Linux-Advocacy Digest #421, Volume #33 Fri, 6 Apr 01 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: XP = eXPerimental ("The Michael")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (Del Cecchi)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor (Randall Parker)
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("billh")
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it) ("Kelsey
Bjarnason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:18:49 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Depositing a somebody else's check to me, which later bounced,
> > > causing MY bank balance to be off is a character flaw.
> >
> > This is one of those extremely rare moments when you are correct. 100%
spot
> > on. It is quite refreshing to see you make such a definitive and honest
> > statement of fact. You should try to do this more often.
>
> you are insane.
You made the statement that you had a character flaw. See above. Facing
the ugly truth hurts, huh?
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:23:52 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >> >> Well, the Catholics say that its "thou shalt not kill". The "commit
> >> >> murder" phrasing is *definitely* revisionist.
> >> >
> >> >"*Definitely* revisionist", huh? LOL!!!
> >> >
> >> >Do you know what it is in the original hebrew in which it was written.
> >Is
> >> >it "kill" or is it "murder"? It is "murder".
> >> >
> >> >The hebrew is "xcr" ( phoneticlly raw-tsakh) which means to "murder",
> >> >"slay", "assassinate".
> >>
> >> Slay: To put to death with a weapon, or by violence; hence, to
> >> kill; to put an end to; to destroy.
> >>
> >> Kill intentionally and with premeditation
> >>
> >> Murder: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being
> >>
> >> Notice how murder actually means "to kill unlawfully", but slay doesn't
> >> imply unlawfullness. As far as I can see, by providing those two
synonims
> >> you cleared nothing, since they mean both things.
> >
> >Get a good concordance and a Hebrew/Aramaic dictionary. The English
> >translation of Exodus 20:13 from the earliest text is "You shall not
> >murder". If you honestly want to know the truth it is easily researched
and
> >found.
>
> Well, I don't really give a damn about the bible, to be honest.
> It was just an example. You seem to do.
You used it as an example to bolster your argument. Do you still stand on
that argument.
> How do you feel about that "the other cheek" business?
Nation's do not have cheeks. Read the text (not just the single verse), and
you can decide whether it supports your argument or not. You can then tell
us how you feel about "the other cheek business".
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:25:58 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >Good for you. And there are the rest of us who will protect you and your
> >kind (not meant unkindly). It's what soldiers do.
>
> If you are in the US army, I am 100 times more likely to be killed
> by you, or by one of your comrades, or by someone trained by
> your comrades to kill people like me, than I am to ever be
> protected by any of your kind.
Do you have a cite or two to support this, or is this simply what you think.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:29:28 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about the
bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic" point
of view or use "catholicspeak"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 19:32:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> >> Well, the Catholics say that its "thou shalt not kill". The "commit
>> >> >> murder" phrasing is *definitely* revisionist.
>> >> >
>> >> >"*Definitely* revisionist", huh? LOL!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Do you know what it is in the original hebrew in which it was written.
>> >Is
>> >> >it "kill" or is it "murder"? It is "murder".
>> >> >
>> >> >The hebrew is "xcr" ( phoneticlly raw-tsakh) which means to "murder",
>> >> >"slay", "assassinate".
>> >>
>> >> Slay: To put to death with a weapon, or by violence; hence, to
>> >> kill; to put an end to; to destroy.
>> >>
>> >> Kill intentionally and with premeditation
>> >>
>> >> Murder: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being
>> >>
>> >> Notice how murder actually means "to kill unlawfully", but slay doesn't
>> >> imply unlawfullness. As far as I can see, by providing those two
>synonims
>> >> you cleared nothing, since they mean both things.
>> >
>> >Get a good concordance and a Hebrew/Aramaic dictionary. The English
>> >translation of Exodus 20:13 from the earliest text is "You shall not
>> >murder". If you honestly want to know the truth it is easily researched
>and
>> >found.
>>
>> Well, I don't really give a damn about the bible, to be honest.
>> It was just an example. You seem to do.
>
>You used it as an example to bolster your argument. Do you still stand on
>that argument.
Of course. The bible was just used as an example to push christians
to my side. My position is independent from the bible.
>> How do you feel about that "the other cheek" business?
>
>Nation's do not have cheeks.
And you are not a nation.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:36:00 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> So don't use Hitler as an example of declaring a fair war, because it
wasn't.
Just how old are you? This is naivet� at its best.
War, even according to the law of land warfare, isn't fair. A nation should
do everything possible within the limits of international law to ensure that
all odds are in its favor and that it has the surest possibility of victory.
A nation should dominate its enemy, utterly destroy its enemy's forces and
completely destroy its enemy's will to fight. Nothing fair about it if
executed properly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 19:41:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
>
>Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about the
>bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic" point
>of view
I don't speak from a catholic point of view, I speak from my point of view.
In this particular case, it's close to there.
> or use "catholicspeak"?
Well, I am not english, yet you don't see me posting in french.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "The Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: 06 Apr 2001 19:47:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message ...
>:> Naw...It means eXtra Profit...
>eXtra Pathetic
X-rated Porn?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 19:50:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >Good for you. And there are the rest of us who will protect you and your
>> >kind (not meant unkindly). It's what soldiers do.
>>
>> If you are in the US army, I am 100 times more likely to be killed
>> by you, or by one of your comrades, or by someone trained by
>> your comrades to kill people like me, than I am to ever be
>> protected by any of your kind.
>
>Do you have a cite or two to support this, or is this simply what you think.
Sure. In my life, over 30K civilians were killed by officers of an army
leaded by alumni of the "School of the Americas".
I can't think of a single person who was "protected" by a US soldier
here, other than the US ambassador.
You do the math.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 6 Apr 2001 19:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> So don't use Hitler as an example of declaring a fair war, because it
>wasn't.
>
>Just how old are you?
Well, according to Usenet population stats, probably older than you.
> This is naivet� at its best.
[snip crap about how nice it is to kill people]
I was using "fair war" in a very specific sense. You missed it.
Perhaps you need an explanation?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:58:03 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> > This is naivet� at its best.
>
> [snip crap about how nice it is to kill people]
>
> I was using "fair war" in a very specific sense.
Name a "fair war".
You missed it.
> Perhaps you need an explanation?
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:01:49 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> Of course. The bible was just used as an example to push christians
> to my side. My position is independent from the bible.
Then you shouldn't use the Bible in an attempt to strengthen your argument.
>
> >> How do you feel about that "the other cheek" business?
> >
> >Nation's do not have cheeks.
>
> And you are not a nation.
Armies are a nation's forces of arms acting on behalf of their nations.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:02:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> > This is naivet� at its best.
>>
>> [snip crap about how nice it is to kill people]
>>
>> I was using "fair war" in a very specific sense.
>
>Name a "fair war".
Who said they exist? Surely not me!
--
Roberto Alsina (who can conceive of a fair war in theory,
but can't remember any)
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:03:30 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> Sure. In my life, over 30K civilians were killed by officers of an army
> leaded by alumni of the "School of the Americas".
By definition, alumi of the School of the Americas are not US citizens. Try
again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Del Cecchi)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 6 Apr 2001 19:52:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Now that's news to me. Who does manufacture them? Can you point me to
|> a reference?
|>
You're kidding, right? Samsung and reportedly soon IBM. Search a little and ye
shall find.
Can't believe I am responding on this crossposted thing.
--
Del Cecchi
cecchi@rchland
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:06:16 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >> That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
> >
> >Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about
the
> >bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic"
point
> >of view
>
> I don't speak from a catholic point of view, I speak from my point of
view.
> In this particular case, it's close to there.
>
> > or use "catholicspeak"?
>
> Well, I am not english, yet you don't see me posting in french.
So you don't care for the Bible but use it in an attempt to strengthen your
argument. When it is pointed out that your use of the Bible actually
doesn't support you argument at all then you simply state your case is
independent of the Bible. Sure. Makes perfect sense. NOT.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:05:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> Of course. The bible was just used as an example to push christians
>> to my side. My position is independent from the bible.
>
>Then you shouldn't use the Bible in an attempt to strengthen your argument.
Why not? If someone's opinion is swayed by the words of Yogi Berra,
I will quote Yogi Berra until I turn blue, if Yogi supports my position.
>> >> How do you feel about that "the other cheek" business?
>> >
>> >Nation's do not have cheeks.
>>
>> And you are not a nation.
>
>Armies are a nation's forces of arms acting on behalf of their nations.
Well, you are not an army, either. Even when you are IN the army,
you are a person.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:07:59 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> Sure. In my life, over 30K civilians were killed by officers of an army
>> leaded by alumni of the "School of the Americas".
>
>By definition, alumi of the School of the Americas are not US citizens. Try
>again.
By definition, you seem to have forgotten what the heck you are
replying to. I didn't say "killed by an US citizen". I said
"killed by (a number of things)" specifically designed to include
alumni of the School of the Americas.
Perhaps someone shot you in the head and you lost your short term
memory?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:09:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> That would be a sin of omission in catholicspeak.
>> >
>> >Since you said in another post, "Well, I don't really give a damn about
>the
>> >bible, to be honest", why do you conitue to speak from the "catholic"
>point
>> >of view
>>
>> I don't speak from a catholic point of view, I speak from my point of
>view.
>> In this particular case, it's close to there.
>>
>> > or use "catholicspeak"?
>>
>> Well, I am not english, yet you don't see me posting in french.
>
>So you don't care for the Bible but use it in an attempt to strengthen your
>argument.
Indeed. The arguments used to convince someone are the arguments that
convince HIM, not the arguments that convince ME.
> When it is pointed out that your use of the Bible actually
>doesn't support you argument at all then you simply state your case is
>independent of the Bible. Sure. Makes perfect sense. NOT.
I stated my POSITION is independent of the Bible. NOT the same.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:18:49 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >> Of course. The bible was just used as an example to push christians
> >> to my side. My position is independent from the bible.
> >
> >Then you shouldn't use the Bible in an attempt to strengthen your
argument.
>
> Why not? If someone's opinion is swayed by the words of Yogi Berra,
> I will quote Yogi Berra until I turn blue, if Yogi supports my position.
But your attept to use the Bible was in vain as it does not support your
position.
> >> >> How do you feel about that "the other cheek" business?
> >> >
> >> >Nation's do not have cheeks.
> >>
> >> And you are not a nation.
> >
> >Armies are a nation's forces of arms acting on behalf of their nations.
>
> Well, you are not an army, either. Even when you are IN the army,
> you are a person.
And if I kill as a soldier in an army I'm guiltless. as it is neither
morally or legally wrong to kill as a soldier in war. The only support
you've used to say otherwise was the sixth commandment from Exodus 20:13.
Your use of scripture as been proven to be in error.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> Of course. The bible was just used as an example to push christians
>> >> to my side. My position is independent from the bible.
>> >
>> >Then you shouldn't use the Bible in an attempt to strengthen your
>argument.
>>
>> Why not? If someone's opinion is swayed by the words of Yogi Berra,
>> I will quote Yogi Berra until I turn blue, if Yogi supports my position.
>
>But your attept to use the Bible was in vain as it does not support your
>position.
Actually, I think that's not 100% so. It seems that the "murder/kill"
thing is debatable. In any case, no harm done.
>> >> >> How do you feel about that "the other cheek" business?
>> >> >
>> >> >Nation's do not have cheeks.
>> >>
>> >> And you are not a nation.
>> >
>> >Armies are a nation's forces of arms acting on behalf of their nations.
>>
>> Well, you are not an army, either. Even when you are IN the army,
>> you are a person.
>
>And if I kill as a soldier in an army I'm guiltless.
So you say. If it lets you sleep at night, good for you.
> as it is neither morally or legally wrong to kill as a soldier in war.
Really? Even Aaron says that in SOME cases it's right to kill in a war.
> The only support you've used to say otherwise was the sixth commandment
> from Exodus 20:13.
Perhaps you have not followed the thread carefully.
>Your use of scripture as been proven to be in error.
Proven? That's a strong use of words.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:28:55 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> Indeed. The arguments used to convince someone are the arguments that
> convince HIM, not the arguments that convince ME.
Doesn't appear as if you've done much convincing here. Your statement above
indicates you aren't interested in the truth. It indicates you are only
interested in proselytize others to your side even if you know your
arguments are not true, just so long as those arguments are effective.
In another post you argued that "power makes right" or "power is right" was
incorrect. Yet you exercise the belief that "the ends justify the means" or
the "prostylite justifies the lie". You freely exercise that which you
condemn. That's understood as hypocrisy.
>
> > When it is pointed out that your use of the Bible actually
> >doesn't support you argument at all then you simply state your case is
> >independent of the Bible. Sure. Makes perfect sense. NOT.
>
> I stated my POSITION is independent of the Bible. NOT the same.
You're definitely correct there as the Bible does not support your position.
------------------------------
From: Randall Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
24hoursupport.helpdesk,alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:31:21 GMT
I use and highly recommend Visual Slick Edit.
http://www.slickedit.com
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:30:54 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >> > This is naivet� at its best.
> >>
> >> [snip crap about how nice it is to kill people]
> >>
> >> I was using "fair war" in a very specific sense.
> >
> >Name a "fair war".
>
> Who said they exist? Surely not me!
You are the one who brought the term "fair war" into the thread.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Apr 2001 15:23:45 -0500
Today on the comp.os.linux.advocacy group we will be discussing
the moral and ethical questions of killing, communism, biblical
interpretation, and the art of personal insults. At the conclusion
of these discussions we will have a much better feel for the merits
of Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:37:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> Indeed. The arguments used to convince someone are the arguments that
>> convince HIM, not the arguments that convince ME.
>
>Doesn't appear as if you've done much convincing here.
Occasional setbacks don't make the tactic invalid.
>Your statement above indicates you aren't interested in the truth.
Actually, that's absolutely neutral to my interest in the truth.
If I want people to accept the truth, and those people can
be easily convinced by appeal to an authority they deem infallible,
that's just the short path to the truth.
> It indicates you are only
>interested in proselytize others to your side even if you know your
>arguments are not true, just so long as those arguments are effective.
I will use economic arguments to convince the cheap, I will use
ethical arguments to convince the ethical, I will use logical
arguments to convince the rational, and yes, I will use
biblical arguments to convince the biblethumpers.
To a bible follower, I would be convincing him using the revealed
word of god. So what?
>In another post you argued that "power makes right" or "power is right" was
>incorrect.
Indeed.
> Yet you exercise the belief that "the ends justify the means" or
>the "prostylite justifies the lie".
a) Both things are not the same
b) Where did I lie, dear?
> You freely exercise that which you condemn.
Only in your mind.
> That's understood as hypocrisy.
If it were true, maybe.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:39:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >> > This is naivet� at its best.
>> >>
>> >> [snip crap about how nice it is to kill people]
>> >>
>> >> I was using "fair war" in a very specific sense.
>> >
>> >Name a "fair war".
>>
>> Who said they exist? Surely not me!
>
>You are the one who brought the term "fair war" into the thread.
Example: "The tooth fairy doesn't exist".
Now I am the one who brought the term "tooth fairy".
Get it?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Apr 2001 15:34:43 -0500
On 6 Apr 2001 20:39:40 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Example: "The tooth fairy doesn't exist".
>
What?! The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist!? I don't think there is any
way you can prove or support that with facts. If you try to, I'll
argue with you forever and never let you have the last word.
Sheesh! It's no wonder 30K civilians were killed by their own countrymen.
They were trying to shut each other up.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:43:52 GMT
"Roberto Alsina"
> >Your use of scripture as been proven to be in error.
>
> Proven? That's a strong use of words.
Scripture clearly shows God told the Israelites to wipe out whole cities and
populations with its army.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:47:53 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 6 Apr 2001 15:34:43 -0500, Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 6 Apr 2001 20:39:40 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Example: "The tooth fairy doesn't exist".
>>
>
>What?! The Tooth Fairy doesn't exist!? I don't think there is any
>way you can prove or support that with facts. If you try to, I'll
>argue with you forever and never let you have the last word.
Well, I agree that my position in impossible to prove :-)
>Sheesh! It's no wonder 30K civilians were killed by their own countrymen.
>They were trying to shut each other up.
Well, I wouldn't make fun of such a thing. It most certainly was
not funny while it was happening!
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 6 Apr 2001 20:51:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Roberto Alsina"
>
>> >Your use of scripture as been proven to be in error.
>>
>> Proven? That's a strong use of words.
>
>Scripture clearly shows God told the Israelites to wipe out whole cities and
>populations with its army.
Well, the word of god may overcome the word of god, I wouldn't know,
not having spoken to him/her/it.
However, when did god speak to a US army general?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:52:49 GMT
"billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t_0z6.4657$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > Yet I achieved a higher enlisted rank than you, and you've had twelve
> years
> > > Makes you less than nothing..
> >
> > I'm the rank that I *WANT* to be at.
>
> LOL!!! This, of course, surprises no one. A SPC that admits he wants no
> leadership responsibility yet thinks he's indispensable to his unit.
You're
> a riot and an idiot.
SPC? Superannuated, penny-ante corporal?
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Too expensive, too invasive (was: Re: uh oh, redhat is gonna do it)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 20:52:49 GMT
[snips]
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I suspect you don't have javascript and/or java enabled in your
> NS 4.6 browser.
Actually, they're both enabled. NS 6 seems to fix the problems. It may
well introduce others, but... :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
