Linux-Advocacy Digest #368, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure (Charles Lyttle)
Re: XP = eXPerimental ("2 + 2")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Communism (Mathew)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (Mathew)
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Communism ("Roger Perkins")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Roger Perkins")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("JS PL")
Re: Communism ("Kish")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 03:58:32 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> <sigh> Do you guys ever think for youself?
>
> Do you think that any such terms would ever stand up in court?
> Of course not.
>
> Just because it's in a license agreement does not mean it's instantly
> law.
>
Well, this was the only messages of Chad Myers, not to speak of Conrad
and Jan (or is it Jon). Only one of that ilk still fending for MS is
JS PL.
But this posting is fitting Chaddy boy.
Intellectual just right for someone working as a crashtest dummy (an
occupation he has in common with Aaron, only Aaron works for GM)
Peter
--
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:15:20 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> How else do you explain a quick, nimble fighter jet colliding with
> a slow, lumbering patrol plane in clear weather.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>>SNIP<<
The patrol plane cheated. It had 4 engines with propellers. Mao proved
that such a thing couldn't fly.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:19:05 -0400
Nik Simpson wrote in message ...
>
>"J.T. Wenting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9ad0qd$o6q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > XP = eXPerimental
>> >
>> thought it meant ExPert? Experimental systems are of course usually
>handled
>> by experts, which might be the origin of people thinking XP means
>> experimental...
>>
>> > It integrates the NT kernal.
>> >
>> Nope, the Win2K kernel, which is a complete rewrite.
>>
>> > But it also integrates a part of .NET.
>> >
>> Yah, why else create a technology if you're not going to use it?
>>
>> > At least in the hardware abstraction layer, they are starting with a
JIT
>> > compiler, instead of a pure emulated VM.
>> >
>> Not JIT, of course. JIT is platform dependent in that it works only for
>Java
>> applications, where .NET will be language independent...
>
>And even if such technology were included it would not be in the HAL, a
>claim that it is in the HAL indicates either the person doesn't know what
>they are talking about or is deliberately trolling, or both.
"Another benefit of MSIL is that it provides a hardware abstraction layer.
While the initial release of the common language runtime is planned to run
only on 32-bit Windows platforms, developing an application using managed
MSIL allows the application to be more independent of the underlying
operating system. For example, MSIL will help make code portable to 64-bit
versions of Windows when the common language runtime is available on that
platform." See "Microsoft .NET Framework Delivers the Platform for an
Integrated, Service- Oriented Web" by Jeffrey Ricter (probably the best at
elucidating on .NET) at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/Framework/Framework.asp.
More: "The consensus is that it would be much more efficient to have the
common language runtime compile the MSIL instructions as functions are being
called. When the common language runtime loads a class type, it connects
stub code to each method. When a method is called, the stub code directs
program execution to the component of the common language runtime engine
that is responsible for compiling the method's MSIL into native code. Since
the MSIL is being compiled just-in-time (JIT), this component of the runtime
is frequently referred to as a JIT compiler or JITter. Once the JIT compiler
has compiled the MSIL, the method's stub is replaced with the address of the
compiled code. Whenever this method is called in the future, the native code
will just execute and the JIT compiler will not have to be involved in the
process."
BTW, JIT = Just in Time in my post. JITers are Just In Time compilers for
.NET, coming in your standard and economy (for devices) sizes. These are
equivalent in general function to VMs.
Since Windows consists of more than one OS, and devices must be targeted,
obviously a hardware abstraction layer ensures the necessary portibility.
Now you get a chance to elaborate on the .NET JITer layer and the Intel's
McKinley chip which is said to have an advantage over RISC chip instruction
sets in that the IA-64 makes writing compilers easier.
The interesting thing is about this layer is its "componentization" in that
its interface to the CLR framework must be stable, but extendible and
evolvable, and the execution engine's JITers must interface with the chip's
instruction set so that this layer can specialize and improve without
wrecking havoc on the framework as it reponds to challenges like non-loosely
coupled systems do.
No doubt, the immense effort that Intel is putting into its next generation
chip caters to Windows/.NET as its assured market with Linux adding much
more clout if the performance is there.
2 + 2
>
>--
>Nik Simpson
>
>
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:14:36 +0200
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> But they seem to retain the clause about being able to change terms at
>> any time. So, if you are a business, you have to have a lawyer check
>> the terms every few minutes and before sending any mail.
>
> And this is different from every other licensing agreement how?
>
As I�ve already said, intellectual befitting a crashtest dummy
Peter
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:21:35 -0700
No, Max, it's because he's just a punk. Killfile him and move on. He isn't
worth your brain cells.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 04 Apr 2001
> >Roger Perkins wrote:
> >>
> >> Rogerto, most people don't even know what the International is, much
less
> > ^^^^^^^
> >
> >You're losing it, Roger...REALLY REALLY fucking losing it.
>
> If you have to shout, Aaron, it must be because you're lying.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:19:58 +1000
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Gunner =A9 wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2001 13:14:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) wrote:
>=20
> >>> >Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
> >>> > [...]
> >>> >>If someone attempts to enter your country, unanounced, without maki=
ng
> >>> >>proper contact with the appropriate authorities (customs officials,
> >>> >>border patrol, air traffic control), then they are a legitimate tar=
get
> >>> >>for those personnel charged with the DUTY of defending the border.
> >>>=20
> >>> Ok, then you support the right of the Cuban government to shoot down
> >>> Cessnas.
> >
> >Note: no response from Aaron. Perhaps he agrees with Castro?
>=20
> Hummm sounds like a argument for the gunning down of a huge portion of
> Californias latino population as well....
You would love that wouldn't you.
Gong Dinky Dao.
>=20
> gunner
>=20
> --
> "Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
> clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals a=
re
> so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:07:43 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v7Ry6.28253$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Everett wrote:
> > >
> > > Microsoft is doing the old shuffle and lie...but signs are they are
> > > starting to sweat:
> > >
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
> > >
> > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:10:39 GMT, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Oh... ...my... ...god.
> > >>SNIP for bandwidth<<
> > But they seem to retain the clause about being able to change terms at
> > any time. So, if you are a business, you have to have a lawyer check the
> > terms every few minutes and before sending any mail.
>
> And this is different from every other licensing agreement how?
In fact, looky at what we have here...
http://www.redhat.com/network/service/terms.html
"12. MISCELLANEOUS
This Agreement, the Privacy Policy, and Red Hat's other user policies
posted on Red Hat's Web site constitute the entire agreement between
a User and Red Hat with respect to your use of the Services. Red Hat
may revise, amend, or modify this Agreement and any other user policies
and agreements, at any time and in any manner. Notice of any revision,
amendment, or modification will be posted on Red Hat's Web site
(http://www.redhat.com) and/or on User's start pages and/or by email
and/or in our various publications and mailings to Users."
Basically, they can change the entire terms of the agreement and merely
update that web page and that's all they're obligated to do.
I guess you better have you lawyer check that site every night.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:23:06 +0000
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
In article <v7Ry6.28253$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Everett wrote:
>> >
>> > Microsoft is doing the old shuffle and lie...but signs are they are
>> > starting to sweat:
>> >
>> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
>> >
>> > On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:10:39 GMT, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > >Oh... ...my... ...god.
>> >>SNIP for bandwidth<<
>> But they seem to retain the clause about being able to change terms at
>> any time. So, if you are a business, you have to have a lawyer check
>> the terms every few minutes and before sending any mail.
>
> And this is different from every other licensing agreement how?
It's different because they had the nerve to demand everything but your
first born in the previous agreement. Now they just say it could change
at any time - perhaps to the previous version. This has got to be one
the worst PR blunders of all time. Who is going to trust MS with all
their data now? Of course, who would have been crazy enough to trust
them before?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:24:49 -0700
No, it's not. There is not requirement for a government to mimic the US in
order for us to support it. It only needs to be in the national interest.
Conduct between states is not the same as conduct between individuals, which
any student of international relations will tell you. And the US has the
right to do whatever it needs to in order to secure our national interests.
Sorry if that offends you, but it is the way it works and is supported by
international law.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Roger Perkins in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 21:33:25
> >Supporting someone who supports us is different than believing in what
they
> >do. Pinchet was a dictator but he was our dictator at the time. And
times
> >change.
>
> I'm afraid this is nothing but a pathetic justification for unethical
> (and potentially illegal, given the constraints placed on government
> action which intrudes no human rights by the people of the United
> States) conduct by the government. Saying "times change and now we
> wouldn't do that because we now understand it to be wrong" is valid.
> Saying "because we can choose at any time whether he is 'our' dictator
> or not (and ignoring the immorality of that statement itself) it is
> 'supporting but not believing in' is just horse-hockey. The United
> States Government NEVER has ANY right to support a dictator, let alone
> one so unethical as Pinochet. That doesn't change with time, though
> whether or not that rule is broken might.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 13:24:32 +1000
On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Gunner =A9 wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 17:55:20 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>=20
> >
> > 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.
>=20
>=20
> But we can all agree, that arming the Afghanis to kick out the Russians
> was a good idea, right?
>=20
> 1. Gave the Russians a black eye they never recovered from.
> 2. Prevented their expansion into Turkey etc
=20
Turkey? Hehehehe You are a couple of thousand miles off;go look at a map.
> 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
Not really.Look at Tibet.
> 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"
We rejected their ask for help in 91.
> 6. Gave pause to the Iotolla and his other ilk..afterall we were
> supporting a Fundamentalist cause.
>=20
> 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.
Yeah and look at the place now,after we abanded them.
> Gunner
>=20
> --
> "Confronting Liberals with the facts of reality is very much akin to
> clubbing baby seals. It gets boring after a while, but because Liberals a=
re
> so stupid it is easy work." Steven M. Barry
>=20
>=20
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:26:40 -0700
Well then, it seems your opinion is more emotional and immature in regards
to how the real world works than it is based in intelligent thought. I
applaud your morals, but I'll stick with my cynicism. A quote:
We sleep safe in our beds an night because rough me stand ready to visit
violence on those who would do us harm. Orwell. And I am not sure if it's
correct, but it is right.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto, all soldiers are willing to kill at their governments command.
> >It's what we do - not aaron, of course, but real soldiers. I realize you
> >are jerking him around but thought I'd put this in.
>
> And indeed I consider all soldiers fighting a war their country starts
> to be assassins, in many ways.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chinese airforce adopted Win2k infrastructure
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 04:26:10 +0200
Charles Lyttle wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> How else do you explain a quick, nimble fighter jet colliding with
>> a slow, lumbering patrol plane in clear weather.
>>
>> --
>> Aaron R. Kulkis
>> Unix Systems Engineer
>> DNRC Minister of all I survey
>> ICQ # 3056642
>>
>>>SNIP<<
> The patrol plane cheated. It had 4 engines with propellers. Mao proved
> that such a thing couldn't fly.
>
No, not really.
The Chinese plane used Aaron�s self written multiuser/multitasking system
Peter
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:31:06 -0700
(sigh) I have to explain everything!
Assassin - one who murders a politically important person either for hire or
from fanatical motives
Murderer - one who commits the crime of unlawfully killing a person
especially with malice aforethought
A soldier kills legally the enemy of his country for the purpose of
accomplishing political goals that, in the US, are designated by a civilian
authority.
Don't let you immature emotions get in the way of accuracy. Soldiers are
killers for a political purpose; not assassins or murderers.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Apr 2001 20:20:51
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: Roger Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >:>Roberto, all soldiers are willing to kill at their governments command.
> >:>It's what we do - not aaron, of course, but real soldiers. I realize
you
> >:>are jerking him around but thought I'd put this in.
> >
> >: And indeed I consider all soldiers fighting a war their country starts
> >: to be assassins, in many ways.
> >
> >Perhaps, if it was their informed choice.
> >
> >More often than not, it wasn't.
>
> I can't buy that at all. It allows for purposeful ignorance. If it was
> their informed choice, then they chose to be assassins; lack of such
> information only prevents them from knowing they are assassins, it does
> not prevent them from being assassins. Which is the greater moral
> conundrum for the soldier is a private choice.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 21:34:20 -0700
"Except when you feel it's right" isn't in the Bible. The correct quote is
"tho shalt not commit murder". And are you saying you wouldn't move to the
defense of a friend who was attacked? That makes you pretty spineless and
self-centered, if you ask me.
Rogerto you show a good intelligence. Put that intelligence to work looking
up how statesmanship and international relations works then come back and
lets discuss this. If you can't do that with an open mind, don't do it at
all. And I think you can.
Roger
AIRBORNE!
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:02:02 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:21:51 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 14:04:38 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 13:05:05 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 01 Apr 2001 01:14:16 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >Roger Perkins wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> Don't confuse the little dweeb. He wants to set up a
dictatorship in this
> >> >> >> >> >> country along with Hdlskdjfloser. He sees
"anti-government" as
> >> >> >> >> >> "anti-whateverI want".
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >If I'm so "anti-government", porker, then why am I *IN* the
government.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> You seem to enjoy taking trips paid by taxpayers to foreign
countries
> >> >> >> >> where you can use shiny toys to kill people.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >That's not my decision...see: CONGRESS.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Are you having drafts these days? I thought the US had a
volunteer
> >> >> >> army.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yes. I volounteered to uphold my DUTY, as an American citizen, to
> >> >> >protect the Constitution of the United States. I held up my right
hand
> >> >> >and swore an oath to do exactly that.
> >> >>
> >> >> If it's a duty, it's not volunteer.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. It's a MORAL duty, as opposed to a legal obligation.
> >>
> >> So, it's not a real duty. I find there is a stronger moral duty not to
kill
> >> other people.
> >
> >No, there is a strong moral duty not to MURDER people.
>
> No, I have a moral duty not to kill, period. If you are a christian, it's
> a commandment. Not "Thou shalt not kill except when you feel it's right".
> I am not a christian, but I agree to that.
>
> >Killing people who are part of invading mob is not murder, it's defense
> >of life....it's fighting against bullies.
>
> When did the Iraqi army invade you?
> When did the Panam� POLICE (no army there) invade anyone?
> When did Grenada invade anything and with what?
> When had Cuba invaded the US?
> When had Chile invaded anyone? (Ok, they kinda/slightly invaded us in 78,
> but that was after the US pushed the goon to power).
>
> >> >> didn't volunteer to kill everyone the generals deem unworthy of
living
> >> >> is a traitor?
> >> >
> >> >I like Heinlein's idea that only those who give service to their
> >> >country should be allowed the full rights of citizenship.
> >> >
> >> >it would limit the political power of the parasites.
> >>
> >> It would make being a bully a requirement. Well, you surely would
> >
> >Non sequitor. How does service = being a bully.
>
> People who choose a way of life where their better weaponry makes
> them feel superior == bullies.
>
> > Are you saying
> >that medics are bullies...that finance clerks are bullies....
>
> Some are. Thos often end as army doctors and clerks.
>
> >You should try dropping the 18th century stereotypes and deal with
> >the real world of today.
>
> Dear, I have lived more than you can ever dream of. And without
> feeling a need to kill anyone.
>
> >> >> >Exactly *HOW* and *WHERE* it is done is not my decision to
make....I
> >> >> >merely make the decision to be part of the solution rather than
part
> >> >> >of the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are the problem. Or rather, mindless drones willing to kill
without
> >> >> remorse or thought are the problem.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, there are all sorts of rules and limits placed on soldiers.
> >> >Geneva Convention, Theater Commander's and local commander's rules
> >> >of engagement, international law, etc.
> >>
> >> Blah. Your commander says "kill him", you go kill him. That's not
> >> thinking.
> >
> >Any soldier who obeys any and all such orders without first testing it
> >against the considerations which I listed above (Geneva Convention,
> >etc.) is going to find himself in the prison at Fort Leavenworth.
>
> Yeah, sure. Listen, who went to jail for that cruise missile that hit
> a bomb shelter killing 50 kids and women in Iraq?
>
> >> >> You are just pretending to be
the
> >> >> problem.
> >> >
> >> >The power to declare war is SOLELY in the hands of Congress.
> >>
> >> And you are eager to follow them wherever they decide to send you.
> >
> >No, I am not.
>
> So you say.
>
> >> You are a mindless executioner of the politicians you despise.
> >
> >Name all of the politicians which I have killed...
>
> Non sequitur, and indication of inminent kulkis brain dump.
>
> >> You are a waste of a human.
> >
> >sure.
>
> Glad you agree.
>
> >> A pity. If you had not been so thoroughly brainwashed, you could
> >> have been a person.
> >
> >You have failed to name even one person whom I have wrongfully killed.
>
> You are willing to kill, and you believe that's good. That's enough to
> make you a brainwashed waste.
>
> >> >Congress is elected according to the laws of the US Constitution.
> >> >
> >> >If you don't like a war that we get into...then the source of the
> >> >problem, ultimately, is your neighbors.
> >>
> >> Sure. I seem to have missed the border between the US and Colombia,
> >> though. And between the US and Grenada. And panama. And Chile.
> >
> >I trust the procedures set forth in the Constitution for making such
> >decisions. Why would I take an oath to defend it if I felt that the
> >procedure was wrong.
>
> Well, perhaps you can explain me why the army has troops in Colombia,
> then.
>
> >There's a word for military personell who refuse to obey Congress's
> >decision to go to war: DESERTER.
>
> Well, my point is that noone should be military personell in the
> first place, because it's a bad thing to do.
>
> >> Not too close, those neighbours. And of course, the US NEVER
> >> would start a war because it fits the US, right? The US was just
> >> defending themselves. EVERY TIME. Yeah, right.
> >
> >It's better to fight a war BEFORE it gets to your own borders.
>
> So, it's better to be the agressor. Perhaps you feel the US needs
> more "vital space"?
>
> The sole idea of a preemptive agression "because he would have
> attacked me eventually" is stupid. If you gonna start a war,
> do it honourably and call it a war, and say you started it.
>
> What you say, instead, is a cowardly copout.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:42:53 -0400
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
>
> >> That's a complete lie. The main beefs are Microsoft's predatory
> >> business practices, their attempts to destroy competitors through
> >> illegal business practices, their draconian licensing, their blatant
> >> attempts to charge for every bit that goes in and out of your
> >> communication and computing devices, their downright theft of
> >> code that they hide by closing their source, and their crappy
> >> software.
> >
> >And the fact remains. Microsoft has money, I don't. Waaaaaa!!! mommy,
> >waaaahhhhh! Billy's gonna take all my stuff if I use his free mail
service
> >waaaaaaa!!!
>
> You're just a retarded little child, aren't you?
Yeah, if you idiots could only stand back and see how fucking rediculous you
look to someone NOT deathly afraid and jealous of MS.
------------------------------
From: "Kish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 20:41:38 -0700
"Roger Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:iCRy6.265$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A quote:
>
> We sleep safe in our beds an night because rough me stand ready to visit
> violence on those who would do us harm. Orwell.
<<And I am not sure if it's correct, but it is right.>>
Huh?
--
--Kish
ICQ# 28085879
AIM Kish K M
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
