srl wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Yes. I recall something curious said on another thread where 'in competition,
> > someone *wins*'.
> >
> > MY problem with that is that I prefer cooperation - where EVERYONE wins.
>
> Can we be more precise here? I don't think tha
> What is that 10%about $10 Billion?
>
> if you were worth $90Billion, what difference does it make?
to me ?? i don't care since it's a lot more than i could spend,heck,if i
had 200 000$,i could live a bare minimum of 15 years without any income
(buy a 2 years old Toyota Corolla,then a lands
just to be cute:
Ayn Rand
and
Karl Marx :)
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon
On Tue, 9
At 01:28 PM 11/09/1999 -0600, you wrote:
>> Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize
>> cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but
>
Just a few names:
Golda Meir
Margaret Thatcher
Francesca Sforza (got boil
>
>Can we be more precise here? I don't think that cooperation is more of a
>"female trait" and that competition is more of a "male trait". Why do the
>two have to be mutually exclusive, or why are we talking about them like
>they are?
>
>I realize this is mostly a discussion about corporate pract
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> >
> > Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize
> > cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but
> > if you're going to go touting selfishness as a virtue, I'm not
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
>
> > > No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this
> > > forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and
> > > perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical.
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> What unusual dynamics for a list... on issues that people don't want to
> hear from me on.. people jump on them.. I'm guessing the bbses and lists
> that I have used in my life are quite diffrent then yours.. If there is
> someone who is talking about somethin
> Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize
> cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but
watch those generalizations, Deirdre ;)
--
Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
System Administrator
Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc.
http://www.se
What unusual dynamics for a list... on issues that people don't want to
hear from me on.. people jump on them.. I'm guessing the bbses and lists
that I have used in my life are quite diffrent then yours.. If there is
someone who is talking about something that is offtopic or unwarrented..
it's jus
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> > No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this
> > forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and
> > perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical.
>
> In that case.. for this list
At 07:18 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Ok.. lets say hypothiticly I was the creator of Dos.. and I wanted
>everyone to run my program... so it would be easyer for me to sell my
>other applications.. don't you think I would try to write software that
>would create a higher cost of entry for ot
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> curious wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing "un-ethical" about being selfish..
>
> HERE is the core difference between my ethics and yours. Possibly between
> many people's ethics and yours.
>
> _I_ think there is something very very wrong, very unethi
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, J B wrote:
> Call me a stupid man, but what is a CMOTW?
Clueless Male Of The Week.
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net
"Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator
"That's because the Martians keep shooting
> No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this
> forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and
> perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical.
In that case.. for this list anyways.. we will agree to disagree :)
***
curious wrote:
>
> There is nothing "un-ethical" about being selfish..
HERE is the core difference between my ethics and yours. Possibly between
many people's ethics and yours.
_I_ think there is something very very wrong, very unethical, almost evil,
about being selfish.
I think the core caus
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> well how about guytalk here a linuxchix?
Well, that would be beyond the scope of LinuxChix, I would think but
you are certainly welcome to create such a list elsewhere.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Intro: Hi. I'm a lurker. Name's Amanda. Pleased to meet you.
"Caitlyn M. Martin" wrote:
>> Didn't someone, about a week ago, say that each week we get a CMOTW that
>> dominates?
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
>I thought we had a healthy discussion... granted I was as up to speed as I
>
well how about guytalk here a linuxchix?
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon
On Tue, 9 Nov
J B wrote:
>
> Maybe what we really need (and I'm being serious) is to find a nice,
> supportive, pro-feminist mens list to send the confused ones to :)
>
> Vinnie
>
> Is there such a thing? Most of the men who are really interested in the
> issues will find a list such as this. (personally I
ack more reading ;)
thanks,
Chris
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999,
> > define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
> > operating system to be included with every PC by making a deal with
> > vendors.. I think I would... is that unethical?
>
> ethical == not doing a hack to win 3.11 so it doesn't run on DR-DOS as
Ok.. lets say hypothiticly
Maybe what we really need (and I'm being serious) is to find a nice,
supportive, pro-feminist mens list to send the confused ones to :)
Vinnie
Is there such a thing? Most of the men who are really interested in the
issues will find a list such as this. (personally I came cuz of the Linux
stu
suppose you ran MS and you had a choice of being ethical and get 85% of
the OS market or else,NOT being ethical and getting 95% of the market
and the lawsuit,which one would you choose ??
_
What is that 10%about $10 Billion?
if you wer
Call me a stupid man, but what is a CMOTW?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I was not attempting to start a flame war... in hindsight my "should women
> be equal" was probably not the best question to ask.. I merly asked that
> question in relation to building the issue from the ground up...
The problem, chris, is that this really is
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> Didn't someone, about a week ago, say that each week we get a CMOTW
> that dominates?
Yep, that was me.
I'd like to believe it's NOT curious (as he's my friend), but he has been
trolling a lot lately. ::sigh::
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxca
As curious stated:
> (I'm researching standard oil, the
> findings of fact from the judge, and some essays I found on each side of
> the microsoft issue)
While you're researching, study up on IBM's antitrust case:
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ms/198
curious wrote:
>
> if
> jen says to go ahead and put them here I will :)
Not for me to say. I only defined trolling.
I strongly suggest that you go hunt up information on netiquette - see
any search engine - and research more thought-through definitions of
trolling. Mine was a five-minute qui
> define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
> operating system to be included with every PC by making a deal with
> vendors.. I think I would... is that unethical?
ethical == not doing a hack to win 3.11 so it doesn't run on DR-DOS as
well as not coercing pc manufacturer
> suppose you ran MS and you had a choice of being ethical and get 85% of
> the OS market or else,NOT being ethical and getting 95% of the market
> and the lawsuit,which one would you choose ??
define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my
operating system to be include
I was not attempting to start a flame war... in hindsight my "should women
be equal" was probably not the best question to ask.. I merly asked that
question in relation to building the issue from the ground up...
on the microsoft issue.. I replyied to an email that I strongly disagreed
with.. I w
> I am not nessarly taking thier "side" Iam just defending thier rights and
> the rights of other successful companies.. I feel it would be wrong if
> someone just assumes that everything is peachy kean on this issue...
> I responded to a post.. I didn't bring this issue up...
> perhaps when troll
curious wrote:
>
> > Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> > >
> > > It came perilously close to
> > > trolling (and the only reason I don't think it was is because I know you,
> > > from anyone else I'd just assume trollishness)
> > >
> > > Can anyone else make this clearer? I get the feeling I'm missing
> I tried reasoning with him all day. I gave up. It seems pointless.
I thought we had a healthy discussion... granted I was as up to speed as I
should have been... I don't think any discussion is pointless...
I tried very hard to reply to every response...
>
> Didn't someone, about a week ag
> Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
> >
> > It came perilously close to
> > trolling (and the only reason I don't think it was is because I know you,
> > from anyone else I'd just assume trollishness)
> >
> > Can anyone else make this clearer? I get the feeling I'm missing
> > the point.
>
> I read it
"Caitlyn M. Martin" wrote:
>
> I tried reasoning with him all day. I gave up. It seems pointless.
>
> Didn't someone, about a week ago, say that each week we get a CMOTW that
> dominates?
Yup. That's why I only responded to two of his posts. And one of those was
as much as response to Vinnie
Hi, everyone,
> I read it to my husband. He just shrugged and said 'troll'.
>
> It was trollish, even if curious didn't intend to troll.
>
> curious:
> Please put extra effort into not-trolling.
>
> * Don't start arguing Microsoft's side on a Linux list.
> * Don't ask 'why
Vinnie Surmonde wrote:
>
> It came perilously close to
> trolling (and the only reason I don't think it was is because I know you,
> from anyone else I'd just assume trollishness)
>
> Can anyone else make this clearer? I get the feeling I'm missing
> the point.
I read it to my husband. He ju
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I hardly consider the tenique to be unique.. mind you.. I've been reading
> atlas shrugged lately.. she is definatly one who works everything from the
> ground up... which is how I like things :) even If I use my own "stop gap
> trees sometimes :) )
Some time
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> I hardly consider the tenique to be unique.. mind you.. I've been reading
> atlas shrugged lately.. she is definatly one who works everything from the
> ground up... which is how I like things :) even If I use my own "stop gap
> trees sometimes :) )
Not argui
> rule number 3 is don't use them on me!
> I'm going to license my debating techniques, I swear. And the license will
> read 'These techniques are GPL'd, unless your name is Chris Koontz, in
> which case, you can't use them, so nyah'
I hardly consider the tenique to be unique.. mind you.. I've be
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> Ohh.. on the contrary... before I try to figure out in my head how equal
> humanity is to be achived.. it's helpful to find out if it's nessary to
> begin with... the best people to ask such a question to are usualy the
> people fighting for it.
a
43 matches
Mail list logo
