On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:11:57AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:18:33AM -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:17:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
One theory says that the fat phenotype is a useful evolutionary
adaptation, and that the skinny phenotype
On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 21:53 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:17:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
Well, yeah. But there was no sugar
Am 2005-11-25 20:01:08, schrieb Clive Menzies:
Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
highly thought provoking. Examining the rise and fall of the
Sumerian, Mayan, Egyptian and Roman
Michelle Konzack said...
Am 2005-11-25 20:01:08, schrieb Clive Menzies:
Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
highly thought provoking. Examining the rise and fall of the
Sumerian,
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:39 +, marc wrote:
Michelle Konzack said...
Am 2005-11-25 20:01:08, schrieb Clive Menzies:
Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
highly thought
Ron Johnson said...
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 18:24 +, marc wrote:
Ron Johnson said...
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
Man, after all is a social
Ron Johnson wrote:
Ok, that's ambiguous.
Yeh, considering my wife would be mighty surprised if a tat showed up
there now. :D
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
Ron Johnson said...
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
[snip]
What happens when the individual no longer exists?
Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going
On (25/11/05 18:24), marc wrote:
Ron Johnson said...
The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was
greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it
had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a
position to defend it. The
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 18:24 +, marc wrote:
Ron Johnson said...
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
Man, after all is a social creature, and individualism is a
marc wrote:
The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was
greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it
had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a
position to defend it. The development of civilization imposes
He was a psychiatrist[0], why should I believe anything he wrote.
Why should you believe anything anyone ever writes?
-c
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Katipo wrote:
Depends on what is seen as an acceptable restriction limit, and also,
therefore, on your definition of justice.
I tend more towards the Bastiat view expressed at the beginning of The
Law.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right
to lawful
On Friday 25 November 2005 01:52 pm, Steve Lamb wrote:
I tend more towards the Bastiat view expressed at the beginning of The
Law.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual
right to lawful defense.
Collective organization of the /individual/ right to
Andy Streich wrote:
What's being defended in the above? Is it bodily integrity, personal
space,
property (whose definition?), a contract, ...?
Short answer: Well, you'll just have to read it, won't you?
Longer answer: One's posessions including one's self. Whose definition
of
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:45:58 +0100
Michelle Konzack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not right, none of my friends there keep alive. For China, they earn
enorm. The equivalent in Europ would be 6000 to 8000 Euros per month.
From what I've read, the average earnings go a lot further in China
than
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:23 -0800
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh how I hate this, really. It's led to some rather interesting want ads
that I just have to laugh at. I mean people post ads looking for people well
I seem to remember one that was looking for a Perl programmer with
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:11 +1300
Chris Bannister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your diocese?
It's tattooed on the back of his neck.
Chris.
--
David E. Fox Thanks for letting me
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 20:07 -0800, David E. Fox wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:11 +1300
Chris Bannister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is your diocese?
It's tattooed on the back of his neck.
Ok, that's ambiguous.
--
-
Gene Heskett said...
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:35, marc wrote:
Katipo said...
The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the
organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been
appropriately
On Thursday 24 November 2005 10:11, marc wrote:
Gene Heskett said...
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:35, marc wrote:
Katipo said...
The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the
organisation, until the ethical base of
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much
smaller, lower-yielding crops. Botanists (those are scientists,
right?) bred taller, healthier more high-yielding corn, wheat and
soy, starting 140 years ago.
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much
smaller, lower-yielding crops. Botanists (those are scientists,
right?) bred taller, healthier more
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:37 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much
smaller, lower-yielding
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much
smaller, lower-yielding crops. Botanists (those are scientists,
right?) bred taller,
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:43 -0800, C. Chad Wallace wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
--snip--
Bad news. Domesticated turkeys have been specifically bred to
have huge breast muscles.
WTF? How does selective breeding compare to hormones and antibiotics?
Breeding is simply guiding a species
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:37 -0600
Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
Bad news. Domesticated
On (24/11/05 17:06), Ron Johnson wrote:
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
From: Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:06:12 -0600
Subject: Re: Request to remove Information
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:37 -0600
Ron
Steve Lamb wrote:
Katipo wrote:
I'm your shrink
Yeah, right!
It's a truer quote than you know.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0114558/quotes
1/2 way down. Put in context you'll understand. :P
Just another Rock 'n' Roll Doctor, Stevie.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Katipo said...
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar. As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and
On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
[snip]
What happens when the individual no longer exists?
Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going to
become increasingly
On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:35, marc wrote:
Katipo said...
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own
limited experience of large corporations has been similar. As in
many other
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 03:18:55PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
There was a reply in here somewhere that I never got, only quoted, where
someone attributed my name to the cowboy mentality of give me 40 acres, a
mule, a shotgun and I'll take care of myself. They went on to say that
because of
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:28:36PM -0600, Greg Norris wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:50:14PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Does not work, because this stupig remailer
break the thread in small pieces.
Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.
My copy of mutt
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:22:04PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Then we're even: religion should work better than the people
who implement and practice it.
Nope. Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
its very nature to ignore reason, logic
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:18:33AM -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
more times), and known *lots* of religious people, and being an
amateur history buff, I can categorically
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
One theory says that the fat phenotype is a useful evolutionary
adaptation, and that the skinny phenotype would have a harder
time surviving in times of low food.
That is because the fat phenotype would eat it all.
Of course, it's
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:18:33AM -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
more times), and known *lots* of religious
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
One theory says that the fat phenotype is a useful evolutionary
adaptation, and that the skinny phenotype would have a harder
time surviving in times of low food.
That
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar. As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
rather than the individuals
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:50 +, Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar. As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and
On (22/11/05 10:46), Ron Johnson wrote:
Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must
first become a politician.
Exactly!
... and to raise campaign funds they put themselves under an obligation
to vested interests . and to gain media exposure that need to play
to
Am 2005-11-18 13:50:14, schrieb Ron Johnson:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
can delete whole
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar. As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:50 +, Clive Menzies wrote:
On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
Clive Menzies wrote:
I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar. As in many other
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (22/11/05 10:46), Ron Johnson wrote:
Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must
first become a politician.
Exactly!
... and to raise campaign funds they put themselves under an obligation
to vested interests . and to gain media
Katipo wrote:
Snap again!
*TWET* Idiotic misuse of a word, 10-day suspension, no participation
in a thread! Carry on! *TWEEET*
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of
Steve Lamb wrote:
Katipo wrote:
Snap again!
*TWET* Idiotic misuse of a word, 10-day suspension, no participation
in a thread! Carry on! *TWEEET*
I'm your shrink
Yeah, right!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
Katipo wrote:
I'm your shrink
Yeah, right!
It's a truer quote than you know.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0114558/quotes
1/2 way down. Put in context you'll understand. :P
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 |
Clive Menzies wrote:
On (15/11/05 13:13), johannes wrote:
NB: It's interesting to look at other pages that turn up on googleing
'Weissgerber, Tom L'
I presume you mean:
Inside Intel: Banana Republics In The Silicon Empire
From: Weissgerber, Tom L Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 2:50 PM
You've said your piece; I've said mine. I have nothing new to say
on the subject and apparently neither do you. So I'm back to our
regularly-scheduled programming on debian-user, you know, conversations
about using Debian.
Patrick
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
On 11/19/05, *Steve Lamb* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Tom's request to remove information revealed more about the population
of the list than about Tom...
H
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe
Let us not forget that the right to own private property underlies the
entire system of government in the USA. Nowhere in the founding
documents or writings will be found an argument that property ownership
rights end when another person can promise the government more tax
revenue. To suggest or
Am 2005-11-16 03:49:16, schrieb Antonio Rodriguez:
Speaking of the devil that keeps the US (European, etc) population
getting fatter and fatter every day (growth hormone to cows, cows to
human mouths, you know the chain, plus some other substances, etc), by
the end of the year the gov is
Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
Does not work, because this stupig remailer
break the thread in small pieces.
, what is the most efficient way to filter any and all future
responses to the Request to remove Information thread?
in your ~/.procmailrc
:0
* ^Subject:.*(Request to remove Information)
/dev/null
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 06:02 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
C Shore wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
And the corporations are trying to prevent from folding. BTW, you do
realize that corporations are nothing more than individuals just like you.
That's a
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:22 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Then we're even: religion should work better than the people
who implement and practice it.
Nope. Because the people who practice and implement it are
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 10:05 -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 06:02 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
C Shore wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
And the corporations are trying to prevent from folding. BTW, you do
realize that corporations
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
Does not work,
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
--snip--
Did Steve ever mention rational? I don't think so.
Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds. When
you walk into an office building, you aren't *forcefully* assimil-
ted into the Borg collective.
It's
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 12:48 -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
--snip--
Did Steve ever mention rational? I don't think so.
Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds. When
you walk into an office building, you aren't
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:37:10PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
ISTM, that our entire economy has been jacked up about $40,000 per
year, to accomodate.
Hey, where's my $40,000? Give it back! :)
--
Remember, in 2039, MOUSSE PASTA will be available ONLY by prescription!!
--
To
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:50:14PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Does not work, because this stupig remailer
break the thread in small pieces.
Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.
My copy of mutt (1.5.11-3, from sid) doesn't seem to have any trouble
threading this mess.
Ron Johnson wrote:
Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds. When
you walk into an office building, you aren't *forcefully* assimil-
ted into the Borg collective.
It's *individuals* *choosing* to go along with Groupthing, conform-
ism, etc.
Not to mention that people
* Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 18 13:54 -0600]:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
can
Steve Lamb wrote:
Not to mention that people for some reason think that the groupthink et
al. for corporations are bad because it is for profit and yet groupthink for
the community is good because it isn't.
Groupthink is bad regardless of circumstances. Whether a bad decision is
made by
Alex Malinovich wrote:
I'm really not sure what you mean here. Perhaps an example of a law that
is meant to be friendly to the community but is unfriendly to an
individiual would be in order?
I think the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 5th Ammendment is a prime
example.
--
On 11/18/05, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alex Malinovich wrote: I'm really not sure what you mean here. Perhaps an example of a law that is meant to be friendly to the community but is unfriendly to an individiual would be in order?
I think the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 5th
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the US
Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently
bought the MSM's spin on it.
Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.
All the Court did in that case was
reaffirm at
On 11/19/05, Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrick Wiseman wrote: This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the US Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently bought the MSM's spin on it.
Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.
OK, then
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what the Kelo
decision said.
Yes, because we all know if it isn't mainstream it's right-wing. The
irony being, of course, that it was the right that was in the majority with
the left, O'Conner, writing the
On 18:23, Fri 18 Nov 05, Nate Bargmann wrote:
* Ron Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005 Nov 18 13:54 -0600]:
On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
Just use the
Hi Mitja,
Am 2005-11-15 12:00:47, schrieb Mitja Podreka:
The problem with low wages is that the chinese worker, which is doing
the outsourced work, is working whole day, seven days a week for a
This is not right, they are working only 12 hours a day 5 1/2 days a
week. ;-) I have some
Hi Seth,
Am 2005-11-14 18:45:23, schrieb Seth Goodman:
One mid-sized electronics company I worked for got a new CEO who was an
accountant from the construction industry. He had no concept of what
the technical staff did nor what we contributed. It really bothered him
that engineering
Am 2005-11-15 16:57:35, schrieb privacy.at Anonymous Remailer:
He didn't just make a relatively common mistake, he posted
HTML-loaded mail to a mailing list. If he can't figure out how to set
his mail client to plain text ONLY, he has no business in IT. If he
can't figure out that his request
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 13:44 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
No much difference between science and religion, same crap. Thus I
decline the offer.
Actually, there is one major difference.
Religion is based on the notion that they know everything and anything
Ron Johnson wrote:
Scientists are people.
People have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.
Scientists thus have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.
Yes, but you made the same mistake as other people. We're talking about
the process and the institution and how it should work in spite
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:06 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Scientists are people.
People have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.
Scientists thus have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.
Yes, but you made the same mistake as other people. We're talking about
Ron Johnson wrote:
Then we're even: religion should work better than the people
who implement and practice it.
Nope. Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
its very nature to ignore reason, logic and to disbelieve anything to the
contrary.
--
Steve C.
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:22 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
Then we're even: religion should work better than the people
who implement and practice it.
Nope. Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
its very nature to ignore reason, logic and to
Seth Goodman wrote:
From: steef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:39 AM
To: debian Users
Subject: Re: Request to remove Information
Steve Lamb wrote:
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Well, according to your law of the capitalist jungle if we
Steve Lamb wrote:
privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
Well, according to your law of the capitalist jungle if we offend our
corporate masters^H^H employers we deserve to be fired and starve.
And yet I've never been fired for anything I've said in my off-duty time.
Imagine that.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:38:37AM +0100, steef wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
believe me: i know where i am talking about. herman and i analyzed for
over thirty years the workings of the nuclear industry mainly in europe.
and now the *benefits* of corporations like monsanto pioneer hi-bred and
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 22:31 -0500, C Shore wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Edward J. Shornock wrote:
I beg to differ. I, at least, am trying to avoid ending up living in
a cardboard box or milking social services.
And the
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 09:06 +, Adam Funk wrote:
Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 22:31 -0500, C Shore wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Edward J. Shornock wrote:
I beg to differ. I, at least, am trying to avoid ending up living in
a
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 03:49 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:38:37AM +0100, steef wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
believe me: i know where i am talking about. herman and i analyzed for
over thirty years the workings of the nuclear industry mainly in europe.
and now
C Shore wrote:
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
And the corporations are trying to prevent from folding. BTW, you do
realize that corporations are nothing more than individuals just like you.
That's a load of crap perpetuated by lawyers. A coporation is not
Ron Johnson wrote:
And how many people really *need* iPods? Do people really need
to carry 3000 songs around in little $300 things that are literally
almost as valuable as gold? No, they don't. A $50 MP3 player
will work just as well.
You're close. There was a /. story a while back
I'd like to make a motion that we discontinue this very OT thread.
--
Mitch Wiedemann
Webmaster - Ithaca Free Software Association
http://ithacafreesoftware.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:48:35PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 18:49 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
Edward J. Shornock wrote:
[snip]
While there are some that probably go through trying to make as much as
possible, that surely doesn't apply to everyone. It's the plain greed
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:49:16AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:38:37AM +0100, steef wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
believe me: i know where i am talking about. herman and i analyzed for
over thirty years the workings of the nuclear industry mainly in europe.
and now
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:35:15AM -0500, Mitch Wiedemann wrote:
I'd like to make a motion that we discontinue this very OT thread.
Second.
--
Carl Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you attempt to fix something that isn't broken, it will be.
-Bruce
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 01:29:23PM +0100, privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:
And it has no place on this (or any other) mailing list.
E-mail should be sent in plain text only.
I don't agree, entirely. Email is a convenient transport mechanism for
many things other than plain text, such as,
On 08:22, Wed 16 Nov 05, Steve Block wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:49:16AM -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:38:37AM +0100, steef wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
believe me: i know where i am talking about. herman and i analyzed for
over thirty years the workings of the
Gnu-Raiz wrote:
Lets take a look at history, every since man was able to
water crops, we have been genetically engineering our crops.
We have selected out the crops that are hardy to weather
changes, and strains that are more productive. In a sense we
have used the lab of mother earth to help
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 12:22:56PM -0600, Gnu-Raiz wrote:
We are fat because we eat too much; because it's easy and cheap to eat
too much. I am fat because I eat when I'm bored or not hungry at all, not
because of growth hormones fed to cows. I prefer more natural things but
I'm not going
John Hasler wrote:
Seth writes:
They have a sense of national pride and feel a part of the Indian
economy, thus they naturally prefer to hire their own nationals. That's
illegal here...
It is legal in the US to hire only US nationals.
What US do you live in?
Mike
--
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 13:58 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Seth writes:
They have a sense of national pride and feel a part of the Indian
economy, thus they naturally prefer to hire their own nationals. That's
illegal here...
It is legal in the US to hire only US
1 - 100 of 191 matches
Mail list logo
