Linux-Advocacy Digest #408, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Pan)
Re: The real issue
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Re: How low can they go...? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:47:44 -0000
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:41:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't usually agree with Nathaniel, but I do respect his opinion
>which he generally uses reasonable arguments to defend, unlike you who
>resort to rhymes and riddles and twisted examples of the english
>language all in a desperate effort to defend your poor position,but in
>this case he (Mr. Lee) is right on the mark.
>
>I'm glad you are not a Windows advocate jedi :(
>
>You do more harm to the Linux community than you realize.
If we weren't interested in a greater level of quality
control, we very likely wouldn't be Unix users. This
goes equally for ideas and system software. If you can't
take this sort of thing, I suggest moving on to another
group where religion is the topic of discussion.
>
>Try arguing a specific point someday.
>
>
>claire
>
>
>
>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:10:05 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:51:47 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 16:02:26 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>>>On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 20:53:59 -0000, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>>>>>>>>On 29 Sep 2000 19:11:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>>>>>>>>>>>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
>>>>>>>>>> filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
>>>>>>>>>> version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
>>>>>>>>>> junior high students.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ever run linux on a completely fat32 filesystem?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That still doesn't answer the question. What is inherent in
>>>>>>>> a FAT filesystem that implies that you should expect the
>>>>>>>> system to crash more?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It doesn't just get that way by magic or fairy dust. There's
>>>>>>>> a reason for it that can be determined and explained.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It doesn't fully shut down the system and come up in BeOS
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What exactly is lingering around to provide problems for
>>>>>> the new kernel? Should you trust an OS that doesn't
>>>>>> completely flush the state of the system once it takes
>>>>>> control?
>>>>>
>>>>>It's meant as a demo. You can't really do much with the
>>>>
>>>> IOW: it's a big fat ad.
>>>>
>>>> As such, it reflects upon the full version. If this
>>>> "well, it's really just a demo" version is percieved
>>>> as a piece of shit than it will certainly reflect
>>>> badly on Be and "real BeOS".
>>>>
>>>>>'Personal' edition. As such, it is meant to provide you
>>>>>with a basic idea of what the final system will run like.
>>>>>
>>>>>You would not be trusting the personal edition for much of
>>>>>'real' use as it doesn't provide you with a lot of data
>>>>>storage capabilities and it doesn't really give you a lot
>>>>>of the options of the full version. I'm not sure about
>>>>>installing apps on it, as I've never tried installing
>>>>>anything more on the personal edition, only on the Pro.
>>>>
>>>> Demos aren't an excuse to be sloppy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hell, it's worked for Microsoft for the past 25 years,
>>>even in the non-demo shit.
>>>
>>>I do use Linux, and enjoy it fully. But seeing people
>>>like you makes me feel like the entire idea of the 'Linux
>>>Community' is nothing more pleasurable than a baseball bat
>>>covered with spiked being shoved up my ass.
>>
>> Simple curative: don't be an idiot.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> Corel botching their version of Linux isn't quite like
>> Be bowing to their marketing department and seriously
>> undermining the integrity of their operating system.
>>
>> This kind of BS is why people like me AVOID Microsoft.
>>
>> If Be screws up, their actions shouldn't be overlooked
>> just because they aren't Microsoft.
>>
>
--
I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy.
-- Fred Allen
[Also attributed to S. Clay Wilson. Ed.]
Unfair animal names:
-- tsetse fly -- bullhead
-- booby -- duck-billed platypus
-- sapsucker -- Clarence
-- Gary Larson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:49:28 GMT
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:08:37 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Just look at all these comments....
>
>And there's nothing from anybody in this crowd which indicates why
>Microsoft
>will or should survive. No positive comments about Windows at all.
>
>IT's ALL NEGATIVE TOWARDS LINUX AND THEY ARE CALLING ME
>A TOTAL LIAR FOR SAYING SO...
Not a liar, just a total idiot.
Point 1. 200 million users? What hat did you pull that penguin from?
Point 2. Microsoft and Windows survives because it is, by far, the
best solution for the majority of the users out there.
Face it, Linux has had quite a lot of press in the last 2 years. Do
YOU see home users (the majority of the population) flocking to free
of charge Linux?
I don't.
It can't even be given away to any large degree. People try it and
dump it just as quickly. I can name dozens of folks who honestly
wanted to make it work and gave up due to lack of decent, not barely
functional, applications.
Now suppose Sony Beta gave away all of their VCR's back in the
1970's/1980's. What format do you think we would all be viewing right
now?
Your case as you call it, is devoid of any facts and is filled with
one eyed zealot ism to the 10th degree.
claire
>SOME OF THEM ARE SO DAMN GOOFIE THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT DRIVERS
>FOR WINDOWS 2000 INSTEAD OF THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT AS WE SPEAK....
>
>And I rest my case....
>
>Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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: 3 Oct 2000 00:49:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 1 Oct 2000 15:13:23 GMT, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>In many urban areas in the U.S., urban decay, crime, and the
:>middle-class flight syndrome (often mistakenly labeled "white flight")
: How mistaken is the label ? I was in Newark NJ for a while, and I remember
: walking along crowded streets where I was the only "white person" ( whatever
: that means ) in sight. Of course, it's also true that all the middle class
: African Americans who used to live there also seem to have packed their
: bags and moved to the suburbs.
That is precisely the difference. It isn't that white people don't
want to live in terrible areas, but, rather that NO ONE wants to live
in those areas. All but the very poorest leave.
For a variety of reasons, most of which are not their fault, Black and
Hispanic and other minority citizens are greatly overrepresented in
the ranks of the very poorest. Therefore, they are the ones who are
left behind. And when housing prices and rents become temporarily
depressed, and housing stocks are allowed to fall into disrepair, it
will be these same very poor folks who will be the first to move in.
Thus, the perception of neighborhoods "turning Black," although, in my
view, the predominant race of the inhabitants is more an effect of
urban decay, than its cause.
In lower middle-class areas there is the rather self-fulfilling belief
that once a neighbourhood *starts* to have a few more minority
residents that it used to, the neighbourhood is inevitably going to
decline, and therefore white residents tend to leave, as do minority
residents who can afford to. This of course is true, but it is only
true because people believe that it's true. (Just as Federal Reserve
Notes currently have value, even though they are not redeemable in
anything that has inherent value: they are worth something because
people *think* they're worth something.)
If people were more willing to live in peace with others who may not
look or live exactly like they do, then middle-class flight would not
be the problem that it is. Unfortunately, human nature is very hard
to change, and this is a "tragedy of the commons" type problem as the
relatively more enlightened attitudes of the non-racist few cannot
influence the outcome unless they are shared by all. If I believe my
neighbourhood will decline, and become a violent, crime-ridden
cesspool, I will leave if I can, so my family and I will be safe.
Even though I'm not consciously racist (and try hard not to be racist
at all). Of course, if I could convince my neighbours to stay and
welcome our new neighbors and work with them to keep our community
vibrant and strong, I would. But I can't. I'm just one person.
Joe
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:52:43 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can one easily script photoshop libraries to draw images into web
applications on the fly the way that one can do with the PerlMagick
extensions for ImageMagick? What equivalent is there to this on win32?
In any case, the gimp, a free program bundled with most linux systems
should not be compared to a $299 retail product like photoshop. But it
blows away micros~1 paint.
This is strictly a case of linux raising the bar on itself. People
assume that because apache, sendmail, the host of c and c++ libraries
and the various other packages that come bundled for free with linux are
better than commercial alternatives on micros~1 that all linux apps
should be better than all commercial apps available on win32. That's
not realistic.
If you want to compare apples to apples, compare linux apps to the
freely available apps bundled with win32:
gimp ms paint, Gimp by a mile
kde advanced text editor vs notepad & wordpad, huge edge for linux
apache vs personal web server, no contest
perl vs. perl hands down, perl for linux
gcc vs ???
gpp vs ???
sendmail vs ???
Moreover, there are dozens of commandline utilities with no real
counterpart on win32.
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ranth$hfumo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Okay, I think you're enough right in here, but that plug-ins could
> > easily
> > >be
> > >integrated inside GIMP with nothing more than recompiling, so again it
> has
> > >nothing to see with the program quality itself, hasn't it ?
> >
> >
> > Gimp already does support plugins - www.gimp.org has links to a huge range
> > of plugins.
>
> I would hardly call that list either Huge or much of a range. Seems like
> lots of them say "Dropped in favor of xxx" or "DO NOT DOWNLOAD".
>
> What's left are things like "Draws a grid on the image" or are file import
> filters (which I don't consider to be a plug-in at all).
>
> There are a few decent plug-ins of the calibre of most photoshop plug-ins,
> but nothing like Kai's power tools or any of the advanced stuff.
--
Pan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:56:35 -0000
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:36:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:02:41 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:49:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 20:05:21 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 19:54:47 GMT, Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 17:01:16 GMT, Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick
>>>>>
>>>>>SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think so. I'm not pro Microsoft at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. You're claiming that MS has the best desktop
>>>>>> and all the best apps. You can't get MUCH more pro
>>>>>> Microsoft than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it is foolish to advocate Linux based on false premises. That was
>>>>>the issue I was raising. As a desktop OS, W2K is superior for most users
>>>>>IMO. I didn't mention other systems, only W2K and Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Then what is behind that opinion besides vapor?
>>>
>>>How about applications?
>>>Got anything like MusicMatch Jukebox?
>>
>> You mean in terms of features or in it's apparent attempt
>> to seem like some sort of embedded device? Those sort of
>> features are quite adequately addressed by quite a few
>> Linux apps actuall.
>
>One, very good application, does it all and quite well. Linux has no
>alternative except to use 10 different, disjointed and non interacting
>applications. None of which works as well as even the most basic
>Windows equivilant application.
That doesn't seem to slow me down at all. How do they interfere
with you "getting things done" exactly? Are you incapable of
doing something in the abstract as opposed to having a virtual
console dedictated to it?
You have not proved your point in the least.
Besides, some of those "disjointed linux applications" are
the exact same as their windows counterpart.
[deletia]
What you describe is nice for an indrema sitting under your TV
set and for an end user that couldn't do those things otherwise.
Otherwise, it's just unecessary mangling of several separate
functions which you might want to do better or differently with
a less integrated tool.
--
There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking
about.
-- John von Neumann
The sixth sheik's sixth sheep's sick.
[so say said sentence sextuply...]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 01:01:05 -0000
On Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:49:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:08:37 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Just look at all these comments....
>>
>>And there's nothing from anybody in this crowd which indicates why
>>Microsoft
>>will or should survive. No positive comments about Windows at all.
>>
>>IT's ALL NEGATIVE TOWARDS LINUX AND THEY ARE CALLING ME
>>A TOTAL LIAR FOR SAYING SO...
>
>Not a liar, just a total idiot.
>
>Point 1. 200 million users? What hat did you pull that penguin from?
>Point 2. Microsoft and Windows survives because it is, by far, the
>best solution for the majority of the users out there.
...it being forced down everyone's throats for over 10
years certainly doesn't hurt either...
It's not as if alternatives have been present.
>
>Face it, Linux has had quite a lot of press in the last 2 years. Do
>YOU see home users (the majority of the population) flocking to free
>of charge Linux?
Home users use what Dell shoves at them. There's simply no
flocking involved. This is actually how it has always been.
Historically, only a small minority has ever installed thier
own OS or built their own machine.
>
>I don't.
>
>It can't even be given away to any large degree. People try it and
Yet it manages still to catch up with Microsoft in sales
in certain markets, and shelf space for Linux buyware is
GROWING rather than shrinking.
>dump it just as quickly. I can name dozens of folks who honestly
>wanted to make it work and gave up due to lack of decent, not barely
>functional, applications.
I'm still waiting for meaningful details regarding why, beyond
being excessive bundleware, your win32 indrema application is
any better at those functions it handles than any or all of the
Linux competitors.
[deletia]
--
Getting there is only half as far as getting there and back.
As long as the answer is right, who cares if the question is wrong?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:57:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> To substitute government intrusion for free speech and personal
> responsibility, which is why I don't like them. It isn't the personal
> responsibility of the accuser I'm interested in; its the personal
> responsibility of the people viewing the accusation which gets
> circumvented.
Frankly, I don't see how it does. Surely, I don't see how I lose some
responsibility when dealing with anonymous people just because they are
anonymous. The lack of responsibility would rather be on their part.
That is what should be tackled.
> I don't believe you have any grounds at all for assuming that "they
will
> probably think the accusation is true." You'd have to provide some
> evidence that someone's real 'good name' can actually be damaged by
some
> *anonymous* person on Usenet calling them a racist, an alcoholic, or a
> pedophile. I don't know of anyone with a good name that would be
> damaged by such obviously absurd accusations.
Well, actually, a good friend of mine was in a situation (outside
usenet) where someone made a false accusation that he was a racist. His
lawyer managed to sort this out and it had to be done quickly, because
in communities, well, people like gossips. Specially nasty gossips. And
then people will avoid to be associated with you, because, well, there
is a sort of suspicious black cloud over you.
I have witnessed people making their mind without spending the time
checking whether some accusations were true. "If he said it, it must be
true". I witness that often enough to take it seriously if I am on the
receiving end of it.
Isn't it your experience? (lucky you)
But anyway, in my friend's case, the accuser was not anonymous. But
that just illustrates how nasty such accusations can be. As far as the
anonymity is concerned in that matter, I don't like receiving stones
and not knowing where it comes from. As Jonathan Revusky said, I have
the right to face my accuser.
> The smaller the community, the less harm such absurd claims would be.
Now I think *you* don't have any ground for such an assertion. On the
contrary, it seems to me logical that the opposite is true. In a huge
community, less people will pay attention to what is said about you (I
am talking about common people like me, not the very few famous public
figures).
> I've had it occur on several occasions that someone tried to harass me
> for what I'd posted to Usenet. I don't usually post anonymously
(years
> ago, I did, for private reasons I feel entirely comfortable with) but
I
> can understand the argument of those who do that it is to avoid just
> such harassment that they use an alias or even bogus return address.
I
> don't agree with such arguments, as I've said, but I can see the
reason
> in them. However, I've never had a problem where harassment by an
> anonymous person caused me any great grief. I merely asked the person
> relating the accusation to consider the fact that the accuser remained
> anonymous, and review the context of the exchange, and they would be
> convinced that the source is not to be trusted on even trivial
facts. I
> feel comfortable doing this without great fear of a 'sinister' world
> screwing me over some day (or, at least, minimal belief that I could
> avoid it by changing my opinions or actions) by publishing that I'm a
> drug addict homosexual pedophile racist communist schizophrenic
Luddite.
>
So are you suggesting that I should put up with the false accusation,
simply because you are able to (thanks to some super human stoicism)?
> Well, like I said, I don't support posting anonymously to begin with.
> But I can't prevent it (you can always use a believable fake identity)
> so there's no reason to say it can't be tolerated. Believing bullshit
> is, however, something that can't be tolerated. It might seem
> idealistic, but that's reality. You are responsible for evaluating
what
> you hear and read: nobody else can judge whether something is true for
> you. If you can't pick up the clues that an accusation is false, and
> can't verify whether the accusation is true yourself, you've gotta ask
> yourself, when faced with an anonymous poster saying outrageous things
> about someone else, "Am I stupid enough to believe that?" And you're
> going to have to rely on all the other monkeys doing the same thing.
I don't see why we should rely on people to put up with the kind of
abuse we are talking about by expecting them to be rational and
thoughtful. It seems to me more pragmatic to sort out the problem by
attacking the source: the anonymous jerk.
Imagine if we had to train people to accept rats in their house, to
ignore them, no matter the amount of nuisance they cause...
As you say, it seems pretty much idealistic.
Incidently, you just used the term "monkeys" as a namecalling. Well,
this very term was used by Gary R Van Sickle (under the pseudonym JTK)
to make a bogus accusation of racism towards me. He then played the
race card, portraying himself as a victim (as an afro-american), to go
further in his sick game.
Well, I don't see why on earth I and other people would have to ignore
such outrageous behaviour. In fact, my set of moral beliefs rather
dictates me to do something about it. Not to do so would be morally
wrong.
It's not just for me. You don't mess up with the issue of racism. It is
a very serious thing and many people are victims of it.
Yann.
P.S. I have just noticed that this thread was cross-posted to several
ngs. I didn't follow all of it and just jumped in to make a certain
point. May be it would more appropriate if we talked about it in
private. Unless of course, this topic is relevant to ngs other than
c.l.j.a (which I strongly suspect actually).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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: 3 Oct 2000 01:13:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> I can't comment on the German constitution, but here in the US, the
:> constitution grants no rights, it merely affirms some that exist,
:> indpendant of the document.
: Hey, that's interesting. A new point of view to me. Does the document
: explicitly state that it's just affirming existing rights or is this a
: matter of interpretation?
: If a constitution simply states "People have the right to do X", it's
: up to the reader to decide whether this is just reproduction of facts
: or an act actually granting those rights.
: It's probably due to my European provenance and my utilitarian
: thinking that I always thought the second interpretation was common
: sense.
If a "government" can grant rights, it also can take rights away.
We in the U.S. abandoned that feudalistic belief three centuries ago,
but, sadly, are inching steadily back toward it.
Many other nations never abandoned it to begin with, and some,
including yours and also including ancient Rome, have valued culture
and civilization for centuries, but also have been willing, in times
of desperation, to elect a dictator who promised to "fix" things.
This is NOT a slam against your country - we have done similar things
here also, and only by sheer luck have we avoided the same fate (thus
far). It's just human nature. That's why the founders of our country
chose to limit, and divide, the power of what little of a central
government they did set up. It's also why they insisted that a free
people must remain armed. (Admittedly, what they had in mind was
closer to the Swiss model than to the present day, although they would
have recoiled in horror at the idea that a government that pretended
to have the power to restrict firearms ownership, or a populace that
would let it, could ever be called "free.")
None of this is a matter of speculation. The founders of our country
wrote voluminously, and their writings are readily available on the
Web. One good starting point to find much of this information is
http://www.constitution.org.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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: 3 Oct 2000 01:24:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Given this sort of hateful venom toward welfare recipients, I'm
: surprised that there have not been lots of firebombings of places where
: they live.
There are some unfortunately. :(
Around here they are usually racially motivated.
In Detroit, only about 200 miles away, some people just burn and bomb
the shit out of whatever they want to, "just because."
: Even if a lot of them *are* losers, I don't see how they are worth
: that kind of venom.
Most of the people on welfare are children. They do not deserve any
venom at all. But they do deserve the support of both parents. The
fact that one parent is often missing explains not only most of the
perceived need for public assistance, but also most of what's wrong
with it.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
