Linux-Advocacy Digest #545, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 20:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Threats are a good way to get your ass into prison... (was Re: Would ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Threats are a good way to get your ass into prison... (was Re: Would
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:22:28 -0400
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JS/PL) wrote in
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >>>> > Let me guess. You are a Linux fanatic. You hide it so well. I'm
> >>>> > just waiting for one of you psycho Line folks like Kulkis to mount
> >>>> > a grassy
> >>>knoll
> >>>> > outside the Redmond campus and REALLY stand up for your cause.
> >>>> > Then the
> >>>>
> >>>> Don't tempt me. Gates has destroyed so many lives that he has
> >>>> sacrificed any right to his own.
> >>>
> >>>Are you saying you are tempted to kill someone, namely Bill Gates?
> >>>Please expound on the threat. Who do you want to kill?
> >>
> >>Yes, Aaron, please elaborate.
> >>
> >>Threatening anyone, by any means, be they the
> >>working class, celebrity, or leadership, is
> >>(read carefully, Aaron)
> >>
> >>A V E R Y S T U P I D T H I N G T O D O.
> >>
> >>People file lawsuits for anything these days. And
> >>the authorities do not take kindly to people who
> >>make such statements about highly profiled people.
> >>
> >>Keep it up Aaron, and you'll find Microsoft's lawyers,
> >>and the authorities on your ass like flies on a shit.
> >
> >You two guys seem stupid enough to think it wouldn't involve the both of
> >you.
>
> I made no such claim. Do you always make such half-assed
> evaluations,
You mean like yours?
> or do you just happen to be smoking crack on
> this particular night?
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
> | = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> | -| "You are a waste of space; a disgrace to your profession;
> | | both the one you claim and the kindergarten student you
> |_..._| act like..." -- Robert Moir to Aaron R. Kulkis in COMNA
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:31:44 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 19:34:34 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >>The entire reason BASIC was developed was to provide rudimentary
> >>programming constructs which were familiar to those unfamiliar with
> >>programming languages.
> >
> >Yes. Basic was essentially a type of shell script, and essentially
> >made it easy for users to string commands together.
>
> No, that's not it at all. BASIC was designed as a language optimally
> accessible by those who *don't* already know programming, and no amount
> of insistence by those who know how to program that it isn't will change
> that fact.
But the fact that the designers intended it to be that way doesn't
mean that they succeeded.
Don't tell us BASIC was designed to do, tell us what is does.
>
>
> >Shell script was intended to do the same thing -- ordinary users could
> >automate things by putting commands in files. Shell script was basically
> >the same as the command line, with a few control structures added.
>
> BASIC is the optimal syntax, shell scripts (with middleware
> capabilities, still generally lacking) are the optimal mechanism. I am
> not suggesting that anyone literally put them together, but might that
> be such a bad idea? In the abstract, certainly, making shell scripting
> more accessible *in practice*, rather than theoretically, would
> certainly increase the acceptance of Unix among end users.
>
Optimal, by what standard.
>
> [...]
> >There are a number of criteria I could propose for deciding what syntax
> >is and isn't "intuitive". FYI, by these criteria, perl, and the C family
> >don't score that well.
> >
> >The problem is that I don't see many things about basic that makes it
> >substantially nicer than tcl or python. Syntax-wise.
>
> Your ability, as one who already knows these various syntax, is what
> makes it problematic for you to say. 'Intuitive' is a matter of
> familiarity more than anything else (and I contend to the exclusion of
> everything else to the point where it becomes the very definition of the
> term).
>
But if there are no objective criteria of intuitiveness, then your claims
for BASIC in that regard are equally arbitrary.
>
> >>insist that, lacking them, I am "unsupported" in my assertion, but that
> >>smacks more of an argument from ignorance than a coherent presentation
> >>of an opposing opinion.
> >
> >Well I am ignorant of the criteria that you use to conclude that basic
> >is more intuitive, which is why I am requesting that you explain to us
> >why you feel that basic is more "intuitive". So far, your only explanation
> >is that it's more "intuitive" because it's more familiar to you than
> >other languages.
>
> The fact that it was designed to be 'merely' intuitive, rather than
> functional, is the basis of my contention that BASIC is more intuitive.
The fact that something was designed to be x doesn't mean that
it is x.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 23:37:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of paying
> > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed it:
> > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
>
> The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years? And
> who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are they
trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:38:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In other words, if they use their patent to monopolize. I'm not the one
>> with bizarre definitions of words. I just know what "monopoly" means,
>> and it doesn't mean "large market share" any more than it does "100%
>> market share". It means "having large market share and acquiring it
>> through anti-competitive actions, maintaining it through
>> anti-competitive actions, or using it through anti-competitive actions."
>
>You keep saying this. It still doesn't make it true.
I never indicated that my saying it is what makes it true. The best I
can say is I haven't figured out where I might be mistaken, yet.
>There are lots of companies that have monopoly positions in their
>respective markets, and they don't get into any trouble at all if they
>stick to making good products and selling them fairly.
Without even considering the examples (yet), I'd have to say that I'm
not sure what you mean by "have a monopoly *position*". You mean have
large market share? I think I've been over that.
>They do (as in the Microsoft case) get in trouble for getting into a
>monopoly position, then using illegal tactics to increase or maintain
>that monopoly position. If you are correct, then please name us one or
>two companies that have gotten into trouble for merely maintaining or
>expanding their monopoly position through normal competitive means.
All of them? Exclusive deals are 'normal competitive means', so are
encouraging others to utilize your technologies, lowering prices,
bundling, and a whole host of other mechanisms. These are "normal
competitive means" when employed by those without sufficient marketing
dominance to use them to inhibit competition. They are all "illegal"
when employed by a monopoly, because anything employed by a monopoly
which maintains them as a monopoly or extends their monopoly is illegal.
As was whatever putatively criminal things they did to build and keep
the monopoly. Whether they were caught and convicted of it at the time
is a separate issue.
>To get in trouble for being a monopoly, you have to do something really
>obvious and in-your-face. Like Microsoft. And you have to keep doing
>it for years. Like Microsoft. And it doesn't help matters any when you
>get to trial, run the "Ididn'tdoit!" defense (AKA "the Bart"), fake
>evidence, and have your CEO act like an pompous twit on the stand.
So by that logic, breaking the speed limit isn't illegal, because you
have to be really obvious about it to get caught. For that matter, it
would be legal to beat and kill black people if you're a cop. I hate to
sound like I'm setting up straw men, but again, just because a lot of
people might not find themselves in court doesn't mean that something is
legal. Only that anti-trust enforcement is monstrously undervalued.
>Microsoft could have avoided a lot of the current problems if they had
>just complied with the previous Consent Decree. Instead, they ignored
>it, and flaunted the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust act.
If they had ever had any intent to allow legal restrictions to affect
their behavior, the Consent Decree itself would never have been
necessary. They flaunted the Sherman Act long before 1994.
>Trying to argue that "everybody does it" (your point above, in
>suggesting that merely being successful is a crime in and of itself) is
>a direct insult to the folks who do things the legal way.
Pretending that having a dominant market position alone might open you
up to anti-trust accusations might be an insult to many folks, but it is
only an insult because they aren't doing things the legal way. And the
Justice Department has been far too lax, historically, in enforcing the
statutes, which quite clearly say that *any* monopolization or attempts
to monopolize or restraint of trade is illegal. People who are so
successful that they "find themselves" with a dominant market position
due to superior products, business accumen, or accident of history
should be well advised that they do have a legal responsibility to
*encourage and support* competition. If that's just too tough for them
to do, because the lure of the big profits they could make 'leveraging'
their enviable position are too great, well, that's why we've got laws
making monopolies illegal.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:42:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>My power company has a minuscule amount of market share, yet...they are a
>monopoly,
Maybe from your perspective, and in the casual vernacular, but they are
not a monopoly "in the legal sense", as it were. They are a public
utility.
[...]
>A harmful monopoly under capitalism is impossible.[...]
A harmful monopoly in a *free market* is impossible. Unfortunately, a
free market is impossible with a monopoly, as well. As for the issue of
capitalism, that's where the monopolies, which could not occur in a free
market (in your simplistic thought experiments, at least) come from.
Ask IBM; they know a lot about capital. They also know a lot about
monopolizing, from both sides of the fence.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:45:37 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> You're trying to make ethics a statistical phenomenon,
> >> >
> >> >How am I so making it a statistical phenomena?
> >>
> >> Blame cannot be determined statistically. You can't apportion so many
> >> 'points' because of distance and authority.
> >
> >Then how do you apportion points? Or are they all equally guilty?
>
> You don't apportion points. When an ethical decision is needed, you
> make it based on the particular situation and circumstances involved.
> That's what makes it "ethics" rather than simply "moral principles".
>
> >> 'commitment to the view that God protects the innocent.'
> >
> >Certainly having innocent people suffer would count against having
> >an omnibenevolent deity, although having anyone suffer might be
> >sufficient.
>
> You aren't listening to me. What you said is true, but not the issue;
> the actual ideas are a bit subtler than that. We aren't talking an
> argument against an omnibenevolent deity; the 'problem of evil' refutes
> the concept of *deity*, according to those who ply it well.
>
> >> Forgive me for
> >> being the one to point out that you are ignorant of some rather
> >> fundamental arguments concerning atheism.
> >
> >I'm not ignorant of them, and forgiveness is not an atheistic virtue.
>
> "Atheistic virtue" is an oxymoron, I'm afraid. It isn't that atheists
> cannot have virtues; its that being atheist is not, itself, enough to
> understand what those virtues might be. Forgive me for making you feel
> defensive, but you are, indeed, ignorant of the details of the
> philosophical arguments I am referring to, or you would not be
> misrepresenting them.
>
> [...]
> >> And I pointed out that you should have, if you expect to be taken
> >> seriously as an atheist. Merely being as pig-headed in denying God as
> >> the religious are in accepting God is not something to be proud of.
> >
> >And what makes you think I'm pigheaded about it?
>
> The fact that you contend you are an atheist but don't see the need to
> consider the issues intellectually.
>
> >> [...]
> >> >But the starting and continuing of wars are ultimately acts of
> >> >individuals.
> >>
> >> Possibly. You'd have to look at the specifics.
> >
> >But ultimately only individuals can act.
>
> And ultimately individuals merely react.
>
> >> >> Anything
> >> >> that encourages, contributes, supports, or perpetuates the suffering of
> >> >> other human beings needlessly is unethical. Period. Whether the
> >> >> perpetrator knew the ramifications at the time or not, because they had
> >> >> an ethical responsibility for determining if it would before they did
> >> >> it.
> >> >
> >> >But only if the actor could have known about it.
> >>
> >> And how much responsibility does "the actor" have to be in a position
> >> where he "could have". And doesn't whether he *does* have much more
> >> weight than whether he *could* have, otherwise?
> >
> >Ethics deals with what actions we chooxe to do, and we can only evaluate
> >those choices in the light of possible alternatives.
>
> Possible in his opinion, and evaluated from who's perspective? Sorry if
> I seem to be begging you to chase your tail. My point is that ethics
> are *subtle*, not simplistic.
Perhaps, but this does not relieve us of the responsibility of
making ethical judgments.
> Ethics actually doesn't even deal with
> what actions we choose, but with why we chose them. It is "conduct",
> not actions, which is determined by ethics. Actions are determined by
> reason, but are also ultimately reactions. We hold more responsibility,
> in the end, for our actions than for our reactions. The fact that every
> example of conduct is, in some respects, both, is why the whole darn
> thing gets so complicated.
>
> [...]
> >> >I wasn't trying to judge individuals as muvh as events.
> >>
> >> You can't "judge" events.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Because they are not sentient creatures, and you can only judge sentient
> creatures, within the context of ethics.
>
But you can say that an event was anti-life, and the people responsible
for it evil.
>
> >> Societies you can judge, IMHO, as
> >> abstractions. Individuals and "blame" only come into it when you have
> >> the ability to do something about it, and history does not allow that
> >> level of revision.
> >
> >Why do I have to able to do something about it?
>
> Because if you can't do anything about it, you have no context for
> making an ethical decision.
The context of an ethical decision would be the actor's, not the
observer's.
> You can double-check whether someone
> *thought* they were acting ethically, but you can't second-guess whether
> they *were* acting ethically. If they have an ethical reason to make a
> decision, and act in what they believed was an ethical manner, then no
> retro-active 'blame' should accrue to them.
Not good enough.
> The obvious examples of
> individuals who were acting unethically in the face of it, Mussolini,
> Stalin, the Big 'H', fail on the first count; they did not have an
> ethical reason for their decisions to massacre people, so whether they
> believed they were acting ethically cannot be used in their defense.
But ethical by what ethics?
> On
> the other hand, some people, such as Mother Theresa, for instance, did
> have an ethical reason for deciding to do what she did. It is clear she
> believed she was acting ethically.
Sorry, no dice. What if her ethics are wrong?
> So the fact that she was needlessly
> and callously extending the suffering of tens of thousands of people,
> and perpetuating misery and poverty among a huge multitude of others,
> does not make her "a bad person". Merely a misguided one.
>
And she cultivated her own misguidedness, so she is unethical.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:50:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> My power company has a minuscule amount of market share, yet...they
>> are a monopoly, and my power company has been granted the right to
>> charge me for their mistakes against the environment and the
>> susequent cleanup charges and their poor investment choices over the
>> years. My monopolistic power company is harmfull to consumers because
>> of this fact . I am forced by law to pay for my power companies huge
>> mistakes for the past 40 years, they are protect by the government
>> granted monopoly to pay for their own financial mistakes, and thus
>> are harmfull to those that DO pay for them.
>
>...which is why, under antitrust cases filed by the FTC over the last
>few years, most power companies are starting to have to allow other
>power companies to offer electricity at competitive rates through the
>existing system, and many are not being allowed to pass high costs on to
>consumers for mistakes made in the past (which is what happened in
>Florida).
>
>Thank goodness for antitrust legislation...
But why did they have to start by pulling the rug out from under the
consumer? Monkeying around with the method of setting market rates for
kilowatts, suppliers (and, eventually, consumers) have had to pay up to
1000% increases on electrical rates. The whole "crisis" that afflicted
the west coast last month wasn't because there wasn't enough
electricity; it was because somebody figured out how to profiteer on it.
I'm all for *fair* competition between electricity suppliers. But the
current systems are grossly inadequate and outrageously flawed. I think
most of these efforts were obviously politically motivated by special
interests who saw the opportunity to turn honest anti-trust sentiments
into a thin disguise for meta-corporations to "leverage" the public
utilities.
Treating a public utility as if it wasn't necessary, and a 'free market'
is going to provide efficiencies, is an exercise in self-delusion. All
you succeed in doing is turning a public utility into a monopoly. And
monopolies are supposed to be illegal, because they *defeat*
competition, they don't participate in it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:54:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> No, it is not the means to achieving a monopoly, but the result of
>> achieving a monopoly, which is illegal. Or trying to achieve one, even.
>> Or hanging on to one if you should find yourself in that position
>> through happenstance.
>
>You keep saying that, but you're still wrong.
You keep saying that, but you haven't convinced me otherwise. I'm a
fair minded person, really. Go ahead and give it a shot.
>Unless you've managed to find some examples for us? You know, where
>someone had a natural monopoly, acquired through fair means, and got in
>trouble for it?
I still don't understand why you think this would even support my
position. It is my contention that there are no "natural monopolies" in
the way that the word "monopoly" is used in anti-trust law. It is true
you need to act predatorially before your market position could be
considered "a monopoly", but unless you can provide some example of a
company which has a dominant market position and does not use it
predatorially, I'm afraid you've got things backwards. I'm saying that
you cannot acquire a monopoly through 'fair means', that's why "attempts
to monopolize" are just as illegal has monopolizing is.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:54:00 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > The "losers" under a Bush administration will be just about
> > > everyone. Bush's proposed tax cut eliminates all chance of paying
> > > off the national debt, yet it only gives $43/year back to the
> > > average american family. Where does the rest go? You guessed it:
> > > the top 2% or so of the economic scale.
> >
> > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years? And
> > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
>
> If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are they
> trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to USENET?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
