Linux-Advocacy Digest #215, Volume #35 Thu, 14 Jun 01 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:40:34 GMT
Said Form@C in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 13 Jun 2001 20:59:51 GMT;
>LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
><snip>
>> Yup. Only an deranged zealot would deny that Microsoft has done some
>> good. Fortunately, the court case is shedding much needed light on
>> Microsoft's business practices.
>>
><snip>
>
>I *have* to argue with this...
>
>Before the IBM/Intel/Microsoft triopoly there simply wasn't a standard.
No, there weren't standard*s*. It is not that we lacked them, it is
that the idea had not been invented yet. All computers sold at the time
were proprietary. IBM/Intel/Microsoft did not realize the PC was going
to be anything different. But when the *market* created the PC
architecture standard (Compaq and other clone and compatible OEMs used
the PC design), Bill Gates lucked out. He had *thought* he was going to
have to coerce and cajole each individual computer manufacturer to
include his BASIC in their system. Things got easier when all he had to
do was give away MS-DOS until he could start forcing people to buy it.
>You couldn't write a text file on one machine and expect to read it on one
>produced by a different manufacturer.
You couldn't when IBM/Intel/Microsoft systems were compared to any other
proprietary design, either. Interoperability gets REAL easy once you
start dealing with networking, though, and even before that, both Mac
and PC systems had floppy compatibility.
>CP/M helped a lot. It gave a common OS (of sorts) but there wasn't a
>standard disk format when it first appeared. Some firms made cash simply by
>copying files from one manufacturer's disk format to another (providing
>that they were both CP/M files of course).
Well, now you're getting in to senseless prattling, I'm afraid.
>Microsoft, no matter what their faults, did help to produce a common
>software platform that worked on hardware from different manufacturers.
Well, here's the truth of the matter:
In the very early years of the 'PC revolution', from the perspective of
the average consumer at that time, you didn't have a PC standard. What
you had were other computer manufacturers copying IBM's design. These
were the 'PC compatibles', and it is worth noting that, as products,
they've all disappeared entirely. The products which still survive in
the "IBM compatible" market are not compatibles, but clones.
Now, the thing that makes them clones, rather than compatibles, more
than anything else in the world, is the BIOS. Compaq (or somebody)
cloned the original BIOS, and IIRC, there was even a bit of suing going
on. But in the end, IBM could not stop anyone anywhere from reverse
engineering (wasn't tough; the first couple versions had the schematics
and code!) the PC/XT/AT 'platform' and producing a clone computer.
This is the market monopolized by Microsoft. The question is, was this
'monopolization', the fact that Microsoft completely dominates all PC OS
markets, the result of market forces? It does seem possible, even
reasonable, to consider that maybe the reason we have a PC market today
was this "standardizing influence" of DOS-compatibility. If MS's
product had not been available to be the market of compatibility (if it
could run DOS, it was a PC) then we wouldn't have a 'PC market', but
only IBM's product competing with everybody else's.
Weren't Compaq and these other manufacturers just trying to compete in
the market that *Microsoft* had established, for computers which could
run their Operating System, which rapidly gained application support in
the pre-packaged software market that was still emerging? Was it
Microsoft's fault that the thing everybody selected was the cheapest
alternative OS that IBM offered, and then everybody clambered for more
computers that could be compatible with that OS?
Is a PC defined as "that which runs DOS"? Are Microsoft's actions to
maintain their dominance for twenty years, until today, when a PC is
defined as "that which runs Windows", simply competitive development of
a successful product?
Well, go back to the beginning of the story for the answer. It wasn't
compatibility with DOS that people wanted. If that were the case, the
compatibles would still be around. This would have been a GREAT thing,
by the way, because we would have dumped the problems of the COM ports
and the IRQs and the 640K barrier and all that other shit. The only
problem with it was that, even if DOS had been the standard for defining
the PC platform, they could not have prevented competition for DOS
clones. All Microsoft would have been doing is selling a successful
product, with tremendous market power and a leading role in the
industry.
Apparently, that was not their goal, or perhaps it simply wasn't within
their capabilities. The compatibles which ran DOS did not win out in
the marketplace. This could have been because, while they had the
luxury of improving on the design of the hardware, the software had to
be retrofit to every change they made, so compatibility with the PC was
not enough to maintain compatibility with DOS. Or perhaps it was
because Microsoft knew they could not control the market and could not
keep up with the competition unless the PC were a single hardware
platform.
Whatever was the cause, the result was that the compatibles went away,
and the compatibles that supported MS-DOS went with it, if there ever
were any. The market was left with the clones. Clones could run MS-DOS
without any modification, because they used the same BIOS. But it
wasn't because it needed MS-DOS. It was because it needed the same
BIOS. DOS was little more than a boot-loader, and most applications
were written to exploit BIOS calls, even those that worked "through
DOS". So any competitive product (even one given away for free by an
OEM, had they been able to maintain compatibility with DOS without
Microsoft launching a legal suit) could have replaced DOS, but it
couldn't replace the BIOS. A BIOS clone could, so the PC clone market
was only nominally based on compatibility with MS-DOS. Any DOS would
have done.
Now, if that isn't enough to convince you I will mention that as the
clones and compatibles were still slugging it out, the market seemed to
recognize that it was application compatibility that it was really all
about. It doesn't matter what architecture or OS you run, all the
consumer really cares about is running particular applications.
Now, when you have a product, the IBM system, and a market that is
created by competition with it as a complete substitute, the clones, and
you have a market that is created by competition with it as a partial
substitute, the compatibles, you're dealing with some obviously abstract
groupings of systems. If you have a microcomputer of a proprietary
design that runs a DOS-like OS and the same applications (at least,
enough to gain your interest) as a PC compatible, that would be a PC
compatible. The clone market was defined by the PC hardware
architecture itself. The compatible market was defined by running a
DOS-like OS. But not all compatible ran MS-DOS. So how can you really
tell the difference between the PC compatible and the general market of
microcomputers? You might end up buying a Commodore 64. So how can you
tell the difference for sure when making a purchase whether what you are
buying is sufficient for your needs, is a PC compatible?
If Microsoft fan's retelling of history were true, there should be no
confusion. Compatibility with MS-DOS should have been enough to define
a PC compatible, just as the BIOS defined a PC clone. Except, it isn't,
"just as the BIOS". Remember, the BIOS was cloned; it was not a
proprietary product. So being DOS-like should have been enough, so long
as the applications ran. And so that was what the market used, for a
brief time in the mid-to-late 1980s. If it could run Lotus 1-2-3, it
was a PC compatible. This was a hard-core rule, if you knew anything
about the market at the time. If it did not run Lotus, it was not
acceptable, and if it did run Lotus, you could call it a PC. If you
didn't need Lotus, you could buy a microcomputer without getting a PC,
or "IBM-clone", or "PC compatible" computer. A Mac or a Commodore or a
Sun or any other proprietary microcomputer design was generally
substitutable, though each was at rather dramatically different price
points, from the average consumer's point of view.
If MS hadn't attempted to monopolize the OS market for all PC
compatibles (indeed, all microcomputers, even, now, all computers), then
Commodore would probably dominate a home PC market, compatible and
competing mostly with Gateway, interoperable with but distinct from the
business market, serviced by the usual suspects. But that is just a
guess, and it has been twenty years since this "what-if" scenario forked
from the real world, where Microsoft engaged in a purposeful and
unremitting effort to avoid competing on the merits of their product.
>Sorry, Microsoft *did* some good. They may have a *very* tarnished
>reputation now, but that isn't the point of my argument.
I think you are mistaken. MS didn't prevent all good from occurring in
the PC market, that is true. They did not prevent the GUI or
connectivity or Internet applications from being common on all
microcomputers. They didn't entirely prevent the concept of middleware,
they implemented comprehensive APIs and they provided desktop
integration systems like COM and COM+ and DCOM and ActiveX and assorted
other buzzwords. Without ever originating any of the ideas, they didn't
prevent every good idea from improving OS software no the 95% of the
systems using their product.
That is the most that can be said for them. Despite popular opinion,
there is no "fine line" between monopolization and competing. There is
no legal way to act anti-competitively, and just because it might take
twenty years to understand just what the difference is if you aren't
watching to begin with doesn't mean it doesn't occur.
I cannot know what particular anti-competitive actions MS took to
prevent competition. But that competition did not form is certain, and
that does not happen in a free market. PARTICULARLY in a new market on
a product which has barely any costs and can be of rather arbitrary
quality in a consumer market. Competition will always form in a free
market, so it is worth looking at what really happened, without vague
teleologies and second-guessing and urban legend myths about why any
company acted as they did. If we presume all companies act to increase
the profit they make, then Microsoft's actions, alone, don't make any
sense. They had a business model which could only pay off if they had
market dominance, monopoly power. That, my friend, is illegal.
So in case nobody else has the ingenuity to explain it to the
businessmen, print out this message and give it to anyone who seems like
they don't understand this point. Take it to the Supreme Court if you
have to. Anti-competitive activity must be stamped out or the great
economy that we are all enjoying is going to come to a crashing halt, or
become a technocratic nightmare.
If you are engaging in commerce, your business plan must be capable of
providing sustainable profits NO MATTER WHAT YOUR MARKET SHARE IS. If
it cannot, you are breaking the law, even if you think you are
innocently engaging in commerce. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so
be sure, if there is some professor in your business school who taught
you something different, print out a copy of this message and give it to
him. Have him take it to a lawyer to discuss it.
Businesses in a capitalist free market are profit-seeking entities.
They MUST be allowed to seek profit wherever might be possible, for such
trial-and-error-with-feedback attempts are the only way to efficiently
produce goods without centralized control, something nobody wants. If
there is a business that does not act in their own self-interest in this
manner, then competitive businesses are incapable of preventing them
from gaining control of every sale. Anti-competitive actions, tactics
used to fulfill a strategy of restraining trade or monopolizing to boost
profits, are a federal felony.
As I said, it is not a thin line between competition and monopolization.
A monopoly strategy has a certain unmistakable tell-tale, even when you
work to hide it thoroughly with special accounting practices and
marketing and sticking to entirely 'virtual' products. If you don't
have monopoly power, you'd be losing money. If a business relies on
market share as a 'competitive advantage', they are not acting
competitively, but anti-competitively. If a business needs any certain
amount of market power or market share to profitably sell the number of
units they are selling, they are monopolizing; they are breaking the
law.
Now, every law has a loophole, and it is possible for a short-term
business strategy to require a producer or vendor to take a loss. But
Sherman Act violations can be thought of as kind of like getting a
ticket for reckless driving (though they carry a three year sentence in
federal prison). If you had to swerve to avoid a deer, then you
certainly weren't driving recklessly. But when there are no deer
around, and you were seen swerving all over the road or running without
your headlights, the vagueness of the term "reckless" is not something
that a judge is going to take seriously as a defense.
And this is the situation, ultimately, that Microsoft finds itself in.
Metaphorically, they were caught on video tape doing stunts on a public
highway. And now they claim they couldn't have been driving recklessly,
because their car was moving, and that means they must have been going
somewhere, and not just using the highway to do stunts, like the cops
claim.
Despite any naive assumptions made because it is possible to endure
being massively overcharged for shoddy goods, monopoly is not ever to
the advantage of the consumer. The "value" the producer or vendor
extracts from their market share to maintain 'profits' does not ever
benefit the consumer.
Yes, there is benefit to the consumer in the software code that
Microsoft licenses. That does not salvage Microsoft's reputation in any
way. The issue is not whether they actually employed engineers, but
whether those engineers were actually employed by businessmen. Surely
there is a large segment of the consumer base that doesn't care about
the business stuff, as long as they can use a PC. Some developers, as
well, credit MS with providing the software they use. About 95% of
them, probably.
You are ignorant of the historical facts if you think MS ever had a
reputation that could be 'tarnished'. The only reputation they've ever
had is for mediocre crapware and anti-competitive business tactics. The
few positive reports concerning Microsoft are noticeable primarily
because they stand in sharp contrast to the facts.
The fact that Windows is monopoly crapware in no way indicates that
millions of people have not successfully used it as an OS on their PC.
It isn't the numbers, it is the proportions, that damn the product as
monopoly crapware. Since competitive merit was obviously not what got
it on 95% of the PCs, it is rather naive to presume that it being better
than anything else in *any* particular way is simply due to the fact
that Microsoft illegally prevented competition in the PC OS market. To
say "only Windows has COM" is to admit that Microsoft has acted
illegally. If COM were any good, there would be a competitive market
for suppliers of it, since it cannot be defined as something that is
covered by either copyright or patent, explicitly. This is no surprise;
when you examine whatever is called "COM" it rapidly vanishes into
"whatever MS says 'COM' is, though they won't point to any single
specification or code or product or thing that it is."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:40:36 GMT
Said Burkhard Wölfel in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>[snip]
>> If everyone is a fascist, then there is no point in using the term as a
>> label for an individual person, no. Does that mean it doesn't have any
>> meaning? No. It is an abstraction, kid. A *characteristic*, not a
>> *category*.
>
>Now that's a hot spot: *characteristic* or *category* ?
Ooh, indeed it is.
>I guess that depends on the pragmatic aspect of how you use it. Roots of
>the word is Latin via Italian, "fasces". First use was AFAIK "i
>fascisti" to name a certain group of italian politicians.
>That's a category; the *characteristic* approach doesn't work, it recurs
>to the behaviour of the group.
And it is the behavior of groups which we are speaking of when we
discuss fascism.
>Evade the problem, use another term!
You don't know me very well, do you? ;-)
The problem, as I see it, is that the terms 'dishonestly', 'bigotry',
and 'fascism' are all ineffable in one context, but the context differs
for each term. If we presume that the world is divided into our
personal lives, our society at large, and our government, then these
three terms perfectly mesh with how the world works. In our private
lives, in personal discourse, dishonesty is an extremely difficult thing
to pin down. Everybody lies, and who is to say what is a little white
lie and what is a dishonest claim? But in society at large, ANY
misrepresentation is dishonest; vanity and saving face are not allowed.
Nor are they supposedly allowed in government. Bigotry is distasteful
in personal life, but is only "wrong" when we are dealing with society
at large. Who can say when "I prefer this person because I like them"
becomes "I prefer this person because they are like me"? But in
government, partisanship might be distasteful at times, but it does
provide efficiencies and seems stable, if not overly productive. In the
end, that is the point; any method which stymies and delays government
in moderation is a good thing. In private life, we are all fascist,
because we all believe that our way is the right way and everyone else
should agree with us, and is making an error in failing to do so. In
society at large, fascism has to be tolerated or we do not live in a
free society. Freedom of speech cannot be limited based on content,
however limited we may allow it to be by context, and if the KKK want to
have a rally, we have to let them. But in government fascism cannot be
allowed, but nor can it be easily defined, except by reference to other
wrong-doings, such as totalitarianism and suppression of civil rights.
So the term I meant to use is "fascist" or "fascism". This means a
person or group that believes their political opinion should be
mandatorily enforced. It is a characteristic, not a category, because
it doesn't matter what those political opinions are. It is the word I
wanted to use, because it is the word which means what I meant to say.
>> Get it? If everyone is fascist, then this is what *gives
>> meaning* to the term fascist.
>
>> It is that tendency to believe ourselves
>> correct and all others wrong.
>
>fascism --> stupidity?
Whether stupidity leads to fascism or fascism lead to stupidity is a
question for the ages.
>> It is related to bigotry.
>
>fascism --> bigotry?
It is related to bigotry, as I said. If you'd like to expand or expound
on that, you'll have to use real words.
>> It is really
>> only an issue when dealing with nationalist politics, which is why it is
>> related to the discussion at hand, on patriotism.
>
>fascism --> xenophobia?
Yes, they seem related as well.
>> Basically, you are trying to claim that all patriotism is fascism, or
>> religion, or something else other than what it is, which is patriotism,
>> so that you can claim it is bad.
>
>IMO fascism is a highly specific model of government. It makes use of
>patriotism, xenophobia etc. Two examples of fascist states are 2nd WW
>Italy and Germany, although the germans labeled theirs
>"national-socialist".
>BTW, http://remember.org/hist.root.what.html gives some overview.
But what characteristics does your model model? What particular
characteristics make these governments fascist? How are they different
from any other totalitarianism?
>I am seriously opposed to your use of the word.
Fascist? I'm not. It describes what was wrong with Germany's brand of
nationalist-socialism.
>Use other terms, you
>don't have to argue 'bout the definition.
Yea, right. Guffaw.
You are mistaken. There is no such thing as a word that you can use
without arguing about the definition, as soon as you use it to say
something that someone else who is a fan of that word doesn't like.
I've learned, instead, to pick my battles. And those I pick, I defend
to the death.
>You even avoid the discussion
>about the singularity of fascism and related topics like the holocaust.
I don't understand what you mean about "singularity of fascism". If it
is the idea that no other government than the singular one is valid,
then I would say that *is* fascism. Related topics like the holocaust
might be why fascism is difficult to talk about, but that doesn't make
it difficult to define. Quite the opposite. We can even use the term
definitively, as a synthetic claim which is axiomatic: if you murder two
million tutsies and believe yourself right, you are simply totalitarian,
but if you murder six million jews, and believe yourself righteous, you
are fascist.
>I found that the use of words less "contaminated" suited better in any
>discussion about "fascism" in today's politics, which to me seems widely
>spread.
I've found that no other word means what I know fascism means. It is
not stupidity and it is not bigotry and it is not xenophobia but it is
similar to all of these things. It is fascism. It is no harder to
define than any other abstraction. Meaning, of course, that it is
impossible to entirely define, but that doesn't prevent it from being an
accurate, consistent, and practical word for the thing I mean when I use
it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:40:37 GMT
Said Rotten168 in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:07:28
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:17:23
>> >On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:11:22 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> > (T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >>Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:02:10
>> >>>On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> >
>> >>>>AFAIK, you are the only one to mention saluting anything.
>> >>>
>> >>>You knew what he meant.
>> >>
>> >>Yes, I did. Did you know what I meant? That seems more doubtful.
>> >
>> >Not if you continue to word things so badly.
>>
>> I'm sorry if you're insulted, but I have to point out that the problem
>> is on your end. You are confused and muddle-headed. That is not my
>> fault. It is, however, my problem, and I will try to help. Ask
>> questions, and stop avoiding logical fallacies.
>>
>> Here, this might help: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
>>
>> [...]
>> >In Holland they get personal freedom. Unlike the US.
>>
>> Please explain.
>
>Drugs, alcohol, sex; things are MUCH more libertarian (freedom) in
>Denmark than in the US. It's all about personal responsibility.
Well, when it comes to personal vices, yes, I agree that the United
States is not a model of libertarianism. Had you used the term
"puritanism", I might have understood more what you meant when you said
people in Holland have more personal freedom. It is the worst of
Americanism, it is the witch-hunt and McCarthyism and all of the
blame-casting and bigotry which embodies everything wrong with the
United States.
But, in the end, Holland isn't a superpower. Perhaps we have slightly
less freedom in some regards (and I lobby strongly for legalization of
drugs and sex) but there is, after all, a reason why socialism and
communism and even fascism and other "hive mind" political scenarios are
prevalent and recurring and even work in limited measure. After all, it
is only in giving up individualism that societies can do greater things
than individuals can accomplish. Civilization is a balancing act
between civil rights and social demands. I would prefer the USA were
looser on the social demands, and tighter on the civil rights, but a
more-or-less homogeneous society (in comparison) like Holland isn't
really very convincing. Maybe it is just easier to let everyone "do
their own thing" when everyone pretty much wants to do all the same
thing.
I believe that America has a better balance between socialist and
individualist philosophies than any other country, and if this is not so
I would prefer to change America to match that then change my allegiance
to another country. This is patriotism, and it is always and entirely a
good thing. All of the ills and woes which you would claim arise from
patriotism come from some other thing; fascism and bigotry and
xenophobia among them.
But, yea, the USA is way too puritanical, I'll agree with you there.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:40:38 GMT
Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:01:16
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 12:30:38 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> > >In Holland they get personal freedom. Unlike the US.
>>> >
>>> > Please explain.
>>>
>>> Drugs, alcohol, sex; things are MUCH more libertarian (freedom) in
>>> Denmark than in the US. It's all about personal responsibility.
>>
>>And pedophilia.
>
>Well, if that's the best you can come up with, you may as well not
>bother posting at all.
Not to Americans, no. It is part of the general hangup about sex, that
we see the exploitation of children in pornography and all other sexual
acts (including masturbation) completely abhorrent. It has become
almost a psychosis. The United States Congress has even publicly
censured an academic paper which merely suggested that any and all
sexual experiences with adults don't irreversibly harm children.
It is, after all, a slippery slope. If you are going to subscribe to
the (primarily American, let's face it; we invented the 'sexual
revolution' and led the world in feminine rights) idea that everyone
should be free to engage in sex with anyone else at their discretion,
then you are going to have to draw a rather firm line between consensual
sex and exploitation of vulnerable victims.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 05:40:39 GMT
Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 12 Jun 2001 19:26:40
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2001 17:07:28 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>> >In Holland they get personal freedom. Unlike the US.
>>>
>>> Please explain.
>>
>>Drugs, alcohol, sex; things are MUCH more libertarian (freedom) in
>>Denmark than in the US. It's all about personal responsibility.
>
>The US will never have personal freedom whilst their people are still
>continuosly brainwashed by Christian ideology.
You got that right. Did you know the Christian Coalition is just a
front organization for the American Council of Catholic Bishops, created
specifically to publicize the fallacy that a majority of Americans
believe the government should meddle in a woman's private medical
decisions?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
