Linux-Advocacy Digest #664, Volume #28 Sat, 26 Aug 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Andre Ervin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (david
raoul derbes)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Andre Ervin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (david raoul derbes)
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: [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")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Andre Ervin <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:52:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> 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'.
True, and then there are those who refuse to admit that barriers are
much higher for other people than for themselves, because then they'd
have to admit that maybe, just maybe, our society isn't the ideal it
could be.
> >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.
If you knew anything about me, you'd realize that that is, if you'll
pardon the expression, a complete and utter crock of shit.
--
dre
------------------------------
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 ...)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:54:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Marion
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>>
>> > Check out the IRS' statistics. On average, people earning $60 K are
>> > paying a much higher percentage of their income in taxes than people
>> > earning $30 K. And people making $100 K pay even more (percentagewise).
>>
>> I don't think we need statistics to prove that.. just pay attention to
>> how
>> you've been taxed depending on how much you've made. I know that I'm
>> paying a
>> substantial percentage more now then I was at my lower-paying job about 3
>> years ago.
>
>You may not need statistics, but several people on this group questioned
>it.
>
>Apparently, they really believe that the poor are paying a higher
>percentage of their income in taxes than the rich.
OK, once more, here's the problem.
Do the highest earners pay the largest amount of money? You betcha:
the table I quoted showed approximately the top 1% of earners paid
about 31% of all the tax dollars. Boy, are we socking it to the rich!
Well... not so fast.
Suppose it happens that the top 1% of the earners earned 80% of the
income? (This is only an absurd hypothesis: I have no idea what
fraction of the gross national income was earned by this fraction
of the population.) Then, assuming my absurd number, 69% of the
tax dollars would be raised by those who earn 20% of the money.
That would not strike me as fair.
We need to know (and so far, I haven't been able to find out)
just what fraction of the income that top 1% made. I strongly
suspect that it is significantly more than 31% of all the money
earned by the American public in the year cited (1997, I think.)
Unless and until we know what fraction of money raised that 31%
of the tax, I am not all that impressed by the shocking! Shocking!
statistic that a poor, benighted one percent of the populace paid
almost one third of the taxes.
Basically, it comes down, again and again, to the following question:
what is the effective rate of the tax paid by the very rich? It
may well be below what the average middle class person is paying.
I don't have any evidence for this, except to observe that many
of the tax shelters are out of reach of the poor, and by
extension more shelters open up the more income you have.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>--
>Regards,
>
>Joe Ragosta
>
>http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 01:56:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
> >> Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
> >
> >They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
> >
> >They were released shortly after the election....only about
> >180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
>
> The hostages were released within *minutes* of Reagan taking the oath
> of office. Those of us who were adults in 1980 remember this very, very
> well. Most of the networks had to do a split screen of the jet taking
> off from the Tehran airport and Reagan's inaugural address.
>
> The mullahs were so angry at Carter for the abortive hostage rescue
> that they were never, ever going to release their captives so long
> as Carter was president.
Fun Facts about the hostage rescue attempt:
One of the folks responsible for refueling the planes on-ground at
Desert One (where everything fell apart) was one Oliver North...
Gee. What a coincidence.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:47:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
>
> Also, how many people have to install Windows in the first place?
The real question there is not the installation of WIndows in the first
place; it is the regular need to install Windows over and over again with
out the aid of something like Linux to save you from that.
> > If they want to get real work done using UNIX, they use Solaris or
HP-UX.
> >
> > Linux is for UNIX geeks to have fun.
> >
>
> And get work done.
On micros, minis, and mainframes.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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 21:59:31 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39a8232e$4$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >ZnU wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > ZnU wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > > > > You're setting up strawmen again. I haven't said a word
about
> >> > > > > > > the
> >> > > > > > > timeframe to pay off the national debt.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Upon maturity of the outstanding Treasury bills, you idiot.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Why do you keep repeating that when it has nothing to do with
> >> > > > > anything
> >> > > > > I've said?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > It does---you're merely to ignorant to see the connection.
> >> > >
> >> > > It doesn't. Please explain how Bush intends to pay off the national
> >> > > debt
> >> > > while deficit spending. You seem to be arguing that he can. If
you're
> >> > > not arguing that he can, then you're not arguing with anything I've
> >> > > said.
> >> >
> >> > What makes you so sure he will be deficit spending? (At least, that
his
> >> > will be any worse than Gore's.) Yes, he is cutting more taxes than
> >> > Gore, but he is also spending less than Gore on programs like health
> >> > care.
> >>
> >> And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile defense.
> >>
> >> The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so vague on
> >> the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But he'll either be
> >> deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather important social
> >> programs, and neither is worth it just to give the average american
> >> family a $43/year tax break. And there's certainly no chance of him
> >> paying down the debt.
>
>
> >If the Democrats are oooooooooh so fucking worried about the National
Debt,
> >then why did they run it up to $7,000,000,000,000 in the first place?
>
>
> Are you playing complete asshole to entertain us or are you really stupid
> enough to think that the Democrats passed Reaganomics -- Which is where
the
> debt came from.
No - Reagan asked congress to spend less every single year he was in office.
They refused to spend less.
http://reagan.webteamone.com/images/deficits.gif
------------------------------
From: Andre Ervin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:04:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 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:
> > > >
> > > > > "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?
>
> Well, let's see.
>
> I grew up with 10 brothers and sisters. There were times when we barely
> had enough to eat and new clothes were a rare treat. We never received a
> penny of welfare.
>
> I went to school in a particularly bad rural school in Western
> Pennsylvania.
>
> Yet I managed to get a scholarship and loans for Penn State, worked my
> way through school, got into graduate school at Cornell, progressed
> through several jobs of increasing responsibility and ended up as
> President of a small company where I'm making quite a lot of money
> (certainly far more than the level that Democrats consider wealthy,
> although I think their cutoff is way too low).
>
> So what part of the things you cited is impossible?
I didn't say it was impossible; this country has many, many
rags-to-riches stories. What I _am_ saying is that it can be incredibly
difficult, and somebody saying "I did it; why can't _you_" is
shortsighted because it doesn't take in to account any of the factors
and problems unique to that person. My situation is nothing like yours,
and our situations are nothing like the single mother who lives down the
street, so what works for you may not work for me or her, yet we could
all have the exact same will to succeed. *That's* where I start having
issues with conservatives; hard work will only take you so far in this
society (that's a reality, folks, ugly as it is), and a lot of people
tend to forget about the lucky breaks they had, or the personal morals
they may have had to set aside along the way. (And no, I'm not trying
to imply anything about you personally.)
--
dre
------------------------------
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?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:05:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> The hostages were taken during Carter's Presidency and released after
>> >> Reagan won, partly through the Iran-Conrta situation.
>> >
>> >They hostages were in captivity for 444 days.
>> >
>> >They were released shortly after the election....only about
>> >180 days after Reagan secured enough primary delegates.
>>
>> The hostages were released within *minutes* of Reagan taking the oath
>> of office. Those of us who were adults in 1980 remember this very, very
>> well. Most of the networks had to do a split screen of the jet taking
>> off from the Tehran airport and Reagan's inaugural address.
>>
>> The mullahs were so angry at Carter for the abortive hostage rescue
>> that they were never, ever going to release their captives so long
>> as Carter was president.
>
>Fun Facts about the hostage rescue attempt:
>
>One of the folks responsible for refueling the planes on-ground at
>Desert One (where everything fell apart) was one Oliver North...
>
>Gee. What a coincidence.
As much as I didn't like Col. North, I really don't believe that he or
anyone else deliberately sabotaged the hostage rescue attempt. It was
mostly terrible weather, and probably some bad decisions at various
places. Bad luck may also have been a factor.
Some things are bigger than politics. Very few Americans were glad
that the rescue failed, killing, if I remember correctly, eight brave
soldiers. Had it worked, undoubtedly Carter's chances in the election
would have been vastly improved. But it's hard for me to imagine that
anyone was glad that it failed.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:03:25 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:05:23 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Bullshit. At least have the decency to admit that you just want more
> money.
>
> >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
>
> Since you seem to be concerned about the less intelligent people breeding,
> why are you so strongly against the supposed "advocacy" of homosexuality ?
> It would seem that your position on population would be more consistent
> with a position that homosexuality should be advocated, as it would make
> the so-called "defectives" less prone to breeding.
>
> >other destructive ideas, at the expense of basic reading, writing,
> >mathematics and history.
>
> On what grounds do you make the claim that "basic reading, writing,
> mathematics and history" have suffered ?
The fact that we have so many "high school graduates" who cannot
even read, let alone solve simple algebra problems, nor correctly
identify "New Mexico" as being one of the 50 States of the United
States of America. (Let alone correctly match capitals like
Paris, London, Rome, and Berlin with the proper country).
Or the fact that US teenagers routinely rank ***LAST*** for all
industrialized nations in:
Mathematics
Basic Physical Sciences (biology, chemistry and physics)
World History
On the other hand, US students do have high "self esteem" The
US has the highest percentage of teenagers who answered "YES" to
the question, "I am proficient in mathematics".... despite the
fact that they are dead last. Interestingly, the country with
the BEST math scores (Japan), had the SMALLEST percentage of
students who answered YES to the same question.
My bet is.. most American students are being kept in the dark
about the fact that they have achieved so little...meanwhile,
Japanese students are made aware of the fact that there are
MANY MANY branches of mathematics to which even most college
graduates will never even be introduced, let alone proficient.
And you doubt that at this time, the public schools in the US are
abysmal?
>
> --
> Donovan
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:04:19 -0400
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Personally, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, and have fundamental
> > disagreements with their religious dogma.
>
> > However, given a choice, I would send my kids to a Catholic school
> > before sending them to a public school.
>
> Then why did you choose Purdue over a perfectly good
> nearby Catholic school like Notre Dame?
1. I'm talking about K-12 education.
2. I attended school 20 years ago. I'm talking about *NOW*.
>
> > Sending a kid to a public school these days is child abuse.
>
> So by attending Purdue you are practicing self-abuse?
Don't be silly.
>
> Arthur
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:06:00 -0400
Perry Pip wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> And you want my taxes to pay for vouchers for that shit? No way.
No.
I don't want you being taxed for *anybody's* education.
PARENTS should pay for their kids' education.
Those who can't afford tuition shouldn't be having kids.
> Perry
--
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: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:06:49 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:06:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >Actually, public education usually has the *highest* per-pupil spending
> >[for "average" kids] while still having lousy results.
> >
> >Why is that?
>
> What do you mean by "lousy results" ? The kids in public schools probably
> aren't as good on average,
And why is that?
--
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
******************************
