Linux-Advocacy Digest #390, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Rob
Robertson)
Re: Baseball (Anonymous)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Ian Davey)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Oleg Krivosheev)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Re: Communism confession
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:44:33 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mathew wrote:
>
> On 4 Apr 2001, Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>
> >
> > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Thank you for the excellent reminder of what America is fighting, Mr.
> > Chaihorsky.
>
> Who are you fighting?
I said 'what', not 'who', you little pinhead.
The 'what' that I and many other true Americans* are fighting is creeping
socialism, insidious Marxist propaganda, and the rise of totalitarianism.
We are fighting the willful ignorance of ideologically-blindered leftists
who would destroy freedom and self-determination in America in order to
institute rule by a global elite.
The 'who' that I'm fighting are lying, disingenuous frauds who would seek
to indoctrinate young college-age kids with nanny-state dogma after they've
turned their minds to mush with relativist claptrap, as well as moronic
teen-agers from Guam who don't know how to put one concept in front of
another.
> > Rob,
> >
> > If there is a way for me to thank America, to whose shores I came 14 years
> > ago, fresh out of Communism slavery, brougt up by the damn "village" of
> > other slaves as an atheist, poor, but hopeful, opressed, but optimistic -
> > for her justice without pity, generosity without handouts, kindness without
> > charity, equality without equalness - my way would be to help her fight the
> > most outrageous attempt to enslave her sons and daughters and put back into
> > bondage her ideals and hopes.
> > This will be a bloody and heavy fight. You have not seen anything yet.
> >
> >
> > Alex Chaihorsky
> > Reno, NV
_
Rob Robertson
* "True Americans" are those of all ages, colors, creeds, etc,... who hold
to the principle that all people are born free, and that human dignity
is served by defending our rights to life, liberty, and property. That
is why Mr. Chaihorsky is a True American, whereas Scott Erb is merely
a walking viral colony emulating the form and style of a human being.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:06:51 -0600
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Baseball
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe Microsoft will go the full monty and deliver a stable OS for once?
why don't you do something to make unix as easy to use as windows while
retaining the former's stability and put microsoft out of business?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
tapping foot
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 5 Apr 2001 15:10:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:10:39
>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>FTE. Text editor. With no modification to the original sources, just
>>a little dynamic linking magic (could be done at runtime if you want)
>>it now uses Qt or KDElibs (2.0b5 or later).
>
>It was written before Qt or KDElibs were?
Yes.
> Perhaps you misunderstand (as
>I seem to have suspected) what "it" is. A program that was written that
>*requires* a library that has never been written.
Mind you, this "requires" stuff is new. We have been saying "uses".
> If any *other*
>libraries are already available, the case is flawed; the GPL library
>linking stipulation already indicates that the situation involves
>libraries which are only available GPL.
Where?
>
>>Proof image: http://www.conectiva.com.ar/ralsina/
>>
>>Other: Gimp plugins. You can use them with a BeOS image editor.
>>Yet the BeOS plugins were written before BeOS (and all its libraries)
>>were released.
>>
>>Any windows program: they can use the DLL replacements in wine.
>>
>>Any Motif program: they can use LessTif.
>>
>>Those are SIMPLE examples. There are way more general ones.
>
>What are these supposed to be examples of? I don't understand.
>
>...
>
>
>Well, now I understand. I went back and read the line "programs which
>were written to use libraries which did not yet exist" and all these
>super-genius programmers made an obvious category error, assuming
>"libraries" referenced any library which supported the API the program
>was written for. That's not what I meant; I'll try to minimize the
>shame-casting in suspecting that this should have been obvious.
Well, you seem to be the one who made the stupid mistake that using is
requiring.
>"Libraries which did not yet exist" means there were no libraries that
>performed that function before the existence of that library.
There was no library performing the task of the gimp charcolize plugin
before the gimp charcolize plugin was written. So it matches your
new requirements.
>>>>>>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.
>>
>>In what sense were you using derivative 11 lines above?
>
>The legal sense, obviously (since I was talking about copyright
>licenses). This is software, not literature. The relationship between
>an original and a derivative work need not be the same in any
>metaphysical way.
Ok, so was I. Why bring the other definition, then?
>>>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?
>>
>>It's called "follow the spec". I have done it myself. I read a man page
>>and wrote a library based on that.
>
>If it works, your case is absolutely waterproof. Go get 'em.
What case?
>I've been told by several programmers that this is a preposterous
>expectation for a program of any complexity or size.
It is a preposterous expectation for a program with a complex
API. That's not the same as "any program", and not even "any
complex program"
>>>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?
>>
>>Too many "not"s there :-)
>
><*chuckle*> Yea.
>
>>Writing and documenting an API is not the same as implementing it.
>
>I don't understand what you mean by "implementing" it. How can you
>document what you haven't implemented?
It's called a specification for an undeveloped product.
Those are often the best specs.
> Are you guessing, or is the real
>work the development, and the implementation just the engineering scut
>work?
Both are work.
>>> I'm not suggesting its not easier,
>>>but is the artistry in the API, or in the code?
>>
>>I'd say they are two works.
>
>You defend API copyright?
No. Do you?
>>>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.
>>
>>Actually, the specific document describing the API, can.
>
>Meaningless quibbling. We know that case and it is entirely and
>completely unrelated. Why do you bother bringing it up?
Just a remark.
> [...]
>>>>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?'
>>
>>So, we would all be in jail already.
>
>You can't go to jail for infringement, it's a civil offense.
You can if you don't pay the fine. Noone could pay a fine that
covered everything he ever produced.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a luser... (was Re:
Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure)
Date: 5 Apr 2001 15:14:31 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
: > Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >
: > : Charles Lyttle wrote:
: >
: > : > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
: > : >> How else do you explain a quick, nimble fighter jet colliding with
: > : >> a slow, lumbering patrol plane in clear weather.
: > : > The patrol plane cheated. It had 4 engines with propellers. Mao proved
: > : > that such a thing couldn't fly.
: > : No, not really.
: > : The Chinese plane used Aaron´s self written multiuser/multitasking system
: >
: > You mean, Aaron's operating system that uses his
: > PatentedHighlyTechnicalThingies(tm) in it? Yeah,
: > that's one sweet operating system. My favorite
: > feature is the high-end stuff that it has in it.
: >
: > Of course, in the spirit of Kulkan logic, I'm
: > using words like "thingies" and "stuff", because
: > they are things that I know that I know about, and
: > I don't care to discuss them, because that would
: > be childish. Oh, and I fought the Japanese Empire
: > in WWII as well. Piloted a P-51 Mustang, I did.
: >
: > </SARCASM>
: >
: > Anyone who knows about Kulkan logic should find
: > this at least mildly amusing.
: Awwwwwww, poow widdle windows wuser.....
Explain this entry from your header:
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {TLC;RETAIL} (Win98; U)
^^^^^
Are you going to stick to the claim that this
is a "forgery" to fool others? I challenge
you to prove this is so, by posting the
portion of the already publicly-available source
code for Mozilla which you have modified to do this.
Put up, or shut up, soldier boy.
Wagers on whether or not he'll actually do this, anyone?
Oh, and while we're at it, how about a
"clue for the fscking clueless"?
I'm posting this from a BSD/OS server, to which I am
connected through NetBSD 1.5. I have no idea where
you got the idea that I'm using Windows at all, but
I'm certain any theories that you might have will
be quite amusing.
[snipped astoundingly idiotic signature for the
900-billionth time]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 15:16:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Per Espen Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> HTML is definitely _always_ junk mail and gets deleted before read.
>
>I would like to know then, what format would *you* use if you need to send a
>mail where plain ASCII is just inadequate? For instance, if you need tables
>(which look like crap in ASCII if the recipient uses a variable-width font),
>more advanced highlighting than the *bold* _underline_ /italic/ plain-text
>toys, etc?
Send an HTML file as an attachment, so it can be opened in a browser, but keep
the standard message as plain text.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: Oleg Krivosheev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: 05 Apr 2001 10:16:24 -0500
"Ben L. Titzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4 Apr 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > "Ben L. Titzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > Compaq has several Xeon based servers (4x, 8x, and even more) that have up
> > > to 32 and 64gb of physical RAM. Any kernel running on those machines
> > > wouldn't "need" that much memory; it would of course, have to manage it,
> >
> > Actually it would -- for program/data cache if your application doesn't cache
> > itself
> > (pretty much anything except for databases)
> >
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. The OS has to *manage* all of
> physical memory pages and portion them out to processes as usual. It's not
> particularly tricky, even with more than 4gb worth of physical pages. Each
> application still only has 4gb of virtual address space. Each process would
> have to have more complicated scheme to manage more than 4gb memory
> (handle based probably), but that wasn't what I was talking about.
>
> PAE support in the kernel is really a trivial addition, it only
> requires modifications to the page tables (3 levels instead of 2) in order
> to allow applications to be mapped into physical memory pages above 4gb.
> Where it gets complicated is the whole handle-based memory allocation
> schemes in order to let a process play with more memory. Each application
> (and hell, even the OS(1)) can only address 4gb of memory at one time.
>
> (1) Most OSes don't have to directly address all of physical memory in
> order to manage it. Instead it keeps track of pages of physical
> memory indirectly and maps them into the address space as needed. Also,
> most OSes actually run in a reserved portion of the virtual address spaces
> of all processes that remains common across all processes. This is so that
> an address space switch doesn't need to occur (expensive computationally
> for the processor) in order for the OS to take control.
>
>
> > > though, for user applications. Versions of Windows 2000 server have
> > > support for these large memory spaces, and I *think* there may be Linux
> > > support. Plus whatever OSes companies like Compaq and HP have running on
> > > their "big-iron" Intel boxes probably have PAE support as well.
> >
> > Linux 2.4 supports PAE, but has no support for "address window extensions"
> > or other such horrible things. It also needs bounce buffers for high IO.
> >
>
> That's what I figured about Linux.
PAE is supported in some way in UNixware 7.x
> I'm not too sure about other OSes like
> Solaris and HP-UX.
have no idea aboutSolaris but HP-UX doesn't work on IA32 IMHO
>
> -Ben
>
> _________________________________________________
> Close Windows and Open Doors - www.redpants.org
OK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 5 Apr 2001 15:18:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:13 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:05:21 GMT;
>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>No, but it would allow Netscape to sue you, if they wanted to. The
>>>designations of program and library and plug-in are entirely and
>>>completely immaterial when it comes to software as copyrighted work.
>>>
>>
>>Fine. Since the designations are immaterial, explain why Netscape is
>>not a derivative work of the postulated library or plug-in even though
>>it can link to it. Then tell me why the same explanation doesn't apply
>>to the other linking situations we've discussed.
>
>OK, I will. But quite with the attitude, OK?
>
>Netscape can't be derivative of any plug-ins because plug-ins are
>useless without Netscape, but not the other way around.
Bzzzt. I can use netscape plugins without using netscape. Therefore
netscape plugins are not useless. QED.
Since the rest follows from this mistake, I'll delete it.
>>Unlike everyone else who might want to play this game, you don't get
>>to use the helpful fact that Netscape was written before the library
>>or plug-in was written.
>
>It never has and never will matter which was "written first". Or should
>I say, rather, it doesn't matter which one is *coded* first, the order
>of "writing", in terms of authorship, is always original then
>derivative.
Yes. That's what we are trying to tell you.
>Suppose you wrote a plug-in for Netscape. Later, a new application
>(say, a media player) developed an API so that it, too, could be a
>platform for development. To benefit from the existing market, they
>design their API to be intercompatible with Netscape's. This means your
>plug-in now runs on the media player. Is it derivative of the media
>player? Is the media player derivative of Netscape? Is your plug-in
>derivative of Netscape? These are not questions that can be correctly
>answered in any thought experiment, no matter how stringent the gedanken
>conditions.
Well, kid, replace "media-player"with Konqueror. You now have a real
life case.
>The logic I've discussed so far, of course, makes your plug-in
>derivative of Netscape, not because you used their API, but because you
>used their code in both the preparation and execution of your "program",
Again, your lack of technical knowledge is cheating you.
You need not use any netscape code to write a netscape plugin.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 5 Apr 2001 15:20:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:16:22
>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 03 Apr 2001 12:53:34 GMT;
>>>>On 3 Apr 2001 11:55:08 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>That would make the program derivative of something that DOESN'T exist when
>>>>>the program is written, breaking causality.
>>>>
>>>>Breaking causality is a little strong. But the principle Max argues
>>>>would allow me to write a plug-in for Netscape and then to sue Netscape
>>>>to stop distribution of their browser that is now capable of calling my
>>>>new plug-in.
>>>
>>>No, but it would allow Netscape to sue you, if they wanted to.
>>
>>Over what? Over writting a program that agrees to a spec?
>
>No, over writing a program that implements that spec as a necessary part
>of its functionality.
The plugin implements an interface. That interface is publicly accessible,
you can read the exac definition of the interface without signing any
agreements.
If you say that implementing the interface is a copyright violation,
the copyright of WHAT is being violated?
>>Are you saying they would sue over an API copyright?
>
>No, it is not API copyright, though the difference is amazingly subtle.
Or the difference is only in your mind? ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
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: 5 Apr 2001 15:23:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 4 Apr 2001
>13:59:53 -0400;
>>On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>thinkDB 2 for the Palm. Adobe PhotoShop. The GIMP. Oh, gee. Just about
>>anything that supports a plug-in interface. (Hint: plug-ins are
>>libraries.)
>
>No, they are not libraries. They are plug-ins.
What do you claim is the difference between one and the other?
Technically there is none.
Any program can link to a plugin and access its functionality,
even if the main application for which the plugin was developed
is not present.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:22:29 GMT
>>>>> Gunner writes:
Gunner> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:55:20 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Aaron> Freedom from Communism to go their own way.
>>
>> Unlike you, I do not play favorites among totalitarians.
>>
>> Unlike you, I think all totalitarians suck.
>>
>> But then, unlike you I do not wish to be a totalitarian.
>>
>> And of course, unlike you, I am not a cowardly lying
>> forger.
Gunner> But we can all agree, that arming the Afghanis to kick out the Russians
Gunner> was a good idea, right?
Kicking out the USSR was great. Leaving enough arms that
those thugs kill their own people and ours was problematic.
In hindsight it would appear that a middle road would have
been better (more oversight, get the weapons back after...)
But hindsight is tough.
Gunner> 1. Gave the Russians a black eye they never recovered from.
Gunner> 2. Prevented their expansion into Turkey etc
Gunner> 3. Caused the Russians to fight not only a technological war at home
Gunner> (cold war) but a draining debilitating one on many fronts in Afghanistan
Gunner> 4. Gave pause to the Chinese against similar actions against those in
Gunner> Asia
Gunner> 5. Demonstrated that as far as America was concerned, they would indeed
Gunner> put their money where their mouth was in "the enemy of my enemy is my
Gunner> friend"
Gunner> 6. Gave pause to the Iotolla and his other ilk..afterall we were
Gunner> supporting a Fundamentalist cause.
Gunner> A half dozen reasons why it dont make a whit of difference if Sir Ronald
Gunner> Reagan called the Mohajadeen Freedom fighters or Muslim Rebels Against
Gunner> the Soviet Oppressor. It worked and was popular with the American
Gunner> peoples.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism confession
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 15:23:51 GMT
>>>>> Gunner writes:
Gunner> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:49:57 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
Aaron> Ever been in combat?
>>
>> I do not lie and forge to try and hide my mistakes, the way cowards
>> like you do.
>>
>>
Gunner> Answer the question. You made the charge. Now walk the walk.
The question is irrelevant to Mr. Kulkis' cowardly forging and lying
to try and coverup his own silly mistake.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 5 Apr 2001 15:26:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 10:24:34 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 17:43:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 4 Apr 2001 20:20:51 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >: Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >:>Roberto, all soldiers are willing to kill at their governments command.
>> >> >:>It's what we do - not aaron, of course, but real soldiers. I realize you
>> >> >:>are jerking him around but thought I'd put this in.
>> >> >
>> >> >: And indeed I consider all soldiers fighting a war their country starts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
Aaron: read that-------------------------------------+
>> >> >: to be assassins, in many ways.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps, if it was their informed choice.
>> >>
>> >> Did they not know they are expected to kill people at war? ;-)
>> >
>> >What about conscripts (draftees). Are they assassins, too?
>>
>> If they are being forced they have an excuse. Having an excuse is
>> not the same as being innocent.
>
>
>So, if your country is being invaded, and you volounteer to defend
>your country, then you are an assasin. But if you are drafted to
>defend your country, you are "innocent"
You are apparently unable to read. Perhaps with the ASCII art above
you will.
>Interesting Roberto, interesting.
Nah, only a strawman.
>You're...what...25 years old?
I was 25 years old once. You will be someday. At least physically.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
