Linux-Advocacy Digest #264, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Multitasking ("JS PL")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (Barry Manilow)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (Chad Everett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multitasking
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 23:25:22 -0400
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Everett wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:41:27 -0500, JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >Speaking of multi-tasking, I read this thread yesterday and conducted a
> > >little test on my Win2K system.
> > >Ran a search for *.exe - then when the files found were up to 605 I
stopped
> > >the search. Selected them all and pressed enter. Ended up with 186 open
> > >programs without a hitch. I'm pretty sure the rest opened and closed
> > >themselves as command line programs. The system is a dual 500 w/224mb
ram.
> > >Your incredible Win2K multitasking ability may vary.
> > >
> >
> > This is complete and utter Hogwash. First, if you think this is a valid
> > test of multitasking, you need to educate yourself. Next, I did this
> > on my Win2K system too. You forgot to mention that when certain *.exe
> > files are executed, a dialog comes up stating that the application
> > "can't be run in win32 mode". Launching of all other applications
> > BLOCKS ON THIS DIALOG until the 'OK' button is pressed.
No it doesn't block on any dialog. All other executables continued to open
on my system. Check your test again Einstein, tell me exactly which app.
blocked the opening of others, I'll test it for myself.
You call that
> > multitasking? Additionally, when closing many of those applications
> > that you have opened (like via a logout or shutdown), you will get
> > additional BLOCKING on dialogs stating that some applications "need
> > more time to complete" and proceeding with the entire logout and/or
> > shutdown is suspended until you hit the 'OK' button on the dialog.
Didn't get that either. I simply closed all 180 or so open programs and went
about my business. Check your test again Einstein.
> >
> > Man, get a clue!
Yeah - "ME" get a clue. Look in the mirror and say that.
> >
> Hahahaha! He's a Windows user and he won't use anything else. Go
> easy on him! He actually thinks what you just described is
> "incredible multitasking": dialogs being blocked, "can't run Win32"
> messages, "app needs more time to complete" messages, etc. They just
> need to get out more. Have sympathy on the poor Windows lovers.
Then specify a type of multi-tasking Einstein! Here's what I get:
mulˇtiˇtaskˇing (mlt-tskng, -t-)
n. Computer Science
The concurrent operation by one central processing unit of two or more
processes.
Since my computer uses at least 30 processes just to sit idle, But was using
over 200 processes in the above test, I'd say it's always multi-tasking by
the definition above.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 05:54:01 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> >> >3. Since this is not the first time I have corrected you on this
> >> >topic, you knew or should have known that it was incorrect. You stand
> >> >convicted out of your own mouth once again of lying.
> >>
> >> Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous
troller?
> >
> >So much for accuracy and moderation, wouldn't you think ?
>
> Obviously not, or I wouldn't have said. Or perhaps I wasn't trying to
> state a case, but merely observing how frivolous your comments are.
Beep, wrong answer. Those weren't my comments. Try again next time.
Then again, you said it that you don't care wether they are those of the
person you are arguing with or some other anonymous trollern, so...
> >> Ha!
> >
> >Indeed. And there goes your integrity...
>
> Oh, yes, I know:
Good, we're making progress.
> /Because Paul Says So!/
Not at all. Because you exhibit a callous disregard towards getting your
attributions straight when debating.
<QUOTE>
Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
</QUOTE>
> ><SNIP> Some more of the same </SNIP>
> >
> >> >Umm. You did: "The vast majority of all microcomputers developed in
> >> >the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC"
> >>
> >> The vast majority of models, not the necessarily the vast majority of
> >> computers. Note your category error.
> >
> ><MAX> Models number ? </MAX>
>
> Model numbers. Not models number. That's not a category error, that's
> a request for some substantiation of your argument. You don't expect me
Ditto.
> to believe that I'm wrong simply on your say-so, do you?
Where did I say you were wrong ? Your eyes are playing tricks on you. I
asked for the model numbers of the microcoputers developed in the early '80s
that used microsoft's ROM BASIC.
> >Don't sweat it by posting contrived handwaving.
>
> Is that what that was? :-)
Mirror of your debating tactics. So Max, how do you like 'em ?
> >It's for entertainment purposes only and to show how you use double
> >standards.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Franklin's real meaning, then, was that one cannot be both
> perfectly accurate and perfectly moderate in dealing with every
> statement nor every case. I doubt he was saying "one must always be
You get *that* from the Franklin's quote below !? Must be the fact that
english is a second language to me then. :)
> sure not to insult the boorish", as everyone around here seems to think
> it means.
It's the one of the best way to loose an argument. When people resort to
insults, it generally means that they are out of arguments. Hard to convince
someone that you just insulted IMO.
Your mileage will undoubtedly vary. :)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:32:12 GMT
Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:23:10 -0500;
>On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 02:47:43 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
>wrote:
>
>>>2. So this is an admission that your were (c'mon Max -- you can say
>>>it. Begins WR and ends ONG?)
>
>>Oh, totally and absolutely wrong. It was only your delusion that I have
>>any problem at all admitting when I was wrong, Roger; I've told you
>>that, what, a thousand times before? You would never believe me, of
>>course, because you are usually the one who is wrong.
>
>Do you * really * want me to pull out the list that you've run from
>every time?
The one I *always* *beg* you to post whenever you bring it up?
(He only fell for it once, guys, but maybe we'll get lucky and he'll
have forgotten how much of a clueless sap it shows him to be.)
>The one you ignore and still make this claim? * Every
>time * I have been wrong I have publicly acknowledged the fact.
>
>Shall we start with the 127.0.0.1 error? Were you wrong then or not?
Wrong how?
>>>3. Since this is not the first time I have corrected you on this
>>>topic, you knew or should have known that it was incorrect. You stand
>>>convicted out of your own mouth once again of lying.
>
>>Like I actually care whether it was you or some other anonymous troller?
>>Ha!
>
>No, like you * should * care about honesty and respect.
And what about being an anonymous troller makes honesty and respect an
issue?
[...]
>>I told you; pick up a book on IP. Your ignorance is not my problem.
>
>'Twas not * my * ignorance. You ranted at another poster that he had
>forged your PM's addy, which infraction you were going to report to
>zir ISP, if I remember.
Roger, Roger. You don't seem to understand that everyone who knows much
about TCP/IP is laughing at you right now. They've probably already
figured out what the conversation was, just from recognizing your
clueless attempts to describe it.
Since it is, in fact, a worthwhile story, I'll tell it. Feel free to
let me know if google or anyone else's archives might differ from my
account.
Somebody on alt.destroy.microsoft, my "stomping grounds", as it were,
posted a comment on my signature. (You'll notice that tends to happen,
and I'm quite proud of the fact, thank you.) I don't recall at all what
it might have been, but it was original. The poster admired it, and
asked if he could "use it", as courtesy demands when one lifts the
signature of another. Anyone with any moronic ideas that one's sig is
somehow copyright protected in any meaningful way is clueless, of
course, so convention calls for simply taking it as a very great
complement, and I did.
But when I noticed the supposed "anti-spam" address he was using, which
was [EMAIL PROTECTED], I mentioned to him, just because I'm that kind of
prick, that I found his email address annoying, and told him (quite in
vain, obviously) that he couldn't use my sig unless he stopped using an
"illegal" email address. Now, I'm certainly not sure what words I used,
this was all many many moons ago, but the point is obvious. It isn't a
correct address, and while I can't say I've been outrageously consistent
about my feelings on anti-spam addresses, anyone who knows much would
understand why using such a "fake" address, without even any extraneous
characters to make it invalid, is just childish, as spammers have known
to not pay attention to that particular address or its derivations for
years, and so it only causes annoyance to honest people.
For those who don't find this enough reason to check the books
themselves if they don't already know (should be rare in this crowd, but
I like to cover the bases), the IP address 127.0.0.1 is the "loopback
address", and is internally assigned to every IP host, and externally
assigned to no IP hosts.
>* That * is what you have yet to demonstrate was anything but a
>bonehead error.
No, I never told anyone they'd forged my ISP's email address, or
whatever it is your inadequate knowledge of the issue might lead you to
prattle on about.
[...]
>>The vast majority of models, not the necessarily the vast majority of
>>computers. Note your category error.
>
>Note your lie: "The vast majority of *** all microcomputers ***
>developed in the early 80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC" (emphasis
>mine.)
>
>Your words. Your error. Will you admit it?
Admit what? That you wish "all microcomputers" as I meant it *must* be
true in all categories to be true in one? Or are you going to admit
that you don't have a shred of evidence that what I said isn't true for
any, and yes even possible all, categories?
Get an argument, dude. Or better yet, get lost. (Again.)
>>>>Who said it had to be the sole OS?
>
>>>So, it is your contention that MS-BASIC was a monopoly in spite of
>>>plenty of competition and in spite of not being the most prevalent OS.
>>>Do tell...
>
>>I did, yes. Now, you may feel free to attempt to refute it, though I
>>doubt you can, since you are (I know from experience) rather ignorant of
>>what "a monopoly" is.
>
>When you post some * facts * in support of this fantasy, rest assured
>I shall. Until then, it suffices to say you are wrong, offering
>exactly the same level of substantiation as you -- with the added
>credibility that I do not feel the need to lie about what I have said.
Refute it, or admit you can't. You are correct I don't have numbers,
but neither do you. I stated my case, and corroborated it with facts
(yes, MS BASIC was sold in microcomputers, including the C-64, arguably
the most popular, not to mention the Altair, arguably the first.) It is
not an argument from ignorance; "you don't know they didn't", which I
state. I state they did with corroboration. You are free to disbelieve
it, and I know you will, because you've shown no evidence of being able
to believe anything very damaging to Microsoft. I used to wonder why,
back when it was just you and JS/PL. Then Erik Funkenbusch showed too
much of his hand, and now we know what "sock puppets" are really all
about.
So now you're not just my pet troll, Roger. You're a sock puppet.
Keen, huh?
So now we know: if you and I are both prejudiced, and you and I both
present arguments from ignorance, you lose, because your ignorance is
greater. Is that good enough for you? You haven't even gone to the
trouble of naming any microcomputers that didn't have MS-BASIC, and lord
knows there's tons of them. But were any as "popular" as the ones that
did? Yea, yea, we know, that's just MS doing great work. We've heard
that one before.
>>>>You haven't even looked into it, have you? You certainly
>>>>don't have any facts to dispute the issue, or I assumed you'd have
>>>>posted them.
>
>>>I'm not the one that asserted. The burden of proof is on you.
>
>>No burden, no. I asserted; the support was coincident with the
>>assertion, regardless of how weak you may think it was. But then again,
>>you haven't refuted it at all, so I guess it wasn't very weak, eh?
>
>No, the assertion was coincident with the assertion. The only support
>was an implied appeal to your own non-existent authority.
Your lack of argument is astounding. You really expect to just imagine
your way to being right, don't you?
>>>>So, other than pointing out your *complete inability* to
>>>>refute my statement (which is both sufficient and necessary to account
>>>>for observable facts), you're just pissing in the wind, aren't you,
>>>>Roger?
>
>>>TAOILHTN.
>>>
>>>Are you * sure * you're not Joe Bellinger or vice versa?
>>>
>>>IOW -- what are * your * facts supporting your claim that MS had a
>>>monopoly on OSes before the IBM PC?
>
>>The fact that the vast majority of consumer microcomputers in the early
>>1980s used MS-BASIC.
>
>1. You have yet to show that this is fact.
You have yet to show there is any cause to question this fact.
Therefore, you fall apart on the first step due to an argument from
ignorance. You must attend the same sock puppet briefings that Erik
does; he does that all the time, too.
>2. Now we're back to "consumer microcomputers" and not just models,
>are we?
Yes, again, a category error on your part. "Consumer microcomputers"
can indeed refer to models.
>>I thought I said that already.
>
>Sure, you said it. You're being asked to support it with facts.
Yes, I know, and because you're the only one asking me to do so, I'm
ignoring the request. Go add it to your list. But do me a favor, post
it again. I'm so bloody narcissistic I love to reply to it, even if it
does get repetitive. I'm sure its painfully boring for everyone else,
but since it is, indeed, your intent to prevent productive conversation,
I'll humor you. Until I get bored.
[*snicker*]
>>Feel free to
>>provide something more convincing to the contrary, if you can. It
>>shouldn't be too hard, it's not like my claim is very convincing.
>
>Backpedalling already? You post your proof first, if you feel you
>can. I am prepared to refute it when you do.
Oh, I'm sure you are. Why don't you tell us how?
>>Still, simply denying that it is so is less convincing, despite the
>>discomfort that this causes you.
>
><T Marx> Because I Said So! </T Marx>
Yes, that's the discomfort I was talking about.
>How does that go again, little m?
>
><cue patter of little feet>
If there's anyone actually reading this, and has any clue what this is
supposed to mean, feel free to explain it to me. I don't get it.
And I'm waiting on that list, Roger. Please hurry, I'm starting to get
sleepy already.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:32:53 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 18:54:42 -0400;
>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:40:13 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:52:26 -0600;
>>
>> >>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:36:11 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>And made assumptions about the variables that are entirely unsupported,
>>
>> >>>and in fact ridiculous, no doubt. Like my old buddy Roger, who had to
>> >>>replace his video *hardware* to get *IE* to work, and acted as if it
>was
>> >>>a hardware failure.
>>
>> >>1. Not now, nor never was your buddy
>> >>
>> >>2. Never made such a claim.
>>
>> >Yup, all happened, just like I said. We even reprised the discussion a
>> >couple times over the last year or so. You posted the whole story
>> >yourself, to illustrate why Windows failures can be blamed on
>> >"hardware". You got IE5, and installed it, and your computer crashed,
>> >so you got a new video card, and that "fixed" the "problem".
>>
>> Nope. Never happened. You're confused again -- perhaps it was your
>> imaginary friend that you had such an exchange with?
>>
>> Or maybe you can produce a message ID from either exchange? (What am
>> I saying? That would be * way * to much like supporting an assertion
>> with facts for Max to ever consider it ... )
>>
>> >>Of course, what can you expect from a person with so much Internet
>> >>experience that he once berated another poster for using his
>> >>postmaster's IP address. Said address being 127.0.01.
>>
>> >No, that's 127.0.0.1, and it is not "his postmaster's IP address".
>>
>> That was rather my point -- you made the claim that it was your PM's
>> IP, and that claim formed the basis for your little rant vs. that
>> poster.
>
>That's hilarious! I'm sorry I missed that little exchange.
>.
>
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001 20:35:42 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >
> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > : "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > : >
> > : > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > : >
> > : > : Or try this. Open up more than 260 programs all at once and run them
> > : > : and work on them at the same time on an ordinary PC system. U think
> > : > : Win-anything can do this?
> > : >
> > : > : Yet there are OS's that do this all the time, and easily. And u can
> > : > : buy and run them right now.
> > : >
> > : > Really? Please enlighten us, what OS would this be exactly?
> >
> > : OS/2 can run 250-300 programs at once without a lot of problems. I
> > : know a guy who did it. And he did not have a lot of memory or a very
> > : fast chip. Can Win-anything do that? No. And I know the Amiga can
> >
> > "I heard" usually means "it's bullshit".
He's my friend you moron. That is more than "I heard". The guy told
me. Did I see it? No. I don't have to.
> >
> > : run 110 programs at once on 50 MHZ and 16 MB, without even slowing
> > : much. Can Win-anything do that? No.
> >
> > Again, prove it. Show me a resepctable
> > source that has actually done this, and
> > I mean something other than your own
> > anecdotal supposition.
One of my Amiga-using friends told me he did this.
> >
> > : BeOS can multitask better than Win-anything.
> >
> > Really? How exactly? Please explain exactly
> > how well tasks are threaded in BeOS, and why
> > they are better than threads under WindowsNT.
Anyone knows Be can thread better than NT, anyone. BeOS is massively
multithreaded. NT is not at all. Some friends of mine run a business
called Serenity Systems, Inc. They have an OEM contract to produce an
OS/2-variation called eComStation. It also uses something called Wise
Manager. In testing eComStation and especially WiseManager, they
found that single apps were throwing off as many as thousands of
threads at once! None of the OS's they tested could handle that kind
of massively multithreaded app except OS/2. I know that Linux, OS/2
and NT were tested. Only OS/2 could handle this extremely
multithreaded app, and it did it easily. NT in particular was a sad
failure. These are the results of testing by a commercial company for
an app that they are selling. They were looking for the best OS for
the job. I fail to see why they would be biased.
I have a friend who likes to run a DOS app called, I think, PKUnzip.
He likes to spawn off multiple sessions of this DOS app, to, I
believe, zip and unzip archives. On NT, he can spin off no more than
*3* instances of this application before the app locks up and has to
be shut down. On OS/2, he can spin off as many as *60* different
instances of this app, and OS/2 handles it with aplomb.
A friend of mine runs a website called www.binfeeds.com. It runs a
news server that handles massive requests 24-7. They were running *9
4-way* NT servers to do the job and were running into performance
problems. They replaced all of these boxen with *1* WSeB server,
which did all that work and then some, handling up to a billion
requests a day. How well did it do it? She told me "it does it in
its sleep". That is one OS/2 server doing the load of, essentially,
*36* NT servers!
Need any more examples?
> >
> > : OS/2 and Amiga OS routinely run under similar loads. Does OS/2 start
> > : swapping like mad? Of course it does! But it stays up!
> >
> > Uh huh. Unless you can provide proof of this, either
> > through a specific scenario that someone else can test,
> > or through a white paper explaining why OS/2 could
> > handle such a load, your argument is nothing but a
> > very large steaming pile of caca. And there is little
> > else that most OS/2 advocates offer these days.
> >
These silly children just refuse to believe that OS/2, Amiga, BeOS,
and Unix multitask better than WinXX. Yet anyone knows this is true.
Evidence?
http://www.macarlo.com/warpfp12win2k1002.htm
Here is a fellow who did an experiment, running Win2K and OS/2 Warp 4
on the same box, doing the same task. As you can see, Win2K got its
ass kicked totally and humiliatingly! By a "dead" OS! LOL!
A test was conducted by a German magazine called "c't" last August.
The report is in German. They tested a number of OS's on
multitasking. They started an MP3 and started slowly adding other
tasks to see where the MP3 would start breaking up. Same HW on all
boxen. Win 9x was horrible, the worst. Win NT was better, but also
started breaking up. Linux was significantly better than NT but after
a bit it started breaking up too. Warp was the only one left alive.
Not only did it win but after it won, they kept adding more many more
apps to OS/2!
Once again, NT is totally humiliated on multitasking! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
And this time Linux kicked it too! LOL!
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 03:41:06 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 17:18:29 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001
>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>>>> [...]
>>>> >Fascists kill the poor first.
>>>> >Communists kill the rich first.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, Aaron concentrates on anyone who disagrees with him, rich or
>>>> poor.
>>>
>>>No. Only those who lie.
>>>
>>>Disagreement is ok, as long as you don't tell lies in the process.
>>
>>I've been here for years; I've yet to see a single person you disagree
>>with that you do not eventually insist is lying.
>>
>>>> >In fascism, industry "owns" the government.
>>>> >In Communism, the government "owns" industry.
>>>>
>>>> Amazingly clueless.
>>> ^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>You misspelled "accurate"
>> ^^^^^^^^
>>You misspelled "clueless"
>
>You both have misspelled "cogent, logical argument". :-)
>
>(Side note: as I understand it, communism in its pure form is
>an economic system, always (at least, when done at the country level)
>implemented by some sort of authoritarian rule as it is not compatible
>with the "natural human state" of being greedy -- or, as a friend of
>mine once put it, "having enlightened self-interest",
>which sounds better and is more accurate.)
Well, that's the problem. For a country to be "communist", "communism"
needs to be defined as a political system or it becomes a
self-conflicted concept. You can't run a country with capitalism,
regardless of how important capitalism is to running a country. Your
point is valid, as communism is often seen as a social philosophy
indicating an economic model (socialism), and whether a communist or
socialist country uses one or the other label is relatively meaningless.
But I was trying to illuminate, by simply pointing it out, that for
Aaron to berate both Marx, who was simply a philosopher, and the USSR,
simply because both were communist, is to indicate that certain thoughts
are not aloud to be thought. This seems to me to ironically mirror
Marx's own work, of course, and makes clear that Kulkis is about as
close to a fascist as you can get and still live a responsible life.
I do think its just playing with fire giving him a gun, of course. But
only as a military person; as a private citizen, I'm afraid he should be
as free to own a firearm as any other person. Now isn't that a scary
idea?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 1 Apr 2001 21:40:05 -0600
On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 02:25:06 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> Can you say "the artist formally known as 'Prince'"?
>
>Actually, believe it or not, he's decided to be called
>'Prince' once again.
>
Can you say" the artist formally known as the artist formally
known as 'Prince'" :)
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
