Linux-Advocacy Digest #308, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 06:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Baseball (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:04:34 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:28:32 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 2 Apr 2001 07:54:09 -0400;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 15:50:25 -0500;
>> >> >On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:27:22 -0500, someone claiming to be JS PL
>> >> >wrote:
>> >> >>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>> >> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> >>> Off topic for this thread, but Max has claimed at least two
>> >> >>> conversations with you re: a problem with IE which was solved by
>> >> >>> replacement of a video card. Since he originally claimed it was me,
>> >> >>> in spite of being corrected before (and since it is, after al, Max)
>> >> >>> I'm inclined to take his recent version of the fantasy with a huge
>> >> >>> grain of salt.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Do you recall the threads he's babbling about?
>> >> >
>> >> >>I remember having a problem with a bad video driver causing screen
>> >freezes a
>> >> >>couple years ago, right about the time Win98SE came out. It was a
>> >problem
>> >> >>with a Viper V550 and WinSE which reared its ugly head most often
>while
>> >IE
>> >> >>was open. Changing the card out fixed the problem.
>> >> >
>> >> >As I thought: driver, not hardware, and not exclusively IE.
>> >>
>> >> He replaced the card; claiming now that he did so merely to replace the
>> >> driver hardly supports his expertise, I'd say.
>> >
>> >That's because your not an expert I'd say. Here's what an expert does:
>>
>> Let me just say here that I'm very pleased you were dumb enough to get
>> into this again.
>>
>> >Sees that there are random screen freezes. Knows from experience that
>screen
>> >freezing is almost always due to a video card (hardware or driver). Also
>> >knows from experience that he's looking at two choices A.) 30 minutes to
>3
>> >hours of troubleshooting the existing card and driver for a 50% chance of
>> >fixing it at all. B.) 10 minutes to replace the card with a known good
>card
>> >for a 99% chance it will be fixed for good. There might be some people
>who
>> >choose A but the smart money is on B.
>>
>> No, an expert asks the first question anyone else would when you first
>> notice a problem. You ask yourself "what changed?" This question you
>> had answered in your very first post on the subject: you had installed
>> IE5. Knowing from experience that these random screen freezes did not
>> occur before you installed IE5, and knowing from your observation that
>> they did occur after, it is worth considering that installing IE5 may
>> have been the problem, had you any expertise in the matter at all. You
>> bought a brand new video card, who's drivers obviously did not make
>> apparent the bug which nevertheless still exists in IE5 (in reality, we
>> know it may not, but only because it is not possible to distinguish
>> between IE5 and Windows, once it is installed), and then loudly
>> proclaimed your cluelessness on alt.destroy.microsoft.
>>
>> How on earth can replacing the video card because IE5 screwed up your
>> system *possibly* be anything but IE5 being crappy, and you being
>> clueless?
>>
>> >> And, yes, it was
>> >> exclusively an IE fault he described; my archives remind me that the
>> >> headers from newsgroups could not be seen, though frankly that doesn't
>> >> sound like a video problem to me.
>> >
>> >Considering you have demonstrated absolutely no expertise in hardware
>> >troubleshooting I'd say your diagnosis holds no weight.
>>
>> Thanks again for your time. Hope it helps somebody; its clearly not
>> helping you.
>
>Well, your dimness, It happened when I installed Windows SE. not IE5, as I
>have said numerous times in the past.
Prove it. I don't have your posts; perhaps you do. The conversation
started and was always about IE5, AFAIK, and the posts *I* made
mentioning it back in 1998 agree.
>I don't even think IE5 beta was out
>when the Viper V550 hit the market.
>The problem was most apparent in IE. And I have never mentioned "IE5"
>dumbass.
See above.
>So "what changed" was the Windows OS.
>Ohh...and....
>If you'd like to use the flawed logic that it's Windows SE (a newly released
>OS at the time) that is broken when it won't run the Viper V550 video card
>without sporadic screen freezes, then you can go ahead and use that
>reasoning on Linux. Because at the same time in history I was also trying to
>get Caldera Open Linux installed and it wouldn't run the video card at all!
Notice: didn't run at all. Which obviously isn't the same as
"pretending to run but failing when you install the wrong app", which
seems accurate and consistent with your little 'problem', regardless of
how you mis-remember it, misrepresented it, or want to keep squirming
about it.
>BTW, Linux wouldn't run my modem either, or my sound card come to think of
>it.
Guffaw.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:25:39 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 04:24:44
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >Err, no. Software doesn't 'run' or perform anything. It is a set of
>> >instructions that a CPU follows just like a cook may follow a cookbook.
>>
>> Well, see, the problem is you have a CPU, an inanimate object, *doing*
>> things, but then you say that software cannot. CPU's don't "follow"
>> instructions "just like a cook may follow a cookbook". That's a
>> ridiculous idea, and I know you know way more about software than to
>> think it holds up. Care to try again?
>
>No, that was pretty close.
Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
I mean, it makes perfect sense as a technical analogy, to explain to
people "how computers/software work". But as a legal abstraction to
base copyright protection on? That's crazy!
>> >> If I'm not mistaken, one can copyright a juggling performance, but one
>> >> cannot copyright a juggler.
>> >
>> >The point is that if you have legally obtained a library, you have the
>> >right for it to do anything you throw at it.
>>
>> Yes, but do you have the right to give others that right?
>
>Ahh, back to the real issue. Why should it be up to me to give
>anyone that right when the library isn't mine? Why shouldn't that be
>left up to the owner of the library and the end user to determine?
It was. He GPLed the library, if I follow the example. Thus, he
determined under what conditions (on you) you may transfer that right to
them. And those conditions are, succinctly put, that you apply no
conditions on them that were not applied to you. His decision to write
the library, your decision to develop "on top" of it, and the end user's
decision to do anything the hell he wants with it, subject to the same
limitations you had.
>> >> Is the juggler's performance "derived" from
>> >> the other juggler's performance? It seems so to me, and to the courts,
>> >> as both jugglers will share all rights to whatever act they develop.
>> >
>> >What does that mean? Are you going to claim that tossing a ball back
>> >and forth with one person forever contaminates your right to do the
>> >same with a different partner?
>>
>> A juggler, as an artist, has a valid copyright claim on his artistic
>> work, which would include any unique routines he has developed. Other's
>> cannot perform "his act" without his permission.
>
>Pay attention here. No one else is performing his act. Someone is letting
>him perform his own act.
"Someone is letting him perform his own act?" I don't get it, sorry.
Maybe its just a parsing error. If the jugglers developed the act
together, and both juggler's future acts are derivative (by whatever
definition that means in juggling), then it isn't *his* act, it's
*their* act.
So was your point to indicate how difficult it is to determine whether
one juggling act is derivative of another? That's an interesting point,
for jugglers, I guess, but in fact juggling acts generally aren't
considered "novel" enough to require the kind of originality which
merits copyright protection. Its all been done before, as it were, and
it would take a very unique act to provide any claims by either party,
and in all honesty it would probably come down to a trademark case, in
real life.
As for how the art of juggling is supposed to relate to the putative art
(some say science, some pretend both) of software programming is not
clear to me at the moment.
>> How dubious the claim
>> that a particular juggling performance merits such protection as showing
>> originality necessary to merit consideration as intellectual property is
>> entirely beside the point. You started the gedanken experiment, I'm
>> just trying to deal with it.
>
>Well, then try to understand it first. The juggler is another library.
I'm sorry. Maybe this is like the "cook" thing. Perhaps its just a
matter of my own inability to grasp certain abstractions. I'm not sure
why turning a juggler into a library, and a ball into the process
execution of commands as a sort of metaphysical pointer, makes a
juggling act like software. Or, rather, how it might illuminate the
supposed problem you see in considering programs derivative of libraries
on which they are dependent to be functionally useful.
I do appreciate your trying, though, honestly. Its an interesting
analogy. If I do understand it, and interpret your "the juggler is
another library" correctly, your saying that a "GPL juggler" would
prevent his partner from juggling. The analogy is flawed because his
partner would have to already be GPL, due to the nature of GPL, and so
the fact that his *partner* was GPL wouldn't be what's preventing him
from juggling. It would be his *new* partner, who doesn't want to get
"contaminated" with the GPL. He will refuse to juggle with the partner,
or he will forget to ask and become GPL himself, or whatever you decide
for the analogy.
It all works just as intended, as far as I can see. Non-GPL jugglers
(not all of them, but enough to make it a concern) throw sharp knives at
the audience at random intervals, and refuse to let anyone know which
direction they're going to throw them. So the GPL movement was created;
GPL jugglers are only allowed to throw soft spongy balls that you can
see coming a mile away.
>You
>have the right to have/use that library whether purchased or free. You
>don't duplicate what that library does, you hand over control to it and
>let it do the function itself. If you have a dozen different libraries,
>each obtained under their own terms you can use them all together. And as far
>as can tell, only the GPL is so restrictive as to claim ownership and
>control of the code linking to it.
You have created a derivative work by creating a program that uses that
libraries code to supply functionality as a necessary part of your
program's functionality. A derived work is covered by copyright law,
and the GPL is a legal copyright license, AFAIK. You may be correct
that the GPL is the only software license so restrictive as to *control*
the code linking to it, but the fact that linked code can be considered
derivative is not, AFAIK (but you would know better than I), something
that is limited to consideration of the GPL.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[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 02:30:40 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Are you trying to tell me you accept this ridiculous idea? A CPU is a
> cook, and software a recipe? Where on earth did you come up with that?
> I mean, it makes perfect sense as a technical analogy, to explain to
> people "how computers/software work". But as a legal abstraction to
> base copyright protection on? That's crazy!
Of course it is. In a legal sense, a computer is a tool, like a pot or
a pan (or a photocopier).
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:40:17 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 03:36:35
>"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...
Because it attempts to sidestep the intent of the GPL, which is to
control *derivative works*, not arbitrary code other than the GPL'd work
itself. Software is, by nature, a derivative system. If I'm not
mistaken, that's the general point you try to make about the danger of
the library linking issue; you believe it will deter development by
making that kind of derivative development (use of shared libraries)
less expedient. But its commercial exploitation of wrapping copyright
in a trade secret license that makes deriving software from existing
works so potentially damaging to the original authors, as predatory
behavior is both common and counter-productive to the actual derivative
development you say you desire.
Sorry; "take me" free software licenses like the BSDL are a dead end.
Microsoft has proved that. I would encourage you to initiate and
support efforts to legally test the "library linking/derivative
development" issue you are troubled about in a court of law. I expect
you'll lose more than you'll win, but I could be wrong. As far as I am
concerned, there's nothing metaphysical to protect in the integrity of
copyright, so as long as trade secret EULA's go away, you won't hear
much from me.
>> >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.
Okay, yes. They are the ones defending their rights and making threats
to take infringers to court. You expect MS can play money games
threatening customers with "piracy audits" but the GPL authors can't
protect their code?
>> 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.
Get a clue, Les. When it's tested, you'll know its "right". I'm pretty
sure already. I don't have your hangups about the metaphysical
properties of intellectual property. No reference in case law, but
"software is different". All it takes is one developer with the balls
to go to court, and its not like you're being pummeled by Microsoft's
corporate goon-squad.
>> 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.
I thought you said they're the ones defending. Has anyone stamped all
over their claims? It would only take one, and then nobody would be so
cowed. Its tough to tell whether its balls or money, but someone
doesn't have what it takes to take the case to court. The FSF has a lot
of balls, and at least a little money; I believe they are hardly
reticent.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:46:23 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 06:06:17
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 06:40:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 01 Apr 2001 23:07:14
>>>> This is an obligation on the distributor of the GPLed
>>>> code, nothing more. If he can't meet this obligation, then he can't
>>>> distribute the GPLed code.
>>>
>>>That alone is enough to make the 'free' label a clear deception,
>>
>>No, freedom always comes with obligations.
>
>When you're willing to accept encumbered software as "free", you are
>opening floodgates, and it becomes difficult to see what software is
>not "free" by the same argument.[...]
Perhaps by a different argument. The same argument that I was using,
that freedom always comes with obligations, then the non-free software
would be the stuff that is not so encumbered. One of the reasons I've
been known to use "free software" to exclusively indicate GPL'd code,
what the FSF calls "copyleft"; an easy rule to follow, "if it is not
encumbered by the GPL [to prevent any developers from ever using it
proprietorially to monopolize] then I can't be sure it is free."
I can always tell by the GPL license, then. But if you want a more
precise rule, and aren't concerned about ensuring the software *remains*
free, then you could tell which software was free by whether or not you
could get your hands on the source code should you need it. Not all
open source code might count as "free", but if all code were open
source, all code would be "free" whether it was GPL or not, even if it
had a price tag on it.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 09:47:15 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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.[...]
So far, its proven completely tenable. And you are right, they have no
choice. Use the LGPL if it bothers you.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:58:51 -0400
Roger Perkins wrote:
>
> Oh, I got lil' aaron pegged. And killfield as the idiot he is.
Translation: Roger underestimates those who he disagrees with.
>
> Roger
> AIRBORNE!
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 1 Apr 2001 19:26:47
> > >Just for fun, can we skip the word games on democracy and republic? The
> > >word are normally used interchangeably when discussing our political
> system.
> > >Only PoliSci geeks worry about the difference between the two. This is
> like
> > >aaron worrying about communism vs socialism.
> >
> > I like that; we should consider it a rule for the thread, if we even
> > bother continuing. And for the record, it was me that "worried" about
> > the distinction between communism and socialism, but only to illustrate
> > that Aaron is generally ignorant about what constitutes either.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 22:01:09 +1200
Ever played rugby? Ever been in the position of having a 140KG Somoan charging towards
you
(and you're only 85KG), and being hammered when trying to tackle the person? I also
find
it rather amazing how little Septic Tanks know about the world outside the US? Did you
know we have Televisions, Tree's, cars, computers, I know, its probably has come as
quite a
big shock to you.
Matthew Gardiner
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
> >Cricket is not gay, NOW Gridiron, that is really gay, wtf is it with pads and shit?
>and
> >a 15'er after each tackle for christs. I've seen more action from a Microsoft
> >programmer than what happens on the field in a game of Gridiron.
>
> They like to think its a game of strategy.
>
> Do you think there's more strategy in cricket then in baseball? I've
> watched both, but I know the rules and strategy to baseball, having
> grown up American. They're both pretty boring. I'm interested in
> learning a bit of some of the strategy. It seems a really wacked game
> from the brief descriptions I've heard.
>
> But "gridiron" ('American football') is about *mass*, not *flexibility*,
> that's wtf with the pads and shit. Rugby (isn't that what you guys call
> your version of gridiron?) is for pansies, in comparison. You might as
> well play soccer.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 05:59:45 -0400
Roger Perkins wrote:
>
> 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.
This is why he fails.
>
> Roger "I vas just volowink ORDERS!" Perkins
> CHAIRBORNE!
>
> "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 ***
--
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
******************************
