Linux-Advocacy Digest #988, Volume #33 Fri, 27 Apr 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Women's rights and responsibilities. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy. (pip)
Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy. (Terry Porter)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy. (David Neary)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: there's always a bigger fool ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Women's rights and responsibilities.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:16:14 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 03:20:45 -0700, jet wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> >> >
> >> > >> And I was under the impression in the cases of questionable
> >> > >> paternity that a DNA sample could be demanded.
> >> >
> >> > Aaron> Nope. Paternity is still judged on English common law:
> > whoever
> >> > Aaron> the mother CLAIMS is the father *IS* the father, until proven
> >> > Aaron> otherwise.
> >> >
> >> > Can you cite a single state that has a law like this?
> >>
> >> Common law doesn't have cites, you idiot.
> >
> > You're the idiot. You were asked to name a state that has a law like that.
> > Can you?
>
> It's common law, and it's applicable in all states. Hint: type
> "presumption of paternity" into google. Or try "Mansfield
> rule". Allow me to assist you ...
>
> http://www.peak.org/~jedwards/paternity.html
> ====
> Presumption of paternity To make things simple, individual
> states have developed a set of circumstances or tests that,
> if met, automatically presumes paternity. The most common
> circumstance is known as the Mansfield Rule. Basically,
> this rule states that if a child is conceived within
> marriage, the husband is presumed to be the father. Since
> this presumption is not always true, some states have
> introduced "milkman" legislation to challenge or rebut this
> presumption.
> ====
"Introduced" means that legislation has been submitted to a subcommittee.
"Introduced legislation" means that changes are UNDER DISCUSSION.
If there was laws actually PASSED, then the above passage would
have stated
...some states have IMPLEMENTED "milkman" legislation..."
However, it's there in black and white:
the word used is INTRODUCED, ***NOT*** Implemented.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
--
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: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 14:21:35 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> pip wrote:
> > We are not living in the dark ages. I had hoped we had progressed in our
> > thinking.
>
> And this backs your claim that punishing malefactors = "running out
> of rational arguments against their conduct" how, exactly?
The only punishment that is given is the damage to the reputation of the
Linux community. If that is rational then I am not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 27 Apr 2001 13:19:01 GMT
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 12:35:25 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Neary wrote:
<big snip>
>>I am offerring my
>> perspective on the changes in the Linux community over the years
>> (since 96, when I first discovered linux), and I intend this to
>> be either a constructive commentary on currently available
>> on-line resources, or a basis for discussion on the future of
>> Linux advocacy for the future.
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>> Dave.
>
> I'm only here for a laugh... the other Linux NG's are pretty courteous
> and helpful. If you look at it as a cheap source of entertainment, this
> place is great. Just grab a mug of warm cocoa, sit back, relax, and let
> the flames fly. You won't be disappointed *wink*.
> --
> - Brent
So tell me Brent are you a Wintroll or not ?
Were you once ;-) ?
Hahaha,when I came here in about 1995 I was subscribing to
alt.tasteless.jokes for my daily humour, but after a week or so of reading
COLA, I was able to unsubscribe from ATJ, as COLA had a heap of the funniest
jokers I'd ever read. Honestly I used to have tears streaming down my
face in mirth at times :)
Interestingly enough, I didnt dare post for 12 months, as some COLA regulars
were so accurate and wordy, they'd tear anyone apart who was less than 'correct'
in their postings.
I finally posted something, and was so relieved when Alexander Viro didnt shred
my post to bits !
Then the Wintrolls started to frequent COLA, and somehow the humour quotient
started dropping and COLA became the battle ground it is now.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:20:14 -0400
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > Mr. "expert" wannabe, tell us how this makes it a strategic asset. Do
> you
> > > think an F16 is strategic too? How about an the spec ops helicopters
> which
> > > can refuel in flight and self deploy? Are they strategic too? The C130
> has
> > > in flight refueling capability so it can self deploy to the theater of
> > > operations.
> >
> > And so, Because that is hte only STATED use for the in-flight refueling,
> > Bill Hudson maintains that in-flight refueling for ANY other purpose
> > is absolutely forbidden.
> >
> > Your problem, Bill, is that you are utterly uncreative when it comes
> > to matters where maximum creativity counts.
> >
> > Ever hear the saying "If it's a stupid idea and it works, it ain't
> > a stupid idea"
> >
> > The marines say "Innovate, Overcome, Adapt"
> >
> > Bill Hudson says, "I better not try it, becuase it wasn't specifically
> > spelled out in my field manual"
> >
> >
> > Good thing you never lead a unit into combat, Bill. As soon as the
> > fight deviates from the plan, your men would be dying in droves.
> >
> >
> >
> > > You truly are pathetic. LOL!!! Keep it up, dolt. This is
> > > fun.
> >
> >
> > Most idiots are both blind to, and amused by any argument where
> > their ass is getting thoroughly trounced because they can't even
> > comprehend the fundamental issues.
>
> Nice cover, wannabe. The fact remains that the C130 is a tactical airlift
> asset. You state it is strategic. You are wrong as usual. You think you
> know more about this than the USAF. You simply can't be a man and admit
> your mistake. Again here's the USAF official site
> www.af.mil/news/factsheets
> You are a wannabe. You are a liar. You are a pathetic excuse for a man.
So says Bill Hudson, USA (disgraced); a man who refuses to acknowledge
that the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Chinese, Viet Cong, and North
Vietnamese troops all shot properly-marked American medics and medical
facilities.
For his next trick, Bill Hudson will deny that the Nazi's built concentration camps.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 09:21:32 -0400
"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>
> Again, it is a mystery as to why you'd be so fearful of the little
> girlies, with all that arsenal..
False premise = 15 point penalty.
Hope that helps, pussy-whipped piece of shit.
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> > >
> > > Just as long as you're armed, right, you pathetic little right wing
> > > turd?
> >
> > Clue for the clueless: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT issues me a fully-automatic
> > M-16, and as much ammo as I need.
> >
> > As well as training me on machine guns, combat pistols, grenade launchers,
> > rocket launchers, and missile launchers.
> >
> > YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK
> >
> > HOPE THAT HELPS, feeb.
> >
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Spot the right wing dufus, who fears women..
> > > >
> > > > Ah yes, the old, tired, worn-out shaming ploy.
> > > >
> > > > I have no fear of women. I distrust the courts.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Translation: the girls back home won't touch Aaron, in spite
> > > > > > > of his brushes and M16..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Spot the slander.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I understand the wimmen really go for those unix programmer geeks
> > > > > > > > > nowadays. But just for SEX, they want to screw the little geeky
>brains
> > > > > > > > > out - certainly not for dating!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They particularly like that gynophobic disposition, developed over a
> > > > > > > > > lifetime of not getting laid, or even a smell.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Right, you pathetic little right wing turd unix programmer geek?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm also
> > > > > > > > A soldier
> > > > > > > > and an artist.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Of course, most foreign women appreciate intelligence more than their
> > > > > > > > American counterparts...so... they get the rewards.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 18:44:43 GMT, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > Any man who supports Feminism is a self-flagellating idiot.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Any man who thinks a woman should be paid the same for equal
>work is a
> > > > > > > > > > > >self
> > > > > > > > > > > >> flagellating idiot?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >No, just any man who marries one.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You prefer to marry women that get paid less? Why?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Because women *DO* less.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hope that helps.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > Roberto Alsina (maybe marrying a rich woman, so I can
> > > > > > > > > > > become a househusband and code free
> > > > > > > > > > > software is not such a bad idea)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > > > > > > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > > > > > > > > DNRC Minister of all I survey, virgin, and gynophobe.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > > > > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > > > > > > DNRC Minister of all I survey, virgin, gynophobe, and right wing dufus
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > Unix Systems Engineer
> >
> > --
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
--
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: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:24:51 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I still think you're a bigot.
I still think you're a logically handicapped politically-correct
idiot.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.military.folklore
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:27:08 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > OK, since you claim to be full of knowledge and wisdom, please explain
> > > how a C-5 can be classified as a strategic lift aircraft, while a
> > > C-130 is not....given that the effective range (with refueling)
> > > of both aircraft is "anywhere on the globe"
> >
> > You are truly an idiot. The C130 refuels in-flight simply so it can
> > self-deploy. I've posted the USAF's official site. Use it and learn
> > something, wannabe. If you'd prefer, I can easily provide you with
> > telephone numbers to USTRANSCOM or to the USAF Air Mobility Command.
Quit
> > embarrassing yourself. It's pathetic.
>
> Equipment is frequently pressed into service for which Congress
> never originally intended it to be.
You're an idiot, Kulkis. This is pathetic and doesn't change the fact that
you are ignorant, at best, when you claim the C130 is a strategic airlift
asset.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:29:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> >> 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.
>
> Do you always allow your ethics to devolve merely to what is legal?
Roberto brought up what "the prosecution". I simply responded that his
blanket statement does not hold true for all jurisdictions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Neary)
Subject: Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:31:38 GMT
pip wrote:
>David Neary wrote:
>
>Bearing in mind that this is
>comp.lang.os.linux.*ADVOCACY* I am still surprised that there is real
>help when requested in a nice way. Certainly in the real _help_ ng's
>there is no end of people willing to help new Linux people.
This is a point that quite a few people have made - that this
group isn't here to help people with problems. It's
comp.os.linux.advocacy - and the most vocal posters seem to take
the vagueness of that word to mean its a group for flames. But
advocacy, to me, is the "spreading of the gospel", if you like -
it's making people aware of what Linux is, and it's benefits. And
like it or not, the people most in need of that gospel are
Windows users. Which means (Aaron) not indiscriminately flaming
people who say they use windows "because they deserve every bit
of it".
>One interesting point that you make is "it's easier to keep quiet than
>be unhelpful, after all". I agree that too many insults hurt the ng
>spirit, but I also feel that the problem is that there are many trolls
>who love to start flame wars. If their points go unanswered then many a
>casual reader may accept these points as undisputed "facts". Therefore
>there is a bit of a dilemma with how to respond to wintrolls without
>making Linux advocates look also as bad as the troll.
My approach tends to be that if they're trolling with anything
that looks like a legitimate argument, to try to address it
(assuming I have the knowledge to do so) - if what they're saying
is not legitimate, a very simple statement of fact (with a
reference to big thick documentation :) tends to do the job. I
think that I have only ever once felt like flaming someone badly
- and I took that feeling as a sign that it was time to stop
replying to him.
>There are a few very good advocates that post here but their posts are
>sometimes the very minority of the content. Take for example Mr. Ballard
>who posts here - his posts are always respectful, polite, informative
>and a pleasure to read. Unfortunately the list of people who are not a
>pleasure to read is far longer :-(
I agree :) The thing is apart from (a) the moderation route,
which I don't like, (b) the "create a new group" route, or the
(c) continue being nice personally, and hope others follow your
example route, I don't see that there's much to be done to change
it.
>It could be viewed as a "sad state of affairs", but then again it does
>mean that Linux is becoming more popular. As more and more people flood
>to the ng's we know that Linux is here to stay. The fact that there are
>trolls is also a good sign - it means that some some people are scared.
The best way to treat scared people is to show them that what
they're scared of isn't really that bad. I think the
Linux-Advocacy HOWTO should probably be compulsory reading for
the (linux) posters to this group.
Another small point about the trolls is that many of them come
here to make a point - they come to provoke, and take a vicious
slashdot type reaction as evidence of the problems with Linux,
and with Linux users. The only way to change that is to treat
even trollers with respect. Today's troller might well become
tomorrow's advocate - "I was amazed at how helpful and
informative the Linux newsgroups and IRC channels were - these
guys really get involved in helping people on a personal level.
I'll never be able to ring MS tech support again without crying."
You might think that'll never happen, but it's happened in the
past, and as the saying goes, "There's no-one more devout than
the converted".
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary, E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palamon Technologies Ltd. Phone +353-1-634-5059
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:33:01 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <
> >
> >> >> > 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.
>
> Thick as a brick, isn't he, eh, Roberto?
>
> >> There's a gulf between "legal" and "not prosecuted".
> >
> >There is also a gulf between the truth and what you believe to be true.
>
> I guess this is why this conversation has been so entertaining; you
> don't even have enough ability to grasp abstractions as Roberto does.
It was Roberto that stated what "the prosecution" would do. See the first
line above. Not much abstract about that, is there? Not much abstract in
the fact that in some jurisdictions there can be no prosecution for killing
an intruder.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:35:25 GMT
"T. Max Devlin"
> >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.
>
> I don't see any authorization for deadly force, specifically. So
> Roberto was, of course, correct. The DA has apparently decided not to
> prosecute people who use deadly force (for possible crimes involved in
> using excessive force, as indicated by the 'degree' mentioned in the
> statute) because of the difficulty of determining how much force was
> "immediately necessary".
Read Section 9.42. Section 9.41 is sited in Section 9.42. I again post
section 9.42:
>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.
> >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.
>
> Your assumption that deadly force is automatically justifiable is where
> your problem is.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 15:29:59 +0200
"Zippy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> actually, my system runs absolutely PERFECTLY. i'm a hardware tech with 9
> years' experience in the business, am relatively fluent in basic and C,
and
> am capable of solving any hardware problem on a Mac, PC or Linux box.
There is not such thing as a Linux box.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
