Linux-Advocacy Digest #211, Volume #28 Thu, 3 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
Re: Gnome or KDE (sfcybear)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality (SemiScholar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one
of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:04:09 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 12:53:35 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SemiScholar wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 03:03:37 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >SemiScholar wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 17:26:06 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >CompleteDolt wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:58:54 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribi�:
>> >>
>> >> >> Who decides which laws are unconstitutional?
>> >> >
>> >> >The Constitution itself makes it clear what laws are constitutional
>> >> >and what laws are not.
>> >>
>> >> <guffaw> Right - that's why there are so many different opinions
>> >> about those things - and that's why all Supreme Court decisions about
>> >> the constitutionality of a particular law are unanimous. Yeah,
>> >> right.
>> >>
>> >> >If there is still any confusion, then the
>> >> >authors of the document can be consulted, via their writings in
>> >> >"The Federalist Papers," "The Anti-Federalist Papers" and the like.
>> >>
>> >> Bzzzzt. Sorry, that is incorrect. The answer: the Supreme Court
>> >> decides, and has the last word. Thanks for playing, and please enjoy
>> >> the home version of our game...
>> >
>> >If that were the case, then how did the Supreme Court rule
>> >that the earlier Dred Scott ruling was unConstitutional????
>>
>> Beg pardon? You're asking how the SC decided the constitutionality of
>> an issue in an attempt to show that the SC doesn't decide those
>> issues?
>
>
>
>http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/dred.htm
>
>
> The Dred Scott Decision
>
>Dred Scott was the name of an African-American slave. He was taken
>by his master, an officer in the U.S. Army, from the slave state of
>Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then to the free territory
>of Wisconsin. He lived on free soil for a long period of time.
>
>When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took
>Scott with him back to that slave state, where his master died.
>In 1846, Scott was helped by Abolitionist (anti-slavery) lawyers
>to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free since
>he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case went all the
>way to the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the
>Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former slave owner from
>Maryland.
>
>In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine
>Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant
>of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S.
>citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated, Scott had no
>rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain
>a slave.
Yes, Aaron, we know what the Dred Scott decision was. But you said:
"the Supreme Court rule that the earlier Dred Scott ruling was
unConstitutional". What did you mean? You quoted the original
decision. What I'd like to see is this decision you mention in which
they overturned that decision.
>
>>
>> Besides, what do you mean the SC ruled that the Dred Scott ruling was
>> unconstitutional? Which ruling was that, exactly?
>>
>> >
>> >Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>> >
>> >The Supreme Court is just a collection of people,
>>
>> "Just a collection of people"? <guffaw!>
>
>Well educated (one hopes), but certainly susceptible to personal
>biases and fiobles as much as any other people.
Of course. But that makes them more than just some random collection
of people. Still human, sure. But what is the alternative? Who else
but a "bunch of people" is going to have the final say in the
constitutionality of a law? If not the SC, who would you propose?
>
>If that were not the case, then it would not be so easy to
>accurately predict how each justice will vote on any particular
>case.
>
>When the court's decisions are handed down, most predictions
>by court watchers, as to which way each justice will vote,
>only rarely err by more than 2 of the 7 votes.
>
>If these were 7 infallible people, then every decision would
>be unanimous verdicts, 7-0.
You err in assuming that there is a "right" decision in these cases.
There is not. It's all opinion, and just because you lose doesn't
mean you have to think that your opinion was "wrong". But it DOES
mean that your opinion is not the Law.
>
>The fact that very few decisions are unanimous indicates that
>at least one member of the SC is wrong on practically every case.
Not at all. For example, abortion. Which side is "right" and which
is "wrong"? That is a matter of opinion. Flag burning, affirmative
action, free speech, campaign finance laws, it's all a matter of
opinion.
>> >Thus, it is evident that the SC is not the ultimate bearer of truth,
>>
>> Nobody said they were. But they ARE the ultimate (aside from the US
>> citizenry) arbiters of the law.
>>
>> >but merely yet another political body,
>>
>> No - they are not political. That's why they are appointed for life.
>
>
>Does the Supreme Court have political power?
>A) no
>B) YES
Political power? No. They have legal power. Unless you have some
specialized definition of "political power". Could you elaborate?
>
>
>>
>> > which can hand down any
>> >sort of nonsense which they so choose.
>>
>> And it has the full force of the Law of the Land.
>
>You make my point for me.
That's the law, not politics.
>
>
>>
>> You are in some serious need of education.
>
>You just agreed with me, fool.
So you think. But then, you think Unix is cool.
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 17:51:38 GMT
THe one that meets _your_ needs best.
In article <8lpd8b$i66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi All:
>
> I am a newbie of Linux and using the SUSE linux 6.3.
> I've tried different GUIs.
> I think the Gnome and KDE are the best.
> So, which one is better? Pls. suggest.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:06:52 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 15:54:08 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:23:27 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"SemiScholar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> And BTW - Microsoft didn't write MS-DOS.
>> >
>> >Eh, Yes they did. They bought PC-Dos from a Seattle software company but
>> >they wrote MS-Dos.
>>
>> Same thing, my friend. "PC-DOS" was just the name on the version sold
>> by IBM. But they were identical. Of course, after they bought it,
>> they began _modifying_ it, and I'm sure by the release of, say,
>> version 5 or so, there was little of the original code left, so I
>> suppose you could say they "wrote" it in that sense.
>>
>> >
>> >Of course, the guy who wrote PC-Dos at the other company was working for
>MS
>> >at the time they wrote MS-Dos, so it's easy to get confused...
>>
>> I don't think that's correct. They guy (Tim Patterson, I believe)
>> sold the rights to his CP/M clone (which he simply called DOS, a
>> commonly used name in those days for a number of O/S's) to Microsoft,
>> but I don't think he ever went to work for them. In any case,
>> "PC-DOS" and "MS-DOS" were identical except for the marketing name.
>
>Not according to Tim or Seattle Software. Q-Dos was the Seattle Software(?)
>product they bought for $50,000 in '80. Seattle Software later sued MS and
>got another $500,000, I think.
$100,000 as I recall, but no matter. You're right, though - it was
"QDOS" - for "Quick & Dirty DOS".
>
>I do know that Patterson was with Microsoft from 80 - 96. I don't know if
>he is still there or not.
>
>I've got an article at home about it. I'll grab it and give you the
>sources.
Thanks, I'd be curious. I don't think he was an employee. But tell
me, when he sued MS (as you claimed), was he an employee of MS at that
time?
- SemiScholar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
