Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #28 Sun, 27 Aug 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (David Noel Salinas)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Ed Cogburn)
Re: philosophy != science. (phil hunt)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
NETCRAFT: I'm confused (Nico Coetzee)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jack
Troughton)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jack
Troughton)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Joe
Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Noel Salinas <[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
Date: 27 Aug 2000 09:00:22 GMT
In comp.sys.mac.advocacy Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
:> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
:> people can avail themselves of, ...
: You make it sound so easy.
: If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
: in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
The point is it's NOT simple accounting. Some of it can get quite
complicated, but many people skirt taxes. For an example of how a
corporation did it try reading a book on Rupert Murdoch.
-david
------------------------------
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: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 05:08:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >For your information...WORKERS always get paid.
>>
>> Tell that to all the WORKERS who got laid off while the company was
>> still making profits and the executives were making millions in stock
>> options.
>
>It's happened to me. No big deal. I went out and got another
>job... FOR MORE MONEY.
More "policy by anecdote", huh?
[...]
>stockholders are both "investors" and "owners".
No, they are merely investors.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:22:28 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:28:27 GMT...
...and Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >South Park has been heavily edited, for example, in one episode where
> >Cartman (I think it's Cartman) goes around shouting "Sieg heil!", this
> >has been changed into "Wie geil!", which is a meaningful German
> >sentence too, but a little more politically correct, and everyone gets
> >the meaning anyway. Overall the German version of South Park is
> >considered tolerable and well done.
>
> If South Park is considered tolerable, then it isn't 'well
> done' ;-). The whole point of it is to be totally
> intolerable. They pretty much go out of their way to piss
> everybody off, that's what makes it fun. :-)).
The quality of the translation is considered tolerable, not the show.
The show's considered so intolerable that they don't air it before
23:30 if I'm not mistaken.
mawa
--
THE THREE MANTRAS OF META-OPTIMISM (by mawa)
I. Everything's gonna be all right.
II. I'll always believe that everything's gonna be all right.
III. I'll always be able to believe everything's gonna be all right.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 06:06:40 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[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?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >
> > Tax cuts from the right are always designed to help the rich, thats
>
> How many welfare scum pay taxes?
Oh, I'd say, roughly the number of idiots on c.o.l.a. with 29 line
sigs.
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy != science.
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 22:02:48 +0100
On 26 Aug 2000 18:46:03 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:53:01 GMT,
>Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>>1) if a person views other human beings merely as tools to be exploited
>> then they are a psychopath (this is the point at which bright people will
>> say to themselves "yup, businesses are psychopaths")
>
>This is not the definition of a psychopath, even in a liberal sense.
So what is the definition? Anyone have DSM IV handy?
>>2) corporations view their employees as assets only and nothing matters
>> beyond the bottom line.
>
>Corporations view their employees as an investment. Employees view
>thier careers as investments. Corporations do not exploit their
>employees any more than their employees exploit them. For example,
>some guy goes to work and goofs off all day, and doesn't give a
>shit about his company as long as he gets paid. So by your definition
>of psychopath, employees are psychopaths to.
This would only be true if the employee treted everyone, not just the
company, like that.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
** The RIAA want to ban Napster -- so boycott the music industry! **
** Don't buy CDs during August; see http://boycott-riaa.com/ **
** Spread the word: Put this message in your sig. **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:18:25 -0400
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 08/26/00
at 08:52 PM, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > The problem is, the missile defense system is bad even if it works.
>> > >
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > What's bad about it? It maintains superiority, which is good. Unless
>> > you think NOT being the most militarily superior country is
>> > desirable. U.S. Strength is maintaining peace. If China doesn't like
>> > the fact that we are building the ability to stop first strikes in
>> > mid launch, I'd have to say - to bad.
>>
>> It's an expensive solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
>Accidental missile launches from Russia or China.
The Russians have a launch system similar to ours. It ain't gona ever happen
by accident. Its bullshit. The system is designed to involve too many people
who have to agree to launch in order to release the authentication codes --
and even then they need concurrence of the people who actually push the
buttons to make the launch happen.
On top of that, if the truth be know, we would all be lucky if half of them
launch if they are ever needed. Its the unspoken reason for having so many.
>One single launch stopped before detonation would more than pay for the
>system.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 20:21:25 -0400
Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
>> > Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > So, tell the name of the third-world nations that have an ICBM
>> > > > capable of hitting the US -- then explain how it is that you or
>> > > > anyone knows this is a threat even though all of our espionage
>> > > > devices have failed to identify any such ICBM capability by a
>> > > > third-world nation.
>> > >
>> > > Russia?
>> >
>> > Russia has got thousands of the suckers. Any missile defense system we
>> > could build would be helpless against more than a few dozen, even if it
>> > actually worked. It might stop an attack by China, given its current
>> > arsenal. Which is why China says it will build a couple hundred more
>> > ICBMs if we deploy....
>>
>> More to the point, what's to stop the North Koreans from building lots
>> of decoy missiles with no nukes in them?
>Money. they don't have any. They're damned near bankrupt from just keeping
>their current program afloat.
>My biggest worry is about accidental or one-off (crazy general fires one at
>Washington to make a point) launches.
There is no nation in the world with an ICBM that can reach our shores, that
does not have a system that prevents any one man from launching one. The
idea that one nut can do so, comes from Hollywood or some nut job palace. Its
not something can really happen.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:53:34 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Every now and then some M$ preacher refers to netcraft for this or that
stat. Well, am I the only one that find it strange that Apache is the
only platform currently with a obvious positive trendline? Even the M$
line has a downward curve since just before 2000.
And Linux remain the dominant OS platform, no matter how you look at it.
Don't you people find this funny?
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
"Athens built the Acropolis. Corinth was a commercial city, interested
in
purely materialistic things. Today we admire Athens, visit it, preserve
the
old temples, yet we hardly ever set foot in Corinth."
- Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Laureate in chemistry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 12:46:47 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 16:36:55, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 19:28:34, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>> >> The fact that so many citizens wouldn't recognise the Constitution if it
>> >> were staple to their forehead helps as well.
>> >
>> >Sad, but true.
>> >
>>
>> Wow, are you guys ever arrogant.
>
>Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors (who
>*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
>from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
>were actually in the USC.
That would seem to indicate a problem with your educational system.
Would it have been better if the slogans had been Maoist?
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montr�al PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 12:52:47 GMT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:25:14, Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors (who
>> >*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
>> >from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
>> >were actually in the USC.
>>
>> Documentation please.
>
>Do you really require this? An important thing to recall when
>evaluating the human beings around you is that, indeed, half of
>them have I.Q.s under 100. Therefore, it should be no surprise
>at all when things like this happen.
That's it! We'll draw conclusions and make decisions on the basis of
no evidence! Of course, that's the way we should do things! Why didn't
I realize this before?
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montr�al PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 13:02:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> [...]
> >> Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
> >> family
> >> of 3.
> >
> >It wouldn't be too much to ask to REFRAIN FROM HAVING KIDS THAT
> >YOU FUCKING CAN'T AFFORD, would it?
>
> Yes, I'm afraid it would. Certainly to the extent that you indicate.
> Every citizen has the right to have children if they desire, and a
> society which prevents them from doing so economically is no less
> unsatisfactory than one that does so through any other means.
So, IOW, the concept of personal responsibility means nothing to you.
I didn't think so.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:07:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
> >> >> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Doesn't that 5% also control more than 90% of the wealth?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Probably.
> >> >
> >> >But the point is that even with the Bush tax cuts, they're still
> >> >paying
> >> >a vastly higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor or
> >> >middle class.
> >>
> >> The point is that they should, and they aren't even paying anywhere
> >> near
> >> as much as their tax bracket base percentage indicates, while the
> >> middle
> >> and lower income people generally do.
> >
> >ROTFLMAO.
> >
> >I used to be squarely in the middle class and comfortably in the "21%"
> >bracket. I actually paid about 5% of my income in income taxes due to
> >deductions.
> >
> >Now, I'm in the 39.6 bracket and pay a much, much higher percentage --
> >closer to 25% for federal income tax alone.
> >
> >But don't let the facts confuse you.
>
>
> And 21% of your income was...?
>
> And 39.6% of your income is...?
>
> The wealthiest do not pay anywhere near as much [of their income] as
> their tax bracket base percentage indicates, while the middle and lower
> income people generally do.
Wrong.
Statistics bear it out, as does my anecdotal data.
Since you're too slow to figure it out, let me to the math for you.
When I was in the 21% bracket, my federal income tax was 25% of the
bracket level.
Now that I'm in a higher bracket, my tax is about 60% of the bracket
level.
Why does it work that way? It's very simple if you look at the way the
tax system works rather than your rabid hysteria. The standard
deductions are relatively large, especially if you itemize deductions.
But even if you don't. I can't remember the figures, but let's say that
the standard deduction is $4 K per person. For a family of 4, that means
the first $16 K doesn't get taxed at all. If you income is $20 K, then
only $4 K is taxed, and that is only at a low bracket (17%?). So, you
pay a few hundred dollars in taxes or about 2% of income.
As the income goes up, the standard deductions become relatively less
important.
Now, again, I'm not arguing what's right or wrong. But please stop
posting such stupid lies.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:09:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> The point is that they should, and they aren't even paying anywhere
> >> near
> >> as much as their tax bracket base percentage indicates, while the
> >> middle
> >> and lower income people generally do.
> >
> >Really? Count your standard deduction and personal exemption and that's
> >$7000 tax free. If you make $21,000 and have no dependents, a third of
> >your income is tax-free right off the bat. Now let's say you make
> >$80,000... where do you come up with $24,000 in itemized deductions?
>
> The question is where do I come up with $7000, not $24,000. And I
> don't; I generally come up with about $3000, but my goal is not to
> minimize the amount I contribute to society. Most others in my shoes
> might easily pay a crafty accountant to shave another $4K off my tax
> bill, through whatever means necessary.
You have a strange concept of the tax laws. There's no way that a
"crafty accountant" is going to find an extra $4K in deductions unless
you've missed some very, very obvious things.
That's a very common misconception. For the vast majority of "wealthy",
there are no magic loopholes or no way to hide your money. Sure, they
can lie about what they contribute to charity, but the poor can do that,
too and no one's advocating cheating.
Given that you think that the poor pay a higher percentage of their tax
bracket than the rich, you really ought to learn how the tax laws work
before spouting off so much.
>
> >Last year, I reported more income than $21000, but was still in the 15%
> >bracket, and I paid 10.6% of my "total income" (1040, line 22) as tax.
> >So I'm only paying 2/3 of what my bracket base percentage indicates.
> >You think most people in the top bracket do you think are paying much
> >less than 2/3 of their base percentage, or 26%, to the feds?
>
> You're flipping facilely back and forth between amounts and percentages
> so fast, I can't tell what would be an equitable burden.
That's the problem. Facts seem to confuse you.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:11:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> Considering they're still getting richer, and the poor are still
> >> >> getting
> >> >> poorer, I fail to see why this would be so.
> >> >>
> >> >> >You have to make something like $20 to 30 K before you pay any
> >> >> >taxes.
> >> >> >Meanwhile, I'm paying 50% of my income in taxes (all taxes
> >> >> >combined).
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's an absurd difference.
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe from your perspective. Try living on $24,000 a year with a
> >> >> family
> >> >> of 3.
> >> >
> >> >Who's fault is that?
> >>
> >> I don't assign fault.
> >
> >No. You just give money away without doing anything about the real
> >problem.
>
> What real problem would that be, Joe?
Lots of things. Lack of discipline. Lack of expectations. Lack of parent
involvement. And so on.
Some very, very poor kids in some very, very poor school districts do
very well. And some very rich kids in expensive private schools do
poorly.
Money isn't always the answer.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:12:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Isn't it funny that the party that is oooooooooooooh so fucking worried
> >> about debt reduction is the SAME goddamn party that ran up the debt
> >> in the first place....
> >> --
> >
> >Actually, in all fairness, both the Republicans and Democrats
> >contributed to the National Debt. They just want to spend the money in
> >different ways.
> >
> >To that extent, the Libertarians are right.
>
> I'll agree with both of you on that. But I'm sure the extent of that
> argument is not as large as either of you might figure.
It's not? So the $7 trillion national debt is imaginary?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 13:13:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:04:53 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > >>
> > >
> > > >> Again, you make the flawed assumption that the unfitness of the
> > > >> parents implies the unfitness of their children.
> > > >
> > > >That's the safe way to bet.
> > >
> > > If you want to go on statistics alone, and make blanket assumptions
> > > based on averages, I ask you this -- would you endorse a company
> > > policy that dictates that African Americans shouldn't be hired due
> > > to the fact that the "safe way to bet" is that they have inferior
> > > "intelligence" ( despite considerable overlap of different ethnic
> > > groups ... ) Oh, I refer you to your "bible" for the relevant
> > > statistics.
> >
> > No. Simply overturn the Supreme Court ruling that disallows IQ tests
> > for job placement.
>
> It's impossible to even come up with a single number to accurately
> represent microprocessor performance and you think the same can be done
> for the human brain?
I'm curious about this Supreme Court ruling. When did they rule that?
My company uses entrance exams for executive positions. They've found
that people who score higher on the exam tend to do better jobs than
those who score poorly.
What's wrong with that--either legally or ethically?
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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 13:17:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> [...]
> >> >> I never said "he" is not real. I said "JS/PL" is not real, other
> >> >> than
> >> >> as a pseudonym.
> >> >
> >> >You said "'JS/PL' isn't a real person." That's not saying that he's
> >> >using a pseudonym.
> >>
> >> According to your interpretation, maybe. It is equivalent of saying
> >> "'John Galt' isn't a real person", in my interpretation (and since I'm
> >> the one that said it, I have slightly more say than you in its
> >> meaning.)
> >> You may note that "John Galt" has posted several times to Usenet.
> >
> >The "John Galt" who posts to Usenet is a real person.
> >
> >The "John Galt" in Ayn Rand's novels is not.
> >
> >What part of that is too complicated for you?
>
> The part where you can demonstrate that the "John Galt" who posts isn't
> simply a pseudonym for a real person.
"A rose by any other name" Or, since you don't seem to understand logic,
even if "John Galt" is a pseudonym, he's still a real person. Unless you
think that when someone makes up a name, they suddenly disappear in a
puff of smoke.
You seem to have a very, very tenuous grasp on reality. Perhaps you
should seek professional help.
>
> [...]
> >A person who calls himself "JS/PL" posts to usenet. You claimed that he
> >wasn't a real person.
> >
> >He is.
>
> No, I state, quite truthfully, that "JS/PL" isn't a real person.
> Whoever the real person is that is using that pseudonym is not taking
> responsibility for their words, so I am not really considered with who
> he is as a real person.
Then you need help. He's a real person -- even if you don't know his
real name.
>
> >The fact that there are _some_ imaginary "people" out there doesn't
> >change that fact.
>
> I'm afraid it does, as "JS/PL" trying to get me in trouble for speaking
> honestly and without malice might well be considered harassment, and an
> attempt to suppress free speech.
>
Just as your telling him that you are going to kill him might well be
considered a threat.
He was justified in his action. If you feel that you've been harrassed,
feel free to take action.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
http://home.earthlink.net/~jragosta/complmac.htm
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
