Linux-Advocacy Digest #179, Volume #28 Wed, 2 Aug 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Loren Petrich)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG (Loren Petrich)
Re: trying to break a patent
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 2 Aug 2000 15:14:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Let's see. Mr. Kulkis has called the Kennedy and Rockefeller
>> families "trust-fund babies". If anyone else called them that, I'm sure
>> that Mr. Kulkis would howl "CLASS ENVY!!!!!"
Mr. Kulkis has not responded. Perhaps because he knows I'm right.
>> Grow up. There are good reasons for richer people to pay more in
>> absolute amounts, even if not in relative amounts;
>Name one that isn't based on any of the following:
>a) class envy arguments
Like your attacks on the Kennedys and the Rockefellers?
>b) "they can afford it" arguments
> [by that logic, we shouldn't prosecute shoplifters, either]
>c) wealth redistribution arguments
I did -- that rich people have more assets to protect and more
assets to try to stake a claim on. Where would Big Business be without
the form of indirect subsidy known as limited liability for investors? In
the 18th and 19th centuries that had been widely criticized, but as
Michael Lind has noted, it is tolerated out of expediency. Big businesses
owe their very existence to governments and they are often closely
entangled with governments. Read, for example,
http://www.zompist.com/gummint.html
>> soak-the-rich taxation to support that principle.
>Like you, for example....
Only in the imagination of a member of the Leona Helmsley Brigade.
And someone who thinks that the Kennedys and the Rockefellers
ought *never* to pay *any* significant amount of taxes.
>> For instance, such people have more that has to
>> be protected by the government, and I mean protected with both force and
>> legal recognition.
>Hint fucking hint: Most "rich" people already pay for their own
>private security force. The police are, legally, only INVESTIGATORS.
Baloney. There is also the armed forces, in case you weren't
aware. Poor people don't have much that is worth protecting. Rich people do.
>They are not allowed to legally intercede in before a crime is committed
>the same way that private security forces can.
Then why not become a neighborhood vigilante?
>Not only that....but...the majority of the reason for the police is
>NOT because "rich people have stuff", it's because LOWLIFES STEAL SHIT.
But who is worth stealing from? Is protection to be some sort of
goverment entitlement where those without assets must protect those with
assets at NO charge to the latter?
>Your argument is nothing more than "punish those who have things"
>They're already paying for their own private security force AND you
>are saying that they should also pay a higher tax rate for a police
>force that doesn't do diddly-squat for them.
Cry me a river. A big river of classist tears.
>> And if I got fabulously filthy rich, I would not begrudge paying
>> more in absolute amounts than most other people.
>This is the same man who only yesterday was talking about how having
>"tends[sic] of thousands of slaves cowering in fear" is the mark of
>success.
Given Mr. Kulkis's personality, I'm sure he'd love that.
>> >The only thing that is ethical is a "head tax" That is, your
>> >family pays, say, $10,000 / head, or whatever.
>> So says the Leona Helmsley Brigade, which include those who are
>> more than happy to see the Kennedys and the Rockefellers pay very little
>> in taxes compared to the rest of the population.
>What part of "IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SALES TAX" do you not understand?
However, the size of the sales tax needed to fund the gigantic
military forces that Mr. Kulkis craves would soak everybody but the rich,
because they will have to spend so much of their money paying those taxes
that they will not have much money to found businesses, get advanced
educations, and do other things that would make them have any chance at
great wealth.
>> And Margaret Thatcher tried levying such a tax in Britain, and
>> look where that got her.
>Yes, the British are equally addicted to socialism in the same
>way as so many opium addicts.
Translation: Mr. Kulkis's policies have been rejected in the real
world, and he's a sore loser.
>> Including military pork, a kind of pork that Mr. Kulkis finds
>> very difficult to criticize.
>Oh, I fully acknowledge that military procurement is fucked up. There's
>never been a government in the world that hasn't had a pork-laden
>military procurement system from beginning to end.
Praise with faint damns.
>What *I* find curious is why you think that this same pork-laden
>procurement system should be enlarged to engulf housing, the medical
>community, education, and every other aspect of life?
In Mr. Kulkis's imagination, of course.
>> >Keep in mind that the millionaire uses *LESS* government resources
>> >than the grad student.
>> ROTFL. A millionaire has much more in assets to protect than a
>> grad student, so uses much more in government resources, even if only
>> indirectly.
>Your "soak the rich" bias is clearly evident.
A good description of Mr. Kulkis's "soak everybody else" bias.
>Who is responsible for the costs of a criminal investigation and
>subsequent prosecution:
>a) the rightful owner who was robbed or burglarized
>or
>b) the lowlife scum who broke the law and stole it
In the real world, (a) is what it generally turns out to be. In
fact, judging from his previous statements, Mr. Kulkis seems to endorse
(a) for all but the rich.
And what would one call an embezzler or an investment swindler or
a tax evader?
I forgot, in Mr. Kulkis's world, there is no such thing as
white-collar crime, aside from what his political enemies can get charged
with. It's all political, like the Moscow Trials of the 1930's.
>> Does that include military and police protection, by any chance?
>> And running the court system?
>Nope. Those are constitutionally mandated functions.
>Read it and weep, fat-boy:
I've read it, and it implies much more than protection of the
people that Mr. Kulkis grovels before -- rich people, of course.
>> And does this mean that insurance companies and health-care-plan
>> companies have no right to exist?
>How obtuse are you? Those are PRIVATE companies. We are talking about
>the function of GOVERNMENT AND TAXES. People can willingly purchase
>insurance if they so desire, or they can willingly forego insurance.
>It's no business of government either way.
However, if people decide that taxation is the most efficient way
to finance it, and make that decision at the ballot box, then you get
outvoted.
>> If such mooching is so great, why not do it yourself, Mr. Kulkis?
>Unlike you and your ilk, I have ethics.
Mr. Kulkis makes a victim out of himself.
>> It would give you LOTS of time to study so that you can become a *much*
>> better Unix sysadmin and do *much* more research into Communist conspiracies.
>1. Are you alleging that conspiracies don't exist? If that is true,
>then why, if you go into a federal court, does one find, "the conspiracy
>to ....." among the charges filed by the prosecutor?
OF COURSE NOT. I'm focusing on *particular* conspiracies.
>2. Since the existance of conspiracies is now well ascertained,
>are you alleging that an organization (the whole of communism) which
>vows to overthrow governments around the world, does not engage in
>conspiracies?
Communism is NOT a unified front.
>> However, a society built according to Mr. Kulkis's ideals would
>> not have *ANY* of those, because he opposes *anything* that might be
>> considered a handout.
>Nope. I am in FULL support of VOLOUNTARILY SUPPORTED charities.
That would not be apparent from Mr. Kulkis's bile.
>I make no such meaningless distinctions. ALL involountarily funded
>welfare is immoral.
If enough people decide that taxation is the most efficient way
of financing it...
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SemiScholar)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:22:01 GMT
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 19:34:50 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 15:07:11 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Steve Chaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On 1 Aug 2000 06:12:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >How good does a power mac work with Linux? That processor should be
>> >> >screaming without the limitations of (pick your Apple OS of the day).
>> >> >It sure turns out x86 screams without the limitations of Windows,
>> >> >that's for sure!
>> >>
>> >> It performs excellently under the BeOS, though I haven't tried a
>> >> PowerPC flavor of Linux yet.
>> >>
>> >> Apple is still too slow with MacOS X :-(
>> >
>> >Well, maybe if you got some hardware that wasn't stuck in the 1980's....
>>
>> ROTFL!!! This from a "Unix Systems Engineer"?? Hahhahahahahah!!
>>
>> Unix was a good idea. ... ... in 1969
>>
>> So you think a G4 is a 1980's processor? LOL!!
>
>Unix had windows before Microsoft even wrote MS-DOS.
>
LOL!
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: 2 Aug 2000 15:32:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> If working people are starving because they can't afford to buy food after
>> paying their taxes while the rich are getting a free ride, that is
>> certainly not "fair".
>How are the "the rich" getting a "free ride" when they are paying
>just as much in taxes?
But Mr. Kulkis's beloved rich people aren't going broke...
>> Under your scheme, I would have owed the government $2500 per year.
>I paid 10x that amount last year, and I'm hardly "rich"
>I'm driving a 1989 Geo Spectrum.
Mr. Kulkis is not rich? If poor people are really rich, the Mr.
Kulkis is super filthy rich, and Mr. Kulkis's comments are crying in his
beer.
>But if they had more money in their bank accounts, people could
>afford to pay for these things directly, without having the
>government bureacracy skimming 20% off the top before anything
>of value ever happens.
Demonstrably false in some cases, such as the Social Security
Administration.
And look at how Mr. Kulkis praises porky military procurement
with faint damns -- he's silent about military porkmeisters who just so
happen to be Republicans.
>> The last point is important -- your system is an ANTI-meritocracy, because
>> the overriding factor in someones success would be who their parents are.
>Wrong. You discount the effects of charities.
In a society run on Aaron Kulkis's ideals, private charity would
not exist, because those who could use it would be deemed lazy bums.
>> What bugs me about both leftists and rightists is that neither want a
>> meritocracy.
>right-wingers are socialists. I am completely opposed to socialism
>in all forms. What I advocate is a *STRICT* meritocracy.
>> The leftists want everyone equal regardless of merit, and
>> the wealthy rightists want their kids to land on top of the heirarchy
>> regardless of how dumb or incompetent they are.
>I'm not wealthy, so you just blew your argument.
However, one can be a self-hating wealth groupie.
>> >Keep in mind that the millionaire uses *LESS* government resources
>> >than the grad student.
>> Bullshit. I didn't use govt resources as a grad student.
>That is highly commendable. I wish there were more like you.
And Mr. Kulkis finances his own personal militia. Right (sarcasm).
>> Most 6 year olds cannot afford to pay for their education or health. So
>> you are advocating their parents pay for it.
>Absolutely. If they parents were signing the checks themselves, they
>would pay more attention to what the schools are teaching, and whether
>they are effective, and DEMAND that miscreants be punished and, if
>need be, expelled.
However, those same parents may try to get their kids protected
from discipline.
Yes, there *are* parents like that.
>> But if this is implemented,
>> you have an anti-meritocracy -- old money stamps all over young genius.
>You've never heard of charities and scholarships? They're not only
>for college students, you know.
However, a society run on Mr. Kulkis's ideals would have none of
those, as I've explained.
>> Yes, but their kids don't have much say in the matter.
>THE PARENTS are responsible for their kids, not you, and not me.
So people ought to be punished for the sins of their parents?
>> Again, you are arguing
>> that someone with poor parents has no right to health care or an education.
>If someone is so poor that they can't raise their children, then
>maybe they shouldn't be breeding, should they?
However, those who've had jobs for a long time, then lost those
jobs simply can't put kids back into their wombs.
>> The kid could be the next
>> Einstein, but if their parents can't pay up, that's too bad -- there'll
>> always be a dumb rich kid who will be able to take the top jobs ( even
>> if they;'re incapable of doing them )
>What part of "volountarily funded charities" do you not understand?
However, Mr. Kulkis's presumption that low income = loser means
that private charity ought not to exist.
>Besides, in case you haven't notices, the tax-funded schools
>are absolute, complete SHIT right now.
From a grove of birch trees it came.
>> Somewhat. You still don't have a meritocracy. You have something that works
>> like a meritocracy in exceptional cases, but for the most part looks like
>> an old money system.
>Ability attracts money. Go figure.
Nobility has existed for centuries. Go figure.
>Not at all. If we got rid of the income tax, and replaced it with a
>sales tax, the Kennedy dolts would all be in the poorhouse now.
I don't see how.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: trying to break a patent
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 08:30:56 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nick wrote:
> >
> And that was one of the things I was thinking about when I posted.
> There are also the 'one-click' and other cases from Amazon, but that
> hyperlink thing just killed me. How can anyone come on the scene after
> all this time and just happen to say they own the rights to
> hyperlinking. Funny they didn't claim that when the 'web' was just
> starting to pick up steam.
Just like the patents that were issued for the cursor and then for the
blinking cursor decades after they were already standard industry practice.
Saving a copy of the contents of the screen or a part of it when you pop
something on it and then used the stored copy to return the the screen to
its original condition was also granted a patent at least a decade and a
half after it was considered old hat.
The same for building screen contents in memory to a virtual screen and the
copying it to the real screen.
The fastest way to zero out a register in most processors (as long as you
don't want to presurve to conditions of the flags) is to either perform an
exclusive or against itself or to subtract it from itself. It consumes less
memory for the instruction and less clock cycles. This procedure has been
in use since the first assembler language/ machine language programmers. As
has most other assembler programmers, I "developed" this coding trick within
my first assembler programming task. It was also granted a patent at one
time.
The same for the lzw compression algorithm.
The same for public key encryption.
What is the problem here is that none of these patents were granted to the
developers of these techniques. The patent office will grant a patent to
something that it is unfamiliar with to the first applicant with no reguard
to who developed it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 15:31:15 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 20:17:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> >Go ahead and laugh. The point is that a pre-loaded and
> >pre-configured Linux box could very well address the hypothetical
> >scenario which ***YOU*** came up with, your snottiness
> >notwithstanding.
>
> No way. Not in such a way that anyone new to computers could figure
> out.
-- snip --
> Face it - people have a huge comfort level with certain applications,
> and by and large they don't run under Linux.
So, people who are "new to computers" already have a "comfort level with
certain applications" eh?
When you make up your mind as to what your argument is, let us know.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: AARON KULKIS...USENET SPAMMER, LIAR, AND THUG
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 11:39:40 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> >> Let's see. Mr. Kulkis has called the Kennedy and Rockefeller
> >> families "trust-fund babies". If anyone else called them that, I'm sure
> >> that Mr. Kulkis would howl "CLASS ENVY!!!!!"
>
> Mr. Kulkis has not responded. Perhaps because he knows I'm right.
>
> >> Grow up. There are good reasons for richer people to pay more in
> >> absolute amounts, even if not in relative amounts;
>
> >Name one that isn't based on any of the following:
> >a) class envy arguments
>
> Like your attacks on the Kennedys and the Rockefellers?
>
> >b) "they can afford it" arguments
> > [by that logic, we shouldn't prosecute shoplifters, either]
> >c) wealth redistribution arguments
>
> I did -- that rich people have more assets to protect and more
> assets to try to stake a claim on. Where would Big Business be without
> the form of indirect subsidy known as limited liability for investors? In
> the 18th and 19th centuries that had been widely criticized, but as
> Michael Lind has noted, it is tolerated out of expediency. Big businesses
> owe their very existence to governments and they are often closely
> entangled with governments. Read, for example,
>
> http://www.zompist.com/gummint.html
>
> >> soak-the-rich taxation to support that principle.
> >Like you, for example....
>
> Only in the imagination of a member of the Leona Helmsley Brigade.
>
> And someone who thinks that the Kennedys and the Rockefellers
> ought *never* to pay *any* significant amount of taxes.
>
> >> For instance, such people have more that has to
> >> be protected by the government, and I mean protected with both force and
> >> legal recognition.
> >Hint fucking hint: Most "rich" people already pay for their own
> >private security force. The police are, legally, only INVESTIGATORS.
>
> Baloney. There is also the armed forces, in case you weren't
> aware. Poor people don't have much that is worth protecting. Rich people do.
>
> >They are not allowed to legally intercede in before a crime is committed
> >the same way that private security forces can.
>
> Then why not become a neighborhood vigilante?
>
> >Not only that....but...the majority of the reason for the police is
> >NOT because "rich people have stuff", it's because LOWLIFES STEAL SHIT.
>
> But who is worth stealing from? Is protection to be some sort of
> goverment entitlement where those without assets must protect those with
> assets at NO charge to the latter?
>
> >Your argument is nothing more than "punish those who have things"
> >They're already paying for their own private security force AND you
> >are saying that they should also pay a higher tax rate for a police
> >force that doesn't do diddly-squat for them.
>
> Cry me a river. A big river of classist tears.
>
> >> And if I got fabulously filthy rich, I would not begrudge paying
> >> more in absolute amounts than most other people.
> >This is the same man who only yesterday was talking about how having
> >"tends[sic] of thousands of slaves cowering in fear" is the mark of
> >success.
>
> Given Mr. Kulkis's personality, I'm sure he'd love that.
>
> >> >The only thing that is ethical is a "head tax" That is, your
> >> >family pays, say, $10,000 / head, or whatever.
> >> So says the Leona Helmsley Brigade, which include those who are
> >> more than happy to see the Kennedys and the Rockefellers pay very little
> >> in taxes compared to the rest of the population.
> >What part of "IN CONJUNCTION WITH A SALES TAX" do you not understand?
>
> However, the size of the sales tax needed to fund the gigantic
> military forces that Mr. Kulkis craves would soak everybody but the rich,
> because they will have to spend so much of their money paying those taxes
> that they will not have much money to found businesses, get advanced
> educations, and do other things that would make them have any chance at
> great wealth.
>
> >> And Margaret Thatcher tried levying such a tax in Britain, and
> >> look where that got her.
> >Yes, the British are equally addicted to socialism in the same
> >way as so many opium addicts.
>
> Translation: Mr. Kulkis's policies have been rejected in the real
> world, and he's a sore loser.
>
> >> Including military pork, a kind of pork that Mr. Kulkis finds
> >> very difficult to criticize.
> >Oh, I fully acknowledge that military procurement is fucked up. There's
> >never been a government in the world that hasn't had a pork-laden
> >military procurement system from beginning to end.
>
> Praise with faint damns.
>
> >What *I* find curious is why you think that this same pork-laden
> >procurement system should be enlarged to engulf housing, the medical
> >community, education, and every other aspect of life?
>
> In Mr. Kulkis's imagination, of course.
>
> >> >Keep in mind that the millionaire uses *LESS* government resources
> >> >than the grad student.
> >> ROTFL. A millionaire has much more in assets to protect than a
> >> grad student, so uses much more in government resources, even if only
> >> indirectly.
> >Your "soak the rich" bias is clearly evident.
>
> A good description of Mr. Kulkis's "soak everybody else" bias.
>
> >Who is responsible for the costs of a criminal investigation and
> >subsequent prosecution:
> >a) the rightful owner who was robbed or burglarized
> >or
> >b) the lowlife scum who broke the law and stole it
>
> In the real world, (a) is what it generally turns out to be. In
> fact, judging from his previous statements, Mr. Kulkis seems to endorse
> (a) for all but the rich.
>
> And what would one call an embezzler or an investment swindler or
> a tax evader?
>
> I forgot, in Mr. Kulkis's world, there is no such thing as
> white-collar crime, aside from what his political enemies can get charged
> with. It's all political, like the Moscow Trials of the 1930's.
>
> >> Does that include military and police protection, by any chance?
> >> And running the court system?
> >Nope. Those are constitutionally mandated functions.
>
> >Read it and weep, fat-boy:
>
> I've read it, and it implies much more than protection of the
> people that Mr. Kulkis grovels before -- rich people, of course.
>
> >> And does this mean that insurance companies and health-care-plan
> >> companies have no right to exist?
> >How obtuse are you? Those are PRIVATE companies. We are talking about
> >the function of GOVERNMENT AND TAXES. People can willingly purchase
> >insurance if they so desire, or they can willingly forego insurance.
> >It's no business of government either way.
>
> However, if people decide that taxation is the most efficient way
> to finance it, and make that decision at the ballot box, then you get
> outvoted.
So, at the next election, if the majority of people vote "yes"
on Proposition 457:
"Loren Petrich shall be executed at sunrise"
You are saying that this should be carried out, simply because
the mob approved it?
Likewise, public approval of EXTORTION doesn't make it any less of
a crime.
EXTORTION is EXTORTION is EXTORTION, no matter how much you try
to pussyfoot around the issue, asshole.
>
> >> If such mooching is so great, why not do it yourself, Mr. Kulkis?
> >Unlike you and your ilk, I have ethics.
>
> Mr. Kulkis makes a victim out of himself.
In what way? I don't need to mooch, I'm self-reliant. I trade
my talents and services for the things I need.
>
> >> It would give you LOTS of time to study so that you can become a *much*
> >> better Unix sysadmin and do *much* more research into Communist conspiracies.
>
> >1. Are you alleging that conspiracies don't exist? If that is true,
> >then why, if you go into a federal court, does one find, "the conspiracy
> >to ....." among the charges filed by the prosecutor?
>
> OF COURSE NOT. I'm focusing on *particular* conspiracies.
>
> >2. Since the existance of conspiracies is now well ascertained,
> >are you alleging that an organization (the whole of communism) which
> >vows to overthrow governments around the world, does not engage in
> >conspiracies?
>
> Communism is NOT a unified front.
This does nothing to disprove the testimony of SEVERAL defectors
who all say that the whole "collapse of the Soviet Union" is a
charade to get the US to unilaterally disarm.
So far, you have presented ZERO evidence to the contrary, whereas
I have documented a BUILDUP of the Russian military, even as the
Moscow government is pretending to be in the depths of poverty.
The PEOPLE are in poverty...but not their military, nor the FSB.
(Once again, the usual routine of renaming the Checka/NKVD/KGB/
whatever-the-other-freaking-names-were.
>
> >> However, a society built according to Mr. Kulkis's ideals would
> >> not have *ANY* of those, because he opposes *anything* that might be
> >> considered a handout.
> >Nope. I am in FULL support of VOLOUNTARILY SUPPORTED charities.
>
> That would not be apparent from Mr. Kulkis's bile.
I am a founding contributor to a scholorship fund, meanwhile, Loren
admits that he doesn't make any charitable donations to anybody.
Loren so compassionate
Loren compassionate long long time.
>
> >I make no such meaningless distinctions. ALL involountarily funded
> >welfare is immoral.
>
> If enough people decide that
hanging Loren Petrich by the
neck until dead......
Then what do you say about the rights of the people to impose
any law which the mob agrees upon??? Hmmmmmmmmm?
How about I get my cousin in California to mount a petition
drive to get such a proposition onto the California ballot?
Are you ... willing to take your chances with the mob?
> taxation is the most efficient way
> of financing it...
....it is still immoral.
EXTORTION BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL EXTORTION, you fucking asshole.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
