Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #28 Fri, 25 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:46:55 -0400
Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -Byron A Jeff wrote:
> ->
> -> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> -> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -> -Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> -> ->
> -> -> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:16:04 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> -> -> >however you choose to characterize it), and of course, the welfare
> -> -> >slobs themselves (who are demonstrate culpability every time they
> -> -> >cash a "gimme dat welfare" check.
> -> ->
> -> -> You make it sound as though the national budget is spent entirely
> -> -> on these "welfare slobs" that you keep demonising. This is woefully
> -> -> innaccurate, especially now that the welfare reform laws have gone
> -> -> through.
> -> -
> -> -They are decreasing, but we are still subsidizing out-of-wedlock
> -> -pregnancies for high school girls.
> -> -
> -> -And it is mandatory to get rid of the "i'm-an-irresponsible-idiot"
> -> -welfare of leftist socialism if we ever want to get rid of the
> -> -fascist corporate welfare.
> -> -
> -> ---
> -> -Aaron R. Kulkis
> ->
> -> OK Aaron. Let's look at the flip side of the coin. Let's imagine you've
> -> been granted your wish. SSI, Medicare, AFDC, and income tax are all
> -> abolished. Is Minimum wage and Public Education dismissed too?
> ->
> -> Now what?
> -
> -Now we are back to a free society.
> -
> -I get to keep the money I earn, and personally direct what money I
> -feel to those in need of help WHO I SEE MAKING AN EFFORT TO IMPROVE
> -THEMSELVES.
>
> But now there's no obligation to direct any money to anyone right? Or to only
> those who meet your (and other's) subjective criteria. Right?
>
> So by definition there will be those who will fall through the cracks because
> they don't endear themselves to those who can help them.
>
> -
> -I can send my kids to the school of my choosing, without having to
> -pay "double" .... due to the fact that my money is no longer being
> -stolen to finance a corrupt school system which is mostly interested
> -in disseminating leftist propaganda, homosexuality advocacy, and
> -other destructive ideas, at the expense of basic reading, writing,
> -mathematics and history.
>
> And those who cannot afford school simply won't be able to go. Right?
>
> -
> -
> ->
> -> Specifically target you answer towards the two constituencies that are
> -> often unable to fend for themselves: children and the elderly. What happens
> -> to them now?
> -
> -Are you at all familiar with the social structure called a "family"
>
> Absolutely. I'm also intimately familiar with families that have no
> resources or no will to support anyone.
So, what you're saying is....I am somehow obligated to support some
old coot who is so detestable, that even his own family hates him?
>
> So to put it bluntly if one is unlucky enough to be born into a family that
> cannot support them, then we simply discard them. Right?
If you can't support kids, you shouldn't be having them.
If you do have kids, then it is your obligation to support
them, and YOUR shame if you don't.
Don't be laying any guilt trip on *me* for refusing to pay
for some DangerAsshole's slew of juvenile delinquent thugs.
>
> -
> -Children are already the responsibility of their parents.
>
> And children are punished for the sins of their parents?
Darwinism in action.
>
> -Cutting all of the welfare programs will allow parents to retain
> -the money which they need to take care of their children (and
> -retired grandparents).
>
> Unlikely. With the current wealth distribution, the folks that need the
> money the most would retain the least. In fact the current taxation system
> enforces it.
>
> -
> ->
> -> It's clear you have significant issues with the current system. Please
> -> describe the system you'd like to see.
> -
> -Simple: the elmination of any and all programs which function
> -to minimize the impact of personal irresponsibility.
> -
> -If you're 70 years old and broke, that's because you didn't put
> -anything aside when you were young.
>
> Could it not mean that you had nothing to put aside? Could it mean that
> you were born into poverty and ignornace?
>
> -
> -If you're 35 years old and can't afford to send YOUR KIDS to school,
> -then you shouldn't have had kids in the first place.
>
> What about if you could afford to send the kids at the time when you had
> them, but subsequently lost the ability to support your kids. Should we
> simply remove them from school? Or even better dismiss you and your kids
> because you cannot afford to continue living.
>
> -
> -I am goddamned sick and tired of everybody around me sticking their
> -hand out expecting me to fork over my money to pay for the things
> -that they should be able to pay for themselves.
>
> So I presume that if you got to keep all of your money, that you would not
> in fact fork over any of it to anyone else right?
>
> -
> -These assholes and idiots conveniently forget that any government
> -financed system is going to take a minimum of 20% in bureaucratic
> -overhead.
>
> And in your system that 20% disappears because there would be no
> bureaucracy. However that 20% would be retained by those who had the money
> in the first place. Those unlucky enough to be born into poverty would
> just be SOL. Right?
>
> -
> -If this is such a good idea, why don't we start a program to have
> -the government pay for your gas when you need to refuel your car?
> -Or, why not have insurance companies do it?
>
> Because one doesn't necessarily need a car to live or even to improve their
> quality of life.
>
> -
> -You know damn well why we don't...because even if the price of
> -gas is $1.20 at the pump, the effective price to the taxpayers
> -would come in at close to $3.00/gallon after all of the costs
> -of paperwork, paper-pushers and fat-cat government directors
> -are factored in.
>
> Again because subsidizing gas isn't necessary.
>
> -
> -What the hell is so scary about taking responsibility for your
> -own decisions and your own behavior?
>
> Now here's the crux of the matter.
>
> You think that everyone who needs help is there because of their own fault.
> You think that if they had worked hard and smart, they would be in a position
> where they wouldn't need help.
>
> You are wrong.
>
> Individuals and families develop under wildly differing conditions. With
> your proposed system, those that are born into wealth and education would
> simply be able to extend their advantage over those who are born into
> poverty, miseducation, and squalor.
>
> In short without any structured mechanisms for wealth redistribution, then
> those who have the unluck circumstance of being born into the wrong family
> are fucked from the start. They cannot feed themselves, they cannot get
> educated, they cannot work, they cannot save for retirement, they cannot
> do anything productive. A life wasted. But not because of lack of
> personal responsibility, but because of circumstance.
>
> You wouldn't be where you are if you couldn't eat, was homeless, and couldn't
> go to school. You wouldn't have any money to bitch about the govt. taking.
>
> It's like starting the Oklahoma Land Rush with half of the participants
> at the Georgia/Alabama border. Then blaming them from not getting any land
> once they've made they trek across 3 states to get to the Oklahome border
> where the other half started.
>
> Forcing everything to personal responsibility doesn't work because all things
> are not equal.
>
> I'd agree with you if everything was equal. Educate everyone equally. Feed
> everyone equally. Give everyone the exact same stake at maturity. Then force
> everyone to fend for themselves. Oh and a suggestion that a friend of mine
> once made. To make sure that no children are born to those who cannot support
> them, sterilize everyone at puberty and only reverse the process once you
> can pay for it.
>
> Oh What a Brave New World that would be!
>
> But it isn't going to happen. So there will continue to be a huge underclass
> that your plan will grow exponentially. An underclass that cannot support
> themselves and have no resonable mechanism for pulling themselves from their
> circumstances.
>
> A large and angry underclass that will resent the upper class.
And how is this any different from current conditions?
Welfare slobs resent the upper class right now.
> BTW there will
> be no middle class. Individuals will either skyrocket or crash.
>
> An underclass that has no purpose, no hope, and a whole lot of anger.
>
> I wonder where they'd direct that anger? Hmmm.
>
> I want to rethink your position factoring in the fact that lots of capable
> and hard working people are stuck because of their circumstances. Many families
> are currently unable to take care of themselves, their children, and their
> elders. They have to choose. Under your plan it would be much, much worse.
>
> How can you give everyone a fair shot? Make it so that only those who choose
> not to participate cannot succeed instead of requiring birth into the right
> situation as a prerequisite for success.
>
> BTW I'm not necessarily endorsing the current system. However a complete
> removal of social services would rather quickly plunge much of the country
> into despair and hopelessness, followed rather quickly into a class based
> civil war.
>
> Oh What a Brave (and very scary) New World that would be!
>
> BAJ
--
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: [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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 01:26:59 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:19:40 GMT, Andre Ervin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Andre Ervin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead
>> > > > > > > of
>> > > > > > > spending it for them!? How absurd!
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor
>> stay
>> > > > > > healthy and educated.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year
>> > > > > old
>> > > > > democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument
>> > > > > except
>> > > > > to
>> > > say
>> > > > > 95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five
>> > > > > out
>> of
>> > > 100
>> > > > > poor that need a hand.
>> > > >
>> > > > Proof? For that matter, how many truly poor people do you know?
>> > >
>> > > I've met a lot of truly poor people in my life, and myself have been
>> > > pleny
>> > > broke and hungry. I never blamed anyone - especially "the rich" for
>> > > my
>> > > problems though, I blamed myself.
>> > > If you are a poor adult, it is most generaly it is your own fault.
>> >
>> > It's your fault that you grew up poor, had almost no opportunities to
>> > better yourself, struggled through a piss-poor educational system
>> > geared
>> > more toward keeping you disciplined than teaching you important skills,
>> > and can't find a job that will help you get the skills you need to get
>> > a
>> > better-paying job? It's your fault that the odds are stacked even
>> > higher against you with such a background to make it _to_ a college,
>> > much less _through_ one? It's your fault that perception means a lot
>> > in
>> > the job market, and you may not fit the perception?
>>
>> No but....
>> It's only your fault that you let those minor distractions hold you back.
>> The fact remains, no one owes the person in the example above a damn
>> thing.
>> No matter how bad you think you have, it can (and probably will) get
>> worse,
>> it's just a matter of what YOU do about it, not what someone else is
>> going
>> to do about it.
>
>Oh, for cryin' out loud...
>
>Minor distractions??? You really think those are minor distractions???
The term "minor" might certainly be disputable but the fact
remains that they are distractions and not infact barriers.
It's not the barrier, it's the person. There are those that
overcome the current 'barriers' as they aren and those in
the past that have overcome even greater 'barriers'.
>Hell, I went to good schools and had opportunities, and I _still_ am
>being left behind by my contemporaries (who are no better qualified, and
>no more motivated than I).
>
>But of course it's all my fault.
That's just an excuse to justify your own lack of effort.
[deletia]
Whining about a barrier doesn't remove it.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:21:48 -0400
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Courageous wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect that you are behind the times. Furthermore, we're
> > > > > > > arguing about peanuts. Why get all in a rile over peanuts
> > > > > > > when there are issues where SERIOUS MONEY is at stake? Look
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As of 1995, Wealth-redistribution "entitlements" made up 45% of
> > > > > > the budget, and was growing. ( The Republican congress may have
> > > > > > derailed this trend, however :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > A bait and switch. When you're talking about Social Security,
> > > > > make sure you say so. This isn't what the average person thinks
> > > > > of when you say "welfare".
> > > >
> > > > Social Security is *NOT* a retirement plan. It *IS* welfare.
> > > >
> > > > All of these "I paid in for 45 years" arguments are bullshit.
> > > > The senior citizens ****FAILED**** to keep tabs on what Congress was
> > > > doing, and ****FAILED**** to investigate SS enough to recognize it for
> > > > the Ponzi scheme that it is.
> > >
> > > Actually, that's not quite true.
> > >
> > > Once you're a senior citizen, you've already paid in most of what you
> > > can expect to pay during your lifetime. Therefore, if they're paying
> >
> > So, big whoop de doo.
> >
> > How does the fact that they paid a bunch of con-men for
> > several decades obligate *me* to fulfill the con-men's promises????
> >
> >
> > > attention, they _would_ want benefits to increase. All that they need to
> > > do is set the benefits at a level that can be sustained for their
> > > lifetime.
> >
> > Look, we had a couple generation of socialist "something-for-nothing"
> > tooth-fairy believers. I AM *NOT* the fucking tooth fairy, and
> > refuse to be gouged as if I were.
> >
>
> I agree.
>
> All I'm saying is that for _current_ senior citizens, support for Social
> Security makes financial sense.
Why? They are the ones who created the mess in the first place.
>
> That's not the same as saying it's fair or makes sense for the people
> paying the bills. I'd like to see it abolished or drastically scaled
> back, too.
It's a ponzi scheme based on enslavement of workers, and should
thus be abolished as quickly as possible.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:24:18 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > david raoul derbes wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
> > > Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
> > > >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
> > > >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
> > > >farmers.
> > >
> > > You are very much mistaken.
> > >
> > > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the government
> > > for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the government,
> > > she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
> > >
> > > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
> > > the process.
> > >
> > > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think the
> > > inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
> > > Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
> >
> > No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for the
> > reasons described above), and replace it with a sales tax.
>
> No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow family
> farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be passed along.
>
> If you're so against handouts, why do you support the multimillion
> dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their children?
Because it's THEIR money to do with as they please.
I'm not against handouts, I'm against government pickpockets
using me as the financial basis for their handouts.
Why is it that every time a liberal wants to do good, it always
depends on stealing money from me....
--
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: "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: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:32:48 -0400
ZnU wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > I'm certainly for reforming the system. But starving it for cash is
> > > > > _not_ the way to do that.
> > > >
> > > > It's the only way to do it. You call it "starving it for cash" others
> > > > call
> > > > it reducing government waste. A businessman would be in prison if he
> > > > mismanaged his finances as poorly as government does.
> > >
> > > If you starve it to death, millions of people who have been paying in
> > > won't get anything out. That's straight-out theft.
> >
> > Actually, "theft" is a pretty good way to describe Social Security.
> >
> > The vast majority of the money you've paid in has been spent on previous
> > benefits -- it's not being saved for your retirement.
> >
> > I thought even "tax and spend"ers knew that.
>
> This really has no meaning. The money you put in a bank isn't all
> sitting there either, there's just and understanding that when you need
> it, you can get it.
However, the money in the bank was used to purchase properties
or other tangible assets.
Conversely, SS money has been pissed down the sewer as Democrats
play Uncle Sugar sending monthly checks to welfare sluts so they
can marginally support their juvenile gangster "children".
>
> > Even if I get what I've been promised, my lifetime return on investment
> > will probably be negative or in the very low single digits. If I had
> > been able to invest my Social Security "contribution" in any reasonable
> > investment, I'd retire extremely wealthy -by almost any standards.
> >
> > That IS theft
>
> Social security is designed to ensure that we don't have retired people
> starving in the streets, something that wasn't all that uncommon before
> it was created.
Have you checked the stock market in the last 60 years?
And don't give me this "some people can't invest" line of malarkey.
My first stock purchase was 40 shares of Crystal Oil at the age
of 12 with money I earned delivering papers.
>
> I always get the impression most conservatives wouldn't be conservative
> if they understood history better.
I've been poor....absolutely broke....
Who got me there? me.
Who got me out? me.
--
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
******************************
