Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #33 Tue, 24 Apr 01 10:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Communism
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:01:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:45:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Wrong. I enjoy the company of American women very much.
>> >
>> >However, forming a legal association with one is hazardous
>> >to a man's wealth.
>>
>> Well, forming an association with you can be dangerous for a womans
>> health.
>
>Are you asserting that I have a venereal disease?
Do you? No, I did not assert that.
>> >> >Smart men don't put their entire life's earnings at the whim of
>> >> >a fickle-minded, self-centered, spoiled little conceited tart,
>> >> >her lawyer, and the willing accomplice in a black robe.
>> >>
>> >> You know, that russian gal you brought? She has the exact
>> >> same rights under american law as any other gal. And sooner
>> >> or later she's going to find out. And half your roy rogers
>> >> card collection will be hers!
>> >
>> >But, she doesn't believe it is her right to run off with 1/2 of
>> >the wealth which I accumulated for YEARS before I ever met her.
>>
>> It's not what she believes. It's what the judge says, kid.
Note: no response. Maybe Aaron is now planning of radicating in Saudi
Arabia so he can keep his card collection in case of divorce.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 12:51:43 +0000
Brent R wrote:
>
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > Previously the winvocate mantra was: "Windows is soooo good, why would I
> > > not pay for it?"
> > >
> > > ... which made kinda sense; after all, they already _had_ paid for it,
> > > so why not rationalise your faux pas.
> > >
> > > In the past two or three days I've come at least twice across posts
> > > which essentially say: "OK, so Windows is too expensive, let's pirate
> > > the crap out of it. It's okay, because the corporate sharks pay for us
> > > pirates anyway".
> > >
> > > ... which is weird. Has Windows suddenly become less than worth its
> > > price? Has Microsoft decided to take out some precious features so that
> > > suddenly Windows has become less valuable?
> > >
> > > Or is this how winvocates perceive free software?
> > >
> > > It's kinda like certain people (with initials CM) who go around the
> > > newsgroups for _years_, touting Windows 9x as God's Gift To the
> > > Community, and then suddenly changing their tune to: "Well, Windows 95
> > > was crap, obviously; and NT wasn't too good either. But Win2k... now
> > > that's the best operating system ever".
> > >
> > > You gotta laugh, eh?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Karel Jansens
> > > ==============================================================
> > > "You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
> > > ==============================================================
> >
> > And of course, as soon as Windows XP is released you will have all the
> > winadvocates claim that Win2k, win 9x and win ME are crap, and XP is the
> > way of the future. Solaris, from day one, it has just been getting
> > better after each release. Linux, same situation. Windows, stuck in the
> > same rut for, well, at least 15 years. I see no progress what so ever,
> > the only people who are ammused are the end luser, who, like most
> > simpletons are ammused by the simplist of items, a bit like how flies
> > are attracked to light.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
>
> Windows has been stuck in the same rut for 15 years? Have you ever used
> Windows 3.x or earlier??
>
> A lot has changed since 15 years ago.
>
Windows 3.0 was 10 years ago.
3.x at least never pretended to be more than a pretty DOS-shell. Sure,
it crashed, but as I ran it in a VDM in OS/2, that never really mattered
much; and even under plain old DOS, 3.x would usually leave the
underlying OS intact.
So Microsoft changed it to 9x, essentially tweaking it into a DOS-shell
that could only run on top of their own DOS. Unfortanately, the
side-effect of the tweaking was that the shell would now crash the OS
beneath it as well.
But hey! we can buy WinNT, right? Stable as rocks. Riiiight, until
Microsoft decided that video drivers belong in ring 0, because that was
the only way they could think of to make that snail of an OS crawl any
faster. But dude! W2k has DirectX! Can it _be_ any cooler??
So yes, I can see why winvocates are now endorsing people to pirate
Windows; the piece of crap isn't even worth the CD it is burnt on.
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:10:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:36:40 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> A woman who thinks she should get paid the same as a man for the same
>> work is a feminist. Get it now?
>
>What about a man who thinks women and men should be paid the same for the
>same work?
He's a man with a decent opinion in the subject.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:01:08 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > If Linux is so great, why can I take it out with:
> >
> > while (true) fork();
>
> You can't with properly imposed resource limits. This isn't too hard to
> do.
No limit is the default for some distros.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:12:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:45:46 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:00:25 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> billh said:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Roberto Alsina"
>> >> >
>> >> >> >My house has over half a dozen guns, and ammunition for each,
>> >> >> >and I haven't been convinced that I have any "right to kill"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why do you have lethal weapons?
>> >> >> If the answer is "to defend myself", who would you be defending
>> >> >> yourself against?
>> >> >
>> >> >In most of the US, a citizen owns guns simply because they choose to. No
>> >> >other reason is required. Freedom is simply choice.
>> >>
>> >> Blah. What an empty discourse. Aaron (who I asked) already
>> >> gave his reasons. And they were the exact ones I guessed.
>> >
>> >I have the rights which Bill described above, for the reasons
>> >which I described.
>>
>> So what? I asked nothing about rights.
>>
>> >Bill gave you the law.
>>
>> Actually, that's not the law. That's a shallow description of the law.
>
>The constitution IS the law, you idiot.
Well, the constitution doesn't say "In most of the US, a citizen owns guns
simply because they choose to. No other reason is required. Freedom is
simply choice." That is not the law, and that is not the constitution.
That is a shallow description of the law.
>> >I explained the reason for the law.
>>
>> No, you explained the reason you had to use the right granted
>> by the law.
>>
>> >Hope that helps, fascist moron.
>>
>> Keep on thinking I am a fascist just because I want the right not
>> to be threatened by morons with guns?
>
>Fascist gun-grabbing moron.
Well, you are the one grubbing guns, not me.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:15:31 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:31:58 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:31:42 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:46:17 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 06:48:22 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >"Roberto Alsina"
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >> I personally believe any killing not in self defense, including
>> >> >>> >> >> killing at war, should be considered murder.
>> >> >>> >> >
>> >> >>> >> >You need to mature and understand that truth and reality aren't what you
>> >> >>> >> >"personally believe".
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> I understand what the situation currently is.
>> >> >>> >> However, that doesn´t mean I think that situation is perfect,
>> >> >>> >> or even very good.
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >> Sadly, we have been, as a society, convinced by the men with
>> >> >>> >> guns that they have a right to kill.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >My house has over half a dozen guns, and ammunition for each,
>> >> >>> >and I haven't been convinced that I have any "right to kill"
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Why do you have lethal weapons?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Because defending yourself is a human right.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> If the answer is "to defend myself", who would you be defending
>> >> >>> yourself against?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Violent, law-breaking criminals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Do you know of any violent felons who send out courtesy cards
>> >> >>in the mail a week before they come visit their victims?
>> >> >
>> >> >If more people in Roberto's country had been armed and ready to defend
>> >> >themselves, maybe thousands and thousands would not have been led like
>> >> >lambs to the slaughter.
>> >>
>> >> If less people had been armed, they wouldn't have died either.
>> >> The problem lies on staying in the middle.
>> >>
>> >> Not to mention that armed rebellion was the excuse used to kill
>> >> those thousands. By people who really, really, liked guns.
>> >
>> >Without Armed Rebellion, Roberto, there would be no United States,
>> >with whose borders you are currently CHOOSING to live.
>>
>> Excuse me, but what on earth is that supposed to mean?
>
>If it were not for an armed rebellion, you would be, right now, in
>some British Empire derivative like Canada or Australia which
>doesn't recognize free speech (nor a number of other human rights)
That is incredibly unlikely unless Canada engendered a new Alexander.
>> >Why the US and not Britain?
>> >
>> >Ah yes...because in Britain, you have less freedom, and a higher
>> >cost of living.
>>
>> Why what the US and why not what Britain?
>
>For a graduate student working on his PhD, you certainly are
>a stupid fucking pile of shit.
I am not a graduate student, and I am not working on any PhD.
What on EARTH are you talking about???
>> I can't make head or tails of what you write, bloke!
>
>That's because you're a goddamned idiot.
That's because you apparently are talking about someone else!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:16:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >I'm mature enough to see that you want things to be a certain way but
>that
>> >you have not offered a solution and have not stated your part in that
>> >solution.
>>
>> This is not the proper forum for that. To do that, I operate in real life.
>
>Such as?
Social organizations. Voluntary work. Lobbying.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:16:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> Really? Where does your society end and mine starts?
>> Ever heard of globalization?
>
>Are you saying our societies are the same. Please, describe this "global"
>society for us all.
Let's put it this way: there's a lot of local colour.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:18:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> The guy is holding your TV in both hands. He probably has his legs
>straddling
>> the window. In what way is he a danger? Where has he been violent?
>
>Since you, of course, are such an expert on law throughout the USA, you do
>realize that in some jurisdictions the scenario you pose above is enough to
>justify use of fatal force.
Who cares? In Afghanistan, talking to a man is enough to justify
imprisonment.
>> Well, you are free to imagine all you want, but they have not.
>> If you shoot a burglar, that's unarmed, and who was not a danger
>> for you, you deserve to go to jail for murder.
>
>Some places you may. Other places you may not. Depends on the laws of the
>jurisdiction.
I said you DESERVE it. Learn to read.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:18:23 GMT
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:10:20 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>theRadical wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:27:59 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >theRadical wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:26:20 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:49:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:06:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >the Democratic Party is a bunch of Marxists, who, knowing that using
>> >> >> >> >> >the name Communists would be bad PR, engage in a campaign of deception
>> >> >> >> >> >to get the populace of the country to vote for their own enslavement.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to his own
>life.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >Hope that helps.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking idiot twat such as
>> >> >> >> >> yourself.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Gonna come say that to my face?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> i'm still waiting for you to show up to repossess my vehicle and
>> >> >> >> explain your ridiculous theory that a ship captain is nothing more
>> >> >> >> that a paper pusher.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Spot the strawman arguments.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> strawman? you threatened to confiscate my car as part of you duties
>> >> >> as a law enforcement officer.
>> >> >
>> >> >Wrong on two counts.
>> >> >
>> >> >I said, by your logic, I should, as a government agent, be able
>> >> >to confiscate your car
>> >>
>> >> wrong, you said you WERE a government agent
>> >
>> >Yes, I am.
>>
>> well then, show up and confiscate my vehicle asshole.
>
>That wouldn't be fun...you'd be expecting me.
>
>Nah, it's much more fun to snatch it when you least expect it,
>and have made absolutely no provisions for alternative methods.
>
>You know...those alternative methods that you insist EVERYBODY ELSE
>should be using.
you are nothing but a chicken shit usenet bully. why don't you quit
spewing your crap and shut the fuck up.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> and that you WERE going to
>> >> confiscate my vehicle because you WANTED to.
>> >
>> >When I feel like it, I will. Because you have not proved
>> >sufficient NEED for it.
>>
>> please show up. you are so full of shit. just like the ship captain
>> thing.
>
>
>Checked your toilet lately?
that would be the ignore part of attack, dodge, ignore tactic.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> to confiscate my car, you must show up.
>> >> >
>> >> >Did I give you an exact date?
>> >> >
>> >> >a) yes
>> >> >B) NO
>> >>
>> >> C) so fucking what?
>> >>
>> >> at least you admit that you were going to show up, flip flopper.
>> >>
>> >> you are nothing more than an arrogant hateful asshole liar.
>> >
>> >
>> >Yes, I admit, I am arrogant and hateful when I lie to assholes.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >hope that helps
>> >>
>> >> the kulkis strategy:
>> >>
>> >> attack, dodge, attack, accuse, dodge.
>> >
>> >close
>> >
>> >Audi, Dodge, Audi, Accura, Dodge.
>>
>> that goes in the dodge category.
>
>No wonder you're a little Neo-stalinist.
i am not. that goes to the attack part of your tactics.
>
>no fucking sense of humor.
i must have one to deal with stupid assholes like you.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> when you show up, we will converse. what makes that a strawman
>> >> >> argument?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you are the liar with the ridiculous arguments. your accusation of
>> >> >> strawman arguments is a joke.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >So says the scarecrow maker.
>> >>
>> >> so says the lying asshole who can't back up anything he says.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> when you show up, i will say that and much more, twat.
>> >
>> >
>> >That's not a very female accepting thing to say.
>>
>> i guess you would know pussy.
>
>He did it again.
you are nothing but i lying chicken shit.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:19:40 GMT
>>>>> Gunner writes:
Gunner> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 14:15:05 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote>
>>
Aaron> Wrong, I advocate shooting those who are actively sleek to enslave me,
Aaron> you, and the rest of the American populace.
>>
>> You are lying again. For proof, anyone can search google
>> for posts by you containing the phrase "shoot a democrat"
Gunner> Hummm I fail to see any descrepancy here. It does indeed, appear that a
That is because you dishonestly snipped the context.
====================
>> In the past you have advocated shooting people just for being
>> democrats.
====================
He said the above was "Wrong", however I found several examples of
him calling for the murder of democrats.
His second lie was that I was trying to enslave him, I am a libertarian
(unlike him, that wants to institute thought police with a license to
kill).
Gunner> goodly number of Demonrats are indeed intent on activley seeking to
Gunner> enslave us.
That is hyperbole. But even if true, would not justify his call to
kill democrats in general.
He is a proven liar, a cowardly forger, and if you value your personal
credibility you would stop defending him.
--
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: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:21:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:07:48 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 13:18:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 10:50:57 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Sadly, we have been, as a society, convinced by the men with
>> >> >> >> >> guns that they have a right to kill.
>> >> ^^^^
>> >> |
>> >> Aaron, follow the arrow------------------+
>> >>
>> >> >> >> >My house has over half a dozen guns, and ammunition for each,
>> >> >> >> >and I haven't been convinced that I have any "right to kill"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Why do you have lethal weapons?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Because defending yourself is a human right.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So, you say you have a right to kill, if you are defending yourself.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have a right to defend myself. If it takes lethal force to do
>> >> >it, then so be it.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> And you have a gun.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, why did you say "I haven't been convinced that I have any
>> >> >> "right to kill""?
>> >> >
>> >> >Ok, let's clarify here.
>> >> >
>> >> >Having a right to kill in self defence is NOT the same as
>> >> >claiming a right to murder....which is what your original
>> >> >statement implied.
>> >>
>> >> Read above. I meant what I said.
>> >>
>> >> >> >> If the answer is "to defend myself", who would you be defending
>> >> >> >> yourself against?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Violent, law-breaking criminals.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For example, if someone was robbing your TV. The guy is there, going
>> >> >> off the window, with your TV in his hands. Would you shoot him?
>> >> >
>> >> >Absolutely.
>> >>
>> >> In what way was he a violent criminal? Both hands are holding your TV.
>> >
>> >Any person who enters my property, uninvited, to steal valuable items
>> >from my, is automatically a DANGEROUS individual.
>>
>> The guy is holding your TV in both hands. He probably has his legs straddling
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>Maybe, maybe not.
>
>Maybe he has a gun in the hand that you can't see.
I carefully described the scenario to avoid that. "with your TV in his hands",
notice the plural. How do you hold a gun and a TV at the same time?
>> the window. In what way is he a danger?
>
>The gun in the hand you can't see.
What hand you can't see?
>> Where has he been violent?
>
>He has violated the sanctity of my home.
You seem to use a definition of violence that doesn't require violent acts.
>> > Burglars will use
>> >lethal force to prevent being captured. Therefore, by merely decided
>> >to become burglars, they have automatically placed them into the category
>> >of violent criminal until proven otherwise.
>>
>> Well, you are free to imagine all you want, but they have not.
>
>You obviously don't understand criminals.
That has nothing to do with understanding criminals. The law is not made
by the criminals, the law is made by the honest men. And the honest men
should not declare others violent until they commit a violent act.
Because they would be lying.
>> If you shoot a burglar, that's unarmed, and who was not a danger
>> for you, you deserve to go to jail for murder.
>>
>> >> So, you didn't mean "violent, law breaking criminals", you actually
>> >> meant just "criminals". Why did you lie?
>> >
>> >All criminals are law breakers, you idiot.
>>
>> Yes, that's why I removed the redundancy from your "law breaking criminals"
>> bit. I removed the "violent" because of the admission above that violence
>> is not necessary for you to kill him.
>>
>> Therefore, I rest my case: you called yourself idiot.
Notice: no response. Probably because of how ashamed Aaron was of
calling himself idiot.
>> >> >Theft is slavery. And the proper punishment for slavery is death.
>> >>
>> >> So, you say the proper punishment for robbery is death, by summary
>> >> execution, without a judge or a jury?
>> >
>> >Did I say that, or are you attempting to put words in my mouth?
>>
>> Well, you say that if you see a man stealing your TV you will kill him.
>> Did I miss the part where you call a judge, assemble a jury, and THEN
>> you kill him?
>>
>> You DID say that, Aaron.
Notice: no response, maybe he DID say that and is now ashamed of being
a gun-crazy vigilante?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 14:12:08 +0100
In article <9c0t6h$1nb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Don't blame Linux for your shortcomings as an administrator. If you were
> competent, you'd have a precess limit, snd so the machine would not be
> effectively taken out by that.
It's the default on Mandrake.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:21:07 GMT
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 03:04:02 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>theRadical wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:28:55 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >theRadical wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:50:03 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >theRadical wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:06:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >the Democratic Party is a bunch of Marxists, who, knowing that using
>> >> >> >> >the name Communists would be bad PR, engage in a campaign of deception
>> >> >> >> >to get the populace of the country to vote for their own enslavement.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to his own life.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Hope that helps.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking idiot twat such as
>> >> >> >> yourself.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Gonna come say that to my face?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> i'm still waiting for you to show up to repossess my vehicle and
>> >> >> explain your ridiculous theory that a ship captain is nothing more
>> >> >> that a paper pusher.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> when you show up, i will say that and much more, twat.
>> >> >
>> >> >Mounted bayonets at 20 paces.
>> >> >
>> >> >How about it, big boy.
>> >>
>> >> all you need is a few good bitch slaps. show up bitch.
>> >
>> >Prepare to be eviscerated.
>>
>> show up.
>
>Sure thing.
oh wait, i guess that doesn't mean anything since you didn't give a
date, right?
>
>>
>> >
>> >I live in Detroit.
>>
>> bfd.
>
>Are you familiar with an area known as the Cass Corridor?
no.
>
>
>A few years ago, a guy I knew blew his head off with a shotgun
>in a parked car down here. It was a full week before anybody
>bothered to report the body to police...and that was only because
>the flies were becoming a nuisance.
that makes you a real tough guy, right? you are nothing but a little
chicken shit that tries to prove what a big dick you have by trying to
abuse people on the usenet.
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >come to Detroit, where the weak are killed and eaten.
>>
>> another geeky white guy drops a name and thinks that makes him tough.
>
>I live here. You don't.
so? doesn't contradict my claim at all chicken shit.
>Hope that helps.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 13:22:51 GMT
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:12:14 -0700, Gunner © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 15:31:15 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> >
>>> >ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to his own life.
>>> >
>>> >Hope that helps.
>>>
>>> which means soooo [sic] much coming from a fucking idiot twat such as
>>> yourself.
>>
>>Gonna come say that to my face?
>
>WEEEEE! I get dibs on the video rights! And we can split the fee when
>we send numbnuts body to a medical school.
>
>Aaron... try to draw it out as long as possible, so we can see lots of
>his blood and hear the sounds of breaking bones.. Ive already got a
>buyer for the master tape.
>
>Gunner
why doesn't it surprise me that a sick gun nut fuck like gunner would
think such trash?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 13:25:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> Remains a blatant assertion? Indeed!
>> >
>> >Truth quite often is blatant.
>>
>> So are lies.
>
>Such as stating a soldier killing in war equates to murder.
Which I never did, in those terms. Go check the archives and see.
--
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
******************************
