Linux-Advocacy Digest #300, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:27:56 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> I bounced *A* check, because a check that was written to me bounced.
Dishorable act no less. Big enough to land you in court.
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:27:58 -0700
Max, my friend, do not flatter lil' aaron by treating him like an adult.
It's a waste of time and effort. Mainly effort. I think he's
Hdlfjlskjloser anyway.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 1 Apr 2001 00:27:08
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Paul Holloway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >: If you don't have a viable solution, then you're part of the problem.
> >
> >
> >There is a great solution. It's called the Constitution. It is the
> >highest law of the land, and anything contrary to it is null and void.
> >
> >I'm sworn to defend it, and that is why I oppose those who have
> >knowingly and actively violated it for their own personal gain.
>
> But that probably includes far more anti-communists than it does
> communists.
>
> >Most of those who get labeled as "anti-government" actually favor
> >lawful, Constitutional government. What they oppose is the current
> >oligarchy masquerading as a democracy, most of whose actions are
> >obviously and blatantly unlawful. And on that point at least I'm with
> >them 100%.
>
> To say that our government needs improving (and to echo that we all do,
> which is most of the reason for that political need) is one thing; to
> say that the government is an "oligarchy masquerading as a democracy" is
> going a bit too far, I think. It shows a lack of confidence in the
> Constitution itself, to me.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:29:07 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> In that case, I stand corrected.
No shit.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 23:34:22 -0400
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> "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.
No...you can't face the fact that the majority of Americans still
see your egalitarian drivel for what it is...a fradulent scheme to
make off with their money with nothing but mere *promises* to return
it, *IF* they jump through the hoops...
Oh, did we tell you that the red hoop doesn't count, you have to
jump through the *BLUE* hoop, like that one over there...
No, I didn't sat THAT precise Blue hoop....just one that's like it...
only the Blue hoops that ACTUALLY qualify you to get some of your
money back are the ones that are on fire.
Yes...that was a flaming hoop you jumped through...but, if you look
closely at the tag on the support pole, you will see that it is
clearly marked that the manufacturer's tag carries the code HGF,
which indicates that this was manufactured as a ***GREEEN*** hoop.
Yes, it's difficult to tell underneath all that soot.
No, no, no...you can't have any money yet...that was a BLACK hoop.
HBF is BLACK. B for Black. QUIT COMPLAINING...your arm will heal
in 6-8 weeks. Where is a BLUE flaming hoop?...well, not around
here, that's for sure....the nearest one I know of is in Denver....
....etc., etc.
>
> > > 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!
--
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: "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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:36:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What if you don't want to distribute GPLed code, but you want the
> >user to obtain his own copy and use it by linking it with another
> >component under either less or more restrictive terms?
>
> Why would you want to do that? Seriously, I would like to know there
> might be some rational reason before considering the metaphysics of it.
The reason is to remove the claim of the GPL that it controls
things other than the GPL'd work itself. This has been done, by
the way, and met with legal threats from the FSF...
> >but
> >the FSF's claim of control over things that do not contain a copy
> >of the covered material is even more problematic. How can
> >anyone believe these people are reasonable?
>
> Because they're not the ones who made the rules about what constitutes
> "derivative works", though they are the ones who are applying it.
You mean they are the ones making threats.
> The
> law allows just the case you claim: infringement without a literal copy.
Case law please, where only a reference is used in the infringing material.
> If you disagree with how they're applying it, which is to say that a
> program is derived from the libraries it uses, you have merely to show
> in court that it is not valid. But the lack of legal precedent leaves
> you constantly befuddled about it. Leading to your desire to deride
> those who feel they understand it well enough to consider it quite
> reasonable.
Or perhaps there is a good reason why there is no precedent... They
understand it well enough to know better than to take a case to court.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:41:31 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 02 Apr 2001
> 13:25:50 -0400;
> >Roger Perkins wrote:
> >>
> >> Also his demonstrated instability and hostility towards the US government.
> >> Officers must be loyal. aaron isn't.
> >
> >I'm loyal to the US Constitution. We are a nation of LAWS, not men.
> >Anyone officer who demands that you swear your loyalty to HIM instead
> >of the Constitution is a dangerous individual who should be put out of
> >the military IMMEDIATELY.
> >
> >
> >Are you saying that an officer should accept orders from a modern
> >day Benedict Arnold, just because said officer is his superior?
> >
> >Loyalty without brains => police state, moron.
>
> Are you saying an E5 has the power to disobey a lawful order because he
> believes it conflicts with his private interpretation of the
> Constitution?
Nice Try, Max, but that's a false premise.
If an order conflicts with the Constitution, then it's not a legal order.
PERIOD.
If a soldier believes that an order conflicts with the Constitution,
or any other relevant laws (such as the Geneva Convention; theather
commander's Rules of Engagement, etc.), he is ****REQUIRED**** to
report the legal dilemma to the person issuine the command IMMEDIATELY.
If the order is re-issued, it is the soldier's DUTY to report it to
the first person in his chain-of-command who is superior to the one
issuing the illegal order.
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES are soldiers allowed to obey unconstitutional
orders. NEVER!
"I vas just folowink ORDERS!" Didn't cut it at the Nurenburg trials,
and it's NOT gonna work for Roger Perkins either....that little
totalitarian nut should be confined to Leavenworth post-haste.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
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: "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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:46:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think you've misconstrued the example quite a bit. If I understand it
> correctly, the library is the GPL component. The program is not GPL.
> Les' thought experiment requires one to postulate that it is possible to
> write a program to use a library which does not yet exist. The fatal
> flaw, I think, is obvious, but using this trick he has convinced himself
> that time travel has a bearing on copyright law.
I am not aware of any distinction between whether the main program
code or the libraries are the GPL'd component except for the
specific exemption for standard system libraries. Consider the
case where both GPL and anti-GPL libraries are linked by the
same main program, or dynamically linked by run-time instructions
(actually a common case under perl, where a proprietary database
client library might be linked with one or more GPL libraries in
the same program at runtime). How does the status of these
libraries change as a result of being used this way? Does one
suddenly become a derivative of the other in the copyright sense
even though is was not before being used in this combination?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
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: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:35:30 GMT
On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Then by what claim can the FSF say that separately distributing a
> 'user-does-the-link' kit where the usr obtains his own copy
>of the GPL'd material is in any way a violation?
My belief is that the FSF has no choice but to hold that untenable
position. The alternative is that any of their code can be compiled
as libraries and plugins which can then be used with proprietary
closed source programs. For that matter, on linux at least you can
compile GPLed code as executables and still access the internal functions
using dlopen. The FSF finds that alternative unacceptable for obvious
reasons.
The FSF's interpretation has a couple of very unfortunate consequences.
The first is the logical implication that any OS vendor has
the right to control distribution of program written for their OS.
Microsoft should according to the FSF's position be able to tell
Oracle or Netscape not to use Microsoft's dll's or OS system calls
in their software. Fortunately, this just isn't the law.
The second consequence is that people who dislike the GPL get a
convenient place to lodge attacks. I think the situations where
people encounter the "user-does-the-link", or "phantom distribution"
problem are relatively rare, yet real or hypothetical instances
of those situations generate lots of heated discussion.
Isaac
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
