Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Sun, 2005-12-04 at 21:53 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:17:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > Well, yeah.  But there was no "sugar" 200,000 years ago, so that
> > was never a problem.  Besides, how many people get degenerative
> > diseases when the life expectancy is 40yo?
> 
> it == coke (1 can of coke is similar to drinking a cup of very strong 
> black coffee with about 3 tablespoons of sugar; try offering that to
> someone's child!)

What does what you wrote have to do with what I wrote?

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

Why won't GWB have the US invade the DPRK? Because the People's
Army has 11-15,000 artillery pieces within range of Seoul...


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:17:39AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > One theory says that the "fat phenotype" is a useful evolutionary
> > > adaptation, and that the "skinny phenotype" would have a harder
> > > time surviving in times of low food.
> > 
> > That is because the "fat phenotype" would eat it all.
> 
> Ha ha.
> 
> The real hypothesis is that the "fat phenotype" would have extra
> stored fat, and have a slower metabolism, thus being able to more
> easily survive the lean times.

Yeah, *some* "skinny phenotypes" do tend to eat voraciously. ;-)

> > > Of course, it's unprovable and has nothing to to with how many
> > > Cokes I drink per day...
> > 
> > No, it just rots your teeth, helps diabetes, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Well, yeah.  But there was no "sugar" 200,000 years ago, so that
> was never a problem.  Besides, how many people get degenerative
> diseases when the life expectancy is 40yo?

it == coke (1 can of coke is similar to drinking a cup of very strong 
black coffee with about 3 tablespoons of sugar; try offering that to
someone's child!)

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 03:11:57AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:18:33AM -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
> > > > more times), and known *lots* of religious people, and being an
> > > > amateur history buff, I can categorically state that your "required"
> > > > assertion is not flat wrong.
> > > 
> > > I'll definitely second that. Too often people confuse the sheep
> > > following quasi-religious political establishments such as the Catholic
> > > church (among others), for religious people in general. Buddhism and
> > > many other eastern religions focus very heavily on logical thought and
> > > learning. So religion does not NECESSARILY need to ignore reason and
> > > logic, it is only that many of the best-known religions tend to do this.
> > 
> > The basic premise stems from hope and fear.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean.

religion (n); The daughter of hope and fear.

The hope of a creator/God so that "everything" is explained, but also
the fear of a creator/God in case ... 

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:39 +, marc wrote:
> Michelle Konzack said...
> > Am 2005-11-25 20:01:08, schrieb Clive Menzies:
> > 
> > > Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
> > > Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
> > > highly thought provoking.  Examining the rise and fall of the
> > > Sumerian, Mayan, Egyptian and Roman civilisations he points to the
> > > parallels today.
> > 
> > Do not forget the american (USA) civilisation.  :-P
> 
> "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" records the end of it.

Mankind has been violently conquering other peoples since the
dawn of mankind.  It was *inevitable* that the 50ish thousand
aborigines were going to get wiped away by the 60ish *million*
Europeans.

The 2 mistakes the "white man" made were to make empty promises
and believe that the aborigines were sub-human, or had no soul.

But this is raly OT.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

After seeing all the viruses, trojan horses, worms and Reply
mails from stupidly-configured anti-virus software that's been
hurled upon the internet since 1998, and the time/money that is
spent protecting against said viruses, trojan horses & worms, I
can only conclude that Microsoft is dangerous to the internet and
American commerce, and it's software should be banned.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[marc]

Michelle Konzack said...
> Am 2005-11-25 20:01:08, schrieb Clive Menzies:
> 
> > Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
> > Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
> > highly thought provoking.  Examining the rise and fall of the
> > Sumerian, Mayan, Egyptian and Roman civilisations he points to the
> > parallels today.
> 
> Do not forget the american (USA) civilisation.  :-P

"Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" records the end of it.

-- 
Best,
Marc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-11-25 20:01:08, schrieb Clive Menzies:

> Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
> Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
> highly thought provoking.  Examining the rise and fall of the
> Sumerian, Mayan, Egyptian and Roman civilisations he points to the
> parallels today.

Do not forget the american (USA) civilisation.  :-P

> Regards
> 
> Clive

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
# Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[marc]

Ron Johnson said...
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 18:24 +, marc wrote:
> > Ron Johnson said...
> > > On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
> > > > Clive Menzies wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > >On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >>Clive Menzies wrote:
> > > [snip]
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > Man, after all is a social creature, and "individualism" is a 
> > > relatively new concept.  European peasants would not understand
> > > it, and "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down" has been
> > > a Japanese proverb for hundreds of years.
> > 
> > "The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was 
> > greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it 
> > had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a 
> > position to defend it. The development of civilization imposes 
> > restrictions on it, and justice demands that no one shall escape those 
> > restrictions."
> 
> I scoff at this idea.  The human banished from a pre-civ hunter-
> gatherer group was in a *world* of trouble.  Life was too precarious
> and difficult.
> 
> >   Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929
> 
> He was a psychiatrist[0], why should I believe anything he wrote.

 The idea was to alert you to the fact that you brushed aside 
centuries of study in this matter. It wasn't a statement of fact. 
Believe what you will.

-- 
Best,
Marc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Andy Streich]

On Friday 25 November 2005 04:15 pm, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Andy Streich wrote:
> > What's being "defended" in the above?  Is it bodily integrity, personal
> > space, property (whose definition?), a contract, ...?
>
>     Short answer:  Well, you'll just have to read it, won't you?
>
>     Longer answer:  One's posessions including one's self.  Whose
> definition of property?  There some alternate definition other than
> personal which would apply here?

Steve, I guess you are coming from a libertarian point of view. (If you are 
not, my comments might not apply.)   

To me libertarianism seems extremely incomplete both as a philosophy and an 
economy model.  Assuming property is a well-defined term is a case in point.  
I have a stream running across my land.  Is the water in my property?  Can I 
use it all up and let my downstream neighbor do without?  I wouldn't be too 
happy about by upstream neighbor doing that to me.

The same applies to all environmental issues.  Who owns the air over my house?  
Is the San Francisco bay area out of line when it limits fireplaces in new 
homes because of air quality issues?  I'm not very happy with people who have 
big vehicles they don't need.  That's the air I breathe and ground water I 
end up drinking that is being needlessly polluted.

Andy

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Ron Johnson wrote:
> Ok, that's ambiguous.

Yeh, considering my wife would be mighty surprised if a tat showed up
there now.  :D

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 20:07 -0800, David E. Fox wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:11 +1300
> Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >
> > What is your diocese?
> 
> It's tattooed on the back of his neck.

Ok, that's ambiguous.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"Victory has 1,000 fathers; defeat has 1,000 kibitzers."
Jeff Greenfield, CNN political analyst


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[David E. Fox]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:44:11 +1300
Chris Bannister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> What is your diocese?

It's tattooed on the back of his neck.
 
> Chris.

-- 

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[David E. Fox]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:51:23 -0800
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Oh how I hate this, really.  It's led to some rather interesting want ads
> that I just have to laugh at.  I mean people post ads looking for people well

I seem to remember one that was looking for a Perl programmer with five
or so years experience. This ad was placed maybe a year after Perl was
in existence.



-- 

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[David E. Fox]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:45:58 +0100
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Not right, none of my friends there "keep alive".  For China, they earn
> enorm.  The equivalent in Europ would be 6000 to 8000 Euros per month.

>From what I've read, the average earnings go a lot further in China
than they do here (in California). Earnings are of course, relative.

> Hmmm, I have only bougth an Appartement for 29.000 Euro in Marrakech/
> Morocco and have a nice house in Denizli/Turkey for around 50.000 Euro.

Maybe we all should move to Morocco :). About $600,000 (don't know the
conversion rates ATM) will get you a bungalow in Silicon Valley (I live
in Sunnyvale, CA). Nicer places are of course a lot more than that,
although you can own a somewhat nice condo in Beaverton (near Portland,
Oregon, USA) for maybe $92,000.


> Michelle

-- 

David E. Fox  Thanks for letting me
[EMAIL PROTECTED]change magnetic patterns
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   on your hard disk.
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Andy Streich wrote:
> What's being "defended" in the above?  Is it bodily integrity, personal 
> space, 
> property (whose definition?), a contract, ...?  

Short answer:  Well, you'll just have to read it, won't you?

Longer answer:  One's posessions including one's self.  Whose definition
of property?  There some alternate definition other than personal which would
apply here?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Andy Streich]

On Friday 25 November 2005 01:52 pm, Steve Lamb wrote:
>     I tend more towards the Bastiat view expressed at the beginning of "The
> Law".
>
> "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual
> right to lawful defense."
>
>     Collective organization of the /individual/ right to lawful defense. He
> goes on to explain why anything more than that is nothing more than
> sanctioned theivery.

What's being "defended" in the above?  Is it bodily integrity, personal space, 
property (whose definition?), a contract, ...?  

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Katipo wrote:
> Depends on what is seen as an acceptable restriction limit, and also,
> therefore, on your definition of justice.

I tend more towards the Bastiat view expressed at the beginning of "The 
Law".

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right
to lawful defense."

Collective organization of the /individual/ right to lawful defense. He
goes on to explain why anything more than that is nothing more than sanctioned
theivery.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[cmetzler]

> He was a psychiatrist[0], why should I believe anything he wrote.

Why should you believe anything anyone ever writes?

-c





-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

marc wrote:

"The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was 
greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it 
had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a 
position to defend it. The development of civilization imposes 
restrictions on it, and justice demands that no one shall escape those 
restrictions."


 Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929

 

Depends on what is seen as an acceptable restriction limit, and also, 
therefore, on your definition of justice.


"Justice is a barter, a trade, an agreement, between two parties of 
equal power, to avoid mutual damage.
I give him what he wants and he gives me what I want, and we go our 
separate ways."


Nietzsche - 'A genealogy of morals' (as I remember it.)

Without the facility to bargain from a position of equality, if we are 
to accept Nietzsche's definition, justice is, therefore, a terminology 
that is inapplicable to the situation.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 18:24 +, marc wrote:
> Ron Johnson said...
> > On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
> > > Clive Menzies wrote:
> > > 
> > > >On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >>Clive Menzies wrote:
> > [snip]
[snip]
> > 
> > Man, after all is a social creature, and "individualism" is a 
> > relatively new concept.  European peasants would not understand
> > it, and "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down" has been
> > a Japanese proverb for hundreds of years.
> 
> "The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was 
> greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it 
> had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a 
> position to defend it. The development of civilization imposes 
> restrictions on it, and justice demands that no one shall escape those 
> restrictions."

I scoff at this idea.  The human banished from a pre-civ hunter-
gatherer group was in a *world* of trouble.  Life was too precarious
and difficult.

>   Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929

He was a psychiatrist[0], why should I believe anything he wrote.

[0] Technically, a neurologist, mainly because there was no such
thing as psychiatry back then.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"Never for the sake of peace and quiet deny your convictions."
Dag Hammarskjold


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Clive Menzies]

On (25/11/05 18:24), marc wrote:
> Ron Johnson said...
> "The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was 
> greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it 
> had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a 
> position to defend it. The development of civilization imposes 
> restrictions on it, and justice demands that no one shall escape those 
> restrictions."
> 
>   Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929
> 
> Read something like Philip Ball's 'Critical Mass' for a geek-friendly 
> take on this stuff.

Whilst we're on interesting reading, Ronald Wright's 'A Short History of
Progress' provides a take on civilisations, past and present, which is
highly thought provoking.  Examining the rise and fall of the
Sumerian, Mayan, Egyptian and Roman civilisations he points to the
parallels today.

Regards

Clive

-- 
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[marc]

Ron Johnson said...
> On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
> > Clive Menzies wrote:
> > 
> > >On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> > > 
> > >>Clive Menzies wrote:
> [snip]
> > 
> > What happens when the individual no longer exists?
> > 
> > Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going to 
> > become increasingly difficult.
> > The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic 
> > ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.
> 
> Isn't that's what's been happening, though, since the beginning 
> of time?
> 
> Man, after all is a social creature, and "individualism" is a 
> relatively new concept.  European peasants would not understand
> it, and "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down" has been
> a Japanese proverb for hundreds of years.

"The liberty of the individual is no gift of civilization. It was 
greatest before there was any civilization, though then, it is true, it 
had for the most part no value, since the individual was scarcely in a 
position to defend it. The development of civilization imposes 
restrictions on it, and justice demands that no one shall escape those 
restrictions."

  Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, 1929

Read something like Philip Ball's 'Critical Mass' for a geek-friendly 
take on this stuff.

-- 
Best,
Marc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Clive Menzies]

On (24/11/05 17:06), Ron Johnson wrote:
> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> From: Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:06:12 -0600
> Subject: Re: Request to remove Information
> 
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:37 -0600
> > Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > Bad news.  "Domesticated" turkeys have been specifically bred to
> > > have huge breast muscles.
> > > 
> > Sorta like Hollywood starlets?
> 
> Um, no.

ROFL :)

Clive

-- 
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0600, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:37 -0600
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > 
> > Bad news.  "Domesticated" turkeys have been specifically bred to
> > have huge breast muscles.
> > 
> Sorta like Hollywood starlets?

Um, no.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

Am I the only Atheist that thinks that Quantum Cosmology, String
Theory, etc is the modern form of debating how many Angels can
dance on the head of a pin?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Alex Malinovich]

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 11:43 -0800, C. Chad Wallace wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
--snip--
> > Bad news.  "Domesticated" turkeys have been specifically bred to
> > have huge breast muscles.
> 
> WTF?  How does selective breeding compare to hormones and antibiotics?  
> Breeding is simply guiding a species along a specific natural path...  
> Hormones are a load of who knows what being injected into our food.  No 
> similarity here.
> 
> On the other hand, I'm sure turkeys, chickens and all the rest are being 
> injected full of similar nasties...  so... *shrug*  Buy organic.
> 
> Sorry... very latecomer to the thread... just had to correct a glaring error 
> in logic.

Selective breeding has the potential to be just as bad as hormone
injections. Breeders have been known to inbreed animals in an attempt to
guarantee a certain desirable trait. But inbreeding can cause lots of
nasty things including genetic mutations. So a few years down the road
those inbred "organic" turkeys can be just as bad as hormone-injected
ones.

-- 
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Request to remove Information

[C. Chad Wallace]

Ron Johnson wrote:

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:


On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:

You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much 
smaller, lower-yielding crops.  Botanists (those are scientists,

right?) bred taller, healthier more high-yielding corn, wheat and
soy, starting 140 years ago.



You'll be elected to a School Board in Kansas.


___
/ Don't eat me. I am dangerous, full of \
| artificial hormones and antibiotics   |
\ that will make you grow. Eat turkey.  /
---
   \   ^__^
\  (--)\___
   (__)\   )\/\
U  ||w |
   || ||


Bad news.  "Domesticated" turkeys have been specifically bred to
have huge breast muscles.


WTF?  How does selective breeding compare to hormones and antibiotics?  
Breeding is simply guiding a species along a specific natural path...  Hormones 
are a load of who knows what being injected into our food.  No similarity here.

On the other hand, I'm sure turkeys, chickens and all the rest are being 
injected full of similar nasties...  so... *shrug*  Buy organic.

Sorry... very latecomer to the thread... just had to correct a glaring error in 
logic.

--

C. Chad Wallace, B.Sc.
The Lodging Company
http://skihills.com/
OpenPGP Public Key ID: 0x262208A0


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:17:37 -0600
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > 
> > > You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much 
> > > smaller, lower-yielding crops.  Botanists (those are scientists,
> > > right?) bred taller, healthier more high-yielding corn, wheat and
> > > soy, starting 140 years ago.
> > 
> > > You'll be elected to a School Board in Kansas.
> > 
> >  ___
> > / Don't eat me. I am dangerous, full of \
> > | artificial hormones and antibiotics   |
> > \ that will make you grow. Eat turkey.  /
> >  ---
> > \   ^__^
> >  \  (--)\___
> > (__)\   )\/\
> >  U  ||w |
> > || ||
> 
> Bad news.  "Domesticated" turkeys have been specifically bred to
> have huge breast muscles.
> 
Sorta like Hollywood starlets?

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the
pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.
Alston Chase


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 13:01 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > 
> > You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much 
> > smaller, lower-yielding crops.  Botanists (those are scientists,
> > right?) bred taller, healthier more high-yielding corn, wheat and
> > soy, starting 140 years ago.
> 
> > You'll be elected to a School Board in Kansas.
> 
>  ___
> / Don't eat me. I am dangerous, full of \
> | artificial hormones and antibiotics   |
> \ that will make you grow. Eat turkey.  /
>  ---
> \   ^__^
>  \  (--)\___
> (__)\   )\/\
>  U  ||w |
> || ||

Bad news.  "Domesticated" turkeys have been specifically bred to
have huge breast muscles.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful
hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Thomas Huxley


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Antonio Rodriguez]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> 
> You'll just have to go back to eating corn and wheat from much 
> smaller, lower-yielding crops.  Botanists (those are scientists,
> right?) bred taller, healthier more high-yielding corn, wheat and
> soy, starting 140 years ago.

> You'll be elected to a School Board in Kansas.

 ___
/ Don't eat me. I am dangerous, full of \
| artificial hormones and antibiotics   |
\ that will make you grow. Eat turkey.  /
 ---
\   ^__^
 \  (--)\___
(__)\   )\/\
 U  ||w |
|| ||


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Gene Heskett]

On Thursday 24 November 2005 10:11, marc wrote:
>Gene Heskett said...
>
>> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:35, marc wrote:
>> >Katipo said...
>> >
>> >> The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
>> >> And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the
>> >> organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been
>> >> appropriately compromised.
>> >>
>> >> History is full of examples of nations attempting to change
>> >> nations, families attempting to change families, and individuals
>> >> attempting to bring about change in individuals, when the only way
>> >> change can be brought about in the external environment, is by way
>> >> of change within the individual.
>> >>
>> >> What happens when the individual no longer exists?
>> >>
>> >> Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is
>> >> going to become increasingly difficult.
>> >> The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match
>> >> nationalistic ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.
>> >
>> >It's a brave new world ;-)
>>
>> Isn't this the scenario George Orwell tried to warn us about 21 years
>> ago?  Sure bears an amazing resemblance.
>
>'1984' was published in 1949. You'd have thought he'd feel a bit more
>positive after WWII, but I guess he wasn't to be fooled. 'Brave new
>world' was published in 1932.

1984 I read as a teenager, BNW was 2 years before I was born, so I
guess I was never properly introduced to that one, although I'm sure my
alky uncle who introed me to sci-fi way back then must have had a copy
on his bookshelf.  I gobbled up the Doc Smith stuff as soon as I got
past McGuffies Readers.

Huh?  Oh, yeah, doddering old fart, thats me.

>And the insatiable power-junkies in our employ, er, politicos. like to
>think that they're *so* "modern", "progressive" and continually "moving
>forward" :-o

Yeah, but somehow the fact that they ARE in our employ seems to be lost
on most of them...

>
>Personally, I prefer BNW's irony to 1984's. 1984 is geared toward the
>state taking control by force, whereas BNW has folk being far more
>compliant. Chillingly accurate. Probably not for you if you bought an
>iPod, though ;-)

No sorry, haven't yet, I'm not that much of a background noise junkie.

>I sometimes think that the world I live in is Huxleys', whereas the
>world I perceive through the media is Orwell's.

Right on.  Darnit.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.36% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[marc]

Gene Heskett said...
> On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:35, marc wrote:
> >Katipo said...
> >>
> >> The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
> >> And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the
> >> organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been
> >> appropriately compromised.
> >>
> >> History is full of examples of nations attempting to change nations,
> >> families attempting to change families, and individuals attempting to
> >> bring about change in individuals, when the only way change can be
> >> brought about in the external environment, is by way of change within
> >> the individual.
> >>
> >> What happens when the individual no longer exists?
> >>
> >> Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going
> >> to become increasingly difficult.
> >> The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic
> >> ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.
> >
> >It's a brave new world ;-)
> 
> Isn't this the scenario George Orwell tried to warn us about 21 years
> ago?  Sure bears an amazing resemblance.

'1984' was published in 1949. You'd have thought he'd feel a bit more 
positive after WWII, but I guess he wasn't to be fooled. 'Brave new 
world' was published in 1932.

And the insatiable power-junkies in our employ, er, politicos. like to 
think that they're *so* "modern", "progressive" and continually "moving 
forward" :-o

Personally, I prefer BNW's irony to 1984's. 1984 is geared toward the 
state taking control by force, whereas BNW has folk being far more 
compliant. Chillingly accurate. Probably not for you if you bought an 
iPod, though ;-)

I sometimes think that the world I live in is Huxleys', whereas the 
world I perceive through the media is Orwell's.

Wiki says - for the uninitiated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_new_world

-- 
Best,
Marc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 23 November 2005 14:35, marc wrote:
>Katipo said...
>
>> Clive Menzies wrote:
>> >On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
>> >>Clive Menzies wrote:
>> >>>I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own
>> >>> limited experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in
>> >>> many other bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it
>> >>> is the 'system' rather than the individuals which is flawed.
>> >>
>> >>Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the
>> >>anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that
>> >> comes from the definition of 'success' provided by that
>> >> organisation environment.
>> >>
>> >>The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
>> >>Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his
>> >> environment, and you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.
>> >
>> >I couldn't agree more.  But in such flawed organisations, to attain
>> >power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
>> >principles to at least a limited degree.  Once the individual
>> > becomes a beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the
>> > inherent flaws becomes diminished.
>> >
>> >Catch22.
>>
>> The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
>> And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the
>> organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been
>> appropriately compromised.
>>
>> History is full of examples of nations attempting to change nations,
>> families attempting to change families, and individuals attempting to
>> bring about change in individuals, when the only way change can be
>> brought about in the external environment, is by way of change within
>> the individual.
>>
>> What happens when the individual no longer exists?
>>
>> Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going
>> to become increasingly difficult.
>> The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic
>> ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.
>
>It's a brave new world ;-)

Isn't this the scenario George Orwell tried to warn us about 21 years
ago?  Sure bears an amazing resemblance.

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.36% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2005 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 06:34 +0800, Katipo wrote:
> Clive Menzies wrote:
> 
> >On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> > 
> >>Clive Menzies wrote:
[snip]
> 
> What happens when the individual no longer exists?
> 
> Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going to 
> become increasingly difficult.
> The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic 
> ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.

Isn't that's what's been happening, though, since the beginning 
of time?

Man, after all is a social creature, and "individualism" is a 
relatively new concept.  European peasants would not understand
it, and "The nail that sticks up will be hammered down" has been
a Japanese proverb for hundreds of years.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"We have exhausted all of our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis
to comply with their own agreements and with international law.
Given that . . . we have got to force them to comply, and we are
doing so militarily."
Tom Daschle, in 1998, when President Clinton struck Iraq


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[marc]

Katipo said...
> Clive Menzies wrote:
> 
> >On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>Clive Menzies wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
> >>>experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in many other
> >>>bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
> >>>rather than the individuals which is flawed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  
> >>>
> >>Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the 
> >>anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes 
> >>from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.
> >>
> >>The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
> >>Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and 
> >>you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I couldn't agree more.  But in such flawed organisations, to attain
> >power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
> >principles to at least a limited degree.  Once the individual becomes a
> >beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the inherent flaws
> >becomes diminished.
> >
> >Catch22.
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
> And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the 
> organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been 
> appropriately compromised.
> 
> History is full of examples of nations attempting to change nations, 
> families attempting to change families, and individuals attempting to 
> bring about change in individuals, when the only way change can be 
> brought about in the external environment, is by way of change within 
> the individual.
> 
> What happens when the individual no longer exists?
> 
> Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going to 
> become increasingly difficult.
> The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic 
> ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.

It's a brave new world ;-) 

-- 
Best,
Marc


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

Steve Lamb wrote:


Katipo wrote:
 


"I'm your shrink"
   



 


Yeah, right!
   



   It's a truer quote than you know.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0114558/quotes

   1/2 way down.  Put in context you'll understand.  :P

 


Just another Rock 'n' Roll Doctor, Stevie.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Katipo wrote:
> "I'm your shrink"

> Yeah, right!

It's a truer quote than you know.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0114558/quotes

1/2 way down.  Put in context you'll understand.  :P

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

Steve Lamb wrote:


Katipo wrote:
 


Snap again!
   



   *TWET*  Idiotic misuse of a word, 10-day suspension, no participation
in a thread!  Carry on!  *TWEEET*

 


"I'm your shrink"

Yeah, right!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Katipo wrote:
> Snap again!

*TWET*  Idiotic misuse of a word, 10-day suspension, no participation
in a thread!  Carry on!  *TWEEET*

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

Clive Menzies wrote:


On (22/11/05 10:46), Ron Johnson wrote:
 


Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must
first become a politician.
   



Exactly!

... and to raise campaign funds they put themselves under an obligation
to vested interests . and to gain media exposure that need to play
to populist sentiments as vetted by monopolist media organisations.

We are headed in the same direction  celebrity, media, government
and business all inextricably linked.

 


Snap again!

This is the organisation the President works for, and all other 
politicians also.
And people thought that the concept of corporate governance was disposed 
of in the eighties.

They have to be kidding!
You don't make a dollar that easily.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

Ron Johnson wrote:


On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:50 +, Clive Menzies wrote:
 


On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
   


Clive Menzies wrote:
 


I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
rather than the individuals which is flawed.



   

Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the 
anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes 
from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.


The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and 
you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.
 


I couldn't agree more.  But in such flawed organisations, to attain
power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
principles to at least a limited degree.  Once the individual becomes a
beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the inherent flaws
becomes diminished.
   



Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must
first become a politician.

 


Snap!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

Clive Menzies wrote:


On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
 


Clive Menzies wrote:
   


I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
rather than the individuals which is flawed.



 

Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the 
anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes 
from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.


The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and 
you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.
   



I couldn't agree more.  But in such flawed organisations, to attain
power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
principles to at least a limited degree.  Once the individual becomes a
beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the inherent flaws
becomes diminished.

Catch22.


 


The evolutionary path of the corporate politician.
And nobody permitted to climb to any 'higher level', within the 
organisation, until the ethical base of the individual has been 
appropriately compromised.


History is full of examples of nations attempting to change nations, 
families attempting to change families, and individuals attempting to 
bring about change in individuals, when the only way change can be 
brought about in the external environment, is by way of change within 
the individual.


What happens when the individual no longer exists?

Because, in the future, existence without the organisation is going to 
become increasingly difficult.
The 'organisation' is extending its boundaries to match nationalistic 
ones, and the new ethic will be taught from birth.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-11-18 13:50:14, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> > 
> > > You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
> > > Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
> > > can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
> > 
> > Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
> > break the thread in small pieces.
> 
> Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.

No, the "References:" header are missing from the sender.

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Clive Menzies]

On (22/11/05 10:46), Ron Johnson wrote:
> Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must
> first become a politician.

Exactly!

... and to raise campaign funds they put themselves under an obligation
to vested interests . and to gain media exposure that need to play
to populist sentiments as vetted by monopolist media organisations.

We are headed in the same direction  celebrity, media, government
and business all inextricably linked.

Regards

Clive

-- 
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 13:50 +, Clive Menzies wrote:
> On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> > Clive Menzies wrote:
> > >I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
> > >experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in many other
> > >bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
> > >rather than the individuals which is flawed.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the 
> > anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes 
> > from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.
> > 
> > The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
> > Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and 
> > you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.
> 
> I couldn't agree more.  But in such flawed organisations, to attain
> power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
> principles to at least a limited degree.  Once the individual becomes a
> beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the inherent flaws
> becomes diminished.

Stated another way: for the statesman to become President, he must
first become a politician.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"All else being equal, you're safer traveling in a passenger
vehicle that's larger and heavier than in one that's smaller and
lighter."
http://www.carsafety.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Clive Menzies]

On (20/11/05 22:08), Katipo wrote:
> Clive Menzies wrote:
> >I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
> >experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in many other
> >bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
> >rather than the individuals which is flawed.
> >
> > 
> >
> Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the 
> anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes 
> from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.
> 
> The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
> Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and 
> you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.

I couldn't agree more.  But in such flawed organisations, to attain
power to change the way things operate, requires compromising one's
principles to at least a limited degree.  Once the individual becomes a
beneficiary of the system, the motivation to address the inherent flaws
becomes diminished.

Catch22.

Regards

Clive

-- 
www.clivemenzies.co.uk ...
...strategies for business



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > One theory says that the "fat phenotype" is a useful evolutionary
> > adaptation, and that the "skinny phenotype" would have a harder
> > time surviving in times of low food.
> 
> That is because the "fat phenotype" would eat it all.

Ha ha.

The real hypothesis is that the "fat phenotype" would have extra
stored fat, and have a slower metabolism, thus being able to more
easily survive the lean times.

> > Of course, it's unprovable and has nothing to to with how many
> > Cokes I drink per day...
> 
> No, it just rots your teeth, helps diabetes, etc, etc, etc.

Well, yeah.  But there was no "sugar" 200,000 years ago, so that
was never a problem.  Besides, how many people get degenerative
diseases when the life expectancy is 40yo?

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"Can government really be active and, at the same time, limited?
History suggests otherwise."
Lew Rockwell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 21:44 +1300, Chris Bannister wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:18:33AM -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
> > > more times), and known *lots* of religious people, and being an
> > > amateur history buff, I can categorically state that your "required"
> > > assertion is not flat wrong.
> > 
> > I'll definitely second that. Too often people confuse the sheep
> > following quasi-religious political establishments such as the Catholic
> > church (among others), for religious people in general. Buddhism and
> > many other eastern religions focus very heavily on logical thought and
> > learning. So religion does not NECESSARILY need to ignore reason and
> > logic, it is only that many of the best-known religions tend to do this.
> 
> The basic premise stems from hope and fear.

I'm not exactly sure I understand what you mean.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to
foresee their actions."
George Orwell


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:25:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> One theory says that the "fat phenotype" is a useful evolutionary
> adaptation, and that the "skinny phenotype" would have a harder
> time surviving in times of low food.

That is because the "fat phenotype" would eat it all.

> Of course, it's unprovable and has nothing to to with how many
> Cokes I drink per day...

No, it just rots your teeth, helps diabetes, etc, etc, etc.

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 10:18:33AM -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
> > more times), and known *lots* of religious people, and being an
> > amateur history buff, I can categorically state that your "required"
> > assertion is not flat wrong.
> 
> I'll definitely second that. Too often people confuse the sheep
> following quasi-religious political establishments such as the Catholic
> church (among others), for religious people in general. Buddhism and
> many other eastern religions focus very heavily on logical thought and
> learning. So religion does not NECESSARILY need to ignore reason and
> logic, it is only that many of the best-known religions tend to do this.

The basic premise stems from hope and fear.

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 12:22:04PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Then we're even: "religion" should work better than the people 
> > who implement and practice it.
> 
> Nope.  Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
> its very nature to ignore reason, logic and to disbelieve anything to the
> contrary.
> 
> -- 
>  Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
>PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
> ---+-

What is your diocese?

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:28:36PM -0600, Greg Norris wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:50:14PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
> > > break the thread in small pieces.
> > 
> > Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.
> 
> My copy of mutt (1.5.11-3, from sid) doesn't seem to have any trouble 
> threading this mess.

If the asterix means its broken then mutt 1.5.9i (2005-03-13) is 
indicating "broken thread" although it is still displaying as one
deeply-nested thread. 

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Chris Bannister]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 03:18:55PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> There was a reply in here somewhere that I never got, only quoted, where
> someone attributed my name to the "cowboy mentality" of "give me 40 acres, a
> mule, a shotgun and I'll take care of myself".  They went on to say that
> because of the large urban populations we're more interconnected than I
> supposedly seem to think; that the Europeans have figured this out and is why
> their laws are more "friendly to communities".  What they failed to realize
> that pretty much any time action is taken "for the good of the community" it
> denies that the community is made up of individuals.  It is flat-out
> anti-individual.  How something can be friendly to a group of individuals
> while being hostile to any individual in that group is beyond me.

Yea, like the death penalty.

-- 
Chris.
==
Reproduction if desired may be handled locally. -- rfc3


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Hugo Vanwoerkom]

Patrick Wiseman wrote:

On 11/19/05, *Steve Lamb* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:




Tom's request to remove information revealed more about the population 
of the list than about Tom...


H


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Patrick Wiseman]

You've said your piece; I've said mine.  I have nothing new to say
on the subject and apparently neither do you.  So I'm back to our
regularly-scheduled programming on debian-user, you know, conversations
about using Debian.

Patrick

Re: Request to remove Information

[Katipo]

Clive Menzies wrote:


On (15/11/05 13:13), johannes wrote:
 

NB: It's interesting to look at other pages that turn up on googleing 
'Weissgerber, Tom L'
   



I presume you mean:

Inside Intel: Banana Republics In The Silicon Empire
From: Weissgerber, Tom L Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 2:50 PM To:
Dayton, Stephen
M Subject: Clamshell Popper Design Project ...
www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/nov/article097.html - 17k - Cached -
Similar pages

You know it happens but ...

I suspect Intel is in no way unique in this respect; my own limited
experience of large corporations has been similar.  As in many other
bureaucratic organisations (public and commercial), it is the 'system'
rather than the individuals which is flawed.

 

Well, yes, but it is also the organisation that supplies both the 
anonymity to indulge, and the sociological acceptance factor that comes 
from the definition of 'success' provided by that organisation environment.


The individual and the environment are reflections of each other.
Deny the individual the right to be responsible for his environment, and 
you deprive him of any means to improve upon it.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Nate Bargmann]

Let us not forget that the right to own private property underlies the
entire system of government in the USA.  Nowhere in the founding
documents or writings will be found an argument that property ownership
rights end when another person can promise the government more tax
revenue.  To suggest or agree otherwise is absurd.

The entire system of copyright is bound to the concept of private
property rights.  It is the right of every software author to use the
GPL or another license for their works.

If the conclusions of Kelo are allowed to stand, then do not be
surprised if an organization like MS pushed the government to strip the
FSF of its copyrights and reassign them to MS citing an increase in
government revenue via sales taxes, etc.  You say that's absurd?  Well,
the idea that the SCOTUS could rule for the city of New London, CT was
absurd as well prior to June 23, 2005.

Make no mistake.  The Kelo decision is contrary to everything that
underlies a free society.  Without the right to be secure in one's
property, there can be no freedom.

- Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  |  Successfully Microsoft
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | free since January 1998.
 http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   |  "Debian, the choice of
 My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/   |   http://www.debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Gnu-Raiz]

On 18:23, Fri 18 Nov 05, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Nov 18 13:54 -0600]:
> > On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > > Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> > > 
> > > > You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
> > > > Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
> > > > can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
> > > 
> > > Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
> > > break the thread in small pieces.
> > 
> > Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.
> 
> Not my Mutt.  This whole sordid thread is still all intact on this
> screen.
> 
> - Nate >>
> 
> -- 
>  Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  |  Successfully Microsoft
>   Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | free since January 1998.
>  http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   |  "Debian, the choice of
>  My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!"
>  


My suggestion is if this is that hard to follow in your mail
program why not just subscribe to the digest form. That's
what I do, it might not be as quick as regular mailing list
but it puts it in a nice readable form.  All I do in mutt is
hit v and read the headers, if nothing interest's me I move
along.

Gnu_Raiz


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Steve Lamb]

Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what  the Kelo
> decision said.

Yes, because we all know if it isn't mainstream it's right-wing.  The
irony being, of course, that it was the right that was in the majority with
the left, O'Conner, writing the dissent.

> Have you read the Kelo decision?  Apparently not.  The Court made it
> abundantly clear that taking property from one private owner and giving
> it to another would violate the "public use" limitation (if that's what
> it is - textual analysis could go either way) of the Takings Clause, and
> that that is NOT what happened in New London.  And it's not.  The
> "taking" was part of a comprehensive land-use development.

In which the property in question was reapproriated FOR PRIVATE
DEVELOPMENT.  We're not talking about infrastructure or some other public use,
emphasis on public and use.  It was for private development.  No public.  No
use.  Period.

Have you read it?  "After approving of an integrated development plan
designed to revitalize its ailing economy" is how it starts off.  Page 2 gets
another nice damning sentence, "The city has carefully formulated a
development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the
community, including, but not limited to, *new jobs and increased tax revenue*."

Simply put if a developer comes along and decides that he can wring more
tax revenue out of a particular piece of property then it is considered
"public use".  From private to private, that is not what eminent domain was for.

> Bull back at you, if that's the level on which you wish to conduct the
> discussion.  The constitution _explicitly_ contemplates that private
> property _may_ be taken for public use upon payment of just compensation
> (i.e. fair market value).  Who should make the decision whether exercise
> of the eminent domain power is appropriate?

Be taken *for* *public* *use*.  Increasing the tax base doesn't qualify by
a long shot.

> So the owner can simply deny government's right to exercise the power of
> eminent domain?

When the government is trying to use eminent domain to hand it off to
another private individual, yes.

> You're no libertarian; you're an anarchist!  (So be it - I'm not riding
> a horse here, just clarifying constitutional doctrine, and the US
> Constitution is not an anarchist document.)

Sorry, care to try that again.  Do me a favor and do searches on Google on
the following two phrases, "libertarian kelo" and "cato kelo".  Let's see,
CATO, often described as "A Libertarian thin-tank" wrote a brief on Kelo's
behalf arguing the city had violated the 5th amendment.  LPVA's site states
they feel the ruling was incorrect for the same reasons as I have outlined.
NLP website is the same.

In fact so far I have found exactly one page in all those returned which
comes to the conclusion you've arrived.  So I feel you're going to be hard
pressed to catagorize me as anarchist when my position falls in line with
those who are recognized as "libertarian".

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

OT: Land Use Decisions (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Patrick Wiseman]

On 11/19/05, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Patrick Wiseman wrote:> This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the US> Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently> bought the MSM's spin on it.
Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.
OK, then you've bought the right-wing ranters' version of what  the Kelo decision said.
 > All the Court did in that case was
> reaffirm at least 50 (and arguably 200) years' worth of constitutional> law:  decisions about land use should be made _locally_ and not be
> second-guessed by the 9 probably-out-of-touch folks who happen to sit on> the US Supreme Court.That's the excuse given which doesn't hold water because even local lawofficals are beholden to the Constitution.  I'm sorry but the phrase "nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" ishard to mangle into "Taking property from one private individual and giving itto another individual because they would generate more tax revenue" based on
the notion of "decisions about land use should be made locally".
Have you read the Kelo decision?  Apparently not.  The Court
made it abundantly clear that taking property from one private owner
and giving it to another would violate the "public use" limitation (if
that's what it is - textual analysis could go either way) of the
Takings Clause, and that that is NOT what happened in New London. 
And it's not.  The "taking" was part of a comprehensive land-use
development.

> Whether what happened in New London was bad

> _policy_ (something I'll not argue) it violated no constitutional> _principle_.Bull.  Protections against private property are very much the core ofconstitutional principle and that was grossly violated.

Bull back at you, if that's the level on which you wish to conduct the
discussion.  The constitution _explicitly_ contemplates that
private property _may_ be taken for public use upon payment of just
compensation (i.e. fair market value).  Who should make the
decision whether exercise of the eminent domain power is appropriate?
> I thought libertarians - and I had the impression you, Mr.> Lamb, consider yourself one - preferred local to national decision
> making.I do.  But I do not believe "local decision making" trumps one's right topersonal property.  Why?  Because that's as local as you can get.  It's is*my* land and *I* decide whether to sell it or not.  The local "planning
board" is one step removed from the most local authority of that land, the owner.
So the owner can simply deny government's right to exercise the power
of eminent domain?  The constitution (the US one that is, sorry to
be parochial on this international list) specifically provides
otherwise.  You're no libertarian; you're an anarchist!  (So
be it - I'm not riding a horse here, just clarifying constitutional
doctrine, and the US Constitution is not an anarchist document.)

Patrick

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Patrick Wiseman wrote:
> This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the US
> Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently
> bought the MSM's spin on it.

Nope, tend to ignore MSM for the rubbish it is.

> All the Court did in that case was
> reaffirm at least 50 (and arguably 200) years' worth of constitutional
> law:  decisions about land use should be made _locally_ and not be
> second-guessed by the 9 probably-out-of-touch folks who happen to sit on
> the US Supreme Court.

That's the excuse given which doesn't hold water because even local law
officals are beholden to the Constitution.  I'm sorry but the phrase "nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" is
hard to mangle into "Taking property from one private individual and giving it
to another individual because they would generate more tax revenue" based on
the notion of "decisions about land use should be made locally".

> Whether what happened in New London was bad
> _policy_ (something I'll not argue) it violated no constitutional
> _principle_.

Bull.  Protections against private property are very much the core of
constitutional principle and that was grossly violated.

> I thought libertarians - and I had the impression you, Mr.
> Lamb, consider yourself one - preferred local to national decision
> making.

I do.  But I do not believe "local decision making" trumps one's right to
personal property.  Why?  Because that's as local as you can get.  It's is
*my* land and *I* decide whether to sell it or not.  The local "planning
board" is one step removed from the most local authority of that land, the 
owner.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Patrick Wiseman]

On 11/18/05, Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alex Malinovich wrote:> I'm really not sure what you mean here. Perhaps an example of a law that> is meant to be friendly to the community but is unfriendly to an> individiual would be in order?
I think the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 5th Ammendment [sic] is a primeexample.
This thread is just way out of hand[1], but if you're speaking of the
US Supreme Court's decision in _Kelo v. New London_, you've apparently
bought the MSM's spin on it.  All the Court did in that case was
reaffirm at least 50 (and arguably 200) years' worth of constitutional
law:  decisions about land use should be made _locally_ and not be
second-guessed by the 9 probably-out-of-touch folks who happen to sit
on the US Supreme Court.  Whether what happened in New London was
bad _policy_ (something I'll not argue) it violated no constitutional
_principle_.  I thought libertarians - and I had the impression
you, Mr. Lamb, consider yourself one - preferred local to national
decision making.  But maybe it depends on the decision.  That
the local decision was good for the community as a whole but bad for
some individuals is arguable; that the Supreme Court should have
second-guessed it is not.

Patrick

[1]Yes, I'm a Debian user and yes, this is the debian-user list, but doesn't that imply something about SUBJECT-MATTER??

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Alex Malinovich wrote:
> I'm really not sure what you mean here. Perhaps an example of a law that
> is meant to be friendly to the community but is unfriendly to an
> individiual would be in order?

I think the recent Supreme Court ruling on the 5th Ammendment is a prime
example.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Alex Malinovich]

Steve Lamb wrote:


   Not to mention that people for some reason think that the groupthink et
al. for corporations are bad because it is "for profit" and yet groupthink for
"the community" is good because it isn't.
 

Groupthink is bad regardless of circumstances. Whether a bad decision is 
made by a board of directors, a local government, or the federal 
government (we've had a fair bit of those lately), it is still a bad 
decision.



   There was a reply in here somewhere that I never got, only quoted, where
someone attributed my name to the "cowboy mentality" of "give me 40 acres, a
mule, a shotgun and I'll take care of myself".  They went on to say that
because of the large urban populations we're more interconnected than I
supposedly seem to think; that the Europeans have figured this out and is why
their laws are more "friendly to communities".  What they failed to realize
that pretty much any time action is taken "for the good of the community" it
denies that the community is made up of individuals.  It is flat-out
anti-individual.  How something can be friendly to a group of individuals
while being hostile to any individual in that group is beyond me.

 

I'm really not sure what you mean here. Perhaps an example of a law that 
is meant to be friendly to the community but is unfriendly to an 
individiual would be in order?


--
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Nate Bargmann]

* Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005 Nov 18 13:54 -0600]:
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> > 
> > > You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
> > > Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
> > > can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
> > 
> > Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
> > break the thread in small pieces.
> 
> Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.

Not my Mutt.  This whole sordid thread is still all intact on this
screen.

- Nate >>

-- 
 Wireless | Amateur Radio Station N0NB  |  Successfully Microsoft
  Amateur radio exams; ham radio; Linux info @  | free since January 1998.
 http://www.qsl.net/n0nb/   |  "Debian, the choice of
 My Kawasaki KZ-650 SR @| a GNU generation!"
http://www.networksplus.net/n0nb/   |   http://www.debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Ron Johnson wrote:
> Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds.  When 
> you walk into an office building, you aren't *forcefully* assimil-
> ted into the Borg collective.

> It's *individuals* *choosing* to go along with Groupthing, conform-
> ism, etc.

Not to mention that people for some reason think that the groupthink et
al. for corporations are bad because it is "for profit" and yet groupthink for
"the community" is good because it isn't.

There was a reply in here somewhere that I never got, only quoted, where
someone attributed my name to the "cowboy mentality" of "give me 40 acres, a
mule, a shotgun and I'll take care of myself".  They went on to say that
because of the large urban populations we're more interconnected than I
supposedly seem to think; that the Europeans have figured this out and is why
their laws are more "friendly to communities".  What they failed to realize
that pretty much any time action is taken "for the good of the community" it
denies that the community is made up of individuals.  It is flat-out
anti-individual.  How something can be friendly to a group of individuals
while being hostile to any individual in that group is beyond me.

Between a corporation with way too much money and manpower and an
overzealous activist with no clue give me the former.  At least then I know
the exact price of my consensual reaming as opposed to being clueless of the
cost of my forced raping.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Greg Norris]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 01:50:14PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
> > break the thread in small pieces.
> 
> Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.

My copy of mutt (1.5.11-3, from sid) doesn't seem to have any trouble 
threading this mess.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Bill Marcum]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:37:10PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> 
> ISTM, that our entire economy has been jacked up about $40,000 per
> year, to accomodate. 

Hey, where's my $40,000?  Give it back! :)


-- 
Remember, in 2039, MOUSSE & PASTA will be available ONLY by prescription!!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 12:48 -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> --snip--
> > Did Steve ever mention "rational"?  I don't think so.
> > 
> > Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds.  When 
> > you walk into an office building, you aren't *forcefully* assimil-
> > ted into the Borg collective.
> > 
> > It's *individuals* *choosing* to go along with Groupthing, conform-
> > ism, etc.
> 
> While it is true that, in the end, we all have a choice, the problem
> with a phenomenon such as groupthink is not in the choice, but in the
> data used as a basis for that choice.
> 
> While you and I may look at a situation and say, "That person obviously
> made a bad decision by throwing that bucket of gasoline onto that fire",
> the person facing the fire is looking at a bucket labeled "Water" that,
> as far as she can determine, CONTAINS water.
> 
> Groupthink and other socially influenced behaviors cause us to perceive
> our environments differently, thereby turning perfectly rational choices
> into apparently irrational ones. So in that sense, when you walk into an
> office building you ARE forcefully assimilated into the Borg collective.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this assertion.

> And unless you are an old bald man with a penchant for Earl Grey tea and
> saying things like "engage", you are not likely to get out of it
> easily. :)
> 

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA

"The government are behaving like a bevy of maiden aunts who have
fallen among buccaneers."
David Lloyd George, British prime minister; on Britain's response
to the Spanish Civil War


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Alex Malinovich]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 13:48 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
--snip--
> Did Steve ever mention "rational"?  I don't think so.
> 
> Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds.  When 
> you walk into an office building, you aren't *forcefully* assimil-
> ted into the Borg collective.
> 
> It's *individuals* *choosing* to go along with Groupthing, conform-
> ism, etc.

While it is true that, in the end, we all have a choice, the problem
with a phenomenon such as groupthink is not in the choice, but in the
data used as a basis for that choice.

While you and I may look at a situation and say, "That person obviously
made a bad decision by throwing that bucket of gasoline onto that fire",
the person facing the fire is looking at a bucket labeled "Water" that,
as far as she can determine, CONTAINS water.

Groupthink and other socially influenced behaviors cause us to perceive
our environments differently, thereby turning perfectly rational choices
into apparently irrational ones. So in that sense, when you walk into an
office building you ARE forcefully assimilated into the Borg collective.

And unless you are an old bald man with a penchant for Earl Grey tea and
saying things like "engage", you are not likely to get out of it
easily. :)

-- 
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 18:59 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:
> 
> > You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
> > Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
> > can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
> 
> Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
> break the thread in small pieces.

Must be Mutt, because Evo displays a deeply-nested thread.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"But peace does not rest in the charters and covenants alone. It
lies in the hearts and minds of all people. So let us not rest
all our hopes on parchment and on paper, let us strive to build
peace, a desire for peace, a willingness to work for peace in the
hearts and minds of all of our people. I believe that we can. I
believe the problems of human destiny are not beyond the reach of
human beings."
John F Kennedy


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Fri, 2005-11-18 at 10:05 -0800, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 06:02 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > C Shore wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > >>And the corporations are trying to prevent from folding.  BTW, you do
> > >>realize that corporations are nothing more than individuals just like you.
> > 
> > > That's a load of crap perpetuated by lawyers.  A coporation is not 
> > > person in any reasonable definition of the word.
> > 
> > That's not what I said.  I said that corporations are nothing more than
> > individuals just like you.  Note the plural.  What makes up a corporation.
> > Uhm, individual human beings.  When people say "Corporations do this" and
> > "Corporations do that" they are demonizing an entity which is, at the very
> > core, made up of and run by people just like them.  To question why certain
> > decisions are made by "corporations" while ignoring that people make the 
> > same
> > decisions, is to show a monumental amount of ignorance.
> 
> To assume that what a group decides is equivalent to the decisions that
> would be made by any rational, individual member of said group, is to
> show a monumental amount of ignorance. (If I may borrow a phrase from
> Steve here.)
> 
> Groupthink[1] is a very powerful force in human behavior. Many extremely
> bad decisions have been made through the years because of it and its
> sister stupidities: herd behavior[2], mob mentality[3], conformism[4],
> et al[5]. And many of those bad decisions have been brought to light
> only because of the willingness of rational INDIVIDUALS to identify
> those decisions as stupid and speak out or act out against them.

Did Steve ever mention "rational"?  I don't think so.

Steve's point is that it's still *people* doing the deeds.  When 
you walk into an office building, you aren't *forcefully* assimil-
ted into the Borg collective.

It's *individuals* *choosing* to go along with Groupthing, conform-
ism, etc.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

Am I the only Atheist that thinks that Quantum Cosmology, String
Theory, etc is the modern form of debating how many Angels can
dance on the head of a pin?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Alex Malinovich]

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 14:33 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:22 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Then we're even: "religion" should work better than the people 
> > > who implement and practice it.
> > 
> > Nope.  Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
> > its very nature to ignore reason, logic and to disbelieve anything to the
> > contrary.
> 
> Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
> more times), and known *lots* of religious people, and being an
> amateur history buff, I can categorically state that your "required"
> assertion is not flat wrong.

I'll definitely second that. Too often people confuse the sheep
following quasi-religious political establishments such as the Catholic
church (among others), for religious people in general. Buddhism and
many other eastern religions focus very heavily on logical thought and
learning. So religion does not NECESSARILY need to ignore reason and
logic, it is only that many of the best-known religions tend to do this.

-- 
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Request to remove Information

[Alex Malinovich]

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 06:02 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> C Shore wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:49:03PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >>And the corporations are trying to prevent from folding.  BTW, you do
> >>realize that corporations are nothing more than individuals just like you.
> 
> > That's a load of crap perpetuated by lawyers.  A coporation is not 
> > person in any reasonable definition of the word.
> 
> That's not what I said.  I said that corporations are nothing more than
> individuals just like you.  Note the plural.  What makes up a corporation.
> Uhm, individual human beings.  When people say "Corporations do this" and
> "Corporations do that" they are demonizing an entity which is, at the very
> core, made up of and run by people just like them.  To question why certain
> decisions are made by "corporations" while ignoring that people make the same
> decisions, is to show a monumental amount of ignorance.

To assume that what a group decides is equivalent to the decisions that
would be made by any rational, individual member of said group, is to
show a monumental amount of ignorance. (If I may borrow a phrase from
Steve here.)

Groupthink[1] is a very powerful force in human behavior. Many extremely
bad decisions have been made through the years because of it and its
sister stupidities: herd behavior[2], mob mentality[3], conformism[4],
et al[5]. And many of those bad decisions have been brought to light
only because of the willingness of rational INDIVIDUALS to identify
those decisions as stupid and speak out or act out against them.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behaviour
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mob_mentality
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformism
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#See_also

-- 
Alex Malinovich
Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY!
Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the
pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-11-16 16:19:10, schrieb Mitch Wiedemann:

> I suggest you keep your ego in check and remember you're on a
> *debian-user* email list. 
> 
> If you would like to discuss e-mail filtering, that would be a great
> deal more useful to the rest of us than what you've all been going on about.
> 
> So, what is the most efficient way to filter any and all future
> responses to the "Request to remove Information" thread?

in your ~/.procmailrc

:0
* ^Subject:.*(Request to remove Information)
/dev/null
 

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-11-16 15:06:03, schrieb Mike McCarty:

> You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
> Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
> can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to

Does not work, because this stupig "remailer"
break the thread in small pieces.

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-11-16 03:49:16, schrieb Antonio Rodriguez:

> Speaking of the devil that keeps the US (European, etc) population
> getting fatter and fatter every day (growth hormone to cows, cows to
> human mouths, you know the chain, plus some other substances, etc), by
> the end of the year the gov is getting ready to approve the sale of
> cloned animals in the market, noiseless, as usual, no body knows,

But not in Germany, France or the rest of the EU

> nobody cares, oh!, we are getting fatter, so fat that look like
> walking balloons...

Hey, I am eating Halal from Morocco and Turkey. :-)

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[steef]

Seth Goodman wrote:


From: steef [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:39 AM
To: debian Users
Subject: Re: Request to remove Information


Steve Lamb wrote:

   


privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:


 


Well, according to your law of the capitalist jungle if we
offend our corporate masters^H^H employers we deserve to
be fired and starve.


   


  And yet I've never been fired for anything I've said in
my off-duty time. Imagine that.



 


..m.. have been following your discussion about - as i
see it - the practice of american capitalism, corporate greed
and so on.  interesting.  so interesting that i saved this
thread (up till now).
   



This has been a very useful discussion and I think more people should
talk about these things.  It's too bad some people want to stop this
thread.  This is possibly the most important issue of our times.
Showing the logical and expected results of the American brand of
capitalism would at least make some people consider whether it's a
reasonable system, which I strongly believe it is not.

Steve Lamb really doesn't seem to get it.  He embodies the "cowboy"
mentality that is all too common in Southern and Western States in the
U.S. (and elected Bush).  It's an outrageous libertarian perspective
that believes, "give me 40 acres, a mule and a shotgun and I can take
care of myself".  It completely ignores the fact that by living in a
dense, specialized society, we are by nature interdependent.  Europeans,
having run out of wide open spaces long before Americans, have come to
appreciate that fact long ago.  I think this explains why European laws
and customs seem to value the community far more than the U.S.

We also have this bizarre legal interpretation that a corporation is
considered a person with rights.  To me, this is sheer idiocy.  If you
haven't already seen it, I highly recommend the movie, "The
Corporation", which you can find on DVD.  It examines corporate behavior
as if it were an actual person, and tries to determine what the
psychological diagnosis for a real person with similar behavior would
be.  It is a documentary, not an attempt at humor.


 


well: personally i am fed up with *our* and *your* bunch of lying
and stealing lackey-politicans and their corpororate bosses.

believe me: i know where i am talking about. herman and i
analyzed for over thirty years the workings of the nuclear
industry mainly in europe. and now the *benefits* of
corporations like monsanto pioneer hi-bred and the like
for food and feed. illuminating.
   




From the little I know of the U.S. nuclear industry, it is among the

worst.  We have them temporarily held in check, as there have been no
new nuclear plants built here for many years.  I hope it stays that way,
but with our current right-wing government, I don't know how much longer
we can hold them off.

The State that I live in, Wisconsin, is an agricultural state (mostly
dairy and corn), so I am all too familiar with Monsanto and similar
organizations.  Due to their power, we couldn't even pass a law to label
milk stating whether the cows were injected with bovine growth hormone.
Most of the farmers here don't even want it and we already have a
surplus of dairy products.  The only beneficiaries are the few huge
corporate dairy operations and of course Monsanto.  The typical family
dairy farm in Wisconsin is 200 acres with about the same number of cows.
These people work seven days a week and are still going out of business.
Most of them have a family member with a job in a nearby town so they
can keep their farms.  We are losing around 10% of our family farms each
year.  It's really sad.


 


i am glad that most of you try to make a decent living like
the mosty of us over here and detest most things as they are
going.
   



That is what most people are doing, of course.  I felt very sad to see
the posts from people whose jobs were outsourced to third-world
countries.  I have a number of friends in that same position, software
engineers with 25 years of experience who can no longer find meaningful
work.  With our H1-B visa program ("guest workers"), downtown San Jose
in California (the heart of Silicon Valley) is full of apartments that
are shared by five or six Malaysian or Philippino engineers who work for
very low wages and _no_ benefits (i.e. no health care, no vacation, no
sick leave).  Some of them are hired as "contractors", which means they
are not considered employees so they have to pay all their own taxes, as
well.  No American with a family can afford to work for such low wages.
I have no malice for these hardworking engineers, they are just doing
the best they can for their own families.  It is our system of trade
that is broken, that allows our corporations to take advantage of
poverty in some countries.  There will always be somebody, somewhere

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:22 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Then we're even: "religion" should work better than the people 
> > who implement and practice it.
> 
> Nope.  Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
> its very nature to ignore reason, logic and to disbelieve anything to the
> contrary.

Having read the Bible a lot (completely twice, and big chunks many
more times), and known *lots* of religious people, and being an
amateur history buff, I can categorically state that your "required"
assertion is not flat wrong.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion,
than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors
of peace."
Andre Gide


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Ron Johnson wrote:
> Then we're even: "religion" should work better than the people 
> who implement and practice it.

Nope.  Because the people who practice and implement it are required by
its very nature to ignore reason, logic and to disbelieve anything to the
contrary.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 12:06 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Scientists are people.
> > People have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.
> 
> > Scientists thus have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.
> 
> Yes, but you made the same mistake as other people.  We're talking about
> the process and the institution and how it should work in spite of human
> frailties and strength.

Then we're even: "religion" should work better than the people 
who implement and practice it.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

Culture matters.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Ron Johnson wrote:
> Scientists are people.
> People have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.

> Scientists thus have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.

Yes, but you made the same mistake as other people.  We're talking about
the process and the institution and how it should work in spite of human
frailties and strength.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 13:44 -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> > No much difference between science and religion, same crap. Thus I
> > decline the offer.
> 
> Actually, there is one major difference.
> 
> Religion is based on the notion that they know everything and anything
> which doesn't fit into their worldview is wrong.  One must accept
> contridictions and inaccuracies on "faith".  Reason and logic are shunned and
> never to be used.  Religion is rigid, unyielding and incapable of admitting
> they are wrong.

This is definitely not an absolute truth.  Gregor Mendel was a monk,
Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Leibniz were (relatively)
orthodox.  In fact, before 1950, most scientists had a firm belief
in God.

> Science, on the other hand, starts from the basis that we know nothing and
> attempts to identify how things work and explain those workings.  Science not
> only allows dissenting opinions, it *ENCOURAGES THEM*.  When one viewpoint is
> proven wrong it is discarded.  If something better comes along and stands the
> test of logic and reason within the community, it is accepted in place of
> whatever came before it.  Science is fluid and every changing but in a matter
> which promotes logic and reason.  In short, Science is perfectly capable of
> admitting it is wrong and modifying itself to evidence and facts of the world
> around it.

Ha ha ha ha ha.

Scientists are people.
People have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.

Scientists thus have biases, are selfish, vain, proud, etc.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"It is easier to lead men to combat, stirring up their passion,
than to restrain them and direct them toward the patient labors
of peace."
Andre Gide


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Am 2005-11-15 16:57:35, schrieb privacy.at Anonymous Remailer:

> He didn't just make a "relatively common mistake," he posted
> HTML-loaded mail to a mailing list. If he can't figure out how to set
> his mail client to plain text ONLY, he has no business in IT. If he
> can't figure out that his request to this list, TWO YEARS after the
> fact, is meaningless, he has no business in IT. I say let him have it
> with both barrels.

And someone whos break mail threads too.
IF you reply, make sure, your In-Reply-To: Header is correct.

But such things happen is assholes using anon-mailer.

Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Hi Seth,

Am 2005-11-14 18:45:23, schrieb Seth Goodman:

> One mid-sized electronics company I worked for got a new CEO who was an
> accountant from the construction industry.  He had no concept of what
> the technical staff did nor what we contributed.  It really bothered him
> that engineering managers and many engineers had private offices with
> windows that looked out over the beautifully landscaped corporate
> campus.  We felt the working environment was a significant bonus that
> kept many of us loyal to the company.  The CEO felt this was a wrong
> that he had to correct.  He then spent USD$1.5M to buy cubicle furniture
> and moved the engineering staff to interior space in the plant.  Because
> the company had no further use for the offices with windows, they were
> filled with cardboard boxes and used for storage.  I don't have to tell
> you how this affected morale.

In France we have the same BS, but in Germany it is contrary,
because the enterprises do something to satisfait the employes.

The enterprises try to hold them.

It seems, you live in the false country.

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Michelle Konzack]

Hi Mitja,

Am 2005-11-15 12:00:47, schrieb Mitja Podreka:

> The problem with low wages is that the chinese worker, which is doing 
> the outsourced work, is working whole day, seven days a week for a 

This is not right, they are working only 12 hours a day 5 1/2 days a
week.  ;-)  I have some friends in China and we have a heavy exchange.

> sallary which barely keeps him alive. Why? So that someone can buy a 

Not right, none of my friends there "keep alive".  For China, they earn
enorm.  The equivalent in Europ would be 6000 to 8000 Euros per month.

> $5000 suit, live in a house with 27 rooms and 9 bathrooms and with a 
> ferrari parked alongside 15 metre limo.

Hmmm, I have only bougth an Appartement for 29.000 Euro in Marrakech/
Morocco and have a nice house in Denizli/Turkey for around 50.000 Euro.

> Everyone who is not bitching about this kind of world should seriously 
> think about what is wrong with him.

Mybe you have the false Employer ?

Greetings
Michelle

-- 
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917  ICQ #328449886
   50, rue de Soultz MSM LinuxMichi
0033/3/8845235667100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Mitch Wiedemann]

Cybe R. Wizard wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:19:10 -0500
>Mitch Wiedemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>I suggest you keep your ego in check and remember you're on a
>>*debian-user* email list. 
>>
>>
>
>As a Debian user (and Ubuntu, and Libranet,..., all derivatives) I am
>quite interested in this thread /as a Debian user./  And, hey,
>the list is for the users of Debian.  Perhaps you could filter your own
>email and let the rest of us decide for ourselves.
>
>Cybe R. Wizard
>  
>
Ok. I was wrong. I'll shut up about it.  Everyone carry on.

Best regards to you all.

-- 

Mitch Wiedemann
Webmaster - Ithaca Free Software Association
http://ithacafreesoftware.org 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Cybe R. Wizard]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:19:10 -0500
Mitch Wiedemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I suggest you keep your ego in check and remember you're on a
> *debian-user* email list. 

As a Debian user (and Ubuntu, and Libranet,..., all derivatives) I am
quite interested in this thread /as a Debian user./  And, hey,
the list is for the users of Debian.  Perhaps you could filter your own
email and let the rest of us decide for ourselves.

Cybe R. Wizard
-- 
Their address sums up their attitude: One Microsoft Way.
Winduhs


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: Request to remove Information

[Seth Goodman]

> From: Mike McCarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 2:58 PM

<...>

> How about the prejudice that software engineers are only good
> for writing programs, while hardware engineers can design
> both hardware *and* software?

It just goes to show that knowledge may be finite, but ignorance is
limitless.  Hardware engineers like me can and do write software, it's
just crude, inefficient, subject to abuse and not suitable for general
distribution.  It's good enough to test my own hardware, but a software
engineer can do it in a third the time, so why bother?  Similarly, I'm
sure most software engineers can design hardware, but probably not
something you would want to run through a production line and support in
the field.

I don't know where the idea came about that hardware engineers can write
better embedded systems.  For a software engineer to do a good job on an
embedded project, they have to understand hardware, but that's very
different from being able to do a manufacturable design.  Similarly, a
good hardware engineer has to know enough about software to
intelligently talk to the software engineer, but that does not imply
they could write the system.  In the good situations, both engineers
understand enough about each other's area that they can ask probing
questions from a different viewpoint and come up with a better system
design than either could have alone.

I suspect that design managers who have the misguided notion you brought
up have never worked with a real software engineer.  This is not rocket
science.  If your pipes are leaking, don't call a carpenter.

--

Seth Goodman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Roberto C. Sanchez]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:51:23PM -0800, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Mike McCarty wrote:
> > I noticed very early on in my career (1980 or so) that management types
> > had no concept of what I did, and considered engineers to be like
> > interchangeable widgets. Like adjustable wrenches. Any adjustable wrench
> > can turn any nut.
> 
> Oh how I hate this, really.  It's led to some rather interesting want ads
> that I just have to laugh at.  I mean people post ads looking for people well
> versed in about 20 different technologies and expect to get by with a
> sub-40k/year offer.  It wouldn't be so bad except that they expect people to
> already KNOW all of those technologies and fail to realize that at some point,
> at least for software engineers, one who is well versed in some can pick up
> any others fairly quickly.  So on the one hand they expect the
> interchangability but on the other ignore the possibility of it.  >.<
> 
That just goes to show the general cluelessness of many HR people.  Like
the adds that solicit people with 10 years of experience with Windows
2000 Server and .NET programming.

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://familiasanchez.net/~roberto


pgpBN8Om9WWzM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Mike McCarty wrote:
> I noticed very early on in my career (1980 or so) that management types
> had no concept of what I did, and considered engineers to be like
> interchangeable widgets. Like adjustable wrenches. Any adjustable wrench
> can turn any nut.

Oh how I hate this, really.  It's led to some rather interesting want ads
that I just have to laugh at.  I mean people post ads looking for people well
versed in about 20 different technologies and expect to get by with a
sub-40k/year offer.  It wouldn't be so bad except that they expect people to
already KNOW all of those technologies and fail to realize that at some point,
at least for software engineers, one who is well versed in some can pick up
any others fairly quickly.  So on the one hand they expect the
interchangability but on the other ignore the possibility of it.  >.<

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Science and Religion the same??? (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Steve Lamb]

Mitch Wiedemann wrote:
> Could you all argue about this amongst yourselves?  You're spamming the
> rest of the *debian-user* list.

> Remember Debian?  It's a computer operating system.

Yup, remember it's Debian-*USER* and we're the users.  Care to show me who
died and made you moderator?

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> No much difference between science and religion, same crap. Thus I
> decline the offer.

Actually, there is one major difference.

Religion is based on the notion that they know everything and anything
which doesn't fit into their worldview is wrong.  One must accept
contridictions and inaccuracies on "faith".  Reason and logic are shunned and
never to be used.  Religion is rigid, unyielding and incapable of admitting
they are wrong.

Science, on the other hand, starts from the basis that we know nothing and
attempts to identify how things work and explain those workings.  Science not
only allows dissenting opinions, it *ENCOURAGES THEM*.  When one viewpoint is
proven wrong it is discarded.  If something better comes along and stands the
test of logic and reason within the community, it is accepted in place of
whatever came before it.  Science is fluid and every changing but in a matter
which promotes logic and reason.  In short, Science is perfectly capable of
admitting it is wrong and modifying itself to evidence and facts of the world
around it.



-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Steve Lamb]

Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> Well, the whole problem boils down to "eat what you want". No problems
> with that. The problem arises if what I don't want to eat is masked or
> passed as something else. Someone's freedom to worship science and eat
> whatever crap scientists make should not imply that my freedom not to
> eat it may be diminished. I'm not refusing it for you, I am refusing
> someone telling me what to eat.

Problem with your rant is that it directly causes millions of deaths.  No,
really.  Because of all this idiocy that people like you spew one nation in
Africa (Zambia?) refused food for their starving people because it was
genetically modified.

I'm with Penn and Teller on this on how they closed their episode on GMFs,
"Until you and yours are starving to death shut the fuck up."

IE, if you're not starving you have absolutely NO platform to tell people
who are starving that there's problems with this food or that.  NONE.  And
propigating bad information does influence their decision.  So until you face
that prospect of death from starvation get the hell out of the arena.

-- 
 Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
   PGP Key: 8B6E99C5   | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
---+-


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Request to remove Information

[Mitch Wiedemann]

Mike McCarty wrote:

> Carl Fink wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:35:15AM -0500, Mitch Wiedemann wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to make a motion that we discontinue this very OT thread.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second.
>
>
> You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
> Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
> can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
> look for key words in the subject, to, body, etc.
> and *automatically* delete mail messages.
>
> I suggest you investigate these capabilities which may
> be present in your mailer.
>
> Mike

I suggest you keep your ego in check and remember you're on a
*debian-user* email list. 

If you would like to discuss e-mail filtering, that would be a great
deal more useful to the rest of us than what you've all been going on about.

So, what is the most efficient way to filter any and all future
responses to the "Request to remove Information" thread?

-- 

Mitch Wiedemann
Webmaster - Ithaca Free Software Association
http://ithacafreesoftware.org 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Science and Religion the same??? (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 16:05 -0500, Mitch Wiedemann wrote:
> Could you all argue about this amongst yourselves?  You're spamming the
> rest of the *debian-user* list.

We are users of Debian.  We are on the debian-user mailing list.
What's the problem?

I get your point, though.

> Remember Debian?  It's a computer operating system.

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

Liberals are funny... hardcore against the death penalty, except
for the "crime" of being conceived at an inconvenient time.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Mike McCarty]

Carl Fink wrote:

On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:35:15AM -0500, Mitch Wiedemann wrote:


I'd like to make a motion that we discontinue this very OT thread.



Second.


You don't have to vote, nor do you have to make requests.
Just use the delete key. I use a threaded reader, so I
can delete whole threads. It also has the ability to
look for key words in the subject, to, body, etc.
and *automatically* delete mail messages.

I suggest you investigate these capabilities which may
be present in your mailer.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Science and Religion the same??? (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Mitch Wiedemann]

Could you all argue about this amongst yourselves?  You're spamming the
rest of the *debian-user* list.

Remember Debian?  It's a computer operating system.

-- 

Mitch Wiedemann
Webmaster - Ithaca Free Software Association
http://ithacafreesoftware.org 



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Mike McCarty]

Seth Goodman wrote:

The outsourcing problem is a real mess, and it is a complicated
situation.


[snip]


This ridiculous waste of money is an example of the deeply held
prejudice of many people who make financial decisions today.  They know
they need technical talent, but consider technologists as a commodity.
In contrast, they view people with MBA's as smart, hardworking and
deserving far more than what the company can pay them.  My personal
belief is that this worldview is more responsible for our current
outsourcing woes than the original economic reason.


My favorite "Dilbert": Pointy-haired boss to Dilbert: "If we can make
100,000 potato chips per hour, why does it take so long to develop
software?"

I noticed very early on in my career (1980 or so) that management types
had no concept of what I did, and considered engineers to be like
interchangeable widgets. Like adjustable wrenches. Any adjustable wrench
can turn any nut.

This prejudice is a hang-over, I believe, from the class prejudice
of english society. In England, today, anyone with a technical degree
is considered basically unlettered. Anyone with a liberal arts
education beats anyone with a technical degree. Technical degrees
are tantamount to, in these USA, a degree from a technical school.
A very different thing, but the attitude is the same.

[snip]


boiled, I paused to think, then asked why.  He replied, "I guess it's
harder to find good managers than good technical people."  He honestly
and sincerely said those words to my face.  Believe me, I couldn't make
up something that stupid if I tried.

Please don't make the mistake of ignoring what we are dealing with.  We
can't fight this prejudice with our eyes closed.


How about the prejudice that software engineers are only good
for writing programs, while hardware engineers can design
both hardware *and* software?

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Science and Religion the same??? (was Re: Request to remove Information)

[Ron Johnson]

On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 15:45 -0500, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 02:36:11PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Science is the new religion.  A few centuries ago, if you dared
> > > to go against the church, you would end up fried. Now, if you 
> > > dare  to say that you give a shit about what scientists think, 
> > > you
> > 
> > You'll be elected to a School Board in Kansas.
> 
> No much difference between science and religion, same crap. Thus I
> decline the offer.

U.  H.  Hmmm, again.  From gcide

 $ dict religion
  1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their
 recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having
 power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and
 honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love,
 fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power,
 whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites
 and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of
 faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical
 religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion;
 revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion
 of idol worshipers.
 [1913 Webster]

 $ dict science
  2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been
 systematized and formulated with reference to the
 discovery of general truths or the operation of general
 laws; knowledge classified and made available in work,
 life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or
 philosophical knowledge.
 [1913 Webster]

So, no.  Science and Religion are *not* the same.

You are confusion "Science" with "worship of science"

> > What planet do you live on?
> 
> Earth.
> 
> 

-- 
-
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of
government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow
operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Mike McCarty]

Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote:

Clive Menzies wrote:



Indulging in schadenfreude is one thing; deliberately exacerbating the
guy's misfortune is probably more than he deserves.

OK he's made a relatively common mistake and then compounded it with the
the removal request; if Tom's following this thread, he'll be suffering
anyway.

I don't see the mileage in being vindictive.



But there is more here than meets the eye: good ol' Tom opened up a can 
of worms that runs pretty deep, apparently...


H


There exists quite a lot of very deep resentment over outsourcing on the
part of engineers in these USA.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Request to remove Information

[Mike McCarty]

Clive Menzies wrote:

On (14/11/05 17:36), privacy.at Anonymous Remailer wrote:

Regardless, please come back in a few months and request its removal 
again.  I'd love to see that original email [2] climb higher in 
Google's results than the current #3 spot it holds now when searching 
for your name. ;)


It's at the number 1 spot at the moment :D.

http://www.google.com/search?q=Weissgerber,+Tom+L


Let's keep it there with lots of links!
Edit your web pages, everyone



Indulging in schadenfreude is one thing; deliberately exacerbating the
guy's misfortune is probably more than he deserves.


<> implies a certain maliciousness, I think.

Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]