that by law it
> must be.
>
> Hence, there are a LOT of traitors in our midst. And given the threat
> that they pose to the life, liberty and property of all people (both
> inside the U.S. and elsewhere), I think it is not only reasonable, but
> necessary, that the worst of them be dealt with as the law requires.
>
> Aaron is not advocating that we round up everyone - just those who are
> the most blatantly and obviously guilty. And, so long as these folks
> get an *exceedingly* fair trial, and as long as their sentences are
> somewhat commensurate with their crimes, I am in total agreement with
> him.
>
> I don't want more bloodshed. I think there's been too much already
> (the left's war on unborn children, the right's war on drugs, and
> other kinds too numerous to list). But it is absolutely necessary
> that the crimes against peaceful and law-abiding U.S. Citizens, not to
> mention the nationals of many other countries who have been harmed by
> actions of our so-called "government," be ended. Hopefully, by the
> most peaceful means possible.
>
> I too took an oath to defend the United States, its lawful government,
> its Constitution, its citizens, and its valid laws against all threats
> whether domestic or foreign. So have millions of others. We are
> greatly outnumbered by the traitors at the moment, but times and
> political winds do change, and I remain hopeful that someday we will
> be able to return to a legitimate, federal, Constitutional, republican
> form of government.
>
>
> Joe
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:16:36 -0800
I find this totally unreasonable! I LIKE Spaghetti-O's and I don't for a
second think he's over 16.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roger Perkins wrote:
> >
> > Stupid again.
> >
> > Roger
> > AIRBORNE!
> >
>
> Roger, were you expecting anything differnet? Aaron is a 38 year old
> male who sits in his mom's basement while wearing a 5-star General
> plastic army helmet and posting to USENET from a Wintendo98 box, all
> the while his mom is upstairs in the kitchen fixing him Spaghetti-Os.
>
>
>
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jarno Nurminen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > Ah yes, anybody who doesn't support Communism is a "nazi"
> > > >
> > > > How would you feel if majority of US citizens would select communism
as
> > > > their new ideology? If the answer is "kill them all" then one could
call
> > > > you a nazi. Modern society, at least in here, in build on the
foundation
> > > > of everyone having their own oppinion heard. If you someone doesen't
> > > > like what their neighbour is thinking, it's fine, but judging people
> > > > just because of what they think is something I would call nazism. Of
> > > > course, this definiton of "nazism" is not so far away of the way
USSR
> > > > worked...
> > >
> > > Your definition of nazism is extremely sloppy.
> > >
> > > Nazism is a brand of fascism. Fascism is a form of SOCIALISM.
> > > (what part of National SOCIALIST Party do you not understand?).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you saying that because I disagree with the Communists, that
> > > I'm some sort of socialist...
> > >
> > > Keep in mind, that my major objection to Communism IS THAT IT IS A
> > > FORM OF SOCIALISM.
> > >
> > > I detest NAzism as strongly as I detest Communism because I HATE
> > > SOCIALISM IN ALL FORMS...because Socialism is merely a polite word
> > > for government-run slavery.
> > >
> > >
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:17:40 -0800
Max, I have explained the difference between communism and the Nazi but he
just can't learn. Save your breath.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
> >Jarno Nurminen wrote:
> >>
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >> > Ah yes, anybody who doesn't support Communism is a "nazi"
> >>
> >> How would you feel if majority of US citizens would select communism as
> >> their new ideology? If the answer is "kill them all" then one could
call
> >> you a nazi. Modern society, at least in here, in build on the
foundation
> >> of everyone having their own oppinion heard. If you someone doesen't
> >> like what their neighbour is thinking, it's fine, but judging people
> >> just because of what they think is something I would call nazism. Of
> >> course, this definiton of "nazism" is not so far away of the way USSR
> >> worked...
> >
> >Your definition of nazism is extremely sloppy.
> >
> >Nazism is a brand of fascism. Fascism is a form of SOCIALISM.
> >(what part of National SOCIALIST Party do you not understand?).
>
> Fascism is an idealogy, neither economic system (socialism) nor
> political (communism). Fascism is the oppression of any other but the
> "official" ideology, which is precisely what Roger as so accurately
> identified as your behavior. The fact that the Nazis called themselves
> the "national socialist party" doesn't have anything to do with fascism.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the
> Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and
> that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a
> dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and
> forcible suppression of opposition.
>
> What part of "forcible suppression of opposition" (definitely your stock
> in trade, Aaron, with all your "up against the wall" machismo bullshit)
> do you not understand?
>
> >Are you saying that because I disagree with the Communists, that
> >I'm some sort of socialist...
>
> No, we're saying that because you find it impossible to disagree with
> communists, nor agree, nor do anything but threaten them with execution
> should they continue to disagree with your ideology, that makes YOU,
> Aaron, a fascist.
>
> >Keep in mind, that my major objection to Communism IS THAT IT IS A
> >FORM OF SOCIALISM.
>
> We really don't care, Aaron.
>
> >I detest NAzism as strongly as I detest Communism because I HATE
> >SOCIALISM IN ALL FORMS...because Socialism is merely a polite word
> >for government-run slavery.
>
> So says Aaron Kulkis. Big whoop.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 04:14:08 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Exactly how do you imagine a separate library that existed before
> >the GPL'd component would become 'derived from' this GPL'd
> >component if they happen to be linked together at some future date?
>
> The same way you imagine that software has functional purpose but is
> still covered by copyright.
I can't parse any meaning at all out of that. A cookbook has functional
purpose but is not exempt from copyright.
> >Yet the GPL prohibits distribution of GPL'd components that link
> >to anything but standard system libraries. What really happens is
> >that each part does it's own work independently, just like a literary
> >or research work that refers to some other independent work that
> >you are expected to read to understand the whole context - and
> >each work may have its separate terms for obtaining the right to
> >use it.
>
> If the part were 'doing its own work', then it wouldn't require other
> parts to do work for it, would it?
Imagine two jugglers who sometimes throw their balls to each
other. Is one juggler derived from the other? Will the act work the
same if the other isn't there to throw the ball back at the right time?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Sabin)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,linux.redhat.misc,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linus for a 386????
Date: 31 Mar 2001 04:15:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you can't fit the base debian install, I think you should check out
http://sunsite.dk/mulinux/ for mulinux. It's a floppy-based distro,
but quite an impressive feat, IMHO.
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:09:37 GMT, BoogerT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a 386 with a 41 meg harddrive and 8 megs of RAM. What would be a good
>linux distro for this machine which would allow me to access the Internet,
>too? If there is one, where would I get it and do documents come with it?
>Thanks in advance,
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 21:20:59 -0800
Read the post. I didn't say it was right, I just said that it was. And of
course Cuba was under threat of invasion. They WERE invaded at the Bay of
Pigs. I think the USSR reacted in a logical way and used what they had to
get our missiles removed after they removed theirs from Cuba. As I said,
read the post. History is history.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 07:38:36 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Roger Perkins wrote:
> >>
> >> And you keep showing your ignorant ass. The missiles were put in as a
> >> direct challenge to our nuclear missiles in Turkey, which we took out
after
> >
> >And American missiles in Turkey pose a threat to Cuba how, exactly?
>
> The argument could be made that it was a threat to the security of the
> nation that guaranteed Cuba would not be invaded. And don't dare say
> Cuba was not under risk of being invaded, please ;-)
>
> If it was right for the US to put missiles in Turkey aiming at Russia,
> why was it not right for Russia to put missiles on Cuba aiming at
> the US? It's exactly the same thing!
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:17:45 -0800
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > The only new concept Microsoft have
> > introduced is the acceptability of unfinished and buggy code!
>
> That's strange. According to the United States Patent Office, Microsoft has
> introduced MANY more concepts than your one example.
>
> http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetaht
> ml%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=microsoft&d=pall
>
> And a search for Microsoft at http://www.delphion.com/ turned up about 3500
> results. That's about one new patent every three days since 1975. If I had
> no life like the MS bashing regulars here, I might even peruse some of
> Microsoft's innovative concepts in more depth. But why would I? Their
> immense success with consumers and developers the least 26 years is proof
> enough that they provide excellent products at competitive prices. The fact
> that linux is struggling to maintain a 3 to 1000 computer ratio is proof
> enough that nobody want's anything to do with it on the desktop.
One could argue that if party A has created a concept and that concept
was stolen and then taken to the patent office by party B, that patent
doesn't necessarily mean its a new concept... just a new patent.
I disagree on the desktop argument. By serving install fests in our
local mall, our organization has made it public that there is an
alternative to microsofts o/s. Many people aren't aware of Linux
because no one has enough money to advertise Linux during prime time
TV. Many people that had actually took a test drive of Linux at the
mall were really impressed and wanted to know how much it cost. We tell
them they even have another alternative in Linux: download it for free
or purchase at low cost a distribution. We have shown RedHat, Suse,
Caldera, Mandrake, and Slackware as the various distributions.
One person wanted to know if he can get a refund from Microsoft if they
return the software unused and disagree with the license terms. The End
User License Agreement states that one can, but Microsoft won't honor
that agreement. Hence the monopoly lawsuits.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Kulkis not Chad, Gates (was Re Unix/Linux Professionalism)
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:11:47 -0500
Fred K Ollinger wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> : Barry Manilow wrote:
> : >
> [snip]
> : >
> : > Back in the 1800's, capitalism was little more than sheer oppression,
> : > frankly.
>
> : This shows how thoroughly you've been indoctrinated by the left-wing.
>
> But I have heard that giving welfare is communism.
If it's the *GOVERNMENT* doing it, then yes, it is.
If *I* donate money and/or things a specific person, or organization
of my choosing, that is a VOLOUNTARY transaction.
WIC, AFDC, etc., are not VOLOUNTARILY funded.
It's not charity if the funds were extracted under the threat of
violence and/or imprisonment....
Or how would you like it if *I* were to go around deciding how *YOUR*
money is spent, despite your preferences.
> And money can give
> a bit of freedom. So how is this oppressive? Take the opposite, no
> welfare, MUST have a job. Seems like less freedom to me. Very simple
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Unlike welfare, working for one's own benefit is *NOT* an artificial construct.
> here, only logic, no indoctrination is required to think.
You don't get it...do you. The more you rely upon government to give
you things, the more DEPENDANT you are on the person giving the
hand-outs....just like slaves on a plantation.
>
> : On the contary. The peasants WILLINGLY left their meager subsistance-farming
> : lives behind to work for the MUCH IMPROVED working conditions in the
> : factories.
>
> Were the owners of farms communists?
Don't be rediculous.
People was free to puruse whatever line of work they chose. Some chose
to stay in agriculture (those who were making a decent living off of it),
and others chose to improve their lot in life by going to the factories.
>
> : And child labor was common because PARENTS INSISTED ON IT!!!!
>
> B/c the factory owners paid too little for just one parent to work, or are
Define 'too little'
> you suggesting that parents prefer to have their parents lose limbs instead
> of getting a better education which would lead to a better career?
Prof. Vernard Foley, History, Purdue University has reams of evidence
which contradicts your yanked-from-the-ass pronouncement.
>
> : > He's leaned so far left that he's wrong.
>
> These directions are mislead more than they help. Let's clearly state our
> ideas instead of name calling: commie, capitalist, and think about each idea
> individually. This is certainly the opposite of indoctrination.
Ah yes, whenever a leftist starts losing an argument, the first thing he
does is propose the abolition of commonly understood terms so that he
can start sowing confusion in their place.
Sorry, asshole, I'm not abandoning properly defined language and terminology
just because it's inconvenient for closet-dictators.
>
> [more snip]
>
> : > I am not so sure about that. Try taking a real unpopular opinion in
> : > America and watch how you get treated. You will be lucky if you still
> : > have a good job.
>
> I like America very much.
>
> : >
> : > > My definition of hive thinking is akin to an ants nest.
> : >
> : > Hmmm, I suppose by that definition most humans are hive thinkers.
> : > Have you lived long enuf to notice that most folks prefer to go along
> : > with the crowd?
>
> Well, name calling and over-simplification is hive-thinking. Paranoid us vs.
> them thinking is totally hive-thinking aka Cold War/McCarthyism.
The worst part is, right now, the greatest concentration of "true believer"
communists is right here in the United States...mostly on college campuses.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
What a fucking surprise..
NOT!
>
> Stalinism is also hive thinking as is Maoism. Are most modern communists
> Stalinists? Are most capitalists McCarthites? This type of thinking is gum
> that is making things very opaque.
Ah yes, another indicator of when a leftist closet-dictator asshole is
losing....refer to anybody who opposes his campaign of enslavement of the
average citizen as a "McCarthyite".
Yes...McCarthy was wrong.
Specifically, KGB records indicate that McCarthy UNDERSTATED the problem.
Hope that helps, moron.
>
> Fred
Oh, Hey, Fred...remember this:
Whenever you advocate an omni-powerful government...
Imagine being in the army...your career, and therefore life, completely
at the whim and amusement of those of higher rank under whose command
you fall...EVERY DAY OF YOUR LIFE.
Sounds like fun, doesn't it. Sounds like something that the ENTIRE
country should be subjected to....from birth until death
Right...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
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....
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
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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
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.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
