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 "su
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 ph
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 t
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
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
> >
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 c
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]
> > >
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 answ
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.
---
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.
--
-
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
[
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 wi
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
th
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
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/ r
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 la
> 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]
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
restricti
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,
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. T
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
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, 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. "Do
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 spe
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, hea
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
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
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.
>
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, unti
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
> >> appro
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
>> >
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 increas
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 organi
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
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
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
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 so
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 expo
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
bureaucrat
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'
r
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 del
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 popu
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 (p
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 indiv
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.
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 reli
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 cour
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 categor
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
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
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
> beca
Patrick Wiseman wrote:
On 11/19/05, *Steve Lamb* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[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 subjec
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
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
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
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.
>
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 d
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.
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
> reaffir
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 5t
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 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
* 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
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 peo
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
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 UNSUBSC
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
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'
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 n
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 co
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 impl
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.
>
> > T
e 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
--
Lin
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.
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 g
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
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
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
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
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 spi
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 anyt
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 re
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 ma
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 fri
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 inter
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
> 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
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 w
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
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?
--
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 acc
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 m
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]
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?
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 thr
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 PROTE
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
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 sh
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,
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 na
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
