Latest News

[Rhett Oracle]

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 09:32:36 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:22:58 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:


I bet you and Pig Bladder could have a long discussion on that
subject.

Depends on if we trip over our groupies, admirers, and hero-worshipers.


Not to mention all those hot babes that groove on your pickup line.

How many do you think I need?

R.

 

[Detached Observer]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote in
message news:ubh9q0p89pri89iih6oeept11celt00ep4@4ax.com...

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 17:22:58 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:


I bet you and Pig Bladder could have a long discussion on that
subject.

Depends on if we trip over our groupies, admirers, and hero-worshipers.


Not to mention all those hot babes that groove on your pickup line.

I wonder if Grise thinks he's trolling Larkin, or Larkin thinks he's
trolling Grise.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

keith wrote:
Walz is pissed at the world. If it were $.29 he'd be
pissed at anythign
he didn't have. Commies are like that. ;-)
Keith

Actually, IN EFFECT I want LESS than I already have.

So give it away and torture yourself to death, since
that's your oft-prescribed punishment for excessive
accumulation of material wealth.
-----------------------------

I'm on the side of good, so I'm a steward of that source of
wealth for the collective, and I spend what I don't deserve
on change.

What are you waiting for?

Mark L. Fergerson
-------------------------

That's not my purpose. My purpose is fairness for everyone.
Just like if I owned a big cannon, I'd use it for good,
until after we won and the people could claim it from me
for their own!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Tom Seim wrote:

Is your government elected or appointed?
--------------------
Let's pretend you have a mind.

Testy, are we?

What does Democratic Majority mean everywhere in my writings?

I have NO IDEA!
-----------------------

Then Google me and read, or else read a while before responding.

So you are going to dismantle the monetary system.
---------------------------
Hmmmm, you're certainly dense, aren't you?

The sign of a shallow mind: no response, then call me a name.
-----------------------------

Read me before shooting off your mouth.

rendered to the State for basic commodities and consumer items.
All grown and made products are rendered to the State for their
agreed labor hours credit amortized over the whole of each product.

If it takes a total of 300 labor hours to make 3000 widgets from
materials mined or harvested to parts composing it, to the final
assemblage, then each costs a tenth of an hour. Unless crippled,
veryone is required to work the democratically agreed minimum hours
to meet basic needs or else they don't eat and it is illegal to even
feed them.

From each according to their abilities, to each according to their
needs.
------------------------------
Nope. Read it again.
You're regurgitating your brainwashing from high school.

Better do a spell check.


If they want more they sign up for more labor hours over their
minimum, with which to buy consumer items. The only wealth that
would even be possible is in personal property. Used items can be
freely traded at weekly local flea markets.

The State mandates that repair parts be available indefinitely for
anything at cost.

How are you going to set costs without a monetary system?
----------------------------
Every product has a costs assessment in labor hours following it,
from wells, mines and farms to factories right up to delivery as
a product, and from that the price of each item in labor hours
is amortized.

Like I said, you've eliminated the monetary system.
-----------------------------------------

Duh.

Who pays to maintain an inventory of spare?
------------------------------
Who does now? We do. Now figure out how that can be done my way.
How stupid are you? Orders for spares stock are pre-ordered for
products by the repair facilities as their normal stock of supplies,
just as any factory does.

Shame, shame. More name calling- typical of dogmatics. Without an
economic incentive, nobody is going to maintain ANY kind of an
inventory.
----------------------------------------

Nonsense, incentive is required only where there are independent
economic agents, which are never actually independent anyway.

The People can assign labor to build required inventory as needed.

How do you account for the inevitable
loses incurred on providing spares "at cost"?
------------------------------------
Simple, you study that phenomenon and justify a slightly higher price
in labor hours of those goods because of it, represented by each
product item's price by division of its costs for the whole lot.

The State gains its costs for medical and care of the infirm in a
similar way, by costing each person an equal minimum labor hour
quota they must work to receive food, power, telecom, gas, recycle,
and water. This "tax" on things is price-inherent, not seen explicitly
for any one item.

This is your "new" monetary system - trading of labor hours. People
will have a disincentive to pursue higher education because their
labor is valued equally to unskilled labor.
------------------------------

Education is paid like a job, once approved by the Majority. We study
how much we can afford to devote to education, and people apply for
the positions. They are paid a full wage to result in specific
perfformance. Once educated they want towork because if you don't
you starve and they much prefer a sit-down job with ideas and dry
warm clothes and a hot cup of coffee at hand than digging ditches
in the rain and cold. I tried unskilled labor, and I'd have gone to
school all over again for the same money, hell for a while, LESS
money!

If you can make something the rest of us want on
your compound then you can petition to work at home, and be paid for
supplies and tools as well, but otherewise you work at a publically
owned factory or farm.

If you want something and can find enough other people who do you
can get the State to assign labor credit to anyone who wants to make
that item at an agreed exchange rate based on how long other skilled
workers in similar fields agree it would cost in hours of labor.

So the State decides what will be produced.
--------------------------------
No, each person both orders things from the Catalog, and adds items

Catalog, with a capital "C". Sounds like something passed down from
the "State".
-----------------------------

Like the "Net"? Gee. That worked out okay.

to it by submitting requests online in a kind of eco-political eBay
for people to organize who want some new kind of product, they present
it to everyone, and they ask that orders for such a product by collected
and that these orders become standing work-orders for that
product to be produced, then people who want more work can offer to
manufacture it at any factory with suitable space and tools, or they
can ask that a new factory be built for it and submit evidence that
it would be well-used. If a hobby group wants certain specialty items
produced, it simply submits its orders to the local Committee of the
People that meets several times a week. If approved, they compete for

Who "approves" what?
------------------------------

By your friends and neighbors in the political Majority.

any remaining materials and factory space, or they are requested to
pursue its manufacture as a hobby or avocation in their home compounds
for a bit longer till there is more demand. If they can show demand
and ability and get labor hour quotes approved those who manufacture
them, even on a small scale, can be paid labor hours to do so. If
they can simply show orders and provide an acceptable quote for labor
then they can be paid labor hours and they sell the product to the
State Catalog for sale.


Everything of this sort is decided locally at the Society meeting
twice a week by whomever shows up to do it. People are lenient
with each other because they want support for their own desires
as well.

You order things before they are produced, and they aren't produced
for your order unless you order them.

So mass production is gone. And, along with it, low-priced goods.
-------------
Not at all, we simply make things in huge lots when an order for that
many accumulates, unless the People vote it a critical commodity.


Products will be hand made at very high cost. Take you average car.
How can you organize a supply chain when your "vendors" have no idea
what quantities you will be ordering? And when you do order, the
vendors will have to supply the parts at cost.
------------------------------------------
In reality everything is done "at cost", profit is merely the rich
stealing a portion of the wage of the laborers and then partially
inflating the exchange medium without fully correcting for that.
Now that there are no rich to do so, cost is all that anything
requires. Investment is only done by the People as the State.

Profit is the reward for taking a risk,
------------------

Really? Risking what, being poor? What do the poor deserve for
"risking being poor"?? Oh, and only those who win get the reward,
meaning they never actually "risked" anything at ALL, now, did
they?? Upon close examination earning by risking is a loser idea.

such as making a product that
nobody wants. Take away the reward, profit, and nobody will take the
risk, i.e. no products. And you don't have to be "rich" to do this -
small businesspeople do it every day.
------------------------

Why don't they just ASK the People what they want, and since it is
the People who ACTUALLY have to work to BUILD those things anyway,
why don't you realize that it is the People who actually DO it, PAY
for it, and then BUY it, so THEY SHOULD DECIDE WHAT TO MAKE IN THE
FIRST PLACE!! The only reason the rich do it is because they STOLE
the money from the workers so that THEY don't have the money to do
it!! Employing rich lazy criminals who only have their own wealth to
protect decide what everyone MIGHT wanr is REALLY NOT a good idea!
You wind up with dislocated workers who lose their jobs and have to
move sacrificing families, loss of value in their homes, their savings,
etc! Bad public policy to permit rich who steal profit from workers.
Have the People keep this "profit" for their own endeavors, since
if everyone profits equally, then profit is meaningless and can
disappear. The actual investment in neew endeavors is the promise
of extra available labor, not some rich bastard's jewelry. Make gold
and diamonds worth nothing by law except as industrial tool metals!

If we all decide we have enough
stuff for a month or two, we go home and pursue our hobbies after our
minimum hour jobs until enough people want new things. They literally
arrange with others who ALSO want more "stuff" to make it for one
another, via the computerized ordering system

Forget about computers - this is an extremely heavily capitalized
industry that will be vaporized by your system.
----------------------------------------
Nonsense. No "capital" from "rich" is required. The People's State
alots extra labor to begin new endeavors or tool-up for a new run.
This is done in factories all the time.

That is actually what is happening anyway, it is simply disguised
as the "rich" funding new endeavors by their stolen wealth and by
their greed dictating what the society will next produce.

Consumers dictate what will be produced - except in your personal
hell.
---------------------------------

Suuuuuure they do, like all the stupid plastic shit this culture pays
to store that no one will ever want, and which labor value will now
be lost when they have to be recycled! Tons of thighmasters and bust
developers still sit in warehouses, hell, Denver and Omaha have huge
cheap warehouses full of thousands of tons of plastic losers which
wasted massive amounts of petroleum and thousands of human labor
hours at low wages, so the rich could steal profit from the sale of
the minority of these crap items that actually sold!!

What size population are you talking about? It takes 5000 people just
to issue Social Security checks when all steps in the process are
considered.
--------------------------------------------
But not in one town or city. Nor do we need any such without "money".
It is totally scalable.

-Steve

GOOD LUCK! You will be asking everybody with savings to give those
savings up, hardly a winning strategy. But, then again, you don't
REALLY have any expectations of winning.
-------------

What are they saving for, a retirement, a house??? My system gives
them their house, and guarantees their retirement. Saving for
anything else is properly done with labor hours.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:31:54 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<41A04596.7677@armory.com>...
Tom Seim wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.20.02.01.44.925063@neodruid.org>...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:24 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
[rich vs. poor stuff]

But spending isn't primarily what rich people do. Poor people think
about all the things they would buy if they were rich. But the essence
of being rich is *not* spending. A billionaire may have three houses
and ten cars, but not 3000 houses and 10,000 cars.

Well, yeah, but here's the thing. To the guy who has no hope of
ever having even one house that he can ever call his own, that
second or third house that the billionaire just conjures up
with a flip of his wrist really, really rankles.

Would they also be pissed off at a millionaire that owns only one
(really nice) house?
----------------
You mean like with ten thousand rooms? If they don't have any and he
made them build it and then made them live there and pay rent?
Betcher fuckin' ass!

-Steve

Ten thousand rooms? Have you ever seen such a house? If such a thing,
were it to exist, would be out of the price range of a millionaire.
-----------------------
Even so, we're talking about mass deprivation. My analogy is accurate.
Don't be an ass who takes metaphor serioiusly to dodge the argument.

So, when do you plan to heal your own denials, which are, after all, the
cause of your victims' plight?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Rich
-----------------

No victim. No denials. Lies.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Rhett Oracle]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:56:19 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

I have NO IDEA!
-----------------------
Then Google me and read, or else read a while before responding.

So you are going to dismantle the monetary system.
---------------------------
Hmmmm, you're certainly dense, aren't you?

The sign of a shallow mind: no response, then call me a name.
-----------------------------
Read me before shooting off your mouth.

You haven't figured out yet that "Tom Seim" is a bot?

;^j
R.

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Pig Bladder wrote:

<snip>

All this can be done quite locally in terms of a govt of perhaps
only 5000 people

What size population are you talking about? It takes 5000 people just
to issue Social Security checks when all steps in the process are
considered.

How much money could be saved if citizens were allowed to keep their
own money and bank it instead of having Uncle Sugardaddy take it away
and pay 5000 parasites to give half of it back to you?

That doesn't happen.

That is exactly what happens. It's how massive
Beaureacracies perpetuate themselves.

It only looks that way to slow-witted simpletons like you.

You mean "I refuse to acknowledge that beaureaucracies
are a parasite class because it might give my State a black
eye since I haven't figured out how to keep from needing
them, so I'll insult you instead of admitting it".

Just don't allow them to come into existence. Mechanize
everything Governmental, and rotate the operators so nobody
starts thinking of it as their "turf".

What actually happens to it is it flows toward the rich and
away from you. And banks are how they do it.

Sigh. Right after hanging all the lawyers, stone the
bankers? How about stuffing my own damn mattress? Or do you
now equate all saving with "hoarding"?

Won't you ever get over your "up against the wall"
mindset? What motivation have your defined classes of
"criminals" for improving things? None; the only motivation
you give them is to suppress you farther.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 12:07:13 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Mark Fergerson wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:
That's not a reasoned logical response, that's just cowardly
vacuous name-calling.
I don't see how any kind of "reasoned logical response"
is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
map your statements to reality.
Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all
structural argument
that is based only on the common human experience.
Yet another unsubstantiable claim.
It needs no "substantiation", it is simply what I said I
always
intend to do. It is statement of my own principles.
"Principles". IOW asumptions not relatable to objective
reality. You will not define "common human experience"
because there is no such thing.
Of course there is, or else wecouldn't even be talking like this.
No, that's a result of cognitive mapping in what appears
to be common. Actually, we have no conception of what's
going on in each other's mind, which should have been
obvious from our first converstaion some years ago.
You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
which you base the structure of your principles, yet you
will not explicate that alleged body.

Of course there's common human experience. We all shit out of our ass, and
it's all brown and smells like shit.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[YD]

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:18:20 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

<schnipps>

All it takes is to make theft of all types illegal and unfair wealth
acquisition simply won't be allowed.

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.

For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 06:53:11 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Pig Bladder wrote:

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:27:56 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

keith wrote:
Walz is pissed at the world. If it were $.29 he'd be
pissed at anythign
he didn't have. Commies are like that. ;-)
Keith

Actually, IN EFFECT I want LESS than I already have.

So give it away and torture yourself to death, since
that's your oft-prescribed punishment for excessive
accumulation of material wealth.
-----------------------------
I'm on the side of good,

And you were told this by....?
----------------------------------
My conscience.

Would this also be the one that tells you to kill everybody that doesn't
obey your rules?

--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.

 

[YD]

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.


For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?

I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!

Or has it? ?;-

Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Richard Henry]

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:7nejq0l0952hnl0keusnjc2jenntgec3un@4ax.com...

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like? What have
I/we been yelling? Does your yelling make you amount to something? And
anyway, I wasn't talking to you, check the attributions.

If you converse with RSW long enough, he will piss you off. I think that is
his object.

 

[YD]

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:35:59 -0800, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:7nejq0l0952hnl0keusnjc2jenntgec3un@4ax.com...

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like? What have
I/we been yelling? Does your yelling make you amount to something? And
anyway, I wasn't talking to you, check the attributions.

If you converse with RSW long enough, he will piss you off. I think that is
his object.

So it is, my chap, so it is. But hey, this is usenet, have fun!

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:35:09 GMT, Pig Bladder
<pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

Of course there's common human experience. We all shit out of our ass, and
it's all brown and smells like shit.

It's just that some of us spend a great deal of time thinking about
its color and odor, and some of us don't.

John

 

[Rich The Philosophizer]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:31:54 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<41A04596.7677@armory.com>...
Tom Seim wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.20.02.01.44.925063@neodruid.org>...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:24 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
[rich vs. poor stuff]

But spending isn't primarily what rich people do. Poor people think
about all the things they would buy if they were rich. But the essence
of being rich is *not* spending. A billionaire may have three houses
and ten cars, but not 3000 houses and 10,000 cars.

Well, yeah, but here's the thing. To the guy who has no hope of
ever having even one house that he can ever call his own, that
second or third house that the billionaire just conjures up
with a flip of his wrist really, really rankles.

Would they also be pissed off at a millionaire that owns only one
(really nice) house?
----------------
You mean like with ten thousand rooms? If they don't have any and he
made them build it and then made them live there and pay rent?
Betcher fuckin' ass!

-Steve

Ten thousand rooms? Have you ever seen such a house? If such a thing,
were it to exist, would be out of the price range of a millionaire.
-----------------------
Even so, we're talking about mass deprivation. My analogy is accurate.
Don't be an ass who takes metaphor serioiusly to dodge the argument.

So, when do you plan to heal your own denials, which are, after all, the
cause of your victims' plight?

Inquiring minds want to know.
Rich

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:01:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.


For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?

I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!

Or has it? ?;-

Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?
- YD.
------------------------
You have the peculiar notion that those like you, who yell similarly
stupid things, amount to everyone.

-Steve

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like?
-------------

Of course it does, you're being stupid again.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Tom Seim]

Capital is phony, it is the use of phony dollars printed by price-
gouge profiteer inflation to pretend to control the promise of extra
labor to be allocated for new and not yet productive endeavors.

Then send me your useless dollars -- I will take of disposing of them.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

That is exactly what happens. It's how massive
Beaureacracies perpetuate themselves.

Nonsense, nobody takes the money home, if they do it's
prison for them.

Except that the interlocking bureaucracies are the ones
doing the watchdogging and prosecuting. Why else would
"whistleblowing" in the government sector be so risky?
---------------------------------

The current bureaucracy doesn't punish rich white criminals.
It's well worth stealing given the prison time vs the offshore
account. If we start killing anyone who violates the public
trust and follow the rest of them around, they'll behave.

Actually, the parasites are the Wealthy.

You know very well that Government paperpushers do _no_
useful work in terms of increasing the GNP.
--------------------------------

Enforcing the law is an net increase in services.

Now accountants who keep track for the Wealthy upon how much the
poor SUPPOSEDLY owe them FOR BREATHING, are ALSO parasites!
They should be retrained to assembly-line production work!
THAT would REALLY increase the GDP!

You mean "I refuse to acknowledge that beaureaucracies
are a parasite class

Since they are paid a wage like yours to do what the
People asked,
none of them are by definition any kind of "parasite",
all the
parasites are the wealthy!

You are again confusing how your fantasy world might work
with the way reality works.
----------------------------

No, that's what YOU'RE doing. The fact you assert this at every
turn instead shows that you're most nervous about that lie.

Just don't allow them to come into existence. Mechanize
everything Governmental, and rotate the operators so nobody
starts thinking of it as their "turf".

So nobody knows what's going on so the profiteers can
steal it all.

If your State's economy is as straightforward as you
claim it ought to be, training Government system operators
should be as simple as teaching the use of an abacus. In
fact, anyone who knows the rudiments of programming,
accounting, and computer operation in general (which IMNSHO
ought to be everybody by graduation from middle school) will
be an "expert" with no need of system-specific training.
--------------------------

Every criminal should be pursued by those who specialize in
detecting and capturing him so that criminals have no advantage
over the People's government and the public laws.

If a system is not totally transparent to anyone that
looks at it, it's because somebody wants to hide something.
That's what's wrong with the current system.
------------------------------

Hiding things isn't the problem, it's TAKING THEM HOME!
My system wouldn't permit anyone a safe haven for stolen items,
and NO money would even EXIST to BE stolen, and there are no
banks or currency to put it in, and everything you own is public
information, right down to the serial number on it.

What actually happens to it is it flows toward the rich and
away from you. And banks are how they do it.

Sigh. Right after hanging all the lawyers, stone the
bankers? How about stuffing my own damn mattress? Or do you
now equate all saving with "hoarding"?

Saving money is hording. No savings or savable money should
exist, wage must chase goods, housing is owned free and clear
and retirement is state-paid.

No, it isn't "State-paid". It's added onto every price
paid by anyone and lumped together for later redistribution.
------------------------

Of course!
Now how ELSE did you think the rest of us were going to pay for
a retiree's retirement, eh??
That's State Paid! Oh, that's right, again you got confused and
you thought the State was some magical entity, and not just The
Rest Of Us!!
Typical Rightist confusion.

There is no, and never has been, any State. There are only
people acting (hopefully) in concert.
--------------------------------

And that's what I meant, and you well know I did.

Sensible people "put stuff by", including money, for
immediate emergencies that no State can be equipped to
handle in the short term.
------------------------------------------

Gee, why? Of course it can, it is the individual which cannot,
because we don't rescue the State, the State rescues individuals
who have been victimized by the vicissitudes of accidental harm.

Won't you ever get over your "up against the wall"
mindset? What motivation have your defined classes of
"criminals" for improving things?

The Rich Criminals have PREVENTED most human advancement,
we'd
be on the Moon, half the nation would be reforested, we'd
live
on mostly professionally hunted game, everyone would own
their home by now and not rely on petroleum and we'd have
300 mph bullet
trains that were a quarter the price of planes by now.

Don't be disingenuous.
----------------

Claiming that I AM is disingenuous!!
Everything I said was true of a society that was publically
organized, instead of a grabby get-mine free-for-all with all
manner of ego-ridden merchandising campaigns at cross-purposes
to what the People would want if left solely to decide!!!

By now we'd be on the fucking Moon in numbers!
Capitalism is the VERY LEAST efficient use of labor, talent, and
resources. Without it we'd have a fucking Garden!

Even the most extreme exclusivist
type of wealth-accumulator recognizes that raising the
general level of human advancement is to their benefit
because it allows them to float at a higher level on it than
their forebears could achieve. In the process, the
distinction between rich and poor has historically actually
narrowed rather than increased. That's largely why frinst
England's aristocracy has degenerated to a decoration on the
Commonwealth; they simply _cannot_ live better than their
subjects in any sense that counts.
----------------------------------------------

I think you should follow the royals around awhile.
Hint: THEY DON'T WORK!

Well the Rich don't even HAVE any public appearances
they don't wish for!

Frinst, if what you say were true, surgery for everyone,
rich or poor, would still involve large doses of rum.
---------------------------------------

This kind of disingenuous nonsense on your part gets you nothing.
You have presented NO important dynamic or principle that would
require such be true.

Nothing is more pitiful than watching a Rightist pretend that
the educated Left who gave them most everything somehow wouldn't
remember their chemistry or physics or how to use shop tools
and technology. The religious dufuses from the so-called Red
states grow soybeans and corn, cattle and hogs. Now: Having done
those jobs for a living, STILL, they have NOT done my OTHER
previous jobs, ER-EMT, Engineer-Physicist, and the Red states
are actually 48% BLue! Everyplace DEVELOPED becomes a Blue state.

Typically, you aren't listening. How will you convince
the current rich that it's actually in their long-range
benefit (which it is) to abandon their illusory pursuit of
wealth?
--------------------

When the Majority shoots a few and tells the rest they're next
if they don't publically divest. Bang. By divestment I mean lose
their home and car and be allowed to take another, but of only
average value. Then the banks and all wealth are seized and all
banking and investment records are destroyed. Those mansions are
assigned ownership to groups of people who can agree to live in
them as co-owner-residents. Or they are torn down and the material
used for other home compounds to be built. They are required to
register for work to eat. They are banned from political activity
of any kind for an indeterminate time. Those who are less than
cooperative we imprison at productive labor, those who resist
in any violent manner we torture-execute.

Or are you hopelessly addicted to your delirious visions
of bloodbaths?

Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------

The vast herd of the Wealthy have done what most people do when
faced with police and laws, they obeyed them. They have only
plotted and schemed to take control of Govt, and when they find
the new laws take their wealth immediately so it offers them no
advantage, and also places them in the ranks of the rest of us,
unable to cajole, bribe, or threaten politicians, because the laws
no longer permit this, they will be stymied, and they will wake
to discover they are now average, and that they LIKEWISE are afraid
of wealth coming back, and precisely BECAUSE it MAY WELL NOT BE
**THEIRS**!!!

It would be poetic justice for a short coup to occur that took all
the wealth of the wealthy and simply delegated it anew to another
class of economic dictators, and for many of the former rich to be
evicted and be thrown into the cold and rain and snow. I would wish
for the demise of that second rich cabal as well, but it sure would
be amusingly ironic on the original wealthy!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

is possible with someone who casually redefines "truth" and
"lie" for their convenience. It makes it very difficult to
map your statements to reality.

You mean YOUR "reality", and that's why!

GNFW I have no options in
constructing "my reality", it was handed down to me whole.
-------------------------------

You have what you have. Me berating you may change you.

There is an objective reality whether you acknowledge it
or not.
----------------

Error. There is a shared reality. Reality is a story,

or THINK they
know, to
resist an idea.

It's that THINKING WE KNOW part that I'm trying to eliminate.
------------------

Then eliminate yours!

Beliefs are exactly what I want to eliminate from the
conversation. That's why I keep asking you for _objective_
support for your claims.
-----------------------------

Nonesuch is possible for ANY claims.

You claim there's a body of "common human experience" on
[]
will not explicate that alleged body.

I don't need to, you know full well what I mean, you merely
wish to deny the notion that you're fully aware of it.

I can't deny or accept anything until you present some
_objective_ "common human experiences" to examine.
----------------------------------

Nonsense, you've done naught BUT that here so far.
Skewered yourself.

YOU just don't LIKE me arguing from WHAT WE BOTH KNOW
because
it doesn't help YOU lie!

Nor do I need to, everybody knows what I mean, quit
pretending.

Yes you do, everybody may THINK they know, but there is
absolutely no way to compare until it's stated explicitly.
---------------------------------

We're doing it, quit arguing that we can't argue.

Everything we share as humans, members of a species, and
that's
monstrous.

I do not live where you do, I don't have your
genetic/social/economic background, and I don't have your
worldview. That applies to all six billion of us.
--------------------------

You have named the ways we're different, now the ways we're similar.
They are sufficient.

Then demonstrate exactly where your assumptions rest on
_objective_ (i. e. not subject to interpretation) reality
instead of simply asserting your beliefs to be true.

What I claim are objective you will dishonestly claim are
not.

Do not ascribe your favorite tactics to me. Grow some
balls and make some definitive statements.
---------------------------------

You persist in disingenuity. YOU are the one who in that sentence
accused ME of adopting YOUR disingenuity! This immaturity will
get you nothing.

The very use of the words subjective and objective was
designed
for such disingenuous purposes.

Now you deny objective reality?
------------------------------------

It isn't.

I assert my beliefs so that you
can understand them, I don't even NEED to claim I'm
right, you'll
hate my ideas anyway if you have a political agenda to reject
truths that are inconvenient.

You have absolutely no idea what my political agenda is,
despite my telling you repeatedly. You prefer to lump me in
with extremist Capitalists because it feeds your fantasies.
------------------------------------------

Naw, you simply won't tell me, so I assume worst to pluck your cheek.

You constantly claim that your beliefs are supported by
some common body of experiences, yet refuse to enumerate them.
----------------------------------------

That enumeration is what we're doing. These are them.
And you know it. The body is much too monstrous to be
merely listed as individual items, they are dynamic.

That implies that you have not thought them through,
----------------

No, only that you are stupid or posturing.
I prefer to believe the latter.

Mathmaticians can agree, math costs no one anything, but
political
differences cost thieves their booty, and priests their
position.

You digress again. Mathematical axioms are standalone,
and need not be correlated with reality for the structure
they support to be self-consistent.
------------------

Unlike Reality, which is why Physics came about.

You call the salvation of Freedom, Fairness, Equality,
and Democracy
"brutal inhuman socialism" and expect me to LIKE YOU?
That sentiment
ranks you as a killable criminal in my mind!!

Why should I care whether you like me or not? I simply
refuse to accept your unfounded assertion that brutality in
the form of State-sanctioned torture has anything to do with
justice.
---------------------------------

In an of itself it does not, States of all sorts may do wrong,
but in defense of Fairness it is Justice.

You don't know it all any more than anyone else does,

My 55 years of experience tells me that's a defective
assertion.
-----------------------

You deleted the meaning of my claim above.

No, just lazy and unwilling to be repetitious.

Oh, you've already tortured a Capitalist to death?

No, but once you do once you still have to do it many
more times.

Then where's the "repetitious" part come in?
--------------------

Bingo.

Why are you so willing to be repetitious in thought and
word if you're unwilling to be repetitious in deed?
----------------------------

Gee, just partial to thought, I guess. Less boring.

Odd, you seem to think that repetition of your premises
will result in others taking them as true.

The more who hear, and the more ways I say it, yes, they
will.
It's always worked before!! Every cause that ever existed
proves it.
That *IS* what finally works.

Until you can demonstrate some objective basis for your
beliefs, your tactic is thus equivalent to the "Big Lie".
--------------------

There isn't any such thing except in fiction.

People know what's happening, they just attach different names to
it because they were raised with it, or they don't know because
they have no capacity for interest.

Right. So explain your objective basis for your definitions.
--------------------------------

"Objective bases" ARE these "definitions", thus nonesuch.
Definitions are like axioms, and are foundational without support.

the assumption of evil on everyone's part but yours.

Everyone? You're lying to assert that.

Overemphasizing perhaps. What "non evildoer" percentage
of the total population do you perceive out there?

It's a continuum, some are evil, some only venal, some
deluded,
some confused, and some damaged, and these can ALL be true of
different people to different degrees.

So, my revised overemphasis is correct?
----------------------------------

You did no such "revision".

(Rather) was right, just not well-documented. Everyone
knows GWB's
military record is a fucking scam. So many people in west
Texas and Alabama have been threatened, killed, and bribed
that you run into roadblocks and threats investigating it!

And what does that have to do with fraudulently
presenting falsified documents allegedly supporting the
contention?

Don't tell me "they did it, so it's fair".
---------------------------

More like: It's so well-known it's boring.

The administration had put out so much phony dummied-up
crap that
nobody questioned the opposite much, smoke --> fire.

Do not try to redirect the discussion. He lied.
----------------------------------

He told a True story, however fictional. ;->

The rest of your crap on this is just more partisan
dishonesty.

Partisan? You're the avowed Socialist, I'm an even-handed
Anarchist. Now which of us is more motivated to accept
Rather's lies?
------------------------------------

I'm a Commie, thanks, not a Soshie.
Anarchy is just Republican Rightism with money.
Those without money are merely the same brainless losers
they'd ALL be without it.

No "evidence" is needed to simply be on the side of the
good and
the right, I need not prove to you or anyone that theft
by the
rich is Evil and Wrong and harms other humans, and asking
for such
is ridiculous, like the police asking a mugger instead of
the victim
whether he actually hurt his victim. Such disingenuity is
best punished, not responded to.

No one needs "evidence" for much of anything. Fully
99.9% of what
people do and believe they do based on the structural
argument
in favor of it, not "evidence". History has been based
on what
people did because they liked the idea, not because it
was "proved".

N.B. It's high time to base future history on something
better than a consensus of bullshit
---------------------------------------

So you acknowledge that history SO FAR is bullshit?

So, you actually expect me to "like" your unsupported
claims whole-hog, and take your word for everything else?

Not till you do. That would be dishonest.
We wouldn't know whether to torture you or not.

Who's "we"? You've already admitted you're too "lazy" to
get your own hands bloody.
----------------------------

Facetious Humor. Should have smileyed.

Not gonna happen. If you've been paying attention over
the years, you'd recognize that we have many points of
agreement and a very few bones over which to contend. You
keep redefining words to maintain your position while I keep
trying to get you to see what _I_ mean without having to
redefine anything.

But you see, the shit in your head you believe precisely
BECAUSE
you HAVE redefined a HUGE NUMBER of things from the
human-normal!

How do you know? You don't; you reflexively ascribe to me
all the qualities of your hated enemy. You know nothing
about me except that I refuse to slavishly agree with you,
---------------------------

And you won't tell me either. I'm baiting the worst I might get.

and that I call Dan Rather a deliberate liar, which he is.
----------------------------------------

Nawh, liars don't tell the Truth.

That latter particularly enrages you because his
untruthful efforts might have helped advance your agenda,
but as soon as it became obvious that all he had was
bullshit, you assume that anyone who dares point it out is
your enemy.
----------------------------

You assume far too much.
I hate Rather, but I know who hates him!
He who kills my enemy is my pitbull.

Why do you insist on depending on statements in obvious
disagreement with objective reality
-------------------

Ain't any.

Wouldn't discarding them in favor of
undeniable, objective _facts_
---------------------

Ain't any.

You cited Godel; present your proof. I'll show you your
mistake(s).

finally!

I said: "You cannot lift yourself into the air, and you
cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any believed
control is easily proved to be illusory."

Yes, you did. I meant to challenge your connection of
these statements earlier; I'll do so now:

You cannot lift yourself into the air

is verifiably true; it is not an axiom since it's
supported by conservation of momentum, an objective feature
of reality.

and you cannot encompasse your own nature with your
awareness.

is an axiom not connected with the first statement since
there is no relevant conservable quantity, nor is it
objectively demonstrable as a general case, though it is
easily demonstrated for specific cases.
---------------

And Goedel's math.

But that's just fat and gristle; let's get to the meat:

Any believed control is easily proved to be illusory.

Let's see, shall we?
--------------------------

Can you, by an act of will, honestly change the tiniest thing
you believe on a whim? If you say yes, no one with a mind will
ever bother with you again because they know you're just lying.

Goedel proved that
any system of truth that relies on axioms, and all do,
will be
incomplete, that full understanding of it is impossible,
and your entire graap of what you do in your Life and why you do
it is such a system, therefore you are NOT in either
control or correctly informed as to why it happens.

That neatly undermines your claim that free will does not
exist by showing that your axiom-based explanation cannot be
complete.
-------------------------------

Absolutely, but can you change your tiniest belief on a whim
honestly? Nobody I know has ever been able to lie about this to
me with a straight face with others present. The others always
told them to come off it. If you can't change your mind, what
in the world could supposed "Free Will" possibly ever mean?????

I see no meaning for it at all as a concept.
Numerous others, including philosophers, have taken up this
argument for Determinism.

Now you can jerk
around Goedel all day wheedling and conniving, many make that
their life's work, but it won't make you able to change the
tiniest thing you believe by an effort of some supposed
"will".

Except that I make no axiomatic assumptions while
pondering the concept of free will. Any temporary assumption
I may make is always tested against external objective
reality to establish its validity. I am not a mathematician,
nor does some illusory "truth" interest me.
-------------------------

Then why bother here?

And that gedanken experiment seals it anyway.

It shows the fundamental fallacy of your current beliefs
about free will.
-----------------------

And you can't tell us how.

Except that you desperately wanted him to win.

No, just that Bush would lose to ANY Democrat, I'd have been
lots happier with most of the Democrats I know. I'd've
liked it
even better if a Socialist or Communist had won.

Ah, yes; that the shrub lose. Anything to further that,
including false evidence.
----------------------

Anything.

And you should know damn well that it's way too early for
a Socialist or Communist to run for president, much less win.
-------------------------

Of course, but it won't be long now.

Why do you
defend him so vociferously?

I don't.

Indeed you have. Do I need to show you where and how, by
quoting your exact words?
----------------------------------

It doesn't matter, what I said was expeditiousness, not defense.

if you thought no subsequent benefits to your agenda would
follow?

Because just preventing yours is a benefit to everyone.

You carefully ignore my stated agenda and substitute that
of your hated enemy.
--------------------------------------

Bingo. Worst-worst design.

Truth is based on objectivity.
-----------------------------

Really it is. The problem is who's so-called "Objectivity".
There isn't any agreed upon form, you see.

What I don't like is your self-dishonesty.

Nonense statement. No one is dishonest to themselves.

You lie to yourself when you refuse to acknowledge
Rather's dishonesty.
-----------------------

No, I lied to you in service to the Good and the Truth.
You mistook me for you, I ALWAYS know what *I* think.

You lie to yourself when you assert
that telling any objective untruth is acceptable in
furthering an agenda. It merely reinforces the habit of
lying, which is what sowed the seeds of the destruction of
the Soviet Union.
----------------------------

Yeah, but it hasn't hurt Walmart YET!
You see, that kind of reasoning about cause and effect is purest
gobbledey-gook!

Lying for any reason is still lying.
-------------------------------

But you must lie about that TOO, to the enemy!

The fact that American democracy is partially subverted has
nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of it that is not.
[]
Reread your own words above. Where may I find "the rest
of it that is not"?
----------------------------------------

Ah! "The rest that is not" is NOT "someplace".
It is all throughout it in different aspects and modalities.

The fact that American issues are misrepresented by
Republicans has nothing to do with their actual Truth.

How about the similar relationship for Democrat
misrepresentations? Please don't reflexively assert that
they have none; previously you stated unequivocally that:

They don't for all important intents and purposes.

"Important intents and purposes" = "Ends justify the means"?
-----------------------

Absolutely, the actual means justify the actual ends, always have
and always will!!! Saying they don't is merely politeness to your
intended victim.

Your partisanism is irrelevant, Democrats are SO much better
than Republicans that it justifies killing all Republicans.

Kerry is as dangerous as any other politician for reasons
specific to his and his handlers' own unpublicized agendas.

You mean, of course, Equality, Fairness, and Democracy.

No, I mean the accumulation of wealth and power by the
likes of him and Teddy Kennedy, two of the worst plutocrats
ever to draw a breath.
------------------------------

I'm a Commie, how can I disagree.
But one has to pick one's battles.
And until others wise-up, I have to vote in modest self-defense.

By dangerous, you must disingenuously mean, to the Rich!

Like the fabulously wealthy leadership of the Democratic
Party?
-------------

Yup, the ones who won't vote for taxes upon themselves.
The Republicans.

Peacetime is a totally different matter.

Habits like that are impossible to break. Look what
happened when Stalin took over from Lenin.
-----------------------------

Look at when Donald Trump took over New York City!
Neither of those are relevant.

The Rich would have us believe that we are as vicious and
mean and
ugly as they are so we might as well bend over and let
them screw
us as the devil we don't know. They're just lying to
discourage
opposition.

"Vicious and mean and ugly"? Death by torture as
punishment for crimes is currently practiced where, again?
-----------------------------------

In all the feudalisms on earth, including this one, just offshore.

I believe that
human society must be ruled with the iron fist of
absolute intolerance
of crime and that all crimes should be punishable by
death. If we're
not serious about suppressing crime, then WHY THE FUCK
BOTHER AT ALL??

You believe. Where's your objective basis for that belief?
----------------------------------

I don't do cites on Usenet, Truth is obvious.

I have. You assume a zero-sum economy. No such can exist.
---------------------------------------

You have no basis whatsoever for either assertion:
1) That I HAVE a so-called "zero-sum" economy, or
2) that it can't exist.

All economies are zero-sum at any instant, whether the sum changes
is the only differential feature, and my economy can grow by both
the popular will to have more causing them to order more and work
more, and by the amplification of their work by improved technology.

Even this current economy has no other means of growing than those
two, in reality! Deriving wealth by investment is merely the use of
labor stolen from the workers to steal more wealth. The money is
doing nearly the same as it would in any economy.

According to your own Newtonian metaphysics people
will want what they want when they want it, and nothing you
say will make the slightest whit of difference.

No, in EVERY kind of physics, each particle affects every
other
particle, it simply doesn't control itself.

And every effect can be traced back to a First Cause of
one sort or another in that scenario, hence all is complete
determinism. You've defined yourself as one in a long chain
of puppets with no puppetmaster.
--------------------------------------

The notion of puppetry is nonsense.

Natural law is in the Being itself, it is not some external
manipulator!!

Here is a widget manufactured in factory "A", using a
specific technology that requires three man-hours to make
one widget.

There is an otherwise identical widget from factory "B"
which uses better technology allowing one to be made with
only two man-hours.

How is each priced? They cannot be given the same price
arbitraily because somebody's getting screwed; either the
maker or the buyers.

One lot is priced higher than the other, then they are mixed
and their price averaged pro rata if they are the same
product.

Nope, workers get paid the same for their hour, that is NOT
unfairness, they might as well be making different and
uncomparable products. WHAT they make is irrelevant. That
they are EQUAL is the ONLY relevance. Their work is NOT UPON
the product, it is FOR the People's State.

But what people pay for them _cannot_ be equalized.
Price-juggling, with the excess going to the State, promotes
inflation/depression cycles.
------------------------------------

No such "cycles" are possible, prices are fixed.

The price of items produced can be equalized for all such objects,
whether made cheaply or expensively.

Let me propose a better answer. Both are priced at the
higher wage-equivalent so that the excess for the "cheaper"
widget can go to upgrading factory "A". After both are
producing equally, the output of both can be priced at the
lower value.

Yes. But only if we can afford the upgrade that year. it
depends on whether we can afford to upgrade the slower
factory or not this year.

In the meantime, somebody's getting screwed.
-----------------------

Nope, they all pay the same, they all work the same. The workers
who made skillions of widgets cheaply have no more inherent right
to that product than anyone else, and they have no more money to
purchase them that anyone else for their labor. The total of all
widgets are prices equally over their AVERAGE cost in labor.
That which is made belongs to everyone, the right to buy it comes
from the facts of People's Equality and Labor.

There is no need to price one product higher because of that.
Better to raise ALL products a LITTLE bit.

Inflation/depression. Bad Juju.
-------------------------------

Nope, we can't make what we do not make.
No price goes up, but we cannot have everything.
Some things people want manufactured will NOT be, not till
they vote to put them higher on the agenda for labor allocation.
They do that by ordering goods, and telling the order computer
which they would rather have FIRST, and then things they want
less only get produced when people want to work those extra hours.
Everything outstanding that people have orders pending for are
assigned a preference order, and by that order the labor is first
allocated for the most wanted, and so on down the list.

Except that you define Truth, lies, and Evil by your
preassumed values which won't hold still.

They've been still for millions of years, it is your morality
that is in question.

My morality is based on objective observables that lead
to principles like altruism.
------------------------------------

Communism is the Ultimate Altruism!

You still haven't stated yours.
-----------------------------

Sure I have.

Truth. Demonstrate your objectivity.
-------------------------------

Without you being objective that won't work.

I'd rather make all the thieves vanish.

Better to make theft impossible.
---------------------------

Same.

You said "obviousness". You preconceive that I'm a
Typical Republican Robber Baron because I dare argue with you.
------------------------------

We're on stage, so act, damn you!

Lessee, if you're robbing me, you're against me. Simple
enough!
How do I know I'm being robbed? I work, you work, but you
take
what I have. Simple.

Demonstrate that I've actually done that.
------------

I don't know you, this is a discussion, you're losing track!
These are general principles, not some blind silly personal
insult, it's a hypothetical! Did you think I believed I knew
you? But your performance so far has given me reason to believe
a few things about you, generally. You're no Communist!

You still haven't adressd my basic question. Suppose you
want to live elsewhere, and the local/whatever committee
thinks you're too valuable to allow to leave. What
happens?

You have to train your replacement. People have to live.

Suppose like most of us, you're better at doing your job
than teaching it? Are you billed for a professional
teacher's time to train your replacement?

If you can't do it someone else has to. Nawh, shit, you
better
fucking learn to teach it. If you can't teach it, you weren't
doing it.

Another example of your failure to recognize human
foibles. Do you not know people who work better than they teach?
-------------------------------

Better is unimportant if you're the only one who knows your skill.
You still don't get to leave till you're replacement is trained,
and by whomever is irrelevant. It has to be done.

Does your Ideal Sociialism allow for volunteerism, or does
it "volunteer" your services to The State for you?

If you volunteer to study to be a doctor, or volunteer
as an
emergency worker, then you are subject to the State,
without
which that work for you could not exist and care of
everyone
could not be offered. The State sometimes has to draft
people.

Just like every other State. You'd better have a much
better system of aptitude testing than ever existed before
in place beforehand.

If they pass the tests they keep the job, otherwise,
they're fired.
------------------------------

If you pass you don't have to dig ditches.

Why waste time with that? Just place according to
aptitude from the get-go.
-------------------------------

Talent varies. Bright doesn't mean all-knowing.
Also, everyone has the right to do a job if they
pass the tests for it. If we have too many doctors
they go on part time and take up other work as well.

You would have this apply to _all_ classes of labor?

All critical classes.

Which classes of State-regulated jobs are not critical?
-------------------------------------

The ones there is no problem with.

Lessee, if you're robbing me, you're against me. Simple
enough!
How do I know I'm being robbed? I work, you work, but you
take
what I have. Simple.

Demonstrate that I've actually done that. Merely pointing
out flaws in your thinking is not theft.
--------------------------

No, no, no, this is hypothetical, not personal, I don't know you!

Disingenuous. Rightists like you want people like me to
divest,
SUPPOSEDLY to prove we're serious, actually it's merely
to benefit your partisan agenda. You're the enemy.

Steve, compared to you _everyone_ is a Rightist.
-------------------------------

I would agree to a large percentage. Perfection is a ways off.

How can you living your principles help but benefit
everyone by example? I live mine rather than practice hypocrisy.
---------------------------------------

It doesn't require example, humanity will be perfected not by
virtue, but by laws.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 11:22:07 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:01:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 19:23:18 GMT, Pig Bladder
pig_bladder@anyspammer.org> wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:43:42 -0300, YD wrote:

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 08:54:06 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:28:23 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So when are you going to get off your dead ass, kwitcherbellyachin,
and do something about it?

Dumb Fuck.

Good Luck!
Rich
-------------
I am, shithead. You start by talking.


For how long have you been talking, and for how much longer will you
keep talking before finally getting off your ass and actually do
something about it? You know, Viva La Revolución and all that.

- YD.
------------
Talking is HOW it is done, <snip insult>.

-Steve

Really doesn't answer the question, does it? But OK, let's go for that
for the moment. Talking to whom and for how long? Any operational
plans on how to go about the big change-over or whatever you'd like to
call it?

I'm here to tell you, boys & girls, it hasn't worked for me yet!

Or has it? ?;-

Not as anyone'd notice ;-)
Have you tried raving and ranting?
- YD.
------------------------
You have the peculiar notion that those like you, who yell similarly
stupid things, amount to everyone.

-Steve

That makes no sense at all. What are those like me like?
-------------
Of course it does, you're being stupid again.

-Steve

Oh, please tell, what have *I* been raving and ranting about?
------------------

You lie and posture against me without content or truth.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public