Linux-Advocacy Digest #361, Volume #33 Wed, 4 Apr 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Gunner �)
Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.) (Gunner �)
Re: Communism confession (Gunner �)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: I'm so happy! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Baseball ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:18:13 -0700
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:55:20 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Aaron> Freedom from Communism to go their own way.
>
>Unlike you, I do not play favorites among totalitarians.
>
>Unlike you, I think all totalitarians suck.
>
>But then, unlike you I do not wish to be a totalitarian.
>
>And of course, unlike you, I am not a cowardly lying
>forger.
But we can all agree, that arming the Afghanis to kick out the Russians
was a good idea, right?
1. Gave the Russians a black eye they never recovered from.
2. Prevented their expansion into Turkey etc
3. Caused the Russians to fight not only a technological war at home
(cold war) but a draining debilitating one on many fronts in Afghanistan
4. Gave pause to the Chinese against similar actions against those in
Asia
5. Demonstrated that as far as America was concerned, they would indeed
put their money where their mouth was in "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend"
6. Gave pause to the Iotolla and his other ilk..afterall we were
supporting a Fundamentalist cause.
A half dozen reasons why it dont make a whit of difference if Sir Ronald
Reagan called the Mohajadeen Freedom fighters or Muslim Rebels Against
the Soviet Oppressor. It worked and was popular with the American
peoples.
Gunner
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
------------------------------
From: Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Democratic Republics (Was: Communism, etc.)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:18:15 -0700
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:02:11 GMT, d'geezer@d'geezer.net wrote:
>On 3 Apr 2001 10:52:48 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) wrote:
>
>>On 3 Apr 2001 05:35:51 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 21:19:11 -0400, Scott Erb wrote:
>>>
>>>>You are free to think so. These are readings being used by thousands of
>>>>teachers across America every day, these are the readings that are
>>>>informing the minds of American citizens and tomorrow's leaders (and
>>>>today's leaders, most of these readings have been around awhile).
>>>>You're simply out of the loop.
>>>
>>>I don't suppose you've heard, but according to Kulkis, these "teachers" are
>>>part of a nationwide conspiracy on part of the NEA who are working with
>>>the KGB. (sarcasm alert) And the above observation PROVES it !!!
>>
>>Not the mention the fact they they're trying to rob us of all our precious
>>bodily fluids.
>
>And poison us with flouride, and kidnap us and transport us to a secret Galactic
>laboratory in Genymede for obscene medical experiments. I'll tell you by
>golly.............
>
>
>d'geezer
>
I suspect..several here are looking forwards to the anal probe... while
others..consider it business as usual.
gunner
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
------------------------------
From: Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism confession
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 15:18:17 -0700
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 19:49:57 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Aaron> Ever been in combat?
>
>I do not lie and forge to try and hide my mistakes, the way cowards
>like you do.
>
>
Answer the question. You made the charge. Now walk the walk.
Gunner
--
"Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals are
so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:20:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In misc.invest.stocks J.T. Wenting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> |> XP = eXPerimental
> |>
> | thought it meant ExPert?
>
> Naw...It means eXtra Profit...
X-ray (your) Possesions?
eXamine (your) Passport?
eXcoriate (your) Pudendum?
eXit (all) Programs?
Xerxes-like Profits?
Xenophobic Posturing?
eXcess Pee?
--
[ Do Not Make Illegal Copies of This Message ]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm so happy!
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 18:19:21 -0400
Mig wrote:
>
> Chad Everett wrote:
>
> > Then why the heck are you suggesting that the same thing can be done "in
> > Windows, too, if you install Cygwin 32" and stand on one foot while keep
> > one arm pointed south with one eye closed. Sheesh! How about something
> > simpler......don't run Windows!
>
> The fun part is that the stuff he mentions above actually work rather well
> on Windows. Latex (and even Lyx), Xemacs and Vim work well on Windows . Im
> pretty sure that you even can have man + manpages on Windows without too
> much hassle.
*CAN* and *DO* are not the same thing.
Please name ONE Windows user who has Windows man pages.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: 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
H: "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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 18:21:19 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 03:28:08 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Unfortunately, Roberto sees the world thru his paradigm from a
> >particular nationalist viewpoint.
>
> Erm... I am anything but nationalist :-)
> Let me say it loud: fuck nations.
What do you propose instead?
A world government?
If you want oppression and human-rights abuses...world government
is definitely the way to go....a world without borders is a world
without refuge from *the* dictator above all other dictators.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: 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
H: "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"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 10:24:56 +1200
If Microsoft ever had a rugby team, the current CEO (the guy balmer), who is
built like brick shit-house would be one of the props in the forward pack,
and Bill Gates would be the half back, a great excuse for the Linux Rugby
Team (their opposition) get back at him on the rugby field by using
"Stallman" (who is also built like a brike shit-house) as the Linux Rugby
Team's number 8 to crush Bill Gates if he tries any dodgy moves.
Matthew Gardiner
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 06:13:48 GMT
> <wYyy6.683$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9ae1tr$f9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Rugby is more than a sport, its a religion, LOL!
> >>
> >> New Zealanders love their sport. In fact, if you look at what happens
> >when
> >> the all blacks win, the economy picks up, however, when they loose the
> >> economy slows down, so maybe the US need a decent rugby, soccer and
> >cricket
> >> team to help fix up the sagging economy.
> >
> >Newly-unemployed dot-com workers forced to play rugby for a living would
> >make for entertaining television, that's for sure.
>
> Does the XFL count? :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OK, so it's still American football...
> EAC code #191 58d:20h:50m actually running Linux.
> >>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:24:08 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> Roberto truly believes that shit....
Then maybe you've finally found someone that will believe your bullshit
lies. Tread carefully Roberto has the potential to become your only friend
here.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 22:24:08 GMT
Said Beth in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:41:20 +0100;
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Beth scribed:
>> >T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >> Beth suggested:
>> [...]
>> Well, I know that, and you know that, but Aaron? He don't know that.
>
>Yes; But that doesn't negate what I say, does it? Just because he's ignorant
>of basic facts like this, doesn't proclude them from being true...
My point was that your presumption that Aaron is not blindly prejudiced
is, as he would say, a "false premise".
>My point was, as you yourself have confirmed in this post, that blind
>prejudice (yes, I've just noticed my terrible spelling error...hey! Spelling
>Troll! Where are you when I need you? lol ;) is the default - the norm - we
>all, to greater or lesser extents, work from some sort of blind prejudice
>towards something...
I would humbly disagree with you. Blind and ignorant, we create our
prejudices from whole cloth; they do not come automatically.
"Ignorance" fits your comments much better than "blind prejudice", which
must, I think, by its formulation (prejudice is by nature not seeing
[ignoring individual truth for a blanket truth]) be a rather studious
ignorance, like Aaron illustrates, rather than the simple "I need a
default value" kind of "pre-judging" that you describe.
>so, the notion of dismissing someone on those grounds
>would infer that everyone should dismiss everyone else in all cases without
>question...basically, if you hold with that notion and follow its character
>to the letter, then you end up doing the bully/ignore stuff that Aaron is
>doing...
One should NEVER 'dismiss' ignorance. One should ALWAYS 'dismiss'
purposeful ignorance.
>Maybe your cause is just and Aaron's not (or, to be fair, as I'm not the
>"Keeper of the Truth" or anything - so I can't insist that I'm correct, even
>if I believe so - thus, possibly vica versa...though, I pray that not the
>case :) but your strategies are very similar...identical, even...so,
>basically - even though I'd most probably side with you on this matter - by
>what right to you proclaim yourself to be "correct" and Aaron "wrong"?
You obviously just haven't been around long enough. I'll forgive you
that grievous insult, Beth, because you're new to the group.
>Do you see what I'm getting at? It is NOT sufficient merely to be "correct"
>in what you state...you must also be "correct" in how you say it...Aaron may
>(though, I stress, I certainly don't think so at all ;) be "correct" in his
>opinion of communists but does that automagically make it justifiable for
>him to murder people?
If one is not correct in "how you say it", one is not correct in "what
you state". Invert them, the case is still true, undeniably. It is not
necessarily logical, but no human could understand it and still deny it.
"The message is the medium," as they say.
IF Aaron's opinions on communists are correct then, yes, it
'automagically' makes it justifiable for him to murder people, because
whether you are aware of it or not, that is his opinion of communists:
it is justifiable to murder them. Along with any other person who
disagrees with him, should he gain the political will to enact such
measures, which he will collectively and individually refer to as
"communists" in order to make this point clear: to disagree with him is
to be wrong, and to be wrong sacrifices your rights, as far as he is
concerned.
>By such rationale, I could kill all the people in the world and this would -
>without doubt - eliminate all crime...but, surely, it is NOT justifiable to
>commit absolute genocide (surely, the greatest crime there is :) to
>eliminate crime...it's nonsensical...
Your false premise is again obvious: that Aaron's thinking is as
sensible as yours.
>Therefore, is it justifiable to become a fascist (of any sort at all) in
>order to eradicate fascists? Of course not, because you are NOT eliminating
>the problem in the slightest...you are just swapping one fascist for
>another...ironically, you will just be taking the place of your enemies...
Which is why it is so hilariously ironic when he starts screaming about
fascists. :-)
>The end does NOT justify the means...however noble and correct that end is,
>it MUST be achieved correctly...that is, the "means" are ends unto
>themselves...they are smaller "ends", so to speak...sub-divisions of the
>greater "end"...
The distinction between an end and a means is entirely metaphysical, I'm
afraid. That means it doesn't actually exist, whether you can consider
it mentally or not.
[...]
>> The very phrase "blind prejudice" means what you identify as its
>> results. If someone's beliefs are based on blind prejudice, they will
>> not tally with anyone's but those likewise holding blind prejudice.
>
>Correct; And have either of us lived in a communist regime? Are we not also
>speaking from "blind prejudice"?
Not at all. We may speak from ignorance, we may even be prejudiced.
But it is ONLY the fascist who speaks from "blind prejudice".
>And, even if we weren't on this particular score, then we are surely stating
>"preconceived opinion and bias" (that's the Oxford dictionary definition of
>the word...I looked it up :) at some occasion...we cannot know everything,
>thus, we cannot know that we're right...no matter how much evidence we could
>muster because that only makes it more likely, it does not make it fact
>until ALL the evidence - possible or impossible - is gathered...
Again, you miss the fact that we aren't discussing simply "prejudice".
>Basically, I'm trying to point out that whether you are right or you are
>wrong, you are still subject to all the same "laws" as Aaron is...having the
>"correct" opinion on something is NOT sufficient, you must strive for that
>ideal or whatever for you to be "correct"...owning the truth does not make
>you true...knowing what's right does not make you just...
That depends on your definition of "make" and "know". There is truth to
the presumption that any reasonable person who understands the concept
of "justice" is, unavoidably, "just". Sometimes more just and sometimes
less just, perhaps, but he will inevitably and unavoidably from that
moment of understanding forward be on the scale of "just".
>For that, you must do as you say...practice what you preach...you cannot
>oppress those who would oppress others, no matter how justified your cause
>may be...or you are no better than they...
Who? Me? For recognizing Aaron as a fascist? Who put the bee in your
bonnet, honey? ;-)
>It is possibly the hardest pill to swallow but you MUST turn the other cheek
>when someone strikes at you...this does NOT mean inaction, as people often
>mistake it to mean...the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jesus, Gandhi and others
>were far from inactive, yes? But they could not strike at their "enemies",
>how their enemies striked at them or they would be NO better than them...you
>may fly a flag of a different colour but that is NEVER sufficient to be
>"right" in itself...
Sorry, yes it is. We know it is because, despite the apparently
boundless constructs of philosophy, there IS a real physical world; it
is not a construct of our imaginations. Some flags are rational
colored, some flags are not. Some flags mark "here is a tautology" (a
fact", some flags mark "here is an opinion". I'm not making any
absolute declarations about which are which or where. I am saying that
you are being academically, not reasonably, skeptical concerning what is
"right". If this were not the case, the only thing that would make
Gandhi any better than those he "fought" would be that he won and they
lost.
>You must employ this or, by the same rationale that someone may use to
>dismiss their enemies, will just be applied straight on back at you...an eye
>for an eye just leaves everyone blind...
DDTT. Nothing I say, think, or do will prevent someone else from
rationalizing me as their enemy, should they wish to do so. To pretend
that this is not possible as long as I don't have any opinions about
what political philosophies are "right" is senseless.
>> Anyone else is, indeed, capable of contributing and may or may not be
>> correct, regardless of their viewpoint. At least we presume that in
>> Socratic ignorance; in real life, we know what we like, and so if we are
>> happy in our situation, we "believe in" the system which defines it. It
>> is not "blind prejudice" to love democracy, for an American, even if he
>> cannot elucidate the philosophical reasons he 'does', or 'should'.
>
>Yes; And an American cannot truely consider themselves American unless they
>respect the first amendment and allow anyone to speak their opinions,
>whatever those opinions may be...let me clarify; There is more than one
>definition of "American"...a person may consider themselves American by
>birth in that country...but, then, unlike other countries in the world - as
>was it's foundation - others born in other countries still are premitted the
>right to call themselves "American" (the huddled masses ;)...so what is the
>real definition here?
A citizen of the United States of America. It is an entirely
unambiguous and unchanging definition. The huddled masses are only
"allowed" to call themselves American when they become citizens.
>Simple; The American constitution (plus, flag/law/etc. :)...this was one of
>the main reasons for its conception...an "American" (in their hearts and
>minds...a =true= American :) is someone who pledges allegiance to the flag,
>the country and - most importantly - the foundation, the embodiment of that
>country - namely the American constitution...
There is a valid and ongoing debate about pledging allegiance to the
flag. And the Constitution is sewn with the seeds of its own demise, by
resting on the Declaration of Independence, which states that revolution
is always possible, and is sometimes a moral obligation.
>That constitution absolutely defends the right for anyone to state their
>opinion and to believe whatever they wish to believe...the freedom of speech
>and religion...
>
>Basically, anyone who does not also defend those rights is severely
>jepordising their status as an true "American"...by the very definition and
>spirit of the constitution itself...
So its unpatriotic to say "Shut up, you're talking gibberish!" Yet
still, sometimes its necessary, because gibberish is not intelligible
(quite like Aaron's philosophy) but still counts as "speech".
>Now, you may be saying "wait a minute! you're not an American"...quite
>right...wouldn't claim otherwise...but there is a reason those rights are
>present and defended in the American constitution because they are basic
>human rights...as supported - in different phrasiology - under the
>international human rights convention (which is still not fully
>respected...sometimes it's hard not to despair at mankind)...
Unfortunately, Locke's "basic human rights", which you very adequately
defend, are undoubtedly and inherently predicated on the assumption
there is a God. Not even the Founding Fathers necessarily agreed with
this, and it doesn't prevent Locke's human rights from being meaningful
just because you may be an atheist. But it is troubling, at least in
comparison to your rhetoric. Because if the things you value (free
speech, freedom of religion) are predicated on a principle you disagree
with (that God is the almighty ruler of the universe), then your
philosophy is flawed. A flawed philosophy cannot be considered the
equal of an unflawed philosophy; it would be "wrong".
[...]
>> >thus, your opinions may be of a more
>> >liberal nature than Aaron's but you employ the same bully/ignore tactics...I
>> >would definitely agree with your opinions more than Aaron, from what has
>> >been said, but I fail to see what separates your tactics from his...
>>
>> I think you meant 'strategy', rather than 'tactics', or perhaps
>> "position" versus opinions. His blind prejudice and my rational
>> evaluation do indeed correspond on some points. As I've said before,
>> that doesn't mean that his points are constructive, nor that my points
>> are not.
>
>And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make; Why is his opinion "blind
>prejudice" and your opinion "rational evalution"?
If I were to say "because it is", you would no doubt presume that this
is a teleological explanation (he is wrong because I say so), rather
than an empirical observation (because he is wrong and I am right, in
relationship to the discussion, our statements, and the logical
conclusions drawn from them and observation of the world in which the
conversation takes place). It is a true statement, in my opinion, not
teleologically, but empirically.
>I see two sides, yes...but
>they're on the same coin...Aaron could turn around and make exactly the same
>case for his arguments...that you speak out of "blind prejudice" brought
>about by swallowing whatever politically correct BS is about and that his
>opinion is "rational evalution" of
>the "real" situation...again, knowing "the truth" doesn't make you right...
You think this surprises us? Just how long have you been on Usenet,
Beth?
>I'm saying that _both_ of you are not being constructive because you are
>both plants with their roots firmly in the ground...nothing wrong with being
>strong and true to your opinions...but if you're too rigid then you're stem
>will just snap...yes, too flexible and your stem won't even stand up but
>there's the balance for you...
I'm saying your definition of "constructive" is needlessly arbitrary and
unintelligible, to boot.
[...]
>> You haven't been talking to Aaron long enough. He doesn't "think" I'm
>> wrong; he considers it a given, since I disagree with him.
>
>Well, I meant "thinks" as in that is his opinion (i.e. it is the thoughts in
>his head :)...the degree to which he holds that opinion I wasn't trying to
>hint at...
Nor I. It is not the degree to which he holds it which is at issue, but
merely the forms he uses to justify it. That is what constitutes
"thought" for Aaron, proving his blind prejudice to be right. The same,
obviously, can be said for me, you, or anybody. But I wouldn't put the
word in quotes for me or you.
>And, yes, I haven't been talking to Aaron long enough but I've seen this
>sort of "debate" a million times and it's always the same thing again and
>again...Aaron probably won't listen to you because it's all routine...do you
>know what a pantomime is? They always have a section in every pantomime
>where one character says: "Oh no it isn't" and the other character replies:
>"Oh yes it is" and they ping-pong these responses back and forth - adding
>emphasis each time...it's meant to be comedic but it bears too much
>resemblence to most "debate" in this world that I could never find it that
>funny...
In the US, the word "pantomime" means they don't speak at all, or
generally make any sound.
>> >no amount of "I'm right, you're
>> >wrong" will EVER change that...in fact, it will only make the situation
>> >worse because they feel you're forcing them to think as you do...no
>matter
>> >how liberal your opinions, to Aaron, you are being a facist and forcing
>your
>> >opinions on him...
>>
>> Its the other way around, Beth.
>
>lol...don't you see my point? It's symmetrical...yes, of course, it's the
>other way around...it's BOTH ways round...it's symmetrical...that's my whole
>point...and that's what everyone who employs bully/ignore tactics
>misses...such tactics can only work - only make sense - when you sit in a
>priviledged position - outside the fray - when it's non-symmetric...BUT this
>doesn't actually happen in reality because everyone automatically assumes
>they're right and assumes that this means they are "better" than the other
>person...hence non-symmetric...the basic problem here is that no-one is
>"better" in these cases and it _is_ a symmetrical thing...
No, it is not symmetrical; it *appears* symmetrical. It could only be
symmetrical if there weren't actually a physical world which is 'true',
while all imaginary worlds are, non-symmetrically, 'false'. You are
belaboring a trivially obvious point: that it is not possible within
such a discussion to prove which is true and which is false, a priori.
But you are using it, I think, to mask (even from yourself) a far less
trivial point: there is true and false, a priori.
[...]
>Maybe "better a fascist than a Kulkis" (not a very nice thing to say,
>though, is it? Odd how your compassion runs out all of a sudden, once
>someone disagrees with you, eh?
All at once? Once someone disagrees with me? No, it leaks out little
by little, starting when I was born, and ending when I die. Your
attempts to belittle me are getting rather annoying. Believe me, I've
been over all this with lots of people, and you've not brought up a
single original or surprising (or even extremely interesting) point yet,
Beth.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
