Linux-Advocacy Digest #329, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.) (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (GreyCloud)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.)
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:05:37 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:08:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> >> They are probably immigrants. As you know, immigrants is just a code word
> >> for "invading army", because there is no difference between one and the
> >> other.
> >
> >LEGAL immigrants are ok...and by the way, I support INCREASING our
> >immigration rates.
>
> I'm not sure I follow this -- is it not true that your "invading army"
> claim is based on the fact that illegal immigrants could also illegaly
> act as an invading army (as in your example with Germany?) If immigrants
> did the same thing without immigrating illegaly, would that make them
> any less of an invading army ?
>
> I'd offer a different view -- the difference between an invading army
> and immigrants is that the army is organised. If immigrants came legally,
> and were all following some large scale plan to compromise national
> security, then that would be an "army". The illegal immigrants are just a
> ragtag bunch of either opportunists or people who are very desperate to
> get out of their country of citizenship. Either way, if they were an army,
> trying to organise them would most certainly be an unenviable task.
>
> As for increasing immigration rates, the funny thing about this is the
> people who've made me more pro-immigration are the anti-immigration
> protectionists (for example, the anti-H1B whiners who often troll
> comp.lang.c++). These people are such an illiterate bunch of incurable
> morons that I've come to realise that incompetence is the leading cause
> of unemployment in the high tech business.
>
Isn't that the truth! Eldec Corp. gets rid of about half of what they
hire in about 2 or 3 months. Reason: Can't read and write.
> #include <std_rant_about_the_protectionist_losers.h>
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
--
V
------------------------------
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 12:01:40
[...]
>It is technically simple, and it is done all the time.
>It can't be ludicrous, because it's happening, and will continue to happen.
>Technical ignorance is not a defense against reality.
Please provide a couple examples of programs which were written to use
libraries which did not yet exist. I do not believe "it" is done all
the time, though I do know for a fact that you and other's have
misconstrued what "it" is.
>>>Apparently you don't believe it to be possible to write such a program,
>>>but most others know better. For example I can write a program that can
>>>use currently existing gimp plug-ins. Assuming I write my program
>>>correctly, it could also use gpl'd plug-ins that have yet to be written.
>>
>>Well, you might get lucky, but if your goal is to support an interface
>>(gimp plug-ins) that has only ever existed previously in a GPL product,
>>writing such a product would certainly bring up the question of whether
>>your work is derivative of the GPL work.
>
>It will not be derivative for several reasons:
>
>a) Because if it would, then GNU grep is a derivative work of AT&T grep.
I think you confuse derivative in a metaphorical sense (West Side Story
is derivative of Romeo and Juliet) and derivative in a legal sense (Jim
Carrey's Grinch is derivative of the character in the book by Dr.
Suesse.) They are related, but only an unreasonable person would
suggest that they are precisely the same.
The more direct-foward expression of that argument is that all
Windows-based programs would be derivative of Windows, should MS attempt
to claim ownership and start taking people to court. I agree completely
with the example; according to the current understanding of copyright
and software, IF the FSF's theory is valid, then MS could, in fact, do
this. As well as a lot of other things they *could* do, but wouldn't,
because they'd be back in front of a judge for Sherman Act violations,
again.
>b) It is not derivative if it's based on a published spec. The spec is
> published. This has been done to death a bazillion times.
How could the published spec be known to be correct enough to be useful
if the software providing that functionality has never been envisioned?
A book is 'written' when its author puts words to paper. But there is
no paper in software. Is not documented an API spec essentially not the
same thing as writing the software? I'm not suggesting its not easier,
but is the artistry in the API, or in the code? A programmer, always
anxious to get defensive, will usually say "both", I would expect. But
then we've got two different works, and we know an API cannot be covered
by copyright.
I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about the gedanken
experiment I posted in another message about the author of the third
book of a trilogy.
>c) It's common practice. If that's infringing on a license, then every
> programmer has infringed on everyone's license.
As I've said what I thought was often enough before. 'Yea, so?'
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 18:10:00 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > Just a little bit more on the connection between classical liberalism and modern
> > liberalism, via John Stuart Mill. In Lyman Tower Sargent's book "Contemporary
> > Political Ideologies" (1999, Harcourt Brace), he writes on page106-07 that "The
> > other approach developed in the late 19th century and early 20th centuries in the
> > writings of T.H. Green and others, who argued that some people need help in order
>to
> > be able to exercise their liberty. This argument was the beginning of what became
> > known as welfare liberalism."
> >
> > The key: modern liberalism emerges from Lockean and classical liberal thought with
> > an emphasis on individuality and liberty, with government needed to try to secure
> > that. That is very different from collectivist socialism that denied private
> > property or looked to big government to equalize material outcomes.
> >
> > Sargent's chapter starting on page 41 on the "Principles of Democracy" also explain
> > what democracy is (and how it is not inconsistent with having a Republic). I still
> > recommend Barber's book for a more full analysis of what democracy is, but
>Sargent's
> > book compares well with Thobaben and Funderburk (the most 'simple' of the examples
> > offered) and Leon Baradat's.
>
> What would you say if I do *NOT* accept Sargent as an authority on anything
> other than picking his nose.
>
HaHa! I was told a long time ago never to take as the Gospel truth
anything written or any book published. Most of the new books are
riddled with erros or authors with Agendas.
> > -scott
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
------------------------------
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: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:22 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr
[...]
>>If it weren't for the fact that I cannot condone "experimentation on
>>live human beings", I'd agree with you about the Chinese scenario.
>
>I'l merely note that the US is a grand experiment, as well -- and has
>been for 230 years. :-)
The government may be considered a "grand experiment". The society, as
far as I know, is as close to natural conditions as people want to make
it.
[...]
>>Which devolves, I'm afraid, into the primordial ooze of philosophical
>>consideration: does have a majority of citizens still willing to kill
>>the rebels make such a government moral or just?
>
>Agreed.
That's cheating!
>>>I do not buy into the "let's get the guns off
>>>the street" arguments of HCI, although I'm not sure how to reduce
>>>the carnage at this time (ideally, the citizenry would shoot them
>>>dead, or threaten to, and they'd think twice about shooting their
>>>rivals -- of course, the gangsters might also shoot the citizenry,
>>>but then other citizenry might step in!).
>>
>>What is "HCI"?
>
>Handgun Control, Incorporated. I'm not sure if that's a real group,
>or a strawman created by the more rabid pro-gun crowd, but the idea
>of HCI is apparently that guns must be kept off the streets, that gun
>purchases should have a background check, felons should not have guns,
>assault rifles aren't legal, they don't like concealed carry laws, etc.
>
>I'll admit I could be misrepresenting their position, but that's
>what I remember. On the surface, they seem reasonable -- but then,
>so do _1984_'s "telescreens". Look further down and one gets a
>nasty agenda -- does the US Constitution require that convicted
>felons can't have a firearm, for example? (There might be a
>court case somewhere; I'd have to look.)
Certainly while they're convicted. ;-)
But as far as the principle goes, we're back to ooze. Does a man have
the right to "live down" his guilt?
>>Personally, I'm as moderately radical in my thinking on
>>gun control as I am in public education.
>
>It would seem that nowadays anyone who advocates gun ownership
>at all is "moderately radical". :-) (Personally, I'm ambivalent.
I'm more radical than anyone I've met so far. Few people consider the
right to own a private nuclear weapon to be covered by the Bill of
Rights. (To say it would be 'illegal under any circumstances' to use it
or even threaten to use it is a different matter. As would the charge
that wanting to own it under those conditions is evidence of mental
incompetence. But the ownership of the weapon certainly shouldn't be
illegal.)
>I don't like the idea of guns, but recognize that others may
>feel the need for self-defense and that there is no rational reason
>to outright ban them; in this respect, my position parallels that of
>abortion, which is another can of worms.
And another one I'll happily treat as "problem solved" in my own little
philosophy. Until it comes out of somebody's body, it's inside
somebody's body, and that makes it *them* and *their's*, and nobody but
that person has a fucking thing to say about it.
As for gun control, it isn't a matter, I think, of a right or need for
*self* defense. It is to defend the country against the government that
is the purpose of that requirement of freedom.
>In any event, if there are
>no guns in the citizenry, what's to prevent the police, or any other
>duly designated arm of the government system, from confiscating everything?
Tada.
>Admittedly, that's a bit black-and-white, but that's one reason
>Amendment II is there in the first place, along with III, IV, V, ... :-) )
Some say the only reason.
[...]
>>The only time it becomes delusional, or an indication of paranoia or
>>paranoid schizophrenia, is when you believe that there is a
>>consciousness behind this "attempt" to "seduce" people.
>
>I'm not sure there isn't, admittedly! Yes, that sounds slightly
>strange, but I'm a believer in the "wolfpack" or "follow the crowd"
>principle: "everyone else is doing it so it must be OK".
>Of course, that doesn't mean that it's all that directed, or that
>there's a conspiracy of, say, the Bavarian Illuminati running things;
>that would just be ridiculous. But man is a social animal,
>and we see things and copy them.
I was at a seminar a couple years ago on philosophy and religion. An
anthropologist spoke who is world-famous on this issue. His theory is
that man "sees" such enemies for the same reason he personifies 'god'.
The environment of evolutionary adaptation resulted in man taking for
granted that if he notices it against the background of nature (if it is
not entirely the same as what is expected) then he automatically assumes
that another man did it, since the work of animals is always either part
of nature, or hidden by nature.
>One might call this a "meta-consciousness", or perhaps a societal force.
>It's similar to the "forces" "driving" the stock market -- there is no
>force driving the stock market (to be extremely pedantic, a force
>implies that an object is impelled to move), but there is some
>sort of aggregate consensus and/or notion to buy or sell. Why, I
>don't really know; there are time I wish the stock market reflected
>more accurately a company's predicted fortunes.
Because lions and tigers have protective coloration, that's why. ;-)
>I'd suggest this sort of thing lies in ourselves, not in an outside
>agency. It's very hard to be an individual nowadays.
When we consider our position to the world of objective relatively
abject misery that all previous societies suffered, I'd say the only
reason its very hard now is because it was practically impossible
before.
>>Its the very
>>forces of nature which inevitably cause government to oppress the
>>citizenry, and requires no evil mastermind. Whenever someone's
>>political discussion requires a non-abstract evil mastermind (or an evil
>>scapegoat), you know they're getting close to the edge.
>
>If one calls one's opponent an idiot, one has effectively lost the
>argument. Unfortunately, this has two consequences:
>
>[1] If the opponent does not understand the sender's argument, then
> the sender has failed to convey his case; the sender subsequently
> calling the opponent an idiot may be a self-failing.
>[2] If the opponent cannot understand the sender's argument, no matter
> how cogently produced, then it's clear the discussion will evolve
> into a less useful direction.
That would only be the case if one called one's opponent an idiot *as
part of your argument*. As an insult, it isn't an "ah hominem" attack
on the argument. Spotting the difference can be tricky, but its
possible. Double-checking the relationship between the arguer, the
argument, and the insult is generally enough.
I'd say that your assumption that a discussion "will evolve into a less
useful direction" is second-guessing. Believe it or not, some people's
egos aren't so fragile that they fall apart and declare a meaningless
logical victory just because I called them a moron, or their arguments
moronic, and we've gone on to have productive conversations, once they
understood that doing either is not doing both, and the only insult that
is necessarily ad hominem, and therefore prevents "a logical sequence of
argument" (I think its a failure to assume this extends to conversation
argument, but that is beside the point) is one that says "since you are
a moron therefore your argument moronic". To say "since your argument
is moronic therefore you are a moron," however, is not so unambiguous.
>These are why peer review is important in science; the maverick is at
>a bit of a disadvantage, unfortunately. (These also explain why I
>try to refrain calling my opponents idiots. Sometimes, I succeed. :-) )
>
>>
>>--
>>T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
>Looks like we more or less agree. :-)
When the discussion is at the level where "peer review" might be
considered a serious concept rather than a form of entertainment called
Usenet, there obviously would be no place for insults.
For all those who have become confused by my sig and asked for my own
private interpretation, I'll be straight with you. Here it is:
'The best way to convince someone who is reasonable of your argument's
validity is to state it moderately and accurately. For those who are
not reasonable, your insults should be equally moderate and accurate.'
At least on Usenet, thems the rules. Anyone who doesn't admit that the
insults are part of the fun are lying to themselves.
"I lick's ya cuz I can, and cuz I wants, and cuz yer the kind that
lickin's good fer." -- Horation Hornblower
If that makes me an intellectual bully, then all I can say is that I'll
try to be a fair one. ;-)
--
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,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:23 GMT
Said Beth in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 09:10:13 +0100;
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Beth suggested:
[...]
>> >Think for yourselves.
>>
>> But when we do that, we get in arguments with others who think for
>> themselves and come up with different results, leaving us back with what
>> you insist is "blind prejudices". I'm sorry, I just can't agree with
>> your fatalistic view of political philosophy.
>
>No; We'd get into arguments when those people of blind predjuice will not
>rationalise their opinions and instead spout rage and anger (and a healthy
>does of curses :)...a person that truely _thinks_ will NOT spout knee-jerk
>reaction NOR will they be adverse from listening to others...
Well, I know that, and you know that, but Aaron? He don't know that.
>You seem a rational person, which is why I find it interesting that you
>suggest that merely because someone holds a "blind predjuice" that they are
>unable to contribute and that they are inherently wrong because their
>opinion does not tally with yours...
The very phrase "blind prejudice" means what you identify as its
results. If someone's beliefs are based on blind prejudice, they will
not tally with anyone's but those likewise holding blind prejudice.
Anyone else is, indeed, capable of contributing and may or may not be
correct, regardless of their viewpoint. At least we presume that in
Socratic ignorance; in real life, we know what we like, and so if we are
happy in our situation, we "believe in" the system which defines it. It
is not "blind prejudice" to love democracy, for an American, even if he
cannot elucidate the philosophical reasons he 'does', or 'should'. It
is, however, blind prejudice for an American to "hate commies", even if
he *can* elucidate the philosophical or teleological justification for
his hatred. The most reason could ever support is disagreeing with
them. That disagreement may be sufficient to provoke physical violence
to prevent what may be a violation of what we here in America are "human
rights", but generally simply opening up the borders and allowing
refugees permanent citizenship is a more effective and efficient method,
without the ethical difficulties of justifying murder or war.
>thus, your opinions may be of a more
>liberal nature than Aaron's but you employ the same bully/ignore tactics...I
>would definitely agree with your opinions more than Aaron, from what has
>been said, but I fail to see what separates your tactics from his...
I think you meant 'strategy', rather than 'tactics', or perhaps
"position" versus opinions. His blind prejudice and my rational
evaluation do indeed correspond on some points. As I've said before,
that doesn't mean that his points are constructive, nor that my points
are not.
>This would refute the notion of freedom of speech and religion, would it
>not?
Certainly not. It would make it impossible for religion to have any
influence or impact on politics, but that is in fact the point. As for
freedom of speech, recognizing Aaron's remarks as categorically
worthless when they are based on blind prejudice does not in any way
impugn his right to say them.
>EVERYONE thinks they're right...merely dumping some monologue and ignoring
>response will NOT prove you're right...empathise...this person who you're
>talking to thinks you are totally wrong...
You haven't been talking to Aaron long enough. He doesn't "think" I'm
wrong; he considers it a given, since I disagree with him.
>no amount of "I'm right, you're
>wrong" will EVER change that...in fact, it will only make the situation
>worse because they feel you're forcing them to think as you do...no matter
>how liberal your opinions, to Aaron, you are being a facist and forcing your
>opinions on him...
Its the other way around, Beth. Note that it becomes very hard to tell,
when the issue isn't ideological, between the fascists and those who say
their opponents are wrong. Fascists simply believe they don't need any
reasoning or consensus in order to support their belief. Other than
that, they're only as evil as anyone else blinded by prejudice. In some
respects, better a fascist than a Kulkis. Kulkis pretends his opinions
are based on reason, while a fascist does not (philosophically;
obviously they believe their philosophy has a basis on reason, but the
results of the philosophy are arbitrarily "correct" and any different
opinion is automatically "wrong".)
>Note: The above also applies to Aaron, to an extent...drawing lines and
>taking sides makes sense in a war but not in a debate...a discussion cannot
>function properly without giving respect and room to speak for your
>"opponents"...
Aaron's not really a special case; there's lots of people like him on
Usenet. Drawing lines and taking sides, I'll point out, is even more
necessary in a debate than in a war. Usenet is not a debate, though it
often pretends to be.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:24 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001 17:16:25 GMT;
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:05:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:14:16 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Don't confuse the little dweeb. He wants to set up a dictatorship in this
>>> >> country along with Hdlskdjfloser. He sees "anti-government" as
>>> >> "anti-whateverI want".
>>> >
>>> >If I'm so "anti-government", porker, then why am I *IN* the government.
>>>
>>> You seem to enjoy taking trips paid by taxpayers to foreign countries
>>> where you can use shiny toys to kill people.
>>
>>That's not my decision...see: CONGRESS.
On speaking of personal responsibility, a subject near and dear to
Aaron's heart in a uber-extremist-elitest sense, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote:
"If I am mobilized in a war, this war is _my_ war; it is in my image and
I deserve it. I deserve it first because I could always get out of it
by suicide or by desertion; these ultimate possibles are those which
must always be present for us when there is a question of evisaging a
situation. For lack of getting out of it, I have _chosen_ it. This can
be due to inertia, to cowardice in the face of public opinion, or
because I prefer certain other values to the values of the refusal to
join in the war (the good opinion of my relatives, the honor of my
family, etc.). Any way you look at it, it is a matter of choice. This
choice will be repeated later on again and again without a break until
the end of the war. Therefore, we must agree with the statement by J.
Romains, "In war, there are no innocent[....]"* If therefore I have
preferred war to death or to dishonor, everything takes place as if I
bore the entire responsibility for this war."
>Are you having drafts these days? I thought the US had a volunteer
>army.
He continues:
"Of course others have declared it, and one might be tempted perhaps to
consider me as a simple accomplice. But this notion of complicity has
only a juridical sense, and it does not hold here. For it depended on
me that for me and by me this war should not exist, and I have decided
that it does exist. There was no compulsion here, for the compulsion
could have got no hold on a freedom."
*I edited the word "victim", here, as its over-emotional and outside the
scope of the issue.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:25 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:05:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:14:16 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roger Perkins wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Don't confuse the little dweeb. He wants to set up a dictatorship in this
>> >> >> country along with Hdlskdjfloser. He sees "anti-government" as
>> >> >> "anti-whateverI want".
>> >> >
>> >> >If I'm so "anti-government", porker, then why am I *IN* the government.
>> >>
>> >> You seem to enjoy taking trips paid by taxpayers to foreign countries
>> >> where you can use shiny toys to kill people.
>> >
>> >That's not my decision...see: CONGRESS.
>>
>> Are you having drafts these days? I thought the US had a volunteer
>> army.
>
>Yes. I volounteered to uphold my DUTY, as an American citizen, to
>protect the Constitution of the United States. I held up my right hand
>and swore an oath to do exactly that.
>
>Exactly *HOW* and *WHERE* it is done is not my decision to make....I
>merely make the decision to be part of the solution rather than part
>of the problem.
You accept Congress's idea, then, not your own, of what is the problem
and what is the solution?
You've already stated that you recognize your right and responsibilities
in disobeying unlawful orders. Does this not make you responsible for
your every act, regardless of whether Congress directs it or not? And
when Congress's interpretation of the Constitution varies with your own,
are you going to only then take responsibility for your actions, or will
you then discard responsibility, saying you were following other's
directions and therefore trying to excuse your responsibility?
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:26 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
[...]
>The power to declare war is SOLELY in the hands of Congress.
Guffaw. Tell that to everyone who has died in the armed forces of the
US since Congress last declared a war.
>Congress is elected according to the laws of the US Constitution.
>
>If you don't like a war that we get into...then the source of the
>problem, ultimately, is your neighbors.
That would be *you*, Mr. "up against the wall" Kulkis.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:27 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 03 Apr 2001
>Roger Perkins wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I got lil' aaron pegged. And killfield as the idiot he is.
>
>Translation: Roger underestimates those who he disagrees with.
Frankly, its not possible to underestimate you, Aaron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
