Linux-Advocacy Digest #687, Volume #33 Wed, 18 Apr 01 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: To Eric FunkenBush (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: The X-Box and monopoly was: Blame it all on Microsoft (Craig Kelley)
Re: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:9 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Gunner �)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Rob
Robertson)
Re: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 (Rick Matthews)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Martin
McPhillips)
Re: What's the point (Chad Everett)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Communism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Eric FunkenBush
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:03:02 GMT
On Wed 18 Apr 2001 04:40, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[Snip]
>> It would be extremely tricky to turn off many C++ features when you
>> compile a program, for one simple reason: how the hell can the compiler
>> know for certain that no libraries will be linked in that require
>> support for them?
>
> You're not reading what I wrote. I said the *LINKER* could be smart
> enough not to link in exception code when none of the object files (and
> libraries are just containers of object code) use exceptions.
Exception code isn't "linked in", it's compiled in. The linker has nothing
to do with exceptions. Here, I compiled a basic C++ iostream hello-world
into assembly (with g++ -S). The output asm code is very different:
wc -l hello.*.s # Count the number of lines
29 hello.no.s # Compiled w/ -O2 -fno-exceptions
77 hello.yes.s # Compiled w/ -O2
106 total
Whether code uses exceptions or not is entirely in the domain of the
compiler, not the linker.
> I'm also
> saying that the linker could be smart enough not to link in C++ startup
> code when there is no need to call constructors of global objects or
> initialize the exception code.
>
This is somewhat difficult to implement (due to the dynamic linking
problem), but theoretically possible.
> No, the compiler doesn't know anything about the other object modules, but
> the linker does. The compiler doesn't generate exception code in the
> object modules unless you put a try bock in there.
Patently wrong, for reasons stated above. The exception stack frame must
still be set up, period, if the code calls any external functions that
require exceptions. And since it's impossible to determine if any external
functions require exceptions until the rest of the program is compiled, the
compiler must assume that exceptions are required unless told otherwise.
> If the linker detects
> that none of the object modules have exception code, there is no reason
> to link in the exception handling startup code.
>
The startup code for exceptions can be discarded, sure. But it's a tiny
part of what makes up exception handling.
[Snip]
>> If you use only static libraries, and the object files in that
>> library have some sort of header describing what C++ features they were
>> compiled with, then it becomes possible. Dynamic compile-time linking is
>> psychotic enough in C++ without this monkey business, and
>> GetProcAddress/dlsym dynamic loading is right out the window.
>
> dynamic libraries are a slightly different issue. If you're linking to
> imports library stubs, then the stubs will have exception support in them
> that the linker can detect. If you're LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress'ing
> them, then you're in the same boat as you are today if you do that and
> manually turn off exception handling.
>
By the time the linker detects it, the code has already been compiled. Too
little, too late. With dynamic libraries, your C++ code must be compiled
with exceptions if your code will EVER, IN THE ENTIRE FUTURE OF YOUR
PROGRAM, call a library that uses exceptions. Dynamic libraries can be
replaced by upgrades or third-party reimplementations, so mere compile-time
detection of exception support is not good enough.
[Snip]
>> Yes, compile time is affected by the number of headers you include. I
>> never said that including more headers than necessary was ALWAYS
>> harmless, I said it was USUALLY harmless, where "harmless" means "making
>> so minute a difference as to be imperceptable".
>
> C and C++ have different dependancy graphs. A typical C++ module also
> includes a header file of the class definition, whereas the typical C file
> will usually only include system includes and perhaps some global extern
> definitions.
>
> Where C++ begins to grow is that the C++ header files often include other
> header files they depend on, and the number of files to be processed grows
> exponentially. Again, this can be curbed with proper dependancy
> management, but most programmers don't seem to do this very well.
>
Umm, it's called #ifndef/#define/#endif. Unless you're claiming that, by
virtue of being C++, there will be more headers than in C?
[Snip]
>>
>> Non sequitur, unless you compile your application with Cygwin or another
>> pure C compiler. Most commercial compilers in 'doze are C++, with a thin
>> veneer of ANSI C compatibility. And yes, I've written apps with the
>> Win32
>> SDK, and PCH helps. Slightly. It makes a much bigger difference when
>> compiling MFC apps.
>
> C and C++ have so many differences. In fact, MSC uses two seperate
> compilers. One for C and one for C++, but they're called from the same
> command line. This is not a "thin vaneer" on a C++ compiler.
>
Good, a little piece of sanity in the insane world of Win32...
[Snip]
>>
>> Yep, defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. g++ still produces (much)
>> larger executables for C code, however, so I think I'll stick with gcc.
>> In principle, however, C code is still easier to parse, and a "perfect" C
>> compiler will compile code faster than a "perfect" C++ compiler.
>
> Again, not necessarily. You are making statements without anything to
> back it up. I've already given you examples that can counter that.
>
There's no argument about it. The larger and more complex the language
you're trying to parse is, the slower your parser is going to be, unless
you know something about CompSci that the rest of the world doesn't. You
can try to optimize it as much as possible, but the performance hit is
always there.
[Snip]
>> I don't think I've ever argued that, but it doesn't really make sense to
>> turn a C++ compiler into a C/C++ compiler, since a compliant C++ compiler
>> can already compile the majority of ANSI C89 code without a hitch.
>
> I agree that it doesn't make sense, primarily because of the differences
> in the languages. C and C++ treat many things differently. Arrays are
> treated differently, void is treated differently, text literals are
> treated differently, and produce very different code.
>
> My argument is primarily against the concept that C++ must be more
> inefficient at compiling regular C code than a standalone C compiler.
>
By virtue of the fact that C++ is a much larger language to parse than C,
the efficiency hit is inevitable. If you optimize for the case of C code,
you will necessarily make C++ code compile more slowly.
[Snip]
>> True; however, the code that supports cross-dressing structs is obviously
>> in there, making the compiler pudgier and adding more complexity to the
>> decision tree that the compiler has to navigate. These can threaten
>> cache locality and branch prediction, respectively, which are critical to
>> good performance (on x86, at least).
>
> Yes, it does add more complexity to the decision tree, but as I already
> said, if you weight the decision tree to favor common operations then you
> can remove the complexity hit when compiling the most common code.
>
Yes, put a little thought into your decision tree, and the compiler will be
faster in the typical case. However, the loss in performance is still
there, it's just minimized. To boot, if you optimize for C by putting
C-like constructs toward the top of the tree, you will necessarily
pessimize the case of C++ code.
[Snip]
>> My issue is with things like _Complex that are better left to
>> user-created libraries in C instead of bloating the compiler and the
>> standard library.
>> Don't people think of boot floppies anymore? I dread the day when
>> stripped and optimized glibc hits the 4 MB mark.
>
> So don't use dynamic linking then, use static linking.
>
Ick. That might be acceptable on a boot floppy if the programs on it
always use a small subset of features, but for anything more complex it
causes a speed and RAM-usage hit because the same code has to be loaded
from multiple locations on disk and duplicated in memory.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: The X-Box and monopoly was: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: 18 Apr 2001 11:11:08 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thaddeus L Olczyk) writes:
> On 17 Apr 2001 20:49:02 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >There's nothing wrong with investing a billion dollars into a new game
> >machine; they'll be in trouble only if they leverage their Windows
> >market share to kill off rival game systems. I have no idea how they
> >could possibly do that... in fact, I hope the X-Box is a wild success
> >so that they won't be so paranoid about losing the OS market (which
> >they will, eventually).
>
> Uhm. Get a clue.
>
> The reason the X-Box was invented was that ( supposedly ) the
> Playstation II was supposed to allow one to allow one to surf the
> net. As Playstation evolved it would have acquired the capabilities
> of a home computer. That would have given Microsoft a competitor
> with a very large installed base. Worse yet, that base would have
> been relatively young, precisely not the kind of people want using a
> competing platform. Therefore they invent the X-Box as a competitor
> to screw with Sony.
Pardon me, I must be mistaken then. Please give me a URL where I can
read about keyboard and/or mice that are going to be available for the
X-Box.
> They've done it before, ie Netscape and GO computing ( the
> predecessor to PalmOS ), to name a couple.
With Netscape they used their monopoly club (although they didn't
really need to....) -- with Palm, well, they've failed miserably.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they?
Date: 18 Apr 2001 11:15:10 -0600
"Alexander Nosenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > Most important : PERL. I
> use it to do internet stuff, and to run
> > simulations under NT. Works everywhere. Better under *nix, though.
>
> Tcl is cross-platform too, with an additional advantages of having the same
> GUI on *nix and Windows and full Unicode support (not in Perl yet).
Ahem, Perl has had full unicode support since 5.6
PS: And it can use tk as well.
PPS: And you don't need to use eval() all the time :)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Gunner � <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:9 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 10:18:13 -0700
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:55:07 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Gunner �" wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 15:08:44 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> > Hehehehhehe
>> >>
>> >> I'm not registered to vote in this precinct, but since I'm a registered
>> >> Democrat does that matter? <G>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Since Democrats don't care about such niceties, you are allowed
>> >to vote AYE in the election, regardless of where you live.
>> >
>> >
>> In fact Sue... you can even vote more than once. Feel free to fill out
>> the form in your hometown, and again while visiting Fresno.
>>
>
>In the spirit of the Democrat Party, I'll make that 5 AYEs for Sue
>4 in her home town, and one in Fresno.
>
>
>AYE: 9
>NAY: 0
>ABSTAIN: 1
>
>When, oh when, will Professor Erb come to rescue his beloved Sliverdick?
>
oooh oooh! We now have enough for a fireing party! YAY. Now who brings
the steaks?
I sense a traditon in the making.. Like Dan's Bake Sale.. we can have
the Sliverdick Democratic Execution, followed by the Sliverdick
Democratic Execution Memorial BBQ and Beer Bash. Every year, we can
gather, bbq, and toast the joys of Democracy in action with our adult
beverages of choice. Sack races for the kids and young at heart, target
shooting for the older folks, maybe a swap meet of various survival
related goodies..guest speakers, lots of music....hummm... ah..err..
I claim Tshirt consesion rights!
We can even form chapters! Every area has someone like Sliverdick.. vote
him/her to the wall and start a new holiday!
Gunner
""The greatest evil is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried and minuted)
in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices...like the
bureaucracy of a police state or a thoroughly nasty business concern."
C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:21:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> Rob Robertson wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Rob Robertson wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Henry Glenworthy wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Rob Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > "Let's take a nice, Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon style pure-democratic
> >> > > > > vote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > All for putting Glen "Sliverdick" Yeadon up against the wall, and
> >> > > > > filling him full of lead, say "AYE!" All opposed, say "NAY"
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Let's see how much Sliverdick likes democracy now."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > > AYES:3
> >> > > > > > NAYS:0
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > ABSTAIN:1
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > An example of the dangers of pure democracy is all well and good,
> >> > > > > but I reject pure democracy even if Glen advocates it and wouldn't
> >> > > > > vote either way on the matter; there is no moral justification for
> >> > > > > the action or the mass decision behind it.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >>>>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > What!? You don't believe in "one person - one vote", even if
> >> > > > the result is the trampling of individual rights? Tsk, tsk. Shouldn't
> >> > > > the easily swayed, fickle general public get to determine the fate
> >> > > > of minorities it has suddenly grown to dislike? Shouldn't people
> >> > > > who drive while using a cell phone and drinking their Starbuck's
> >> > > > latte be shot on the spot?
> >> > >
> >> > > Heavens, no! That's just,... it's immoral, first of all, and entirely
> >> > > incommensurate with the actual crime. What if we just firehosed them,
> >> > > instead?
> >> >
> >> > Should not the murderer be subjected to the loss of his own life?
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, someone (like Sliverdick) who advocates democracy (mob rule),
> >> > should be subjected to mob rule.
> >>
> >> I agree completely that Glen should be responsible for his actions, but
> >> I wanted to point out that since *I* don't believe in mob rule and view
> >> it as an abdication of moral responsibility, I'm not voting 'aye' -- I'm
> >> not voting at all on the question.
> >>
>
> Aaron> I think Sliverdick should be made to serve as an example to all others
> Aaron> who believe in his idiotic shit.
>
> Yes, by mocking his views and exposing his lies.
>
> Killing him for his ideas, as you advocate, is the
> act of a totalitarian, which you have often shown
> signs of.
Aaron is not advocating killing Yeadon *directly* for his
ideas, Andrew; he's putting Glen in a position of evaluating
a system (pure democracy) that rejects inherent individual
rights and uphold political, mass-derived rights. If Glen
supports the 'will of the people' then it stands that any
system that rejects his just claim to his own life allows
a 'vote' as to whether or not Glen continues living.
It's a valid point (even though I've chosen not to join
in the voting) because, as Aaron *implies* in his example,
the rejection of inherent individual rights will lead
inexorably to a vote on who lives and who dies. Kulkis
(and Glenworthy) both tacitly reject totalitarianism
in this thread.
> Even when you are not making lying cowardly forged
> posts.
What posts did Kulkis forge?
> --
> Andrew Hall
> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
_
Rob
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Perl and Tcl/Tk: How important are they?
Date: 18 Apr 2001 11:22:27 -0600
"Alexander Nosenko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 2) Which of these scripting languages are the most important?
>
> Perl is much more widely used. Tcl is simpler and has excellent GUI (Perl
> GUI is really an embedded Tcl/Tk!)
No, it just uses Tk, not Tcl. You can also use Qt, Gtk, XForms,
WxWindows, and many more (including native Win32).
> If you need a substitute for CLI shell scripting, use Perl. To write
> simple but pretty (and highly functional) GUIsh demos, use
> Tcl/Tk. It's really a matter of taste.
>
> > 3) Are there other important scripting languages that are also widely used
> > that I should be aware of?
>
> Python is gaining momentum very fast. Highly recommended.
Python is great. I've been playing around with Ruby lately as well
(http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/).
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Rick Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I ****? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 13:17:45 -0400
Dreamspinner3 wrote:
>
> Did you see me swearing at all? Hmmm???? Yes, I know what this group is
> about. Yes, I agree with you (suprise!!) such language as he used is
> unpleasant. However, why whine about it? And you're the one who mentioned
> your children.... He has a right to post here. I just ignore and/or
> killfile people I don't like. I don't whine about it or try to impress my
> morals upon them. I guess that is where we differ.
This is not a difference. This is a similarity. Some "whine" about
language, while you "whine" about whining. You try to impress your
notion of proper discourse upon the "whiners."
Why does the "photophile" have the right to post here, while the "whiner"
does not? You could ignore the "whiners", just as you admonish them
to ignore the references to human-camera sex. The kill file option works
just as well with either.
You do not find foul language objectionable, yet you find objections
to foul language objectionable. Interesting.
--
Rick Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Martin McPhillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:34:02 GMT
Rob Robertson wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Aaron> I think Sliverdick should be made to serve as an example to all others
> > Aaron> who believe in his idiotic shit.
> >
> > Yes, by mocking his views and exposing his lies.
> >
> > Killing him for his ideas, as you advocate, is the
> > act of a totalitarian, which you have often shown
> > signs of.
>
> Aaron is not advocating killing Yeadon *directly* for his
> ideas, Andrew; he's putting Glen in a position of evaluating
> a system (pure democracy) that rejects inherent individual
> rights and uphold political, mass-derived rights. If Glen
> supports the 'will of the people' then it stands that any
> system that rejects his just claim to his own life allows
> a 'vote' as to whether or not Glen continues living.
>
> It's a valid point (even though I've chosen not to join
> in the voting) because, as Aaron *implies* in his example,
> the rejection of inherent individual rights will lead
> inexorably to a vote on who lives and who dies. Kulkis
> (and Glenworthy) both tacitly reject totalitarianism
> in this thread.
How could anyone suggest that this poor young
man be executed--
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/abrose.htm
Is there any doubt that Glenn D. Yeadon's photograph
betrays a solemn, thoughtful, sincere borderline
mentally retarded upstanding citizen?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 Apr 2001 12:36:35 -0500
On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 16:56:02 GMT, A Microsoft Employee wrote:
>
> [-- WinTroll rambling snipped --]
>
>
><SOAPBOX>
>And frankly, the attitudes of users are vastly different between Windows and
>Linux. Newbies who have a Windows problem get helpful, or at least courteous
>responses on USENET groups.
>
As long as your Windows problem isn't technical at all. I posted
to Windows USENET groups about a Windows problems I was having and
got exactly ZERO responses. It was just too technical. If you need
to know how to dial-up AOL you'll get lots of responses though.
The www.microsoft.com online "knowledge base" was an absolute joke.
At least with Linux groups you'll get:
"You can fix your problem by adding the following to your
/etc/rc.config file you stupid idiot:........"
I'd much rather get a solution with an attached insult than
no solution at all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 18 Apr 2001 17:54:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On 18 Apr 2001 00:44:51 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>You said clearly that killing in an act of war is not murder. Did you not?
>>>>That is exactly the same as saying that murder does not include killing
>>>>in acts of war.
>>>
>>>No I didn't say that either. You really seem to have trouble comprehending
>>>what is written. I said:
>>>
>>>"Is killing as an act of war murder? no Can murder be commited during
>>>war?: yes" Look carefully at the differences between what I said and what
>>>you claim I said.
>>
>>You said "A and B". That means you said "A" and it means you said "B".
>>I am not interested in "B". I tell you you said "A".
>
>Take a deep breath...learn to read...and see that you didn't even get A
>right.
>
>(hint) In english: 'as' and 'in' have entirely different meanings.
Not in this particular case.
"killing in an act of war" can only happen if you are "killing as an
act of war".
If you know any way to "kill in an act of war" without "killing as
an act of war" or viceversa, let me know.
For example, extermination camps are killing, are done while in war
, but they are NOT an act of war. And they are not killing in an act of
war.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 18 Apr 2001 17:55:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> Rob Robertson writes:
>
> Rob> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> snip>
>
> >> what a maroon.
>
> Rob> Stop playing "More Libertarian than thou". It's unseemly.
>
>Kulkis is not vaguely libertarian. He repeatedly calls for the
>murder of people that disagree with him.
He says Saudi Arabia is a "nice place to live", too ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 17:57:11 GMT
>>>>> Rob Robertson writes:
Rob> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Rob Robertson writes:
>>
Rob> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
snip>
>>
>> >> what a maroon.
>>
Rob> Stop playing "More Libertarian than thou". It's unseemly.
>>
>> Kulkis is not vaguely libertarian. He repeatedly calls for the
>> murder of people that disagree with him.
Rob> When reason fails, weapons prevail. I think his trip-wire temper
Rob> works against him, but for the most part I understand the attitude.
I do not understand advocating killing people for their beliefs.
I only understand killing in self defense. And I only consider
physical force in defending oneself or another innocent from real
harm. Ideas should be fought with other ideas. He also recently
advocated a modern version of debtor prison. He is not fond of
liberty.
>> He is also deeply dishonest, stooping to forgery (of his own words
>> no less) to cover up his own disability to read his own words.
Rob> What did he forge?
http://groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://groups.google.com/groups?[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Check the progression of his question to me in the thread. He later
claimed that I was the one that had forged the post, but that would
make no sense, as the forgery just covered up his own stupidity in
not having read his own words carefully.
>> He is a worse excuse for a libertarian than Mark Gibson.
>>
>> And he lies, regularly.
Rob> About what?
Anything he wants to. One example is later in the above referenced
thread. Another one was in this thread where he declared that I vote
for democrats and later when he claimed I supported socialist programs.
He has also lied about my position on global warming, accusing me of being
a vociferous proponent of the man-made warming theory, when the reality
is that I claim no knowledge of the answer to that question (as you probably
inferred from our theoretical discussion of the role of government in a
solution to GW _if_ were to be proven true). There are countless other
examples if you look closely. I have caught him in lies about the taxes
he pays, he has made false statements about science then ran when presented
with references that prove him wrong (just like Lochner and Yeadon).
>> He is the moral equivalent of the weasels.
Rob> I'd like to see you make the case for that.
See above. I meant in the way he "debates" on usenet, not the programs
he advocates.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
