Linux-Advocacy Digest #888, Volume #33 Tue, 24 Apr 01 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("LeftCoast C.C.")
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. (Stephen Morgan)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Impact of Internet ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("LeftCoast C.C.")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "LeftCoast C.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LeftCoast C.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.child-support,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:01:25 GMT
Do you just quote people and then let your driveling "signature" stand for
itself, or do you occasionally have original contributions to make?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Kenneth S." wrote:
> >
> > As explained below, no-fault divorce is such a wonderful, commonsense
> > idea that I just cannot understand why we don't have it in other areas
> > of the law.
> >
> > How about no-fault business partnership law? One of the
partners could
> > just walk away from the partnership. Perhaps that partner could be
> > rewarded for doing so by getting a disproportionate share of the
> > partnership assets. None of that tiresome stuff about whether the
> > partner who wants to break up the partnership has breached the terms of
> > the legal agreement that set up the partnership. Avoid all the tedious
> > business of making people who freely entered into a business partneship
> > abide by their legal obligations.
> >
> > There are many areas of business where the no-fault principle
could be
> > applied. So why isn't this done? The answer is that business in the
> > U.S. is a serious issue. People realize that, if you let business
> > partners walk away from their obligations, legal contracts will become
> > meaningless, and the whole structure behind business will be eroded. In
> > other words, what has happened to the legal basis of the family in the
> > U.S. would happen to business.
> >
> > Oh, and there's another reason why the no-fault principle isn't
applied
> > to business law. In business, there's no specially privileged group
> > that always wins in any conflicts with the other business sectors, and
> > that has an interest in being able to walk away from its obligations.
> > In other words, there's no equivalent of the feminist special interest
> > group.
> >
> > un-parged wrote:
> > >
> > > cross-posts restored
> > >
> > > Parg2000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > ><cut>
> > > >
> > > > >No fault divorce means that any fault is ignored,>in the worst case
> > > senario
> > > > the person at fault is rewarded.
> > > > >
> > > > {Parg} No fault divorce means that the courts assume it takes two
to
> > > arrive at
> > > > that point in a marriage. No one person is entirely at fault and
the
> > > courts
> > > > don't have the time, inclination or economic ability to baby sit
you.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Morgan)
Crossposted-To: soc.men
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 22:57:20 GMT
In soc.men, Jill wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 05:10:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen
> Morgan) sent through the ether:
>
> >In soc.men, Brent R wrote:
> >> Stephen Morgan wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In soc.men, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:01:19 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> > > > > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 21:17:32 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> > > > >> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> > Never been in Saudi Arabia, have you, so please keep your ignorant
> >> > > > >> > stereotypes to yourself.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> I'm not invoking "ignorant stereotypes", I am quoting what I believe is
> >> > > > >> a fairly good source.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Well, considering that I ***LIVED*** In Saudi Arabia for a year, I say
> >> > > > > that your source is full of shit.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You've found very little in the way of flaws in my source.
> >> > >
> >> > > I don't need to "find" the flaws...they are self-evident from my own
> >> > > PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF LIVING IN SAUDI ARABIA FOR A YEAR
> >> > >
> >> > > > All you've done
> >> > > > is dispute the assertions I've made about clothing. Note that the document
> >> > > > I cited acknowledges that westerners are not as restricted in terms of
> >> > > > clothing.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > But many of the points still stand. Are women allowed to drive, or leave
> >> > > > the house without a male relative ?
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > What about it?
> >> > >
> >> > > They get many privileges, and many restrictions
> >> > >
> >> > > In contrast, in the United States, we have stripped all of men's
> >> > > privileges, and all of womens' restrictions, giving us a society
> >> > > where men have all the responsibilities and restrictions, and women
> >> > > have all of the privileges.
> >> > >
> >> > > In other words...FEUDALISM.
> >> >
> >> > You obviously have very little idea of how the feudal system worked.
> >> > --
> >> > Working Class
> >> > The proletariat so beloved of Marx and Engels are still alive and well and
> >> > living in vast areas of terraced housing in the major industrial cities. Alf
> >> > Garnett was their hero and he was adopted by US TV and renamed Archie Bunker.
> >> > They dislike foreigners, toffs and anything new. They watch the telly, go
> >> > down the pub, watch the match on Saturday and go to spain to get drunk. They
> >> > fight our wars and fight at football matches. Not a pretty sight.
> >>
> >> Oh yeah I remember Alf! From Melmac right? Remember that time he tried
> >> to kill that cockroach but the spray just kept making it bigger and
> >> bigger! Haha... Gawd the hilarity that insued!
> >
> >I must admit, I really have no idea who Alf Garnett is.
>
> No I think the poster above is referring to the late 80's sitcom about
> a furry little muppet type alien named ALF (Alien Life Form).
I have no idea who he is either.
--
Crime
No danger of being killed even in the most desperate areas.
Greater danger of being assaulted especially if you
wear check trousers or talk in a loud voice. Big danger of
petty robbery. Be very careful all the time with
valuables.
>From Guide to Visiting England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland in
the UK at http://www.pukka.net/snotsykims/glossary/
------------------------------
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 23:03:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >Immigration isn't enough to qualify.
>>
>> To become a jury? Are you saying there is no way at all
>> I could become a jury? I know there is, you know.
>
>It is "become a juror".
Thanks. The two words are the same in most other languages I know.
> Mere immigration into the US is not a qualification to become a
> juror.
After immigrating I could become a citizen. Yet you said I "will
never become a juror". That is not something you can possibly know,
unless you speak with god, too.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.child-support,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: 24 Apr 2001 23:05:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:01:25 GMT, LeftCoast C.C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you just quote people and then let your driveling "signature" stand for
>itself, or do you occasionally have original contributions to make?
He had not covered his 10000 signature lines quota for april 24th.
Now his mom lets him go to bed.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Impact of Internet
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.object,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.theory,misc.invest.stocks
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:05:14 GMT
In misc.invest.stocks Maynard Handley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| (2) The ability to surf for callgirls, and following that, adult personals
| sites where one can search for and find likeminded partners for
| threesomes, one-night-stands, or [for the wimps] simply partners for
| phone-sex/chat-sex/email-sex.
Do you consider this to be a Bad Thing?
--
=========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=========================================================
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 24 Apr 2001 23:05:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 24 Apr 2001 22:02:05 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>: Why do you have lethal weapons?
:>: If the answer is "to defend myself", who would you be defending
:>: yourself against?
:>
:>
:>Most Americans own lethal weapons,
: "Most"? You mean over 150 million of them?
Over half of all U.S. households.
:> and they owe an explanation neither
:>to you nor to anyone else.
: And I don't say they do. I am just asking. That is a right too, you know.
I've given you a partial explanation, although I did not owe you one.
: [snip]
:>Disclaimer: I am a member of the Ohio Unorganized Militia, but I do
:>not speak for it, nor for anyone else. My words and opinions are my
:>responsibility alone.
: Are you guys planning on starting any revolts in order to restore the
: lawful government of the US?
You are free to believe whatever stereotypes you want.
However, the Ohio Unorganized Militia is and always has been a
law-abiding organization. It exists to protect the life, liberty and
property of every U.S. Citizen and legal resident alien. By law it
consists of most adult male Citizens, but in practice, only volunteers
actually participate, and women can and do participate. (My unit was
almost 50% female.)
We do not initiate violence. We sometimes respond to threatened or
actual violence initiated by government against innocent citizens.
However, our fire response teams are armed ONLY with video cameras,
tape recorders, and notepads. Guns stay at home. It is our aim to
*defuse* the conflict if at all possible, and to try to keep anyone
from getting hurt. It is not in anyone's interests to escalate any
conflict, especially ours, since in the event that actual violence
breaks out, we are unarmed and therefore will be the first ones to
die.
Speaking as always only for myself: I do not regard most of the
actions of the present "government" as legitimate. It takes only a
comparison of these actions with the Constitution, which is the
supreme law of the land, to see why. However, it is a DAMN sight
better, in most respects, than what would likely replace it in the
event of an armed conflict.
I believe that as long as it is possible, it is far preferable to work
within the system we have now, in spite of all its faults.
And, any personal beliefs aside, I am bound by my oath to defend it
insofar as its actions are legitimate.
Joe
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LeftCoast C.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LeftCoast C.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.child-support,soc.men,alt.feminism,talk.abortion,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:08:43 GMT
> He had not covered his 10000 signature lines quota for april 24th.
> Now his mom lets him go to bed.
Without supper, I presume ;)
--
"The only thing I know about Slovakia is what I learned first-hand from your
foreign minister, who came to Texas." - Our worldly president-to-be, to a
Slovak journalist as quoted by Knight Ridder News Service, June 22, 1999.
Bush's meeting was with Janez Drnovsek, the prime minister of Slovenia.
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:01:25 GMT, LeftCoast C.C. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Do you just quote people and then let your driveling "signature" stand
for
> >itself, or do you occasionally have original contributions to make?
>
> He had not covered his 10000 signature lines quota for april 24th.
> Now his mom lets him go to bed.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 23:09:02 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Roberto Alsina"
> >
> >> >> > If the prosecution proves you were in no mortal danger, or would
not
> >> >> > have reasonably believed you were in mortal danger, then
self-defense
> >> >> > becomes wrongful death. If you want to play games, that is. But
I
> >> >> > think the fact that you pulled my comment out of context is enough
to
> >> >> > show your lack of argument.
> >> >>
> >> >> In some jurisdictions in the USA a stranger invading your house is
> >grounds
> >> >> for use of fatal force. You're not required to show that you were
in,
> >or
> >> >> thought yourself to be in, mortal danger.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Yep, this is very true in South Carolina and Texas (probably other
> >> >states also). The law is referred to as the "Don't Ask" law. If
> >> >an intruder breaks into my house here in Texas then the State gives
> >> >me the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. The incident won't
> >> >even go to the grand jury.
> >>
> >> Actually, I think the situation right now is that it is not legal
> >> to kill the intruder, but that the attorneys hace decided not to
> >> prosecute that specific crime.
> >
> >You are again wrong. The "situation right now is" that it is legal to
kill
> >the intruder in some jurisdictions without having to prove you felt
yourself
> >to be in mortal danger.
>
> Be a bit more precise in what you mean by "some jurisdictions" and we may
> have an argument.
Texas and Florida for two there are others. Check Texas Penal Code
(Justifiable Use of Force and Deadly Force), Subchaper D (Protection of
Property), Section 9.41 through 9.44.
>From Section 9.41 ( Protection of One's Own Property)
A. A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, moveable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor
reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or
terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the
property.
B. A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property
by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the
degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force
immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
1. the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when
he dispossessed the actor; or
2. the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or
fraud against the actor.
>From Section 9.42 (Deadly Force to protect Property):
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land
or tangible, movable property:
1. if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
2. when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is
immediately necessary:
A. to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or
B. to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after
committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the
nighttime from escaping with the property; and
3. he reasonably believes that:
A. the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any
other means; or
B. the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover
the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk
of death or serious bodily injury.
Bottom Line: If you burglar a house at night in Texas you must be prepared
to die at the hands of a citizen using justifiable deadly force.
------------------------------
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 23:09:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 24 Apr 2001 23:05:42 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On 24 Apr 2001 22:02:05 GMT, Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>
>:>: Why do you have lethal weapons?
>:>: If the answer is "to defend myself", who would you be defending
>:>: yourself against?
>:>
>:>
>:>Most Americans own lethal weapons,
>
>: "Most"? You mean over 150 million of them?
>
>Over half of all U.S. households.
Really? I knew the US was gun-obsessed but never expected they were
SO gun obsessed.
>:> and they owe an explanation neither
>:>to you nor to anyone else.
>
>: And I don't say they do. I am just asking. That is a right too, you know.
>
>I've given you a partial explanation, although I did not owe you one.
Ok, I just was rubbed the wrong way by the haughtiness of the "we don't
owe you an explanation".
>: [snip]
>
>:>Disclaimer: I am a member of the Ohio Unorganized Militia, but I do
>:>not speak for it, nor for anyone else. My words and opinions are my
>:>responsibility alone.
>
>: Are you guys planning on starting any revolts in order to restore the
>: lawful government of the US?
[snip]
A simple "no" would have been enough. Really.
--
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
******************************
