Linux-Advocacy Digest #205, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 04:13:02 EDT
Contents:
This post has something to offend just about everyone (The Danimal)
Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone (Dave Martel)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. ("RapierWits")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Ray Chason)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (GreyCloud)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Logan Shaw)
Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone (Chris Belway)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (silverback)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:17:22 -0400
From: The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: This post has something to offend just about everyone
Matt Kennel wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 May 2001 19:30:59 GMT, Ray Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :THAT is the point which you don't get. 60 years ago the Nazis
> :considered being a Jew and being a homosexual to be a "defect".
> :They proceeded to get rid of the defective.
Which makes your debate opponent equivalent to Hitler, meaning
this thread can end.
> What's ironic is that if they had really believed in their hard core
> genetic determinism the homosexuals would naturally unpropagate
> themselves out of the next generations provided you allowed much
> greater cultural acceptance (and hence lack of cover marriages and
> breeding) of the sort that was happening in the 1920's.
>
> Of course it was all a pseudoscientific scam for picking on the people
> that they decided they didn't like. bonk bonk on the head.
Make that anti-scientific. The advent of standardized intelligence
tests had already begun to demonstrate that Jews, on average, had
higher IQs than their persecutors. Evidence was already accumulating
that people with IQs below 75 were nearly worthless for any
job requiring much training, such as soldiering, and people with
IQs above 125 were extremely useful for designing the sort of
secret weapons which Hitler found so captivating.
So even with the rudimentary scientific knowledge available at
the time the Nazis had to know they were targeting the segment
of their population containing the greatest concentration of
economically and militarily valuable people. They were not
practicing eugenics but dysgenics. (Of course if someone really
wanted to get serious about eugenics it would be better to forget
about race entirely and just go with individual test scores,
since there are smart and stupid individuals in every race.)
The United States also stunted its economic and technological
growth by not welcoming more European Jews as immigrants. We should
have taken as many as we could get instead of sending boatloads
back to certain death. Today Jewish Americans generate a
significantly higher per capita product than the general population
and contribute disproportionately (on average) to the sciences,
arts, and professions. (Of course every large group of people has
a distribution of skills and behaviors so this says nothing useful
by itself about any particular individual.)
The United States might consider buying all the land in
Israel, trading it to the Arabs for oil, and granting
Israeli Jews U.S. citizenship so they could all come here. Freeing
them from the perpetual war with all their neighbors would enable
them to focus on creating value. That would probably do more for
the U.S. economy's long-term health than anything else we could do
for the money. We'd also get another 50 nuclear warheads in the
deal. Then Middle Easter Arabs could get back to the business of
killing each other, beheading adulterers, destroying idols, stamping
out women's rights, fighting the good fight against the spread
of democracy, and enforcing medieval religious edicts without
the Jewish irritant to divert resources.
-- the Danimal
p.s. Muslims do have a good idea with alcohol. I'm amazed that
prohibition has worked fine in Muslim countries for 1000+ years
without the emergence of the sort of gangsterism that gave
liquor industry propagandists a pretext to smear prohibition
in the U.S.A. I guess if you want to get serious about taking on
drunkards you'd better see that they get religion first. And make
it a religion loaded with aggressive memes capable of locking onto
a brain tight enough to displace even a chemical addiction.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles
Subject: Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:27:00 -0600
On Sat, 05 May 2001 02:17:22 -0400, The Danimal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Make that anti-scientific. The advent of standardized intelligence
>tests had already begun to demonstrate that Jews, on average, had
>higher IQs than their persecutors.
Or as I tell a skinhead neighbor, the more that racist people like him
persecute jews, the stronger they make the jewish race. As evidence I
suggest that the higher strength and intelligence of jews is a
consequence of natural selection via 2,000 years of vicious
persecution.
I have NO idea if that's really the case, but it sure leaves him
confused.
------------------------------
From: "RapierWits" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 06:33:07 GMT
silverback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 03 May 2001 03:12:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walter
> Daniels) wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:16:46 -0500, Kurt Lochner
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Fraud Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again twisted the meaning
of:
> >>> silverback wrote:
> >>> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> > > silverback wrote:
> >>> <etc,... snip>
> >>> > >> wrong again liar. Fascism is corporate rule.
fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
Often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of
government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Thus Stalin was just as much of a Facist as Hitler and Mussolini.
>>>The Nazis allowed the
> >>> > >> corporations to write the laws.
Some of the corporations that were willing to play ball, to some extent, but
not all of them. Please note that the property of many Jews and principly
jewish owned firms was siezed. Others lost all they had as well because
they opposed the Nazis. This lumping of all corporations together is much
as Hitler lumping jews bankers and communists together.
> >>> > >So, then, you agree that it's bad to let the Sierra Club and
similar
> >>> > >groups write environmental law, and that it's a bad idea to let
> >>> > >those with a vested interest in the welfare bureacracy to write
> >>> > >welfare laws.
> >>> > nope, the Sierra club is hardly a corporation buttfuck.
> >>> From
http://outingleaders.sierraclub.org:8082/Common/ins_manual/index.asp;
> >>> [...]
> >>> The Sierra Club, which includes the chapters, groups, and sections,
> >>> is considered one corporation under California corporation law.
> >><sigh> I let the disengneuous fraud out of my kill-file, and he's
> >>still trying to misrepresent even the simplest of concepts as some
> >>kind of defense for his intentional ignorance..
> >
> > Tell me. Where exactly does the "Sierra Club," get a major portion
> >of its funding? IIRC, it hasn't been "individual contributions," for
> >some years. It gets most, from "foundations," and "eco programs." NOw,
> >if most of their "funds," come from "special interests," who do they
> >really answer to? They do not have an "endowment" to fund their
> >operation, which means they have to "sell" something. In the case of
> >the "Sierra Club," it is "environmental causes." Since the vast
> >majority of "foundations" are liberal, democratic in outlook, they
>
> wrong fuckhead most foundations are hard right and fascists.
Right and left are frauds. It is a false view of politics. People in
favor of liberal-libertarian democracy are the opposite of totalitarians of
either communist-socialist or Nazi-Facist variety.
> > When you factor in the history of _how_ they "protect the
> >environment," it's pretty obvious who they really are. Someone who
> >would "protect the environment into destruction." To themn, like most
> >"enviro extremists," it is "set it aside for the smallest number who
> >can afford to use it." What's that, it's elitism? Damn straight it is.
> >Make me pay for it, but then tell me I can't use it, because I'm not
> >"special" enough.
> >
> >>--What part of "not-for-profit" do you not yet comprehend, Fraud?
Several individual for profit corporations (lumber & paper companies) do
more to grow forest in one year than the Sierra Club ever has. In order to
make (gasp) a profit!
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 06:49:40 -0000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> George Peter Staplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Not everybody benefits from the GPL. Some large corporations have
>> >strict rules that guard against the use of any GPL'd software.
>>
>> Alas, FUD reigns supreme in the feeble minds of PHBs.
>
>No, actually, in the minds of Lawyers. I've seen first hand how the company
>lawyers reacted when they read the GPL after they found out a developer had
>incorporated some GPL'd code into the project. The proverbial shit hit the
>fan, and no less than 10 people were fired over it.
S/he plainly should not have included GPL'd code in a proprietary
product; the whole point of the GPL is that this isn't kosher.
That'll teach'm to RTFL.
>Right after, an edict was issued that *NO* code that originated outside the
>company could be used in any product, no matter what its license.
This was a paranoid overreaction; plenty of free/open source software
exists that is LGPL'd, or uses different licenses; code that is meant
to promote a standard, such as libpng, probably should use the BSD
license or something like it.
This particular issue turns on the meaning of "use" in "strict rules
that guard against the use of any GPL'd software."
If by "use" we mean "use the source code in other products," then
what you say is true. This is nothing nefarious; the GPL is working
as designed. Move along, nothing to see here.
If by "use" we mean the meaning that most people likely give it, that
is, running the program, then such rules are not needed. The GPL
says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from
the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work
based on the Program (independent of having been made by running
the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program
does.
Plainly, the running of GPLd binaries does not bring so much as an
#include <stdio.h> from your own code under the GPL. The output of
a GPL'd program may fall under the GPL, as described above, if the
program writes a piece of GPL'd code into it. Something like this
used to be true of Bison, but Bison is now licensed with a special
exception to the GPL so that its output is not GPL'd.
Ref: http://www.gnu.org/manual/bison/html_chapter/bison_2.html
In summary, we have here a classic FUD tactic: a statement that is
the plain truth if you apply a secondary meaning to one or more words,
and misleading if the words are given their primary meanings.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:04:52 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T. Max Devlin quoth:
>>Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
>>basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the
>>command line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END
>>don't work, you have to use CTRL+A and CTRL+E (IIRC) which is much
>>less intuitive. It doesn't have a pop-up command history like
>>cmd.exe (the F7 key), it doesn't have very good TAB completion (in
>>cmd, subsequent hits of TAB cause cycling of files in the dir that
>>meet the search criteria).
>
> <*cough*>
>
> Try man bash, trollboy; some of this is configurable, IIRC. As for
> command history (use the arrow keys - Doh!)
Just a typical example of someone who doesn't bother to learn the
system and then spreads a bunch of inaccurate information about it.
as you say, cycling through the commands using the up and down keys
provides one kind of history. Doing something like
alias foo='tail -20 .bash_history'
in the user's .bashrc provides another. Of course, tab provides
name completion or a list of choices rather than trying to guess for
the user. In most cases, giving the user the list means a quicker
result. Also, I don't get the point about <HOME> and <END>. Both
work fine on my system to jump to the beginning and end of the line.
What a shock. chad went a complete oh-fer the post. Not one
accurate comment beyond the fact that Bash is better than cmd.exe for
scripting and that his win32 system is better for having the cygnus
toolset on it.
Well, at least he's learning ( albeit slowly ).
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 07:02:20 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
>> Windows _asks_ you before you change the time. Did you blindy accept it
>> or did you bother to _read_ what it was about to do?
>
> Depends - does Windows ask you if you use certain Winapi calls to set
> the time?
Since it asks you on boot up, how can you get to winapi calls?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:07:05 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 26 Apr 2001 23:29:01
> -0700;
> >Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >>
> >> > The article says
> >> >
> >> > Halifax will start to replace parts of its NT and Unix infrastructure in
> >> > July, and is aiming to complete the whole project by the end of the
> >> > year.
> >> >
> >> > How do you get from this to "things get better and they never look
> >> > back"?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
> >> > I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> My highschool, as one example, had an NT4 server, bloody unreliable,
> >> over a period of two weeks, the performance and responsiveness of the
> >> server went slowly downhill. Installed the latest service pack, still it
> >> kept happening. Re-installed the whole OS cleanly w/ latest service
> >> pack. A couple of months later they bought a copy of Novell Netware 5,
> >> for the rest of the year, there wasn't one day of downtime.
> >>
> >> Matthew Gardiner
> >> --
> >> Disclaimer:
> >>
> >> I am the resident BOFH (Bastard Operator From Hell)
> >>
> >> If you don't like it, you can go [# rm -rf /home/luser] yourself
> >>
> >> Running SuSE Linux 7.1
> >>
> >> The best of German engineering, now in software form
> >
> >Now that you mention it, while I was visiting my mother-in-law at the
> >hospital, the hospital was running Win95 on the nursing stations. The
> >stations were on a Novell 3.1 service and they were running StarOffice
> >on some and Star Navigator on the rest.
> >Staff complained about the three or four times a day of rebooting the
> >stations.
>
> This, in a fucking *hospital*.
>
Sadly, yes. This particular hospital has had some questionable deaths
and many lawsuits. Some of these deaths were people, and the rest were
BSODs! :-)
The pharmacy is a shamble, as one doctor prescribed a drug that wasn't
on hand. They had to tell the family to go and get it.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 09:17:17 +0100
In article <9cudlk$b1h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "jim dutton"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9ctka7$nmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>OK, Aaron answre this...
>>
>>If homosexuality is such a sead end, how come it keeps cropping up n
>>many, many formes of life, after hunderds of million years have, by your
>>argument tried to get rid of it.
>>
>>If it's still here, there is probably a very god reason.
>>
>>-ed
>
> A dog scooting across the carpet is not homosexuality.
>
> It's worms.
...?
-ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:16:28 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 03 May 2001 22:19:30 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Hell, you're still wet behind the ears!
>
> Depends on with whom the comparison is being made. They did still
> teach vacuum tubes in college when I attended but I never saw a 701 or
> anything. I do go back to the IBM 360 though although the IBM 370/168
> was the first unit I was taught on.
>
> Point is I'm not a member of the "gui" generation but in fact was
> there when a Selectric was the console.
>
> Flatfish
Ah yes, those were the years. Funny when I was taught semiconductors
and ICs back in the late 60s in the Army, and then moving over to the
Navy... it was a major jump back in time! Navy was still using vacuum
tubes and mag-amps to get things done... we called it boat-anchor
electronics.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Logan Shaw)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 5 May 2001 02:19:59 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
3FE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nor is vi. vi is appropriate for tweaking config files. Not
>programming.
This post is not intended as my entry in an editor flamewar, but I
would like to point out that vi does contain features geared
specifically towards programming, like matching parentheses and
brackets, block indenting text, autoindent, tags, and even a LISP
mode.
You may not like using it for programming, and you may even argue it's
not well suited for it, but it's obvious that it was intended to be
used to develop code.
- Logan
--
my your his her our their _its_
I'm you're he's she's we're they're _it's_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Belway)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men
Subject: Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone
Date: 5 May 2001 07:33:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Belway)
I love the title of this thread-by the way, where are the linux billionaires?
The Danimal ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> Matt Kennel wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 04 May 2001 19:30:59 GMT, Ray Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> :THAT is the point which you don't get. 60 years ago the Nazis
>> :considered being a Jew and being a homosexual to be a "defect".
>> :They proceeded to get rid of the defective.
>
> Which makes your debate opponent equivalent to Hitler, meaning
> this thread can end.
>
>> What's ironic is that if they had really believed in their hard core
>> genetic determinism the homosexuals would naturally unpropagate
>> themselves out of the next generations provided you allowed much
>> greater cultural acceptance (and hence lack of cover marriages and
>> breeding) of the sort that was happening in the 1920's.
>>
>> Of course it was all a pseudoscientific scam for picking on the people
>> that they decided they didn't like. bonk bonk on the head.
>
> Make that anti-scientific. The advent of standardized intelligence
> tests had already begun to demonstrate that Jews, on average, had
> higher IQs than their persecutors. Evidence was already accumulating
> that people with IQs below 75 were nearly worthless for any
> job requiring much training, such as soldiering, and people with
> IQs above 125 were extremely useful for designing the sort of
> secret weapons which Hitler found so captivating.
>
> So even with the rudimentary scientific knowledge available at
> the time the Nazis had to know they were targeting the segment
> of their population containing the greatest concentration of
> economically and militarily valuable people. They were not
> practicing eugenics but dysgenics. (Of course if someone really
> wanted to get serious about eugenics it would be better to forget
> about race entirely and just go with individual test scores,
> since there are smart and stupid individuals in every race.)
>
> The United States also stunted its economic and technological
> growth by not welcoming more European Jews as immigrants. We should
> have taken as many as we could get instead of sending boatloads
> back to certain death. Today Jewish Americans generate a
> significantly higher per capita product than the general population
> and contribute disproportionately (on average) to the sciences,
> arts, and professions. (Of course every large group of people has
> a distribution of skills and behaviors so this says nothing useful
> by itself about any particular individual.)
>
> The United States might consider buying all the land in
> Israel, trading it to the Arabs for oil, and granting
> Israeli Jews U.S. citizenship so they could all come here. Freeing
> them from the perpetual war with all their neighbors would enable
> them to focus on creating value. That would probably do more for
> the U.S. economy's long-term health than anything else we could do
> for the money. We'd also get another 50 nuclear warheads in the
> deal. Then Middle Easter Arabs could get back to the business of
> killing each other, beheading adulterers, destroying idols, stamping
> out women's rights, fighting the good fight against the spread
> of democracy, and enforcing medieval religious edicts without
> the Jewish irritant to divert resources.
>
> -- the Danimal
>
> p.s. Muslims do have a good idea with alcohol. I'm amazed that
> prohibition has worked fine in Muslim countries for 1000+ years
> without the emergence of the sort of gangsterism that gave
> liquor industry propagandists a pretext to smear prohibition
> in the U.S.A. I guess if you want to get serious about taking on
> drunkards you'd better see that they get religion first. And make
> it a religion loaded with aggressive memes capable of locking onto
> a brain tight enough to displace even a chemical addiction.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 05:39:21 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 06:33:07 GMT, "RapierWits"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>silverback <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 03 May 2001 03:12:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Walter
>> Daniels) wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:16:46 -0500, Kurt Lochner
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Fraud Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> again twisted the meaning
>of:
>> >>> silverback wrote:
>> >>> >Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> > > silverback wrote:
>> >>> <etc,... snip>
>> >>> > >> wrong again liar. Fascism is corporate rule.
>
>
>fas·cism (fshzm)
>n.
>
>Often Fascism
>A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a
>dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition
>through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent
>nationalism and racism.
>A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of
>government.
>Oppressive, dictatorial control.
>
>Thus Stalin was just as much of a Facist as Hitler and Mussolini.
wrong idiot. Stalin was not a fascist he was at the opposite end of
the political spectrum.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>The Nazis allowed the
>> >>> > >> corporations to write the laws.
>
>Some of the corporations that were willing to play ball, to some extent, but
>not all of them. Please note that the property of many Jews and principly
>jewish owned firms was siezed. Others lost all they had as well because
>they opposed the Nazis. This lumping of all corporations together is much
>as Hitler lumping jews bankers and communists together.
>
>
>> >>> > >So, then, you agree that it's bad to let the Sierra Club and
>similar
>> >>> > >groups write environmental law, and that it's a bad idea to let
>> >>> > >those with a vested interest in the welfare bureacracy to write
>> >>> > >welfare laws.
>> >>> > nope, the Sierra club is hardly a corporation buttfuck.
>> >>> From
>http://outingleaders.sierraclub.org:8082/Common/ins_manual/index.asp;
>> >>> [...]
>> >>> The Sierra Club, which includes the chapters, groups, and sections,
>> >>> is considered one corporation under California corporation law.
>> >><sigh> I let the disengneuous fraud out of my kill-file, and he's
>> >>still trying to misrepresent even the simplest of concepts as some
>> >>kind of defense for his intentional ignorance..
>> >
>> > Tell me. Where exactly does the "Sierra Club," get a major portion
>> >of its funding? IIRC, it hasn't been "individual contributions," for
>> >some years. It gets most, from "foundations," and "eco programs." NOw,
>> >if most of their "funds," come from "special interests," who do they
>> >really answer to? They do not have an "endowment" to fund their
>> >operation, which means they have to "sell" something. In the case of
>> >the "Sierra Club," it is "environmental causes." Since the vast
>> >majority of "foundations" are liberal, democratic in outlook, they
>>
>> wrong fuckhead most foundations are hard right and fascists.
>
>
>Right and left are frauds. It is a false view of politics. People in
>favor of liberal-libertarian democracy are the opposite of totalitarians of
>either communist-socialist or Nazi-Facist variety.
>
>
>> > When you factor in the history of _how_ they "protect the
>> >environment," it's pretty obvious who they really are. Someone who
>> >would "protect the environment into destruction." To themn, like most
>> >"enviro extremists," it is "set it aside for the smallest number who
>> >can afford to use it." What's that, it's elitism? Damn straight it is.
>> >Make me pay for it, but then tell me I can't use it, because I'm not
>> >"special" enough.
>> >
>> >>--What part of "not-for-profit" do you not yet comprehend, Fraud?
>
>Several individual for profit corporations (lumber & paper companies) do
>more to grow forest in one year than the Sierra Club ever has. In order to
>make (gasp) a profit!
>
>
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
