arachne-digest Friday, February 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2060
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:19:45 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: "bounce" software or ??? On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 16:49:11 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > I know that some people know how to make phony return addresses on > e-mail. I don't and my ISP wouldn't appreciate me hacking [not negative > term] via telnet or whatever to pull something like that off. > So I'm asking if anyone knows of any software which will generate a "no > such account" type bounce back to sender... user level would be nice, > but ISP level is worth considering also. > Does it exist? Anyone out there capable of writing the software to do > it? > I get a porn spam > I know better than to "remove" > My only option at present is delete > I'd like to be able to send that message to software that would take the > original message and add a demon bounce message and demon sender shown > in headers. > This alone could make someone richer than Bill Gates if it could be an > option provided by ISPs!! > Please someone invent it, and I'll help test to the best of my ability. That wheel has already been invented, but the wheel won't ever turn until the engineers design and install some good bearings. As far as I know they haven't even gone back to their drawing boards yet. It is easy to send emails having phony "From:" headers. You can do it with Arachne and also with all the other DOS-based email clients I am familiar with. You can probably do that part right on the first test you try. I haven't made any tests and experiments using any of the popular Window$ email clients. I don't know how the spammers insert phony "Return-path" addresses. Using phony "From:" headers is very easy. I have heard about the kind of software you speak of from people posting on various mailing lists I subscribe to. I don't remeber if any of the posts about it were from people on this list. I don't even remember the names of the programs. The posters said that they like the software and they use it, but I don't understand why they think it is of any help. The problem with the software is that it just generates a phony "bounced mail" message destined for whatever return address appears in the "From:" header of the offending message. The "bounced mail" message looks just like one that would be sent from your ISP's mailer daemon saying that there is no such email address. The software does not determine who is the real sender of the offending message. The "bounced mail" message just goes to never-never land. The spammer never receives the message and he never learns that his spam was "bounced". Even if the software could determine who is the real sender of the offending message the spammer who receives it would probably be smart enough to distinguish between a real "bounced mail" message and a phony one. The only thing he would have to do would be to simply run a check on the IP number from which the "bounced mail" message originated. Sending a phony "bounced mail" message would only result in confirming your email address to the spammer. Software of this type that will work for you only at the user level would do you more harm than good. Software of this type could not be useful for you unless it is made to work at the ISP level where the IP number of the "bounced mail" message reflects the real IP number of your ISP's mailer daemon. ISP's probably would not want to go along with user requests to install such software that would work at the ISP level. They probably would not want to do that because it would involve the ISP in sending out information which is knows to be false. In doing so the ISP would lose its credibility, even if the lies were fabricated for a "justifiable" reason. Many people are so hung up on their morals and ethics that they think it is wrong to tell a lie, even if they have a "justifiable" reason for doing so. Applying "situational ethics" will work best for some people in some circumstances, but a person who claims to believe in "moral absolutes" would have a problem with that because he would get accused of being an hypocritical and inconsistent person. Emerson said that "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". If you think about that, the hobgoblin will haunt you. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:46:53 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RESENT: Re: Casper's Comment ... The first casualty of war is the thruth... would be nice to have some more references on Caspers story. Yesterday night television showed some faint evidence that the story: "Iraqi troups murdering babies in a hospital at the invasion of Kuwait". This was a fake by the Kuwaity government who ordered a New York advertising firm to make a TV-spot showing the badness of Sadam. If the television chanel is right or wrong? I can not check that. Anyway... wars often start with a lie. The North Vietnamese did not attack an American Navy vessel. This story started the Vietnam war. History books are filled with lies... detected many years after the wars are over. On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:10:23 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > <snip> >> Actually, there is some compelling evidence that the gas that >> murdered the Kurds was released by the Iranians. > Hi Casper, > Could I have some references for that? > My Kurdish friends - from an area near Halabjah, the community gassed in > 1988 - have some video of airplanes dropping gas canisters. The fuselage > and tail markings were Iraqi military but, of course, those could have > been fabricated. > Thanks, > Bob Dohse > - > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:45:46 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RESENT: Re: Questions on Bastiaan's Comments On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:45:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Bastiaan, > Just some questions ... > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> <snip> >> To tell the world that the US have been attacked or will be attacked >> by Saddam is "bull shit". A preemtive strike on a country that is >> not even threatening is ridiculous and a thread to all nations. > By his own admission, Saddam pays the family of each Palestinian *martyr* > who dies in a suicide attack against Israel. Under American law, someone > who pays another to commit a crime is also guilty of the crime (and also > guilty of conspiracy). Sadam shows solidarity to the ones 'left behind'... he does not pay to commit or order for a crime. For propaganda purposes, to Arabs, he shows compassion to the families and supports them in their needs (for foot , etc.) > Do you consider these suicide attacks to be crimes? Yes, I do... very serious crimes!! But stopping Sadam will not end these terrorist attacks, not in Israel, not in Ireland, not in Colombia, not in Bask Spain, not on Corsica, not in Korean underground, not in the Philipines... > If so, would you consider it understandable for the Israeli government to > consider this payment from Saddam to be *aiding and assisting in the > commitment of a crime*? Yes, I do understand that! But Sadam is defenitely not the main cause of these crimes. > Would those attacks qualify as *aggression*? They sure are! > Would it be acceptable if, given knowledge that another attack were > scheduled for tomorrow, the government of Israel staged a *pre-emptive > strike* against the attackers? Yes and they have done that and will continue to do like. > How about a *pre-emptive strike* against Saddam? The future of Israel is at stake... so much is allowed. But they better launch an attack on someone else... some organisation that is far more involved in terrorist attacks. > Why are some arguing that Saddam has never shown aggression, when > - it is his claim (from his own lips in a public forum) that he > financially supports suicide bombers > - has previously sheltered known terrorists (not including Al-Qaida) > - has invaded two neighboring countries > - has used weapons of mass destructions on multiple occasions For about 5 years Sadam is quiet... why attack Iraq now? Gadaffi is quiet also for some time... attack Libia next? > I agree that a "pre-emptive strike on a country that is not even > threatening is ridiculous and a threat to all nations". But, isn't it > possible that someone might examine the above facts and conclude that > Saddam is, in fact, an imminent threat? > Not to say that all the propaganda is completely truthful, but Saddam IS > a cancer in the middle east. In medicine, cancer must be removed before > it spreads and destroys the body. Why is it different in politics? > <snip> >> Why is George Bush so eager to attack Muslim fundamentalists? >> GW is a fundamentalist... Christian though. All fundamentalists want >> to wipe out devils, Satan and have their "axes of evil". >> This is a crusade... Christians against Muslims... we are going back >> to the middle ages. > Sorry, Bastiaan, but you've been misled on this point. Bush isn't a > fundamentalist. > If you were a Christian, you would know that and wouldn't believe this > for a minute. Whatever Bush is doing, he's not doing it based upon > Christianity. (Maybe oil, but not religion). <grin> If I see and hear GW... I see a very religious man and a sincere man. He often mentions God, never oil. (This does not mean he is not interested in oil, we know he does.) > Your comments simply don't line up with the reality of other alliances in > the middle east (or other parts of the world). Don't forget that the USA > was allied with the (Muslim) Kosovars against the (Christian) Serbs. You have some point here. > See you. > Bob Dohse CU Bastiaan > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:41:38 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RESENT: Shopping... Hi List, I went to the computer shop this day. Wanted a telephone modem. 1- external modem... very different prices but much more euro's were asked compared to 2 years back in time. 2- internal modem... only PCI-slot Win modems :-( Is it possible to use PCI slots under DOS ??? (I have a sound card also PCI slot =sound blaster= not running under DOS :-(( Wanted a CD-burner... although IDEE connections like HD and CD-player there a no drivers supplied for DOS. Any solution ??? Regards, Bastiaan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:40:38 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RESENT: 171UE * No BMP -> JPG conversion Hi List, No BMP -> JPG conversion in 171UE with new Ctrl P Seems the converter is missing... I could not find the latest 171UE release. Help wanted, Bastiaan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:51:27 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RESENT: Lost in cyberspace ??? Hi List... I did resent these postings again to the arachne list. They did not return to my inbox and did not reach the list i suppose. Why is that?? Regards, Bastiaan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:43:20 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RESENT: Re: More on measurements (COM port) On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:04:15 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > <snipped> >> Anyone interested? >> It will take about a week to make a documented paper. > Hi Bastiaan, > Yes, I'm interested. This might make a nice addition to my gardening > training scheme. > I've got a good supply of old computers (Pentium 1 and 2) that would be > perfect for a suite of Arachne and DOS programs. I can use those as > platforms for horticulture training (text, graphics, video, etc.). > With some measurement projects, we could also create locally-managed > databases of climatic data linked to geographic coordinates. In short, > things like temperature-gradation topographic maps, growth charts, > planting schedules, etc., etc. > Since Arachne is so easy to learn, local folks will no doubt start to > envision further uses of measurement programs (light intensity, wind > measurements, etc.). > Can you include some digital photos and schematics of your projects? Yes, but this will take some time. > Thanks Bastiaan. > Bob Dohse > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:37:09 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re2: International law??? Sam, Give it up. You can't prove your god, or your good, even exist. You also lack the skill to truly debate -- instead picking on what you think is a weak spot (often out of context) and hoping to bury it by reiterating what you've said over and over before. ==== On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:33:31 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:41:01 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > <snip> >> Judgments of right/wrong, immoral/amoral/moral can only be based upon >> the where/when/who/how ... > <snip> > This applies only to legal judgements based on the law and also to > judgements based on wishy-washy philosophies such as situational > ethics and moral relativism. Even those philosophies are commendable > as having some value. They are certainly of much greater worth than > no philosophy at all. They reflect a very good start for one who is > just beginning to examine his life. > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 22:41:56 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Virtual Volunteers Hi all, I have a technical proposal (if it's acceptable to post technical subjects on this list). <G> I'm in the middle of a project to refurbish some desktops and laptops, to be used in schools and communities in *developing locations* where rural people don't have access to computers. I REALLY need some simple, but comprehensive, web pages that deal with many of the various aspects of HORTICULTURE. Each individual page should deal with a single aspect of the subject and have hyperlinks to a variety of other materials (which may, or may not, be created by the same author). It's not necessary to have the other material before the link is created. Just include a link to a dummy page that says the link has not yet been implemented. The pages and links should work well on a Pentium 1 running with Arachne. Common materials will be stored on CD-ROM disks, so even audio and video files would be acceptable. Other subjects would be welcome, so everyone can participate. In fact, I recommend to everybody that this would be a more productive way to learn ... a way to give as well as receive. Pick your favorite subject and start creating a learning library. The only stipulation is that there should be NO credits for authors. That means, of course, no commercial products. Users will be free to cut-and-paste their own materials, so materials with trademarks and copyrights are not acceptable. Old literature, BTW, would be fine if the copyright is expired. These would be valuable additions in a language-learning program. I haven't yet worked out the logistics of collecting the information, but that's not really a big problem. As Ron demonstrated a few days ago, web pages work fine as attachments to email. (Thanks, cousin). For those who are frustrated by the ongoing *wars and rumors of wars*, maybe this might be a good option for action. Locally-oriented learning, by default, favors the local people and gives power (and a voice) to minority people under majority rule. Poverty is, ultimately, "the lack of options". Digital learning platforms give minority voices additional options. Eventually, this leads to progress, which yields equality and help build a peaceful and cooperative community. Thanks for the help, Bob Dohse mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 21:55:20 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RESENT: Re: Questions on Bastiaan's Comments Hi Bastiaan, I wasn't meaning to suggest that I'm in favor of (or opposed to) the American plans. I was just attempting to ascertain where our differences might be and how to reach mutual understanding. Under American law, an arrangement made with a living person to pay a sum to their family IF they commit a crime which leads to death is, de facto, a contract negotiated as payment for the commission of the crime. Since payment is based only upon the fulfillment of certain conditions (the crime) and the contractor has free will to accept or reject the conditions, this qualifies as a business contract. It also qualifies as a conspiracy commit the crime (which is an additional crime). Europe has similar laws, although I won't pretend to know the parameters. Payment for killing is a crime. Planning together any of the circumstances of the crime is conspiracy. Are not both considered acts of aggression? Saddam's payment is differentiated from general humanitarian assistance because payment is made only to the suicide attackers' families, and only after the attackers have fulfilled the previously negotiated conditions. Al Capone also showed similar *solidarity* when his *friends* died under similar conditions. Propaganda aside, the critical element is the negotiated payment associated with only the specific actions AND exclusive of other actions. This is the basis of a simple business "personal services" contract. The only other requirements are *the offer* and *acceptance of the offer*. Whether stopping Saddam will affect any actions of any other individual is a moot point. Police arrest criminals, yet realize that the single arrest will not, in and of itself, put an end to crime. Whether Saddam is the "main cause of these crimes" is another moot point. If he is involved, he is guilty of involvement. Whether Saddam committed crimes today or hasn't committed crimes for "about 5 years" is yet another moot point. Police routinely focus upon the most serious situations first, prioritizing (by their own judgement) their response to meet the immediate requirements. Prioritization is not indicative of guilt or innocence. It merely indicates a methodical process. Saddam has demonstrated a pattern of aggression (and has for over 30 years - nonstop). While some might claim that it is desirable to hope for a change in Saddam's actions, it is not beyond comprehension that others might say "enough is enough". It's not that the Americans are NOT listening to the Europeans, it's just that we are ALSO listening to the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. Having said all of that ... I don't like the current process and I'm not happy with the results. Not because the Bush methodology is WRONG, but because it is shortsighted and counterproductive to how I think peace should be built. I think other ways would be BETTER. But, given the options, I'll focus on doing those things that I, personally, can do to make a better world and hold onto the dream that one day it might make a difference. (See my email titled "Virtual Volunteers".) BTW, I found a round-trip airfare between Arizona and NL for less that $300. I was thinking of coming to visit you (and reenacting the great Marxist pro-and-con debates of the Vienna coffee houses) but, given the timing in world events, decided that traveling internationally for pleasure wasn't a recommended activity for the month of March. But, maybe I'll pass through on the way to *the front*. CU2, Bob - --- On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:45:46 +00 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:45:50 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Hi Bastiaan, > > > Just some questions ... > > > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> <snip> > >> To tell the world that the US have been attacked or will be > attacked > >> by Saddam is "bull shit". A preemtive strike on a country that > is > >> not even threatening is ridiculous and a thread to all nations. > > > By his own admission, Saddam pays the family of each Palestinian > *martyr* > > who dies in a suicide attack against Israel. Under American law, > someone > > who pays another to commit a crime is also guilty of the crime > (and also > > guilty of conspiracy). > > Sadam shows solidarity to the ones 'left behind'... he does not pay > to > commit or order for a crime. For propaganda purposes, to Arabs, he > shows > compassion to the families and supports them in their needs (for > foot > , etc.) > > > Do you consider these suicide attacks to be crimes? > Yes, I do... very serious crimes!! > > But stopping Sadam will not end these terrorist attacks, not in > Israel, > not in Ireland, not in Colombia, not in Bask Spain, not on Corsica, > not > in Korean underground, not in the Philipines... > > > If so, would you consider it understandable for the Israeli > government to > > consider this payment from Saddam to be *aiding and assisting in > the > > commitment of a crime*? > Yes, I do understand that! But Sadam is defenitely not the main > cause of > these crimes. > > > Would those attacks qualify as *aggression*? > They sure are! > > > Would it be acceptable if, given knowledge that another attack > were > > scheduled for tomorrow, the government of Israel staged a > *pre-emptive > > strike* against the attackers? > Yes and they have done that and will continue to do like. > > > How about a *pre-emptive strike* against Saddam? > The future of Israel is at stake... so much is allowed. But they > better > launch an attack on someone else... some organisation that is far > more > involved in terrorist attacks. > > > Why are some arguing that Saddam has never shown aggression, when > > - it is his claim (from his own lips in a public forum) that he > > financially supports suicide bombers > > - has previously sheltered known terrorists (not including > Al-Qaida) > > - has invaded two neighboring countries > > - has used weapons of mass destructions on multiple occasions > > For about 5 years Sadam is quiet... why attack Iraq now? > Gadaffi is quiet also for some time... attack Libia next? > > > I agree that a "pre-emptive strike on a country that is not even > > threatening is ridiculous and a threat to all nations". But, isn't > it > > possible that someone might examine the above facts and conclude > that > > Saddam is, in fact, an imminent threat? > > > Not to say that all the propaganda is completely truthful, but > Saddam IS > > a cancer in the middle east. In medicine, cancer must be removed > before > > it spreads and destroys the body. Why is it different in > politics? > > > <snip> > >> Why is George Bush so eager to attack Muslim fundamentalists? > >> GW is a fundamentalist... Christian though. All fundamentalists > want > >> to wipe out devils, Satan and have their "axes of evil". > >> This is a crusade... Christians against Muslims... we are going > back > >> to the middle ages. > > > Sorry, Bastiaan, but you've been misled on this point. Bush isn't > a > > fundamentalist. > > > If you were a Christian, you would know that and wouldn't believe > this > > for a minute. Whatever Bush is doing, he's not doing it based > upon > > Christianity. (Maybe oil, but not religion). <grin> > > If I see and hear GW... I see a very religious man and a sincere > man. > He often mentions God, never oil. (This does not mean he is not > interested in oil, we know he does.) > > > Your comments simply don't line up with the reality of other > alliances in > > the middle east (or other parts of the world). Don't forget that > the USA > > was allied with the (Muslim) Kosovars against the (Christian) > Serbs. > You have some point here. > > > See you. > > > Bob Dohse > > CU Bastiaan > > > ________________________________________________________________ > > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > > Only $9.95 per month! > > Visit www.juno.com > > > ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:10:25 +1000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: DOS Ghostscript Hi Folks, Joerge, On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 19:58:20 +1100, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg?= Dietze wrote: > Hi folks, > no need to use these old versions. There is an inoffical DOS compile of GS 7.05 > which works fine with the lates PDF version (1.4, Acrobat ver. 5). To build Your > own DOS version get the OS/2 package here: > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=1897&release_id=86074 > Download the Dos exe here: http://djvomght.bei.t-online.de/GS705DOS.ZIP > Unzip both archives and replace the OS/2 exe with the DOS one and You are ready > to go. After much previous frustration, failure, kicking of cats, I had managed to get GS505 working for Arachne. I now find (with the same tweaking) I can get GS705 (ex. OS/2) working as well, and it doesn't choke on some of the PDF file errors that GS505 did. In case it may help some others, this is what I did. ( Arachne is installed in d:\ARAC171, and TEMP is set to a RAM disk. ) 1. In MIME.CFG, I added the lines: application/pdf >HTM|@call pdf2htm.bat $1 $2 file/.pdf >HTM|@call pdf2htm.bat $1 $2 2. In the main Arachne directory, I placed the file PDF2HTM.BAT, being: @echo off echo Ghostscript is currently busy converting the given PDF file to HTML. echo This can take up several minutes. echo Would You like to have some coffee...? del c:\gs705\gs705\lib\gsmustdo >NUL del d:\arac171\cache\page*.* >NUL c: cd\gs705\gs705\lib argh %1 gs386 @gsmustdo >%TEMP%\gsout.txt htmlgen >%2 d: cd\arac171 3. In the directory c:\GS705\GS705\LIB I added a) ALL the font files from GS705 b) ARGH.EXE from Joerge c) HTMLGEN.EXE from Joerge d) PDF2HTM.BAT from Joerge (without the changes of the one above) e) PDF2HTM.INI from Joerge f) GS386.EXE and DOS4WG.EXE from GS705DOS.ZIP The directory c:\GS705\etc, etc is NOT in my path - I found that it didn't help, so I didn't do it. This now works for me. Thank you Joerge. :) Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 02:43:52 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: RESENT: Re: Casper's Comment ... On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 01:46:53 +00, Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:10:23 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2003 Casper Gielen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> <snip> <snip> > The first casualty of war is the thruth... would be nice to have some > more references on Caspers story. > Yesterday night television showed some faint evidence that the story: > "Iraqi troups murdering babies in a hospital at the invasion of Kuwait". > This was a fake by the Kuwaity government who ordered a New York > advertising firm to make a TV-spot showing the badness of Sadam. > If the television chanel is right or wrong? I can not check that. In waging war as well as in conducting business as usual, the truth will always suffer. It doesn't matter whether the propaganda showed staged events or whether it was real film footage of events that actually happened. It is not the purpose of propaganda to present the truth. The only purpose of propaganda is to present information designed to influence your opinions, your attitudes, and your behavior in favor of the parties behind the propaganda machine. If the propaganda influences you in the way it is intended to do, the propaganda is good. Normal advertising is an example of propaganda. If it influences you to buy the product, the advertising is good, even if I could successfully prove to you later that the product you bought is greatly inferior to the competitor's product which was ridiculed in the staged demonstration you saw in the advertising video. Propaganda does not need to appeal to intelligent people in order to be effective. Just look at all the millions of people who are buying the Micro$oft Butterfly. From the standpoint of trying to knock out its major competitor, is Micro$oft doing anything wrong by promoting the Butterfly? > Anyway... wars often start with a lie. The North Vietnamese did not > attack an American Navy vessel. This story started the Vietnam war. > History books are filled with lies... detected many years after the wars > are over. The story did not start the Vietmam war. It just gave rise to the escalation of the war. The Vietnam War started with the Viet Minh uprising to kick out the French colonialists. The French lost. Then the country was divided between north and south. Some accords were written and agreed to. The US signed on to the accords and pledged to help protect the sovereignty of South Vietnam. A revolutionary movement arose within South Vietnam. The revolutionaries called themselves the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong were supported by North Vietnam. South Vietnam asked the US to for military assistance. The US sent money and military equipment. Also they sent a few troops which were to serve only in an advisory capacity. Gradually the struggle against the VC escalated and more and more military equipment and US troops were sent. They started serving also in combat. Then North Vietnam contributed their troops to the conflict to support the VC. The story about the North Vietnamese patrol boats attacking a US naval vessel in the Gulf of Tonkin might have been true. It might have been just partially true, or it might have been pure fabrication. The story of the attack was used as a pretext to justify the passing of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized the president, then LBJ, to bomb North Vietnam. Even without such a story they would probably come up with some kind of self-defense justification for bombing North Vietnam. The Vietnam War was supposed to be just a small scale operation to crush a relatively insignificant and upstart guerrilla movement, but it eventually turned out to become a major war and a really nasty affair. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:14:36 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re2: International law??? On Fri, 28 Feb 2003 20:37:09 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 03:33:31 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:41:01 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: <snip> > Sam, > Give it up. You can't prove your god, or your good, even exist. You > also lack the skill to truly debate -- instead picking on what you think > is a weak spot (often out of context) and hoping to bury it by > reiterating what you've said over and over before. > ==== You don't need to tell me that. I am perfectly aware that neither I nor anyone else can prove the existence of God. I would not be so foolish as to attempt to do so. I do not know of any arguments for the existence of God for which there are no excellent rebuttals, nor do I know of any arguments against the existence of God for which there are no equally excellent rebuttals. Philosophers taking both sides of that question have already run around in circles on that issue. None of them ever got anywhere except for proving the point that their point cannot be made. Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2060 ******************************
