Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 2 Dec 2006 10:26 In article <ekrvul$8qk_005(a)s1015.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.1fda22f3561c3ddf989d60(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <ekpajd$8ss_010(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> In article <MPG.1fd8f934cc0c9057989d50(a)news.individual.net>, > >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >In article <ekmifn$8ss_002(a)s886.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >> >> In article <MPG.1fd79bef70af1ed3989d3d(a)news.individual.net>, > >> >> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >> >> <snip> > >> >> > >> >> >It's not a "3" it's "=3F" (the code-point for the apostrophe). I'm > >> >> >not sure what I did (it just happened recently). If someone has an > >> >> >idea how to fix it I certainly will! > >> >> > >> >> Did your system get hexed? > >> > > >> >Apparently! ;-) Maybe it's fixed, dunno. > >> > >> Well, now I have itch that can't be scratched. Your > >> aberration seems to have disappeared. I HATE that > >> when it happens. TW always blamed a cosmic ray. After > >> haunting the s.p. newsgroup, I learned he was telling > >> me a fairy tale ;-). > > > >Lloyd had it pegged. Somehow the code page got changed. I didn't > >go in there and mess with anything so I don't know how it happened. > >I hope it wasn't some secret keyboard combination. It looked fine > >when I typed it so I didn't see it happen. Gremlins. > > [lightbulb lights above emoticon] Do you have a cat? Two (and two mice on the system ;). They're not much into the Usenet though. -- Keith
From: Eeyore on 2 Dec 2006 10:27 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > When everybody gets everything equally, nobody is > allowed to be wealthy. Thus, all are poor, equally poor, but > poor. Even communist Russia wasn't run like that ! Graham
From: unsettled on 2 Dec 2006 10:32 krw wrote: > In article <7e815$4570f6c8$4fe7357$10296(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > >>krw wrote: >> >> >>>In article <eb3ed$4570f324$4fe7357$10200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... >>> >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>>>>> >>>>>>regards >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>to >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>>>>>separation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>>>>>>>affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>best advance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>>>>>estraordinary things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>>>>>under capitalism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>><snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>/BAH >>>>>> >>>>>>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >>>>>>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>>>>>capitalistic society? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >>>>>motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >>>>>more often than the rich kid. >>>> >>>>Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? >>> >>> >>>Gates? >> >>Father was a lawyer. >> >>http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.aspx >> >>No wanting for anything and had money but not what I'd >>call a "rich kid." > > > Not exactly a poverty case either. > > Ok, you don't like Gates, how about Teddy Kennedy? ;-) We'd have an exception if he were an entrepreneur.
From: unsettled on 2 Dec 2006 10:56 Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:09:46 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: >>>But wealth is a far bigger advantage for >>>success than is being poor. >>That way of thinking excuses failure. > I'm guessing you are one of those who feels that those who are poor > are entirely to blame for their circumstances. Kids, too, I suppose. It is obvious that no one can alter their birth conditions so the little smack on the end is disingenuous at best. Look, there's nothing wrong with being poor. Being poor does not prevent anyone from being content and happy. If you had been happy poor you still would be. >>>Control over capital and people creates opportunities and defends >>>against feeling the fuller brunt of mistakes made in learning from >>>them. >>>It would seem that you'd argue being poor is an advantage, too. If it >>>weren't so patently laughable, I'd even imagine you actually believed >>>it. >>You're wallowing in it. >>Opportunity is discovered by the individual, not handed to them. > That's not the only case, though that is some of it. We've made a little headway. Good. > Anyway, you are repeating yourself That's called drilling, just like memorizing the times tables. and focusing on only a part of the picture. It is the starting point in all cases. Without the individual discovering opportunity there can be no advance. I know of no cases where a benefactor dragged the unimaginative prole into success against not only their will but also against all odds. If a fellow can't discover the opportunity, how can he be expected to be smart enough to retain the consequences? You seem to want to assign part of your success to others. That's your business. If you had some willing benefactor(s) then that might be the case. But if you haven't put back into what helped spawned your success then you didn't deserve it in the first place. Many of us who have done well in life, even reasonably well, know enough to pass on some of the surplus. People like me consider that part of an ongoing system, and don't usually think it worthy of mention. Nor, IMO, should the guy who is on the receiving end, if he even notices. On the other end of the spectrum we have Ted Turner said the other day that his 2 billion isn't enough. He's perhaps about as unhappy with his lot as you were with yours when you had to beg for food. Frankly, from your posts here, you still don't sound happy. > Oh, well. Don't give up. There's hope for you yet! ;-)
From: krw on 2 Dec 2006 12:12
In article <b41d0$45719ca8$49ecf15$14377(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > krw wrote: > > > In article <7e815$4570f6c8$4fe7357$10296(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > > unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > > > >>krw wrote: > >> > >> > >>>In article <eb3ed$4570f324$4fe7357$10200(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>>unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > >>> > >>> > >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > >>>>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > >>>>>>>lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>>>>>>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > >>>>>>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Huh? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without > >>>>>> > >>>>>>regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>to > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and > >>>>>>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in > >>>>>>>>>>>separation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't > >>>>>>>>>>affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, > >>>>>>>>>which isn't socialist at all. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>the > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>best advance. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do > >>>>>>>estraordinary things. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is > >>>>>>>>under capitalism. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>><snip> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>/BAH > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same > >>>>>>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a > >>>>>>capitalistic society? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more > >>>>>motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed > >>>>>more often than the rich kid. > >>>> > >>>>Are there any rich kid entrepreneurs? > >>> > >>> > >>>Gates? > >> > >>Father was a lawyer. > >> > >>http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.aspx > >> > >>No wanting for anything and had money but not what I'd > >>call a "rich kid." > > > > > > Not exactly a poverty case either. > > > > Ok, you don't like Gates, how about Teddy Kennedy? ;-) > > We'd have an exception if he were an entrepreneur. I used Ted to tweak BAH. ;-) Ok, how about Donald Trump? William Ford Jr.? Thomas Watson Jr.? -- Keith |