Linux-Advocacy Digest #296, Volume #33 Mon, 2 Apr 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.) (Scott Erb)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Communism (Fulcanelli)
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows "speed" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows "speed" (Barry Manilow)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:19:11 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > Here is a reading list of basics that I especially recommend to Dana and Aaron,
> > who seem confused about how to look at the rule of government, and don't seem to
> > realize that a Liberal Democracy can be a Republic at the same time.
> >
> > 1. The Book of Democracy, by James David Barber, Prentice Hall, 1995. A
> > thorough discussion of what democracy is, what it requires, how and why it
> > sometimes fails, etc.
>
> Translation: Leftist propaganda written for the purpose of
> causing confusion in the reader's mind.
Apparently you can't deal with the fact that your view is on the extreme
fringe. Too bad for you.
> > According to Barber (one of the most respected scholars in the field of
> > democratic theory), Democracy has three essentials and four requirements:
> >
> > Essentials:
> > 1. Democracy is a national government elected by the people.
>
> WRONG.
>
> > 2. Democracy requires a constitution.
>
> No. It merely requires mob rule. A constitution just formalizes it.
>
> > 3. Democracy requires human rights.
>
> Mob rule has NEVER protect the human rights of minorities.
> See: Rwanda
Your assertions are rejected. Rwanda was not democracy, and clearly
Barber's description of democracy is precisely NOT mob rule. You're
simply wrong.
> > Requirements:
> >
> > 1. Democracy must control violence
>
> Rwanda was, for a few brief weeks, a pure democracy.
>
> As I recall, the rivers were so full of blood they were red.
Rwanda obviously did not fit any of Barber's criteria, so it is only a
democracy in your mind, not in reality.
> > 2. Democracy must provide freedom and equality (by equality he doesn't mean
> > equal material outcomes, as he states on page 5: "Rather than making political
> > distinctions between blacks and whites, mean and women, or other groups of
> > citizens, democracy demands equal liberties for all citizens.")
>
> See above.
>
> > 3. Democracy requires real law.
>
> Everything the Nazis did was in the law, too.
> So, like, what's your point, asshole?
>
> > 4. Democracy needs reason and knowledge (it must be rational).
>
> Mob rule is not rational.
Again, Barber's criteria clearly show democracy is not mob rule, and the
criteria show that rule of law must include rationalism and respect for
human rights and equality under the law. Thus your unsupported attempts
to simply evade truth are rejected.
> > Barber also provides a list of books about Democracy in America giving a variety
> > of perspectives on page 2 of his book. This is a must read to understand that
> > when one speaks today of democracy, one is talking primarily of constitutional
> > democratic republics, not some crude "pure" democracy where 51% can vote to
> > enslave the other 49%.
> >
> > Other readings include:
> ^^^^^^^^
>
> Propaganda
You are free to think so. These are readings being used by thousands of
teachers across America every day, these are the readings that are
informing the minds of American citizens and tomorrow's leaders (and
today's leaders, most of these readings have been around awhile).
You're simply out of the loop.
> > Comparative Politics, by Charles Hauss, West Publishing (1998). This book is
> > especially good as it gives an overview of different types of government,
> > focusing on the nature of the state as a defining aspect of the investigation.
> >
> > European Democracies, by Juerg Steiner, Longman Publishing, (3rd ed., 1999).
> > This is an excellent comparative analysis of the functions of democratic systems
> > in Europe, giving a perspective how how democracy can be different than in the
> > US.
> >
> > On Political ideologies, two books give good insights:
> >
> > Political Ideologies, by Thobaben and Funderburk. A good review of the basics
> > behind liberalism, communism, marxism, social democracy, fascism,
> > authoritarianism, and recent ideologies like feminism.
> >
> > Leon Baradat has a more complex but similar book, with the same title.
> >
> > There is a lot of information out there for those who really want to understand
> > how political systems operate.
> > cheers, scott
>
> I understand FULLY how the various political systems operate.
>
> That's what has you in such a tizzy.
You're a good foil, you make a poor case and offer an opportunity to
present real information, such as Barber's arguments and real facts
about what a Democratic Republic is. Your style of threats and lies
simply make you uncredible, and make it easier to make my point more
persuasively. Thank you!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 12:15:04 +1000
On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >
> > Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> > >>
> > Aaron> Mathew wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> For a person who constantly calls people"little dictators"
> > >> >> and "fascists" , Aaron certainky takes the cake for personifying
> > >> >> his own words.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A product of fascist military indoctrination ,no doubt.
> > >>
> > Aaron> So, protecting your constitutional rights is fascist now.
> > >>
> > >> You have repeatedly threatened to kill people for their political
> > >> beliefs. That is not protecting their Constitutional Rights.
> > >>
> >
> > Aaron> No, I have not.
> >
> > Yes you have. You have said that people should be killed for
> > merely being democrats.
>
> No. They should be punished for committing treason.
>
> The most egregious, such as Clinton, should be executed.
And the the totalitarin regime in Afghanistan,that happnened because Bush
Sr. sold their freedom down the drain?
>
> "Give 'em a fair trial and a proper hanging"
> -- some cowboy movie
>
> >
> > Aaron> I have said that eventually, those of us who are sworn to uphold
> > Aaron> the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC will
> > Aaron> be told to go out, and do just that.
> >
> > You have said that too. It is also disgusting. Murdering people
> > for what they think is not something compatible with freedom.
>
> After a proper trial and other due process, execution for those who
> commit treason is NOT murder.
>
> Hope that helps, MORON.
>
>
>
> >
> > Aaron> If you don't like the consequences of that, I suggest you cease
> > Aaron> any and all activities which currently classify you
> >
> > I, unlike you, have never advocating killing people for what they
> > think.
> >
> > >> You are a totalitarian wannabe.
> >
> > Aaron> Killing those who seek to enslave their fellow man is ANTI-TOTALITARIAN,
> > Aaron> you donkey-raping piece of shit.
> >
> > You are totalitarian scum. Act on your beliefs and face the consequences.
>
> I'm not the one advocating enslavement of people...that's YOU.
>
> And remember....the more you get your police state dream implemented,
> the more power SOLDIERS like me will have over YOUR miserable ass.
>
>
>
> >
> > Merely talk about it and reap the scorn all totalitarian wannabes deserve.
>
> Personally, I don't want to be a dictator over anybody.
>
> But if ***YOU*** insist on turning my country into a police state,
> than I can damn well guarantee you that I will use that power you
> want to give me to make your life absolutely miserable.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Andrew Hall
> > (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fulcanelli)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 02:24:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Scott Erb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > Too simplistic. Here is a bit about fascism:
> >
> > Naturally a 4-line summary is going to be a simplification.
> >
> > >
> > > Fascism:
> > >
> > > The basis of fascism is irrationality -- it starts based on conservative
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > This is true of ALL forms of socialism.
>
> No, fascism is nothing at all like socialism. You really need to learn
> the basics of political ideologies if you want to avoid looking like a
> fool on the internet.
>
Interesting how many of these opponents of Socialism are also irrational.
. .. just like the Fascists.
> Socialism has many forms. Marxian socialism is based on certain beliefs
> about philosophy and science which form a rational (if wrong) ideology.
> Rational means that it has premises and core assumptions which are built
> upon to develop the ideology, and which determine what the ideology is.
> Most modern ideologies are rational in that sense, you can trace their
> basic assumptions and beliefs. Fascism rejects rationality and the use
> of reason as a limitation on human will and spirit, the exact opposite
> argument of socialism. It is an essentially different ideology.
>
> > > irrationality. It is also anti-communist and anti-liberal.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > The only redeeming values it has.
Both of these ideologies, in their true forms, are progressive and
interested in the betterment of the working classes, so Fascism truly has
no redeeming qualities.
>
> Note here that liberalism as an ideology traces itself back to Locke,
> and the view that individual rights are paramount, specifically life,
> liberty and property. In the US both Democrats and Republicans can
> trace their ideological roots to liberalism. Liberalism split between
> "classical" liberalism (more free market) and "new" liberalism (growing
> from people like John Stuart Mill, who argued that equal opportunity
> required more state action).
>
> > > Conservatives: society is important, traditions of nation and culture.
> > > Fascists: STATE is important, embodies society.
> > > NATIONALISM: as protection of traditions of nation
> > > WAR/STRENGTH: Social Darwinism applied
> > >
> > > At base, fascism is a social darwinist form of ultra-conservative
> > > thought. BUT, calling it conservative is a disservice to real
> > > conservatives, just as Stalinism is not a form of Social Democracy.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > Who, other than you, is claiming that Stalin was a "Social Democrat"
>
> No one. Read more carefully and you'll see that the point is that even
> though both conservatism and fascism are on the "right," they are
> opposed to each other, just as Social Democracy and Stalinism on the
> Left are opposed to each other. The point is that one can't
> simplistically link all of the "left" or "right" together.
>
> > Actually social democrats tend to be closet-communists who lack
> > the balls to admit it.
>
> Your assertion, besides being unsubstantiated, is denied by history. A
> lot of the most vicious political battles, often turning into street
> fights, have been between Communists and Social Democrats who have very
> profound differences.
>
> > > Liberals: humans have the capacity for rational thought, to improve
> > > society.
> >
> > Except for the current variety known as the "Liberal Democrat" in
> > American society. These self-proclaimed liberals maintain that the
> > average citizen is incapable of rational thought...therefore, a
> > myriad array of government bureacracies must be set up to do
> > his/her thinking for him/her.
>
> I have never known any liberal who believed that, you're simply being
> bombastic now. Cool if you want to try to arouse reactions, but not
> very rational on your part.
>
> -snip-
>
> > You must be one of those over-educated morons who can't see that
> > which is freaking obvious to even a 4-year old child.
> >
> > Indeed, race DOES exist. However, making one's legal standing
> > dependant upon one's race is outlandish.
>
> Race is a social construct. There are genetic differences galore among
> humans, some particular diseases stay within groups where genetic
> differences exist, such as families, groups separated from others over
> time by geographic region, etc.
>
> > Question: Why are sickle-cell anemia public service announcements
> > aimed only at blacks?
>
> > Conversely, why is Down's syndrome almost unheard of in black >families?
> >
> > Indeed, race DOES exist.
>
> No, you're missing a step here. Genetic differences exist, and in
> groups (sometimes small ethnic groups) particular diseases and traits of
> that group form. Not just groups defined by skin color, there are a
> myriad of ways of dividing people. The concept of race and the focus on
> that particular distinction is a social construct, it could be done many
> different ways. I suspect what we consider "race" was chosen because
> skin color is so obvious, and the people looked different. But religion
> is another way of socially constructing division, as is gender, eye
> color, or whatever we choose. Genetic differences exist, the idea of
> "race" is a human idea, a way people have categorized others for their
> own purposes.
>
> > By the way...in light of the fact that one's legal standing before
> > the law should NOT be dependant upon one's race....what does that
> > make of Affirmative Action programs and other public policy
> > where race is the primary, or even ONLY consideration for
> > one's standing in relationship to these laws?
>
> Since race is a social construct (and social constructs are real, even
> if contingent on human ideas and actions), it has real, social
> ramifications. Discrimination in the past according to race has led to
> structural inequities between groups, and affirmative action is one
> attempt to try to undo past damage. This is not focused only on race,
> of course, but also gender and other aspects of ethnic heritage. It's
> dangerous to use that kind of policy because it could become a cure as
> bad as the disease, but used as a "tie breaker" rather than a
> determining factor for who gets a job seems reasonable.
>
> > Jest askin'.
>
> And you're getting answers.
>
> > Scape-goating...you mean line blaming all of society's ill's on
> > "dead white men", followed closely behind by "living white men"
>
> Those would be examples. So would blaming Communists, or socialists, or
> liberals. It's all the same, people trying to find some "enemy" to
> blame problems on so they can feel all good and righteous out on some
> crusade. Rather pathetic, but a lot of poor souls fall into that trap.
>
>
> > The same can be said for Communism.
> >
> > They're an improvement over anarchy...but then again, so is
> > everything else (including dictatorship).
>
> Perhaps. Though I doubt even a chaotic anarchy would have had the 20
> million or so deaths attributable to Stalinism, or 11 million to Nazism
> (not counting the war dead, that adds even more!)
>
> > I notice how you spend a lot of time pointing out the flaws in
> > right-wing socialism,
>
> Socialism is, quite obviously, an inappropriate word. The differences
> are immense. Fascism is appropriate.
>
> > but only one sentance devoted to the
> > problems of left-wing socialism.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Because I posted info on fascism. If I was posting info on communism
> (as I have), I would point out the dangers inherent in centralizing
> power, a planned economy, and all that. But the issue at hand was
> fascism, so that is what the post was about. Suffice it to say I'm just
> as completely appalled by Stalinism as I am by Nazism.
> cheers, scott
> http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/
--
To email me, remove "NOSPAM" from my address.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 03:58:05 +0200
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pE8y6.196651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chronos Tachyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:ow1y6.18339$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [Sorry if the cancel doesn't take and this gets double-posted.]
> >
> > On Mon 02 Apr 2001 06:45, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > [Snip]
> > >
> > > PKUnzip is an *old* utility, which is almost totally replaced by
windows
> > > comression programs, but what the hell, let's do it, okay?
> > > ftp://ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/arcers/pk250dos.exe
> > [Snip]
> >
> > I hate to break it to you, but PKZip 2.50 is actually a Win32 console
> > application in disguise. The last version of PKZip for 16-bit DOS was
> > 2.04g, released circa 1992.
> >
> Anyone using PKZip 2.04g on NT should be shot, since we don't know what
> Barry's friend is using, a good guess would be 2.50, since it does long
> file names.
I tried 2.04g, no long names, though, it worked.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 04:07:26 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David Rheaume
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 00:11:50 GMT
> <atPx6.658$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >I'm sorry, but where do you purchase your crack? NT4 absolutely *flies*
on
> >a P3/600. It flies on a P/200 with 32 MB RAM.
>
> It might depend on the services running. My NT4 box has a memory
> footprint of about 75-80 megabytes sitting idle. However, there are
> a lot of services running, and a few things installed (RealPlay
> uses 4M of memory, for instance; there's also a virus shielder).
>
> As of right now, it's using up 95M -- and that's after I've closed all
> other windows. If I log out, and log back in, it is still using 89M.
> If I bounce it (shutdown/reboot cycle), it comes back with 82M,
> which seems to be the best I can do with this particular system.
I suggest that you would take a look on those services and see what you can
close.
If you've not done so before, that is.
> >Don't let your ignorance or the ignorance of other convince you that
Windows
> >(the NT kernel) is unreliable.
>
> It's not, actually; the NT kernel is very reliable. Some of the
> software surrounding it, however, has demonstrable bugs. :-)
> Outlook, in particular.
*cough* ActiveX delete NT's kernel via unprivilege's user's account *cough*.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/35/ns-9701.html
NT haters are doing *really* bad job, no research, no work, no *effort*.
I mean, considerring the time that they spend here, you might at least think
that some other people except for TGITM might have a clue about what they
are posting.
------------------------------
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: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 19:34:18 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said David Rheaume in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001 04:59:07
> >Your sysadmin friends, eh? So that translates to, "Hi, I have no
> experience
> >with the OS, but I'll go ahead and trash it because that's the hip thing to
> >do."
No. Most sysadmins have had the misfortune of dealing with NT. :(
>
> Guffaw. Like there's anyone in IT that has had the joy of "no
> experience with" Windows. Ha!
>
> >And no, Redmond ITG would nor preconfigure the OS on a donated machine. The
> >software and hardware would be donated, and then the library most likely had
> >some high school kid install it.
Nope. The guy who installed was one of your typical "software
consultant" types. I saw him. Fat slob who looked like he slept in
his clothes. IOW, typical IT guy. ;)
>
> No, it was probably the OEM and an MCSE that nobody's heard from since
> they dropped the systems on the tables.
They are OEM systems. I think they are HP's? Go ahead, blame the
OEM. :(
>
> >You obviously have no grasp of the OS's capabilities (or antitrust law, for
> >that matter).
Hahaha. Lessee. I stated that an MS contract with a library
stipulating that Netscape may not be installed on any donated product,
as a condition of the donation, is not illegal under antitrust law.
Go read the Sherman Act.
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
