Ask again - Anything work with old Netscape 4.7.1 calendar???
Tom
Calendar 4.7.1. This is the one (according to the HELP) that is based upon
the old CS&T technology. I hate this calendar program (especially the
client based front end) but I don't know if and when my company will ever
migrate off this stupid thing.
In the meantime, as a side question, does anyone know of any other front end
calendar program that will work (or read and set) with this old 4.7.1
Netscape back-end server/system? Also, since I use MS Outlook 2000 as my
current email client, is there any MS Outlook add-on that anyone knows about
that will interface to this old Netscape Calendar server 4.7.1?
Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Tom
Christopher Jahn
> We (unfortunately) use at my company the OLD OLD OLD
> version of Netscape Calendar 4.7.1.
ANd what has that to do with the Mozilla open source project?
Nothing.
Ask in:
snews://secnews.netscape.com/netscape.communicator
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Russell Levy
Have you tried a search of google?
--Russell
Peter Lairo
> We (unfortunately) use at my company the OLD OLD OLD version of Netscape
> Calendar 4.7.1.
Off Topic *and* cross posting! WTF? Are you a spammer or just stupid? :(
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
'What we're seeing with Web sites that are viewable only with IE is the
privatization of the Web.' (Mitchell Baker)
Eric Belhaire
> Tom wrote, On 03-02-03 14:52:
>
>> We (unfortunately) use at my company the OLD OLD OLD version of Netscape
>> Calendar 4.7.1.
>
>
> Off Topic *and* cross posting! WTF? Are you a spammer or just stupid? :(
>
Sincerely,
Eric Belhaire
Peter Lairo
It depends on how you define "necessary". ;)
I would say he has demonstrated a sufficient level of knowledge of
newsgroups (by x-posting to newsgroups, something a "normal" user would
not be able to do) to justify my irritation at his blatant unmarked OT
x-posting. It's just plain inconsiderate. Even though his question
seemed honest and innocent, it doen't justify his (I suspect) conscious
decision to OT x-post (as opposed to EZ P-post?).
PS. Nobody speaks like they write. :-P
Tom
question, do you not think that is what newsgroups are for? No, 'Peter', you
are the idiot and the inconsiderate fool. It doesn't help Mozilla or any
other open-source project when morons like you flip out over people who
simply ask a question because they are trying to find out some info to
assist them with their problem... Isn't that what newsgroups are for? Or do
you just personally enjoy flaming people?
Yea, yea, I cross-posted to ONE other group - simply because I thought
others in the group might have an idea on this also. If that is a crime,
then I stand guilty. It is just a good thing that I like Mozilla so much -
because if I didn't I am sure that the 'superiority' attitude of people like
you would turn me off to a wonderful product.
OK, I'll look for my answer elsewhere. Guess I won't be using the Mozilla
Calendar anytime soon.
Tom
"Peter Lairo" <Pe...@Lairo.com> wrote in message
news:b1oc1p$c...@ripley.netscape.com...
Joe
> All right, all right, I get the message. Geez, I was just asking a
> question, do you not think that is what newsgroups are for? No, 'Peter', you
> are the idiot and the inconsiderate fool. It doesn't help Mozilla or any
> other open-source project when morons like you flip out over people who
> simply ask a question because they are trying to find out some info to
> assist them with their problem... Isn't that what newsgroups are for? Or do
> you just personally enjoy flaming people?
>
> Yea, yea, I cross-posted to ONE other group - simply because I thought
> others in the group might have an idea on this also. If that is a crime,
> then I stand guilty. It is just a good thing that I like Mozilla so much -
> because if I didn't I am sure that the 'superiority' attitude of people like
> you would turn me off to a wonderful product.
You x-posted to two other groups. However I agree that I simple message
like "you are off topic, look elsewhere" like Christopher and Russell
put forth are best.
> OK, I'll look for my answer elsewhere. Guess I won't be using the Mozilla
> Calendar anytime soon.
Problem is that you were not asking for a mozilla solution. You
asked for... "any other front end calendar program that will work (or
read and set) with this old 4.7.1 Netscape back-end server/system?"
and you also asked for... "is there any MS Outlook add-on". So it
doesn't appear that you had any intentions of using Mozilla
Calendar anyway.
Peter Lairo
> All right, all right, I get the message.
I don't think you do.
> Geez, I was just asking a
> question, do you not think that is what newsgroups are for?
There are 30,000+ newsgroups. Your statement/question indicates that
*all* these newsgroups are for *all* kinds of questions. The fact is
that newsgroups are broken down by topics, so people can actually find
an answer to their questions without wading through OT posts by persons
like you.
> No, 'Peter', you
> are the idiot and the inconsiderate fool. It doesn't help Mozilla or any
> other open-source project when morons like you flip out over people who
> simply ask a question because they are trying to find out some info to
> assist them with their problem...
I would argue that I am doing more good than harm, but you're entitled
to your opinion. You don't seem able to realize your error anyways.
> Isn't that what newsgroups are for?
No! See above.
> Or do
> you just personally enjoy flaming people?
That too, occasionally. But rarely (if ever) when it is unjustified.
> Yea, yea, I cross-posted to ONE other group
Actually, you x-posted to *three* groups, because _none_ of them were
on-topic.
> - simply because I thought
> others in the group might have an idea on this also.
That's the kind of "logic" mass marketers use - are you such a person?
> If that is a crime,
> then I stand guilty.
Let's not get all dramatic and engulfed in self pitty. You made a
mistake and got flamed for it, now get over it.
> It is just a good thing that I like Mozilla so much -
> because if I didn't I am sure that the 'superiority' attitude of people like
> you would turn me off to a wonderful product.
Then why are you using MS OE to post here?
> OK, I'll look for my answer elsewhere.
As you should have done from the start.
> Guess I won't be using the Mozilla
> Calendar anytime soon.
We will try to contain our sorrow over the great loss.
PS. Please don't top post.
Richter
Two bad days in a row, Petey?
Gus
Chris I
> "Peter Lairo" <Pe...@Lairo.com> wrote in message
> news:b1oc1p$c...@ripley.netscape.com...
>
>>Eric Belhaire wrote, On 03-02-04 10:43:
>>
>>>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>>
>>>>Tom wrote, On 03-02-03 14:52:
>>>>
>>>>>We (unfortunately) use at my company the OLD OLD OLD version of Netscape
>>>>>Calendar 4.7.1.
>>>>
>>>>Off Topic *and* cross posting! WTF? Are you a spammer or just stupid? :(
>>>Is it really necessary to write this ? Do you speak like this ?
>>
>>It depends on how you define "necessary". ;)
>>
>>I would say he has demonstrated a sufficient level of knowledge of
>>newsgroups (by x-posting to newsgroups, something a "normal" user would
>>not be able to do) to justify my irritation at his blatant unmarked OT
>>x-posting. It's just plain inconsiderate. Even though his question
>>seemed honest and innocent, it doen't justify his (I suspect) conscious
>>decision to OT x-post (as opposed to EZ P-post?).
>>
>>PS. Nobody speaks like they write. :-P
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>>
>>Peter Lairo
>
> All right, all right, I get the message. Geez, I was just asking a
> question, do you not think that is what newsgroups are for?
Asking questions is one of many things newsgroups are for.
> No, 'Peter', you are the idiot and the inconsiderate fool.
The proof is in the pudding. The whole thread up to your post was
bottom-posted. YOU were inconsiderate enough to ignore the continuity of
the thread and top post your reply. Not marking OT in your subject
header was inconsiderate. Not bothering to find the appropriate
newsgroup was inconsiderate. Awfully hypocritical of you to call someone
else inconsiderate, don't you think?
> It doesn't help Mozilla or any other open-source project when morons
> like you flip out over people who simply ask a question because they
> are trying to find out some info to assist them with their problem...
> Isn't that what newsgroups are for? Or do you just personally enjoy
> flaming people?
Did your post help the Mozilla project? I agree that Peter over-reacted,
but you have been much worse.
> Yea, yea, I cross-posted to ONE other group
TWO other groups
> - simply because I thought
> others in the group might have an idea on this also.
Why would you assume that the Mozilla community would be able to help
you more than people in a Netscape group, or better yet a Communicator
group?
Try here:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.communicator
> If that is a
> crime, then I stand guilty. It is just a good thing that I like
> Mozilla so much - because if I didn't I am sure that the 'superiority'
> attitude of people like you would turn me off to a wonderful product.
Why should it?
> OK, I'll look for my answer elsewhere. Guess I won't be using the
> Mozilla Calendar anytime soon.
That line is the first we've seen of you having any intention to use the
Mozilla Calendar. :-)
--
Chris I <so...@rogers.com>
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Peter Lairo wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------
> > It is just a good thing that I like Mozilla so much -
> > because if I didn't I am sure that the 'superiority' attitude of people like
> > you would turn me off to a wonderful product.
>
> Then why are you using MS OE to post here?
>
> > OK, I'll look for my answer elsewhere.
>
> As you should have done from the start.
>
> > Guess I won't be using the Mozilla
> > Calendar anytime soon.
>
> We will try to contain our sorrow over the great loss.
>
-------------------------snip-------------------------
With the above shown attitude shown above. We we really going to get
more than a 10% usage from internet folks for "any" mozilla Product, on
any platform. ?? Huh?!!!
If I didn't know better. I wouldn't even test Netscape 7 or Mozilla.
Yes I am using Comminicator, because my testing experience with Moz/7
hasn't been all that great. (Mostly Due to the Mail & Newsgroup
(Messenger) handling. Web Browsing is Okay.
It would have been simply better to "Grit your teeth bash you hand
through the wall, then type I'm sorry sir/mam (depends upon gender)if
your asking a question about a Communicator product then you need to
try these:
<snews://secnews.nestcape.com/netscape.macintosh> (macintosh)
<snews://secnews.nestcape.com/netscape.communicator.windows> (windows)
<snews://secnews.nestcape.com/netscape.communicator.unix> (Unix)
<snews://secnews.nestcape.com/netscape.test.multimedia (any)
<snews://secnews.nestcape.com/netscape. devs-java> (Java topics any platform)
If this is a user question about calenader:
try this:
<snews://secnews.nestcape.com/netscape.mozilla.user.general>
I know these are supposed to be "developer groups" yet the way the
groups are showm how is the average person supposed to know that.
But one has to remember the average user has a memory like an elephant.
If I get screwed over by even the developer there is no chance in h--- I
will even consider that product and any other products that developement
may go into. And further more I would tend to bad mouth that product for
as long as that product exist.
This piss poor attitude has got to stop. OR you "all' (not just you)
will end up just developping a play toy that you pass around to other
developers only. Then everyone will have to resort using IE.
DO YOU WANT THAT!!!!!!!!!!! (yes I am shouting. seems the only way
anybody can get through to you folks!)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
24112-1809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Gervase Markham
request that people take time out and consider exactly what they are
trying to achieve by engaging in flamewars.
I would prefer it if people who feel they want to abuse others, or
questioners in Mozilla newsgroups, simply ignored them instead. This is
vastly preferable, and Mozilla now has news filtering for your
<plonk>ing pleasure. Perhaps someone else will have the patience you lack.
There is no valid reason to abuse anyone in a newsgroup.
Gerv
andkonDOTcom
> The atmosphere in here has been getting rather heated recently. I
> request that people take time out and consider exactly what they are
> trying to achieve by engaging in flamewars.
>
I am accused of utterly false things. My sites (yes WOW all, arent I
talented) validate. I am repeatedly attacked with no evidence, just
pure/raw emotion. I don't mind as the only thing that beats winning an
argument is winning by default due to hissy fitting.
> I would prefer it if people who feel they want to abuse others, or
> questioners in Mozilla newsgroups, simply ignored them instead. This is
> vastly preferable, and Mozilla now has news filtering for your
> <plonk>ing pleasure. Perhaps someone else will have the patience you lack.
>
> There is no valid reason to abuse anyone in a newsgroup.
Well it certainly will add spice to otherwise future boring essays on
why Mozilla/AOLTW is just not right. It shows people in a vacuum of
raging anger with no facts whatsoever. It goes on to show hypocrisy.
There is nothing more fun than abusive quotes aimed at me. Or just
Mozilla quotes with "Netscape domination". Or quotes by Mozilla
founders comparing working for AOL or Microsoft as working for Philip
Morris or Union Carbide... Am I off topic? :-)
I find it weird how posts are more abusive NOW than this past summer.
The only difference is that I am more calm and my conclusions are more
and more based on facts. Is there perhaps something at the end of the
tunnel that is really dirty that my eyes should not see? Well, don't
worry, I am getting there.
Juraj Betak
if this is related to Andras' posts, I'd agree with the notion that we
haven't found a good way to interact with him. Since the threads tend
to slide from polemics into personal assaults, I'd be best to simply
ignore him.
J.
Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote in message news:<b1qv38$ji...@ripley.netscape.com>...
Peter Lairo
<snip>
This guy cracks me up. It's like a greek tradgedy -both funny and sad at
the same time! :) :(
--
Peter Lairo
Newsgroup for end-user discussion and peer support:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general
Mozilla Guide: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/
--==--
Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot.
--==--
Juraj Betak
>
> I am accused of utterly false things. My sites (yes WOW all, arent I
> talented) validate. I am repeatedly attacked with no evidence, just
Don't flatter yourself, this type of grandiose behavior is
off-putting.
> pure/raw emotion. I don't mind as the only thing that beats winning an
> argument is winning by default due to hissy fitting.
Not true. Whenever you bring up an argument, there are numerous flaws
in it.
Where should we start: you failed to come up with a valid metrics for
valuation of the volunteer contribution to AOLTW bottom line. You
simply claimed that all of their revenue is fraudulently derived from
volunteer work. Then you corrected it to "a portion of $11 billion".
The whole first article looks like something out of National Enquirer.
Back up your facts, come up with sensible metrics.
You have failed again in your analysis of Mozilla's licensing terms
and in claiming that Netscape doesn't release the code. You were wrong
on standards compliance and came back with mozilla.org not validating.
The whole obsession with site validation is really interesting, since
people in this newsgroup have put this bug into your head.
You complain about disgraceful attitude. It was you who came here with
insulting and abusive behavior, don't mix up the cause and its
effects.
You then go off and describe potential benefits to AOL and how the
scenario is likely to play out. Many assumptions in that paragraph are
wrong and the cost/benefit analysis as a whole is flawed. I'm not
saying that a sensible argument could be written on this, it's just
your version of it is a wild speculation.
>
> Well it certainly will add spice to otherwise future boring essays on
> why Mozilla/AOLTW is just not right. It shows people in a vacuum of
> raging anger with no facts whatsoever. It goes on to show hypocrisy.
Not true again. You keep repeating nonsense in an offensive way and
claim victory when people throw up their hands in the air. It's like
someone farting in the elevator and claiming the moral high ground
when everyone turns away in embarrassment.
> I find it weird how posts are more abusive NOW than this past summer.
> The only difference is that I am more calm and my conclusions are more
> and more based on facts. Is there perhaps something at the end of the
Not true again. I remember your shouting duel with Jay Garcia very
well. If you claim to be polemicizing, don't start abusing people and
slide into emotional exchanges. If you corrected your 3rd Mozilla
assay, there wouldn't be much left from it.
Gervase Markham
> Gerv,
>
> if this is related to Andras' posts, I'd agree with the notion that we
> haven't found a good way to interact with him. Since the threads tend
> to slide from polemics into personal assaults, I'd be best to simply
> ignore him.
It's not related to any particular post; it's merely my reaction to a
perception that the quality of discussion in this group has degenerated
of late.
Gerv
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
"It's like someone farting in the elevator and claiming the moral high
ground
when everyone turns away in embarrassment."
GREAT LINE !! :-D
--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Novell MCNE-5/CNI-Networking Technologies-OSI
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
** Post To Group ONLY, do NOT email **
andkonDOTcom
> Aww, here we go again.
>
> >
> > I am accused of utterly false things. My sites (yes WOW all, arent I
> > talented) validate. I am repeatedly attacked with no evidence, just
>
> Don't flatter yourself, this type of grandiose behavior is
> off-putting.
>
Well yeah. I mean validation is an obvious sign of superiorty. I mean
WOW WOW WOW I can close tags! I cant believe some people who work on
Mozilla make suck blatant errors.
> > pure/raw emotion. I don't mind as the only thing that beats winning an
> > argument is winning by default due to hissy fitting.
>
> Not true. Whenever you bring up an argument, there are numerous flaws
> in it.
>
Examples are better than unsupported random statements. One example
suffices and is better than a hundred generalizations.
> Where should we start: you failed to come up with a valid metrics for
> valuation of the volunteer contribution to AOLTW bottom line. You
> simply claimed that all of their revenue is fraudulently derived from
> volunteer work. Then you corrected it to "a portion of $11 billion".
Oh good example time. You tell me how much Mozilla volunteers matter.
Try to put dollar figure on that. I am going to say they are essential
to making Mozilla work. If they weren't, why the hell is Mozilla
around?
> The whole first article looks like something out of National Enquirer.
> Back up your facts, come up with sensible metrics.
>
Okay here is a back up: without Mozilla volunteers, there would be no
Mozilla code for Netscape to make its browser. So Netscape is indebted
very much to Mozilla. Anything wrong with that statement?
> You have failed again in your analysis of Mozilla's licensing terms
> and in claiming that Netscape doesn't release the code. You were wrong
> on standards compliance and came back with mozilla.org not validating.
> The whole obsession with site validation is really interesting, since
> people in this newsgroup have put this bug into your head.
>
Validation obsession? You mean ending tags? Yeah, its really an
obsession to make HTML that shows up correctly... Maybe I should just
be lax and forget a few tags here and there. The funny thing is I get
insulted for not knowing HTML in one post and then in another I am
warned that validation doesnt really mean anything.
> You complain about disgraceful attitude. It was you who came here with
> insulting and abusive behavior, don't mix up the cause and its
> effects.
>
Insults without facts is showing someone with despair. Back up facts,
and then insult if you must.
> You then go off and describe potential benefits to AOL and how the
> scenario is likely to play out. Many assumptions in that paragraph are
> wrong and the cost/benefit analysis as a whole is flawed. I'm not
> saying that a sensible argument could be written on this, it's just
> your version of it is a wild speculation.
>
Of course it's speculation, only somewhat accurate speculation. Can
you put a dollar figure on how much Mozilla volunteers contribute? I
cant either. I can say they are very very important.
> >
> > Well it certainly will add spice to otherwise future boring essays on
> > why Mozilla/AOLTW is just not right. It shows people in a vacuum of
> > raging anger with no facts whatsoever. It goes on to show hypocrisy.
>
> Not true again. You keep repeating nonsense in an offensive way and
> claim victory when people throw up their hands in the air. It's like
> someone farting in the elevator and claiming the moral high ground
> when everyone turns away in embarrassment.
>
Well if you have no facts, with or without cussing, you have no facts.
Your only fact is that you get mad when you cant argue back. That
makes you look like an idiot.
> > I find it weird how posts are more abusive NOW than this past summer.
> > The only difference is that I am more calm and my conclusions are more
> > and more based on facts. Is there perhaps something at the end of the
>
> Not true again. I remember your shouting duel with Jay Garcia very
> well. If you claim to be polemicizing, don't start abusing people and
> slide into emotional exchanges. If you corrected your 3rd Mozilla
> assay, there wouldn't be much left from it.
I came up with facts. In fact, I still dont know how this all turned
out to be... Is ogun zelune a real other person? If he is, he is a
fucking liar. He isnt Hungarian, his name is misspelled, and he wasnt
part of any revolution. THe story doesnt add up.
So there my backup...
Want some more stuff from my essay that is just so OBVIOUSLY wrong?
http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/
"Namely, why does mozilla.org not validate properly? A simple <meta
http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" />
would do wonders. However, that correction would spawn concerns about
why Mozilla, the rightly self-proclaimed browser of standards, is
stuck back in HTML 4.0 and why Mozilla is not using XHTML. Other
documents throughout the site don't validate at all."
"Perhaps Mozilla should call a graphic design contest to make new
logos and images for its site and browser as these images are
unacceptably sickening. The image and likeness of murder and genocide
does not deserve to be the cuddly mascot of a browser to which
millions of people are exposed."
"What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting
Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who
also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in
starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939
to 1942! If Hitler is despised on account of his genocidal rampage, so
should Stalin and the rest of his murderous chums. Since Stalin, along
with all the rest of the line of murders, come to represent communism,
why does Mozilla have the guts to display the imagery intertwined with
these killer regimes? Time has come for recognizing that communism in
any shape or form does not deserve to be casually spewed around as
"image.""
"After the source code for Netscape Communicator was released in 1998,
Netscape's role of exerting influence over the code technically is the
same as anyone else's. Sure, they still contribute more to Mozilla
than any other group, but this does not give them the right to change
the rules in the middle of the game."
"Teaming up with a corporation that doesn't care about its partner's
goals is a fast way to failure. The paradox of an open source project
partnering up with a solely for-profit corporation is ludicrous. The
goals of each are complete opposites and painfully conflicting."
As far as I am concerned, none of those have been answered. But hell,
let me not restrict you. Take any sentence and try to argue why I am
incorrect.
andkonDOTcom
>
> if this is related to Andras' posts, I'd agree with the notion that we
> haven't found a good way to interact with him. Since the threads tend
> to slide from polemics into personal assaults, I'd be best to simply
> ignore him.
>
> J.
>
Personal assualts only follow AFTER arguemnts. Such as "thus you are
wrong and because of this you are mistaken." Then the person posts a
troll ASCII art, and then all hell breaks loose. If I can write a damn
argument, I do not want a fucking troll as the reply. Its usually
after the "troll" that I get pissed. Not the other way around.
andkonDOTcom
> On 06.02.03 01:31, andkonDOTcom wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> This guy cracks me up. It's like a greek tradgedy -both funny and sad at
> the same time! :) :(
>
This guy cracks me up. It's like a greek tradgedy -both funny and sad
at the same time! :) :( I mean he cant even use proper HTML! What a
moron!
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
> --==--
> Better to understand a little than to misunderstand a lot.
> --==--
Such as non-prop html?
scratch
> Peter Lairo <Pe...@Lairo.com> wrote in message news:<b1tvf1$rs...@ripley.netscape.com>...
>
>>On 06.02.03 01:31, andkonDOTcom wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>This guy cracks me up. It's like a greek tradgedy -both funny and sad at
>>the same time! :) :(
>>
>
>
> This guy cracks me up. It's like a greek tradgedy -both funny and sad
> at the same time! :) :( I mean he cant even use proper HTML! What a
> moron!
>
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
Looks like he's just using the wrong DTD.
-scratch
David Spade
> sp...@betak.net (Juraj Betak) wrote in message news:<93dcfd73.03020...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Gerv,
>>
>>if this is related to Andras' posts, I'd agree with the notion that we
>>haven't found a good way to interact with him. Since the threads tend
>>to slide from polemics into personal assaults, I'd be best to simply
>>ignore him.
>>
>>J.
>>
>
>
> Personal assualts only follow AFTER arguemnts. Such as "thus you are
> wrong and because of this you are mistaken." Then the person posts a
> troll ASCII art, and then all hell breaks loose. If I can write a damn
> argument, I do not want a fucking troll as the reply. Its usually
> after the "troll" that I get pissed. Not the other way around.
Humour is something that is notoriously difficult to convey on newsgroups.
You know, people would have a lot more respect for you if you didn't indulge in
personal attacks. When someone flames me personally, I'll generally ignore it.
If you think an attack is personal, you can always take it up with the person
through email, and spare us all from having to watch this (admittedly amusing at
times) show.
Yes, maybe the other person started it. Maybe they didn't. However, that's no
excuse. When so many of your posts degenerate to meaningless personal flames and
strange arguments, people stop listening to you and any good point that you were
trying to make is lost utterly in the noise that is generated. Your information
may (MAY - I haven't read it) be good, but the presentation definitely needs work.
-=Straxus=-
David Spade
> sp...@betak.net (Juraj Betak) wrote in message news:<93dcfd73.03020...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/
>
> logos and images for its site and browser as these images are
> unacceptably sickening. The image and likeness of murder and genocide
> does not deserve to be the cuddly mascot of a browser to which
> millions of people are exposed."
>
> "What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting
> Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who
> also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in
> starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939
> to 1942! If Hitler is despised on account of his genocidal rampage, so
> should Stalin and the rest of his murderous chums. Since Stalin, along
> with all the rest of the line of murders, come to represent communism,
> why does Mozilla have the guts to display the imagery intertwined with
> these killer regimes? Time has come for recognizing that communism in
> any shape or form does not deserve to be casually spewed around as
> "image.""
1. Stalin was Hitler's best friend? Learn history.
2. Communism is a concept, and the theories and doctrine behind Communism are
rather intriguing as a form of government. However, due to the fallibility of
human nature, a Communist government will never succeed. Those with power are
far too likely to abuse it.
3. Stalin was certifiably insane, there's no doubt about it. His paranoid
delusions were the stuff of legends. However, did the USA not wage wars against
the Indians of the North American continent, and attempt to wipe them out with
smallpox? (P.S. They intentionally circulated blankets infected with smallpox
among Indian tribes since they were far more prone to smallpox than Europeans
were). Sounds like genocide to me. Should we wipe out imagery of the US government?
4. You are doing your damndest to flatten freedom of speech with your attempt to
suppress anything to do with Communism. Coming from a democratic country, that's
rather undemocratic of you.
5. Anyone that cares to package a distribution of Mozilla can change each and
every image that is found within its structure. Will we see "andkonDOTcom
Mozilla" with different imagery and other improvements (such as rejecting of
pages which do not validate)?
6. This is a total straw-man attack. This says nothing about the merits of
Mozilla as a browsing platform.
> As far as I am concerned, none of those have been answered. But hell,
> let me not restrict you. Take any sentence and try to argue why I am
> incorrect.
-=Straxus=-
P.S. I'm playing devil's advocate here.
Juraj Betak
> WOW WOW WOW I can close tags! I cant believe some people who work on
> Mozilla make suck blatant errors.
Well, my comment was aimed at your attitude and manners. Please don't
project other things into it.
>
> Examples are better than unsupported random statements. One example
> suffices and is better than a hundred generalizations.
>
> Okay here is a back up: without Mozilla volunteers, there would be no
> Mozilla code for Netscape to make its browser. So Netscape is indebted
> very much to Mozilla. Anything wrong with that statement?
We had this discussion last August. I told you that the majority of
work has been performed by paid resources (including myself), which
makes your blanket statement incorrect. Without volunteers it would
have taken longer. The difference could be quantified, I'd estimate it
to be about 1 year.
I told you that Netscape was pretty good about hiring good
contributors. Unfortunately you have chosen to ridicule and ignore
that statement instead of inquiring about more details. You aren't
really interested in facts, or are you?
>
> Validation obsession? You mean ending tags? Yeah, its really an
> obsession to make HTML that shows up correctly... Maybe I should just
> be lax and forget a few tags here and there. The funny thing is I get
> insulted for not knowing HTML in one post and then in another I am
> warned that validation doesnt really mean anything.
Again, I don't think you were listenig. I tried to summarize how your
attitude has resulted in this situation. I didn't warn you, that's
again your projection.
>
> Insults without facts is showing someone with despair. Back up facts,
> and then insult if you must.
This cuts both ways. A lot of emotion in written media like this one
is a projection of your own mental state. Are you desperate, Andras?
>
> Of course it's speculation, only somewhat accurate speculation. Can
> you put a dollar figure on how much Mozilla volunteers contribute? I
> cant either. I can say they are very very important.
Were you listening? Apparently not.
>
> Want some more stuff from my essay that is just so OBVIOUSLY wrong?
>
> http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/
>
>
> As far as I am concerned, none of those have been answered. But hell,
> let me not restrict you. Take any sentence and try to argue why I am
> incorrect.
I don't feel like regurgitating. Gerv, Dan, myself and others have
taken time to provide you with pointers and information. If you are
truly interested in an argument, why don't you go back and tell us
what is wrong with them instead of starting multiple new threads and
cutting and pasting your whole essay into this newsgroup?
Peter Lairo
> andkonDOTcom wrote:
>>
>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
>
> Looks like he's just using the wrong DTD.
I'd be happy to fix it (as I have indicated to the troll before), but I
don't know how. Could someone please give me a clue on this?
PS. Eventhough I want to fix it in response to the troll's pointing it
out, it in no way proves any of his points aboiut mozilla! (I just felt
like pointing out the obvious, again)
--
Peter Lairo
Newsgroup for end-user discussion and peer support:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general
Mozilla Guide: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/
--==--
You show a strong sense of failing to grasp the obvious.
--==--
Pascal Chevrel
> On 2/7/03 5:12 AM, scratch wrote:
>
>> andkonDOTcom wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
>>
>>
>> Looks like he's just using the wrong DTD.
>
>
> I'd be happy to fix it (as I have indicated to the troll before), but I
> don't know how. Could someone please give me a clue on this?
>
> PS. Eventhough I want to fix it in response to the troll's pointing it
> out, it in no way proves any of his points aboiut mozilla! (I just felt
> like pointing out the obvious, again)
Change your incorrect DTD (first line of the html file) by :
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
Then you should install this great xpi :
http://checky.mozdev.org/index.html
mozdev.org - checky: index
Once installed, load your page and type F10, your page will be validated
in tabs in the backgrounds, you'll see all the errors to correct.
Pascal
--
FAQ Mozilla/Netscape 7 en français : http://pascal.chevrel.free.fr/
andkonDOTcom
> > WOW WOW WOW I can close tags! I cant believe some people who work on
> > Mozilla make suck blatant errors.
>
> Well, my comment was aimed at your attitude and manners. Please don't
> project other things into it.
>
My manners erupt usually after they have been stirred.
> >
> > Examples are better than unsupported random statements. One example
> > suffices and is better than a hundred generalizations.
> >
> > Okay here is a back up: without Mozilla volunteers, there would be no
> > Mozilla code for Netscape to make its browser. So Netscape is indebted
> > very much to Mozilla. Anything wrong with that statement?
>
> We had this discussion last August. I told you that the majority of
> work has been performed by paid resources (including myself), which
> makes your blanket statement incorrect. Without volunteers it would
> have taken longer. The difference could be quantified, I'd estimate it
> to be about 1 year.
>
1 year for every what? Elephants? Peanuts? Is this one year for the
entire project? If it's for the entire project, why does Mozilla exist
now? Volunteers are the only things that keep Mozilla and thus the
Netscape browser together. The sheer number of bugs would be undoable
without a larger number of people.
> I told you that Netscape was pretty good about hiring good
> contributors. Unfortunately you have chosen to ridicule and ignore
> that statement instead of inquiring about more details. You aren't
> really interested in facts, or are you?
>
Okay, give me facts. How much did AOL spend for the Netscape browser?
How much goes to Mozilla? How many Netscape employees are there? How
many are actively working on Mozilla code in any given day (meaning
not software like AIM etc)? How many volunteers are there? Bugzilla
accounts of active but nonpaid volunteer? Not so easy to answer I
understand.
> >
> > Validation obsession? You mean ending tags? Yeah, its really an
> > obsession to make HTML that shows up correctly... Maybe I should just
> > be lax and forget a few tags here and there. The funny thing is I get
> > insulted for not knowing HTML in one post and then in another I am
> > warned that validation doesnt really mean anything.
>
> Again, I don't think you were listenig. I tried to summarize how your
> attitude has resulted in this situation. I didn't warn you, that's
> again your projection.
>
Okay.
> >
> > Insults without facts is showing someone with despair. Back up facts,
> > and then insult if you must.
>
> This cuts both ways. A lot of emotion in written media like this one
> is a projection of your own mental state. Are you desperate, Andras?
>
Emotion with facts still has facts. I do not try to replace the
content (facts) with the display (emotion). There is no substitute for
real content.
> >
> > Of course it's speculation, only somewhat accurate speculation. Can
> > you put a dollar figure on how much Mozilla volunteers contribute? I
> > cant either. I can say they are very very important.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?q=betak+decent&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=fda8b19c.0301211631.2e2780c5%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
>
> Were you listening? Apparently not.
>
Okay answer those question above with numbers. Thanks.
> >
> > Want some more stuff from my essay that is just so OBVIOUSLY wrong?
> >
> > http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/
> >
> >
> > As far as I am concerned, none of those have been answered. But hell,
> > let me not restrict you. Take any sentence and try to argue why I am
> > incorrect.
>
> I don't feel like regurgitating. Gerv, Dan, myself and others have
> taken time to provide you with pointers and information. If you are
> truly interested in an argument, why don't you go back and tell us
> what is wrong with them instead of starting multiple new threads and
> cutting and pasting your whole essay into this newsgroup?
Well Gee, no one has actually commented on the essay per se, meaning
on actual passages/sentences. Just the general idea. One email I got
from some Mozilla fan blasted that Mozilla was not a "communist
infiltrator." Had the person actually read more than a sentence from
my essay, he would have not made such foolish comments.
andkonDOTcom
> On 06/02/2003 20:02, andkonDOTcom wrote:
> > sp...@betak.net (Juraj Betak) wrote in message news:<93dcfd73.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Want some more stuff from my essay that is just so OBVIOUSLY wrong?
> >
> > http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/
> >
> > "Perhaps Mozilla should call a graphic design contest to make new
> > logos and images for its site and browser as these images are
> > unacceptably sickening. The image and likeness of murder and genocide
> > does not deserve to be the cuddly mascot of a browser to which
> > millions of people are exposed."
> >
> > "What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting
> > Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who
> > also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in
> > starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939
> > to 1942! If Hitler is despised on account of his genocidal rampage, so
> > should Stalin and the rest of his murderous chums. Since Stalin, along
> > with all the rest of the line of murders, come to represent communism,
> > why does Mozilla have the guts to display the imagery intertwined with
> > these killer regimes? Time has come for recognizing that communism in
> > any shape or form does not deserve to be casually spewed around as
> > "image.""
>
> 1. Stalin was Hitler's best friend? Learn history.
>
You and Daniel Glazman need to buy a damn history book. September 1,
1939, Poland is invaded by nazis. Two weeks later, Stalin overruns
eastern Poland. Nazis and Communists meet the next and start planning
for the carving out of Europe. Sure Hitler backstabbed, but he was
allied with Stalin. YOU NEED TO LEARN HISTORY. Western text books love
to leave this part out as the ally of Hitler is unthinable to be the
ally of the free world.
> 2. Communism is a concept, and the theories and doctrine behind Communism are
> rather intriguing as a form of government. However, due to the fallibility of
> human nature, a Communist government will never succeed. Those with power are
> far too likely to abuse it.
>
True. I dont see your point as we both agree.
> 3. Stalin was certifiably insane, there's no doubt about it. His paranoid
> delusions were the stuff of legends. However, did the USA not wage wars against
> the Indians of the North American continent, and attempt to wipe them out with
> smallpox? (P.S. They intentionally circulated blankets infected with smallpox
> among Indian tribes since they were far more prone to smallpox than Europeans
> were). Sounds like genocide to me. Should we wipe out imagery of the US government?
>
Communism mandates violence. (Take over by revolution, spread
revolution) Read the Communist Manifesto.
> 4. You are doing your damndest to flatten freedom of speech with your attempt to
> suppress anything to do with Communism. Coming from a democratic country, that's
> rather undemocratic of you.
>
How am I suppressing communism? I am saying it killed 100 million
people. Try living in a communist country (i hear china and cuba are
great) before making such grandiose statements.
> 5. Anyone that cares to package a distribution of Mozilla can change each and
> every image that is found within its structure. Will we see "andkonDOTcom
> Mozilla" with different imagery and other improvements (such as rejecting of
> pages which do not validate)?
>
No. Opera seems to be doing a good job with neutral buttons. IE and
every other browser manages to not excite so many people.
> 6. This is a total straw-man attack. This says nothing about the merits of
> Mozilla as a browsing platform.
>
It's not straw man and it certainly has nothing to do with
performance. Its disgusting to put a regime that killed 100 million
people.
> > As far as I am concerned, none of those have been answered. But hell,
> > let me not restrict you. Take any sentence and try to argue why I am
> > incorrect.
>
Done.
David Spade
As a matter of fact, I'm extremely familiar with World War II history.
The scene, 1939 Europe. The USSR has just gone through the Great Terror, in
which many millions of people were killed due to Stalin's paranoia. Germany is
beciming a major threat, and Stalin knows that if he were to take on Germany
with his military in such disarray he would surely lose. He signs a
non-aggression pact with Germany, and they divide Poland down the middle in
October of 1939.
Fast-forward to mid 1941. Stalin has gotten his military somewhat under control,
and is begining a buildup of military forces on the Polish border in preparation
for an offensive against Germany in spring of 1942. Germany, who always had a
good idea what Stalin's real intentions were anyways, pre-empts him in late 1941
and catches the military with its pants down, driving them back to the gates of
Moscow.
The alliance between Germany and the USSR was just one of convenience, and both
were fully intending to violate it. Those two nations hated one another. Germany
just launched their attack first.
This is fact, this is history. These facts are agreed upon in both Eastern and
Western books (Read 'The Mitrokhin Archive' - it's quite a good book, and it
explains the history of the KBG and (indirectly) the USSR in great detail).
>>3. Stalin was certifiably insane, there's no doubt about it. His paranoid
>>delusions were the stuff of legends. However, did the USA not wage wars against
>>the Indians of the North American continent, and attempt to wipe them out with
>>smallpox? (P.S. They intentionally circulated blankets infected with smallpox
>>among Indian tribes since they were far more prone to smallpox than Europeans
>>were). Sounds like genocide to me. Should we wipe out imagery of the US government?
>>
>
> Communism mandates violence. (Take over by revolution, spread
> revolution) Read the Communist Manifesto.
Which Communist Manifesto are you referring to? That by Marx, or that by Lenin?
There's a huge difference. The Marxist version of Communism is somewhat more
pure, whereas Lenin was always a little... violence-prone.
>>4. You are doing your damndest to flatten freedom of speech with your attempt to
>>suppress anything to do with Communism. Coming from a democratic country, that's
>>rather undemocratic of you.
>>
> How am I suppressing communism? I am saying it killed 100 million
> people. Try living in a communist country (i hear china and cuba are
> great) before making such grandiose statements.
Absolutely unrelated to the statement I made. Another straw-man attack. You said:
'Time has come for recognizing that communism in any shape or form does not
deserve to be casually spewed around as "image."'
That sounds to me like you want to eliminate anything that has any ties
whatsoever to Communism. Such broad elimination of expression qualifies as
curtailing of freedom of speech.
>>5. Anyone that cares to package a distribution of Mozilla can change each and
>>every image that is found within its structure. Will we see "andkonDOTcom
>>Mozilla" with different imagery and other improvements (such as rejecting of
>>pages which do not validate)?
>>
> No. Opera seems to be doing a good job with neutral buttons. IE and
> every other browser manages to not excite so many people.
If you are bothered enough by a product, you can either try to change the
product or use a different product. As it stands, I personally like a browser
with a bit of flair. For those that don't, there's Netscape 7.x or Beonex (Or
some other distribution).
>>6. This is a total straw-man attack. This says nothing about the merits of
>>Mozilla as a browsing platform.
>>
> It's not straw man and it certainly has nothing to do with
> performance. Its disgusting to put a regime that killed 100 million
> people.
A Red Star may symbolize Communism for you, and Communism may in turn symbolize
'a regime that killed 100 million people' for you. However, that's not
necessarily so for the majority of people out there. Again, if you are that
bothered by it, either make a distro for yourself and change what you don't like
or use something else.
-=Straxus=-
Geoff
>> Communism mandates violence. (Take over by revolution, spread
>> revolution) Read the Communist Manifesto.
>
> Which Communist Manifesto are you referring to? That by Marx, or that by
> Lenin? There's a huge difference. The Marxist version of Communism is
> somewhat more pure, whereas Lenin was always a little... violence-prone.
Making the fatal mistake of jumping into an OT thread, and without wishing
to contradict you in your moderate response to a poster whose ranting I
stopped reading long ago, IIRC, the only "Communist Manifesto" properly
so-called was written by Marx and Engels and concludes thus :
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly
declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of
all existing social conditions."
That seems somewhat violence-prone to this observer.
I suppose it could be said that, properly understood, the dialectical
method merely predicts the inevitability of violence rather than incitiing
it, but the distinction is hardly observed in the Manifesto.
Geoff
--
Faustus : How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Mephistophilis : Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Peter Lairo
> Le 07/02/2003 16:57, Peter Lairo a écrit :
>> On 2/7/03 5:12 AM, scratch wrote:
>>> andkonDOTcom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
>>
>> I don't know how. Could someone please give me a clue on this?
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
It seems I cannot. In Composer, that line is greyed out and I cannot
seem to "edit" it. Is there a pref or menuitem somewhere that allows
access to that line?
BTW. Why should I use "Transitional" and not "Strict" (whatever that
means - "Strict" just sounds better)?
> Then you should install this great xpi :
>
> http://checky.mozdev.org/index.html
I will, once I've installed today's nightly. Thanks for the tip. :)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
-=-=-
Ed Mullen
> Pascal Chevrel wrote, On 03-02-07 17:12:
>
>>Le 07/02/2003 16:57, Peter Lairo a écrit :
>>
>>>On 2/7/03 5:12 AM, scratch wrote:
>>>
>>>>andkonDOTcom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
>>>
>>>I'd be happy to fix it (as I have indicated to the troll before), but
>>>I don't know how. Could someone please give me a clue on this?
>>
>>Change your incorrect DTD (first line of the html file) by :
>><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
>>"http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
>
>
> It seems I cannot. In Composer, that line is greyed out and I cannot
> seem to "edit" it. Is there a pref or menuitem somewhere that allows
> access to that line?
>
>
>
Just open the page file in a text editor like notepad.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Why do they report power outages on TV?
David Spade
My understanding of the climate during which Marx wrote is that he saw workers
as being oppressed by the upper-class and the government. At that point, workers
were seen as a penny a dozen, and if I recall correctly there were no unions,
and very few if any labour laws in the world. Marx probably thought that the
only way that workers could achieve their worker-peasant Communist state was
through revolution against the people with power.
While it seems that I was a little mistaken about the Marx's Communism preaching
violence, it certainly wasn't preaching 'slaughter 100 million of your
countrymen at the drop of a hat if you think there's a slight possibility that
they may be considering thinking about a possibly uncommunist view'. My main
point of argument is that Communism is not designed to have power by oppressing
and murdering, but by eliminating oppression and creating an equal society.
Thanks for the clarification though. :)
-=Straxus=-
Sailfish
to 'slaughter 100 million countrymen'; however, both Marx and Engels
were fairly bright lunatics, no? Surely, they would have had to realize
that the only alternative to an "invisible hand" would neccessarily be
an "iron fist", it seems to me.
--
Netscape FAQs: http://www.ufaq.org
Netscape 6/7 Tips: http://www.hmetzger.de/net6e.html
Netscape 6 FAQ: http://home.adelphia.net/~sremick/ns6faq.html
Netscape 7 Help/Tips: http://techaholic.net/ns7.html
Web page validation: http://validator.w3.org
About Mozilla: http://www.mozilla.org
Pascal Chevrel
> Pascal Chevrel wrote, On 03-02-07 17:12:
>
>> Le 07/02/2003 16:57, Peter Lairo a écrit :
>>
>>> On 2/7/03 5:12 AM, scratch wrote:
>>>
>>>> andkonDOTcom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd be happy to fix it (as I have indicated to the troll before), but
>>> I don't know how. Could someone please give me a clue on this?
>>
>>
>> Change your incorrect DTD (first line of the html file) by :
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
>> "http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
>
>
> It seems I cannot. In Composer, that line is greyed out and I cannot
> seem to "edit" it. Is there a pref or menuitem somewhere that allows
> access to that line?
Normally, Composer inserts a correct DTD for all the document it
creates, am I gessing right if I say that the document was either first
created or modified with another tool ?
As Ed said, just use any plain text editor, personnally I suggest
Html-kit, which is free, powerful and offers coloured syntax
(www.chami.com).
>
> BTW. Why should I use "Transitional" and not "Strict" (whatever that
> means - "Strict" just sounds better)?
Transitional means that you code your page in a code between HTML3.2 and
HTML4.01, to be honest, going HTML 4.01 Strict would mean much more work
on your pages :-)
>
>> Then you should install this great xpi :
>>
>> http://checky.mozdev.org/index.html
>
>
> I will, once I've installed today's nightly. Thanks for the tip. :)
>
You're welcome
David Spade
I don't know if that's necessarily true. Sure, now that we've seen the system in
operation we've seen that it leads to heavy-handed rulers doing Draconian
things, however at the time they were writing pretty much every nation was run
by an Aristocracy of some kind (be it monarchs or a small class of rich elite).
I think that they may well have gullibly believed that the people that would
rise up to create the ideal Communist state would also be able to coexist in
harmony and that a police-state would not be necessary. Sometimes, when one gets
so wrapped up in an idea (or an ideal) one forgets what people are really like.
I think this happened to Marx and Engels, and that they would have decried the
way the USSR, the PDRK, and the PRC turned out.
-=Straxus=-
P.S.
USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
PDRK = People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)
PRC = People's Republic of China (Mainland China)
Sailfish
deduce that any fully-centralized form of governance leads to tyranny.
Certainly, the existing models (of their day) had their own problems but
they, too, were basically another form of centralized power.
imo, the Communist Manifesto is really nothing more than history's
original pinko's, Plato, /The Republic/ writ large. They should have
paid more attention to Aristotle when developing their thesis, methinks.
> P.S.
>
> USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
> PDRK = People's Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)
> PRC = People's Republic of China (Mainland China)
>
PCC = Cuban Communist party (PCC)
Kampuchean People's Republic = Khmer Rouge
MPLA = Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola
etc...
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
andkonDOTcom wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------
>
> How am I suppressing communism? I am saying it killed 100 million
> people. Try living in a communist country (i hear china and cuba are
> great) before making such grandiose statements.
If anyone wtaches an average news shows when they report on anything
from Cuba - notice the cars they are using 50 -55 Fords and Chev's Most
are 52,53, and 54 models. I don't think I'd recommend living in Cuba.
Just a while ago when I was in my SUV going to gas station, the news on
the radio stated a bunch of Cuban Police officers in a Cuban Patrol Boat
landed in Florida and turned themselves into police asking for asylum.
Doesn't sound like a great country to go to.
-------------------------snip-------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
24112-1809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Geoff
>>
> My understanding of the climate during which Marx wrote is that he saw
> workers as being oppressed by the upper-class and the government. At
> that point, workers were seen as a penny a dozen, and if I recall
> correctly there were no unions, and very few if any labour laws in the
> world. Marx probably thought that the only way that workers could
> achieve their worker-peasant Communist state was through revolution
> against the people with power.
I think that is broadly correct, Marx/Engels were (as you know), working
in my country and could observe at first hand the worst effects of the
Industrial Revolution which we were the first to experience. Remember,
though, that Marx/Engels did not imagine that Communism could be
immediately achieved. Dialectical Materialism is a rather detailed
philosophical system which (unlike the Hegelian Dialectical Idealism which
it parasitised), purports to make specific predictions about the future.
From this (in my view indefensible), philosophical foundation Marx/Engels
believed :(a) that there is no such thing as "Democracy" - only different
types of dictatorship (b) that their own era was the era of the
"dictatorship of the bourgeousie" (c) that the dictatorship of the of the
bourgeousie was certain to be replaced by "the dictatorship of the
proletariat" (aka socialism), (d) that the dictatorship of the proletariat
would itself (at some indeterminate time in the future), be replaced by
Communism. They did not believe that the advent of socialism would be the
result of worker-peasant uprisings (which they believed to characterise
extinct medieval societies), but uprisings of the urban proletariat (the
unskilled, ununionised masses. They therefore anticipated that the
revolution would break out in industrialised Britain or Germany, not
underdeveloped Russia. Lenin made the Russian revolution happen, but this
was in spite of Dialectical Materialist prediction rather than in
conformity with it - and much time an effort was subsequently spent in
papering over the cracks.
> While it seems that I was a little mistaken about the Marx's Communism
> preaching violence, it certainly wasn't preaching 'slaughter 100 million
> of your countrymen at the drop of a hat if you think there's a slight
> possibility that they may be considering thinking about a possibly
> uncommunist view'.
True, although (in my opinion), the Founding Fathers would have considered
100 million a price worth paying if only they had had the means of
achieving it.
> My main point of argument is that Communism is not designed to have
> power by oppressing and murdering, but by eliminating oppression and
> creating an equal society.
In part that is correct, but you might look at Lenin's "Socialism, Utopian
and Scientific" (more influential than the Manifesto), before concluding
that any practical implementation of a Marxist programme is capable of
living up to those ideals.
Geoff
--
"sunt lachrimae rerum"
andkonDOTcom
> On 06/02/2003 20:04, andkonDOTcom wrote:
> > sp...@betak.net (Juraj Betak) wrote in message news:<93dcfd73.03020...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>Gerv,
> >>
> >>if this is related to Andras' posts, I'd agree with the notion that we
> >>haven't found a good way to interact with him. Since the threads tend
> >>to slide from polemics into personal assaults, I'd be best to simply
> >>ignore him.
> >>
> >>J.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Personal assualts only follow AFTER arguemnts. Such as "thus you are
> > wrong and because of this you are mistaken." Then the person posts a
> > troll ASCII art, and then all hell breaks loose. If I can write a damn
> > argument, I do not want a fucking troll as the reply. Its usually
> > after the "troll" that I get pissed. Not the other way around.
>
> Humour is something that is notoriously difficult to convey on newsgroups.
>
Let me think. Would you it acceptable for me to have a ASCII middle
finger to every post that I don't like? Or to posts that I can't find
a logical argument to (not of course that this would ever happen)?
> You know, people would have a lot more respect for you if you didn't indulge in
> personal attacks. When someone flames me personally, I'll generally ignore it.
> If you think an attack is personal, you can always take it up with the person
> through email, and spare us all from having to watch this (admittedly amusing at
> times) show.
>
Time has shown that if I do not defend myself at every junction,
misinformation spreads around. How many people in here actually went
to validator.w3.org and typed in http://www.andkon.com/stuf/ ??? Had
it not been for my flaming of the jackass, many people would think
that and later circulate that I myself do not validate, clearly false.
And what good is an email to someone who is so ruffled up? They'll
ignore it, and utterly false accusations will float around. The best
plan of attack is to publicly respond and publicly humiliate as to
prevent future lies. The more forceful I am on a point or accusation,
the less likely it will come back. That's why no one has questioned my
HTML knowledge now because they know they know I will ask for their
website and point out their own flaws, just like I did for this
jackass. Not surprisingly, he hasn't responded. And mind you, all of
this without me demonstrating any knowledge yet.
> Yes, maybe the other person started it. Maybe they didn't. However, that's no
> excuse. When so many of your posts degenerate to meaningless personal flames and
> strange arguments, people stop listening to you and any good point that you were
> trying to make is lost utterly in the noise that is generated. Your information
I'm not the one who brings up the senseless personal crap. However, I
do try to go back to original argument as I am not going to fall prey
to subarguments that have no relevance.
> may (MAY - I haven't read it) be good, but the presentation definitely needs work.
>
Well I suggest reading it then. It's very foolish to judge something
before you've even looked at it. It's like saying GEE some book looks
ugly and author's picture looks grumpy so the book must suck.
http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/ If people who argued with me
actually took the 3 minutes to read it, then I wouldnt have to copy
and paste parts of my essay everywhere (complaint from someone).
> -=Straxus=-
Geoff
> In part that is correct, but you might look at Lenin's "Socialism,
> Utopian and Scientific" (more influential than the Manifesto), before
> concluding that any practical implementation of a Marxist programme is
> capable of living up to those ideals.
>
been 30 years since I went into this stuff -- and I have had much wine
this evening ;-)
Geoff
--
The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation
Rob Stow
> Kampuchean People's Republic = Khmer Rouge
No. KPR = one of the various names for the country more
commonly known as Cambodia or Kampuchea.
"Khmer Rouge" and "Khmer Viet Minh" were two of the violently
opposed pseudo-Marxist military factions that ruled the KPR.
--
Get your morning chuckle via e-mail from the Daily Shark at ...
http://www.cwrld.com/nl/sub.asp
Geoff
> I don't believe any ideology is built on a foundation whose premise is
> to 'slaughter 100 million countrymen'; however, both Marx and Engels
> were fairly bright lunatics, no? Surely, they would have had to realize
> that the only alternative to an "invisible hand" would neccessarily be
> an "iron fist", it seems to me.
As I said in my reply to David, they believed that Communism would
supplant Socialism and that there would then be no need for any kind of
invisible hand or iron fist :
"The society which organises production anew on the basis of free and
equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery
where it will then belong - into the museum of antiquities, next to the
spinning wheel and the bronze axe." (Engels, "Origin of the Family,
Private Property and the State")
"The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and
the direction of the processes of production" (Engels "Anti-Duhring")
Geoff
--
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave
PeEmm
> Gerv,
>
> if this is related to Andras' posts, I'd agree with the notion that we
> haven't found a good way to interact with him. Since the threads tend
> to slide from polemics into personal assaults, I'd be best to simply
> ignore him.
>
> J.
>
András hadn't entered the thread at the time the post was being made. It
was obviously a response to nasty postings by Chris I and Peter Lairo,
who engaged in trying to scare an Outlook user out of this news group.
They seem to have succeeded in that mission :-)
>
> Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote in message news:<b1qv38$ji...@ripley.netscape.com>...
>
>>The atmosphere in here has been getting rather heated recently. I
>>request that people take time out and consider exactly what they are
>>trying to achieve by engaging in flamewars.
>>
>>I would prefer it if people who feel they want to abuse others, or
>>questioners in Mozilla newsgroups, simply ignored them instead. This is
>>vastly preferable, and Mozilla now has news filtering for your
>><plonk>ing pleasure. Perhaps someone else will have the patience you lack.
>>
>>There is no valid reason to abuse anyone in a newsgroup.
>>
>>Gerv
>
--
/P.M.
Sailfish
that, or extremely naive.)
Sailfish
> Sailfish wrote:
>
>> Kampuchean People's Republic = Khmer Rouge
>
>
> No. KPR = one of the various names for the country more
> commonly known as Cambodia or Kampuchea.
>
> "Khmer Rouge" and "Khmer Viet Minh" were two of the violently
> opposed pseudo-Marxist military factions that ruled the KPR.
>
license there to keep it short.
For those who are interested, there's this:
"In 1975, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, seized control of Phnom Penh
and overthrew the U.S.-backed government of Lon Nol. The Khmer Rouge
renamed the country the Kampuchean People's Republic, and established
Pol Pot as its leader."
PeEmm
>
> Transitional means that you code your page in a code between HTML3.2 and
> HTML4.01, to be honest, going HTML 4.01 Strict would mean much more work
> on your pages :-)
>
between"). It uses a lot of tags from HTML3.2, but so does Strict as
well ;-) The main reason to use Transitional rather than Strict is to
include features like frames and inflow frames and some common
substitute tags for CSS.
--
/P.M.
Peter Lairo
> Juraj Betak wrote, On 2/6/2003 3:58 AM:
>
> András hadn't entered the thread at the time the post was being made. It
> was obviously a response to nasty postings by Chris I and Peter Lairo,
> who engaged in trying to scare an Outlook user out of this news group.
> They seem to have succeeded in that mission :-)
PeEmm, my intention was to (emphatically) point out that the original
poster was OT, x-posting and didn't seem to care after it was pointed
out to him, and therefore a jerk. If you are trying to make yourself
look good by assisting in clarifying things, then at least do that job
properly. Thank You.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?
-=-=-
Peter Lairo
>
> If anyone wtaches an average news shows when they report on anything
> from Cuba - notice the cars they are using 50 -55 Fords and Chev's Most
> are 52,53, and 54 models. I don't think I'd recommend living in Cuba.
>
ROTFLMAO :-D
(Oops, sorry! That's a perfectly normal statement to most americans, but
to many Europeans and energy conscious people, that statement prooves
how carelessly many American handle energy. Easy come, easy go.)
Until we discover dilithium crystals, we should think very hard about
propelling thousands of pounds of metal over our roads just so we can
sit in a living room sized vehicle to get from A to B
Phillip, sorry for getting onto this subject from _your_ post - somehow
I feel guilty about it, but it's an important enough issue to bring up.
You're probably right about Cuba being a less desirable place than the
USA, but we don't really know much about Cuba, do we? Have you heard
about their health and education system? It's better than ours! ;)
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.
-=-=-
Rob Stow
> Rob Stow wrote:
>
>> Sailfish wrote:
>>
>>> Kampuchean People's Republic = Khmer Rouge
>>
>>
>>
>> No. KPR = one of the various names for the country more
>> commonly known as Cambodia or Kampuchea.
>>
>> "Khmer Rouge" and "Khmer Viet Minh" were two of the violently
>> opposed pseudo-Marxist military factions that ruled the KPR.
>>
> I didn't feel like writing a history lesson so I took a little editorial
> license there to keep it short.
>
I considered that possibility but decided that if that was
the case, then you applied the license too liberally. Equating
Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge is every bit as wrong stating
"USA = Republican Party".
Pascal Chevrel
Well, strictly speaking, if you want frames you use a 4.01 Frameset DTD :-)
IMO, the mere fact that this DTD is called "transitional" means that it
is something between old style HTML and real HTML 4.01 which has its
presentation in CSS files.
andkonDOTcom
Okay.
> Fast-forward to mid 1941. Stalin has gotten his military somewhat under control,
> and is begining a buildup of military forces on the Polish border in preparation
> for an offensive against Germany in spring of 1942. Germany, who always had a
> good idea what Stalin's real intentions were anyways, pre-empts him in late 1941
> and catches the military with its pants down, driving them back to the gates of
> Moscow.
>
> The alliance between Germany and the USSR was just one of convenience, and both
> were fully intending to violate it. Those two nations hated one another. Germany
> just launched their attack first.
>
Okay.
> This is fact, this is history. These facts are agreed upon in both Eastern and
> Western books (Read 'The Mitrokhin Archive' - it's quite a good book, and it
> explains the history of the KBG and (indirectly) the USSR in great detail).
>
Okay. I don't see the point in conflict. You said that Hitler and
Stalin weren't best of buddies. They were. It's a unimportant detail
that they were backstabbing each other. And if we take that at its
face value, we come to realize (what perhaps most people ovelook) that
communism is just as bad as nazism. Now fast forward to 2003 and
imagine swastikas instead of red stars and hero workers at
mozilla.org.
> >>3. Stalin was certifiably insane, there's no doubt about it. His paranoid
> >>delusions were the stuff of legends. However, did the USA not wage wars against
> >>the Indians of the North American continent, and attempt to wipe them out with
> >>smallpox? (P.S. They intentionally circulated blankets infected with smallpox
> >>among Indian tribes since they were far more prone to smallpox than Europeans
> >>were). Sounds like genocide to me. Should we wipe out imagery of the US government?
> >>
> >
> > Communism mandates violence. (Take over by revolution, spread
> > revolution) Read the Communist Manifesto.
>
> Which Communist Manifesto are you referring to? That by Marx, or that by Lenin?
> There's a huge difference. The Marxist version of Communism is somewhat more
> pure, whereas Lenin was always a little... violence-prone.
>
I am refering to Marx's. Lenin's and Stalin's were LESS perverted than
Marx's actually. http://www.podval.org/~sds/commies.html written by a
muscovite in english.
> >>4. You are doing your damndest to flatten freedom of speech with your attempt to
> >>suppress anything to do with Communism. Coming from a democratic country, that's
> >>rather undemocratic of you.
> >>
> > How am I suppressing communism? I am saying it killed 100 million
> > people. Try living in a communist country (i hear china and cuba are
> > great) before making such grandiose statements.
>
> Absolutely unrelated to the statement I made. Another straw-man attack. You said:
>
> 'Time has come for recognizing that communism in any shape or form does not
> deserve to be casually spewed around as "image."'
>
> That sounds to me like you want to eliminate anything that has any ties
> whatsoever to Communism. Such broad elimination of expression qualifies as
> curtailing of freedom of speech.
>
I am simply alerting people of that fact that communism does not
deserve to be spewed around. The subject matter for which it is used
for is inappopriate. Sure, Mozilla can use it all it wants. Also, if
Mozilla decides to start saluting Hitler, no WORRIES! I already made
images for such an occasion, whew.
http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozillapics/
> >>5. Anyone that cares to package a distribution of Mozilla can change each and
> >>every image that is found within its structure. Will we see "andkonDOTcom
> >>Mozilla" with different imagery and other improvements (such as rejecting of
> >>pages which do not validate)?
> >>
> > No. Opera seems to be doing a good job with neutral buttons. IE and
> > every other browser manages to not excite so many people.
>
> If you are bothered enough by a product, you can either try to change the
> product or use a different product. As it stands, I personally like a browser
> with a bit of flair. For those that don't, there's Netscape 7.x or Beonex (Or
> some other distribution).
>
How can a Mozilla volunteer actually change the product? It seems all
they do is fix bugs and pretty much flow with what Netscape determined
as the path of the browser.
> >>6. This is a total straw-man attack. This says nothing about the merits of
> >>Mozilla as a browsing platform.
> >>
> > It's not straw man and it certainly has nothing to do with
> > performance. Its disgusting to put a regime that killed 100 million
> > people.
>
> A Star may symbolize Communism for you, and Communism may in turn symbolize
> 'a regime that killed 100 million people' for you. However, that's not
> necessarily so for the majority of people out there. Again, if you are that
> bothered by it, either make a distro for yourself and change what you don't
> or use something else.
>
Communism doesn't "represent" a regime that killed 100 million people
"for me." Those are facts. You can consider communism a great idea,
but hey it killed 100 million people. I do not care about the idiotic
misconceptions people have about communism. I already took your advice
about "making a change". I dont like Mozilla's communist imagery so we
have three other possible avenues of artwork: Nazism, new age
capitlist kitsch, and the ever favorite AOL/Mozilla banner.... So how
the hell am I supposed things without breaking the fragile emotions of
those who refuse to acknowledge communism killed 100 million people?
> -=Straxus=-
PeEmm
> PeEmm wrote, On 03-02-07 23:22:
>
>>Juraj Betak wrote, On 2/6/2003 3:58 AM:
>>
>>András hadn't entered the thread at the time the post was being made. It
>>was obviously a response to nasty postings by Chris I and Peter Lairo,
>>who engaged in trying to scare an Outlook user out of this news group.
>>They seem to have succeeded in that mission :-)
>
>
> PeEmm, my intention was to (emphatically) point out that the original
> poster was OT, x-posting and didn't seem to care after it was pointed
> out to him, and therefore a jerk. If you are trying to make yourself
> look good by assisting in clarifying things, then at least do that job
> properly. Thank You.
>
"Then why are you using MS OE to post here?"
This quote is from your reply to the original poster. I'm not confusing
matters, I'm trying to balance the tread, since it's come out too
unjustly rough against ordinary posters, whose only mistake was to
contribute to this news group in the first place. Yes, Tom was OT, and
yes, he x-posted, and yes, he didn't apologize.
--
/P.M.
andkonDOTcom
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 12:09:42 -0500, David Spade wrote:
>
> >> Communism mandates violence. (Take over by revolution, spread
> >> revolution) Read the Communist Manifesto.
> >
> > Which Communist Manifesto are you referring to? That by Marx, or that by
> > Lenin? There's a huge difference. The Marxist version of Communism is
> > somewhat more pure, whereas Lenin was always a little... violence-prone.
>
> Making the fatal mistake of jumping into an OT thread, and without wishing
> to contradict you in your moderate response to a poster whose ranting I
> stopped reading long ago, IIRC, the only "Communist Manifesto" properly
> so-called was written by Marx and Engels and concludes thus :
>
> "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly
> declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of
> all existing social conditions."
>
Just like most of the manifesto, it can be interpreted in many ways.
Many ways meaning justfying any violence that might further the
communist cause.
> That seems somewhat violence-prone to this observer.
>
> I suppose it could be said that, properly understood, the dialectical
> method merely predicts the inevitability of violence rather than incitiing
> it, but the distinction is hardly observed in the Manifesto.
>
It should be then very curious to say that the first state to rise on
the teachings of Marx (or rather the diluted teachings as Lenin used
some small scale capitalistic prinipals), did NOT use violence to rise
to power. The 2nd Russian Revolution was a mere coup that managed to
secure enough to power. Once firmly in power, Lenin began purges of
course. How odd...
> Geoff
andkonDOTcom
Well the Nazis were actually a bit more blunt than the communists...
PeEmm
> Le 07/02/2003 23:40, PeEmm a écrit :
>
>>Pascal Chevrel wrote, On 2/7/2003 9:06 PM:
>>
>>
>>>Transitional means that you code your page in a code between HTML3.2
>>>and HTML4.01, to be honest, going HTML 4.01 Strict would mean much
>>>more work on your pages :-)
>>>
>>
>>Strictly speaking, even Transitional is HTML4.01 fully (and not "a code
>>between"). It uses a lot of tags from HTML3.2, but so does Strict as
>>well ;-) The main reason to use Transitional rather than Strict is to
>>include features like frames and inflow frames and some common
>>substitute tags for CSS.
>>
>
>
> Well, strictly speaking, if you want frames you use a 4.01 Frameset DTD :-)
>
> IMO, the mere fact that this DTD is called "transitional" means that it
> is something between old style HTML and real HTML 4.01 which has its
> presentation in CSS files.
>
make the benefit of frames, and it's not allowed in Strict, so
Transitional and Frameset work together.
For the rest me too thinks you're right, but I don't agree with "real
HTML 4.01". It makes one option appear royal and the other riffraffish
in a sense. What's more important though, is that this way of labelling
may falsely deduce in the idea that Strict is standards compliant and
Transitional is quirky, even to mix Mozilla's standards and quirks modes
with Strict and Transitional DTD respectively, which it isn't.
--
/P.M.
Pascal Chevrel
OK, I see what you mean, I just wanted to point out that writing a 4.01
strict document means much more work than writing a 4.01 transitional
document because it means separation of content from presentation, I
didn't want to let think that 4.01 transitional is not correct HTML, IMO
it is just valid, but clumsy HTML ;-)
Peter Lairo
> Peter Lairo wrote, On 2/7/2003 11:53 PM:
>
>> PeEmm, my intention was to (emphatically) point out that the original
>> poster was OT, x-posting and didn't seem to care after it was pointed
>> out to him, and therefore a jerk. If you are trying to make yourself
>> look good by assisting in clarifying things, then at least do that job
>> properly. Thank You.
>
> "Then why are you using MS OE to post here?"
That's a normal question to ask after the poster said:
>> It is just a good thing that I like Mozilla so much -
>> because if I didn't I am sure that the 'superiority' attitude of people like
>> you would turn me off to a wonderful product.
He "likes Mozilla so much" and uses OE. That seemed paradoxical to me,
so I asked him. That was prbably one of my least "provocative"
statements in that post. ;)
> This quote is from your reply to the original poster. I'm not confusing
> matters, I'm trying to balance the tread, since it's come out too
> unjustly rough against ordinary posters,
*You* may think it's imbalanced. I don't, for reasons I've already
explained. :)
> whose only mistake was to
> contribute to this news group in the first place.
I strongly disagree with the word "only" here. Also, he definitely
didn't "contribute", unless my understanding of that word is flawed
(Webster: 1 a : to give a part to a common fund or store b : to play a
significant part in bringing about an end or result). He "gave" nothing.
> Yes, Tom was OT, and
> yes, he x-posted, and yes, he didn't apologize.
Poor Tom. ;)
Oh well, I consider this topic is pretty much beaten to death by now...
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
-=-=-
andkonDOTcom
> andkonDOTcom wrote:
> -------------------------snip-------------------------
> >
> > How am I suppressing communism? I am saying it killed 100 million
> > people. Try living in a communist country (i hear china and cuba are
> > great) before making such grandiose statements.
>
> If anyone wtaches an average news shows when they report on anything
> from Cuba - notice the cars they are using 50 -55 Fords and Chev's Most
> are 52,53, and 54 models. I don't think I'd recommend living in Cuba.
>
> Just a while ago when I was in my SUV going to gas station, the news on
> the radio stated a bunch of Cuban Police officers in a Cuban Patrol Boat
> landed in Florida and turned themselves into police asking for asylum.
>
> Doesn't sound like a great country to go to.
That was obviously irony on my part, just FYI...
Sailfish
>
>>were fairly bright lunatics, no? Surely, they would have had to realize
>>that the only alternative to an "invisible hand" would neccessarily be
>>an "iron fist", it seems to me.
Sailfish
> Sailfish wrote:
>
>> Rob Stow wrote:
>>
>>> Sailfish wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kampuchean People's Republic = Khmer Rouge
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No. KPR = one of the various names for the country more
>>> commonly known as Cambodia or Kampuchea.
>>>
>>> "Khmer Rouge" and "Khmer Viet Minh" were two of the violently
>>> opposed pseudo-Marxist military factions that ruled the KPR.
>>>
>> I didn't feel like writing a history lesson so I took a little
>> editorial license there to keep it short.
>>
>
> I considered that possibility but decided that if that was
> the case, then you applied the license too liberally. Equating
> Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge is every bit as wrong stating
> "USA = Republican Party".
>
PeEmm
Me, too, disagree with the word "only", because I meant "major", but how
was anyone else but me to understand that :-\
>
>
>>Yes, Tom was OT, and
>>yes, he x-posted, and yes, he didn't apologize.
>
>
> Poor Tom. ;)
>
Hmm, perhaps you are right. Tom is probably not totally innocent; it
really is possible to interpret his post as solely wanting to provoke
someone — anyone — to defend the Communicator Calendar, but he did it in
the wrong group. In that case IHBT IHL HAND ;-)
> Oh well, I consider this topic is pretty much beaten to death by now...
--
/P.M.
Geoff
>>
>> I suppose it could be said that, properly understood, the dialectical
>> method merely predicts the inevitability of violence rather than
>> incitiing it, but the distinction is hardly observed in the Manifesto.
>>
>>
> It should be then very curious to say that the first state to rise on
> the teachings of Marx (or rather the diluted teachings as Lenin used
> some small scale capitalistic prinipals), did NOT use violence to rise
> to power. The 2nd Russian Revolution was a mere coup that managed to
> secure enough to power. Once firmly in power, Lenin began purges of
> course. How odd...
Well, it is odd only if you actually believe in the predictive power of
the dialectical materialist method, - for my own part I think that you
would do just as well by examining cow-pats. The fact that revolution did
not break out in Britain or Germany is one of innumerable proofs of the
fallibility of the method, as is the fact that large scale violence was
not the midwife of the old society which Lenin found pregnant with a new
one.
Of course some Communist ideologues try to turn the Russian experience to
their advantage, by asserting that Russian society (being essentially
medieval in character), was not ripe for a socialist revolution. As Hegel
might have said .. Yeah right .. good luck with that one boys.
Geoff
--
"... they left their bones to point the way"
Peter Lairo
> In that case IHBT IHL HAND ;-)
WTF is "IHBT IHL HAND"? :-\
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
FAQs are asked frequently. Get used to them.
-=-=-
Ed Mullen
> PeEmm wrote, On 03-02-08 09:59:
>
>>In that case IHBT IHL HAND ;-)
>
>
> WTF is "IHBT IHL HAND"? :-\
I Have Lost
Have A Nice Day
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
"It feels so good, knowing the watchman's gone."
- Gordon Lightfoot
Peter Lairo
>
> Here are the 4 errors:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.lairo.com/&charset=(detect%20automatically)&doctype=(detect%20automatically)&verbose=1#line-523
Here is the fixed link to validate my page (I hope):
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lairo.com%2F
> PS. Oddly, Composer (latest nightly) still creates the old doctype when
> i create a new HTML file (see screenshot). :-\
Ooops, there is a difference. My original webpage had "HTML 4.0", new
files in the current composer are "HTML 4.01".
Would the shorter Doctype line from composer (in my screenshot) be
sufficient to validate (the line you gave me was much longer)?
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
-=-=-
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
-=-=-
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Actually I use a Chevey Blazer which is Compact (as far as SUV's go) SUV.
Where I live in the winter time if you don't have 4-wheel drive you
better not try to go anywhere.
I was on the way to the dealership to have a $200.00 tuneup. (developed
a bad skip that felt like a backfire.)
Even before the tune up if I were not using the 4 wheel drive I could
average 22-26 mpg (miles per gallon) which is excellent by SUV Standards.
As for the health an education if the family member(s) work in some way
for Castro that's true. But average joe anr jane cuban they are lucky to
go to shool and they only see a hospital from the outside. If the
education was that great they wouldn't be using 51 ford's and chev's
they be using Toyotas, Nissian's or European cars of some type.
Personally I think the embargo on Cuba is silly. If they haven't
switched from Communism because of it in 40 some years they won't. Best
thing to do is allow them to buy from and sell to the US and the reast
of the world they will eventually switch when Fidel "Croaks".
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
24112-1809
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
<http://vpea.exis.net>
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Sailfish wrote:
-------------------------snip-------------------------
> > I considered that possibility but decided that if that was
> > the case, then you applied the license too liberally. Equating
> > Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge is every bit as wrong stating
> > "USA = Republican Party".
> >
> Yeah, whhen everyone knows the USA = Bizniz Party :-)
>
Which is synonomous with the Republician Party :-)
Sailfish
>
> Sailfish wrote:
> -------------------------snip-------------------------
>
>>>I considered that possibility but decided that if that was
>>>the case, then you applied the license too liberally. Equating
>>>Cambodia with the Khmer Rouge is every bit as wrong stating
>>>"USA = Republican Party".
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, whhen everyone knows the USA = Bizniz Party :-)
>>
>
>
> Which is synonomous with the Republician Party :-)
>
Brian
>
>>>In that case IHBT IHL HAND ;-)
>>
>>WTF is "IHBT IHL HAND"? :-\
>
> I Have Been Trolled
> I Have Lost
> Have A Nice Day
and now here is my acronym: lmao! (I really am after that explanation!)
--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me
Gervase Markham
> Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who
> also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in
> starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939
> to 1942!
And our best friend from 1942-1945, I believe. A bit slippery up there
on the moral high ground, is it?
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> was obviously a response to nasty postings by Chris I and Peter Lairo,
> who engaged in trying to scare an Outlook user out of this news group.
It is not "obviously a response" to anything; it relates, as I said, to
a number of posts made here recently.
> They seem to have succeeded in that mission :-)
Why does this make you pleased?
Mozilla is about choice, and you should respect the choices of others
even if you don't agree with them. You may politely attempt to inform
them so that they change their mind, but my point that "there is no
reason to abuse anyone in this newsgroup" most definitely does _not_
have an exception for "unless they use Outlook."
Gerv
PeEmm
> Ed Mullen wrote:
>
>>>>In that case IHBT IHL HAND ;-)
>>>
>>>WTF is "IHBT IHL HAND"? :-\
>>
>>I Have Been Trolled
>>I Have Lost
>>Have A Nice Day
>
>
> and now here is my acronym: lmao! (I really am after that explanation!)
>
Laughing My Ass Off!
--
/P.M.
PeEmm
>>András hadn't entered the thread at the time the post was being made. It
>>was obviously a response to nasty postings by Chris I and Peter Lairo,
>>who engaged in trying to scare an Outlook user out of this news group.
>
>
> It is not "obviously a response" to anything; it relates, as I said, to
> a number of posts made here recently.
>
Come on, you cannot blame a single guy for _everything_! Let me put it
this way then: It is obviously *not* a response to András, since he
hadn't entered the thread at the time the post was being made.
>
>>They seem to have succeeded in that mission :-)
>
>
> Why does this make you pleased?
>
It gives me the comforting feeling of /business as usual/; the Mozilla
cliquishness rules.
> Mozilla is about choice, and you should respect the choices of others
> even if you don't agree with them. You may politely attempt to inform
> them so that they change their mind, but my point that "there is no
> reason to abuse anyone in this newsgroup" most definitely does _not_
> have an exception for "unless they use Outlook."
>
:->
--
/P.M.
Gervase Markham
>> to a number of posts made here recently.
>
> Come on, you cannot blame a single guy for _everything_! Let me put it
> this way then: It is obviously *not* a response to András, since he
> hadn't entered the thread at the time the post was being made.
It it not "obviously not a response" to anything; it relates, as I said,
>> to a number of posts *in a number of threads* made here recently.
Gerv
David Spade
> On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:43:21 -0500, David Spade wrote:
>
>>My understanding of the climate during which Marx wrote is that he saw
>>workers as being oppressed by the upper-class and the government. At
>>that point, workers were seen as a penny a dozen, and if I recall
>>correctly there were no unions, and very few if any labour laws in the
>>world. Marx probably thought that the only way that workers could
>>achieve their worker-peasant Communist state was through revolution
>>against the people with power.
>
>
> in my country and could observe at first hand the worst effects of the
> Industrial Revolution which we were the first to experience. Remember,
> though, that Marx/Engels did not imagine that Communism could be
> immediately achieved. Dialectical Materialism is a rather detailed
> philosophical system which (unlike the Hegelian Dialectical Idealism which
> it parasitised), purports to make specific predictions about the future.
> From this (in my view indefensible), philosophical foundation Marx/Engels
> believed :(a) that there is no such thing as "Democracy" - only different
> types of dictatorship (b) that their own era was the era of the
> "dictatorship of the bourgeousie" (c) that the dictatorship of the of the
> bourgeousie was certain to be replaced by "the dictatorship of the
> proletariat" (aka socialism), (d) that the dictatorship of the proletariat
> would itself (at some indeterminate time in the future), be replaced by
> Communism. They did not believe that the advent of socialism would be the
> result of worker-peasant uprisings (which they believed to characterise
> extinct medieval societies), but uprisings of the urban proletariat (the
> unskilled, ununionised masses. They therefore anticipated that the
> revolution would break out in industrialised Britain or Germany, not
> underdeveloped Russia. Lenin made the Russian revolution happen, but this
> was in spite of Dialectical Materialist prediction rather than in
> conformity with it - and much time an effort was subsequently spent in
> papering over the cracks.
>
How very apt all of this is since I am studying for a Philosophy midterm tonight! :)
>>While it seems that I was a little mistaken about the Marx's Communism
>>preaching violence, it certainly wasn't preaching 'slaughter 100 million
>>of your countrymen at the drop of a hat if you think there's a slight
>>possibility that they may be considering thinking about a possibly
>>uncommunist view'.
>
>
> True, although (in my opinion), the Founding Fathers would have considered
> 100 million a price worth paying if only they had had the means of
> achieving it.
>
>
I'll defer to your judgement, as I'm no Marx expert. :)
>>My main point of argument is that Communism is not designed to have
>>power by oppressing and murdering, but by eliminating oppression and
>>creating an equal society.
>
>
> In part that is correct, but you might look at Lenin's "Socialism, Utopian
> and Scientific" (more influential than the Manifesto), before concluding
> that any practical implementation of a Marxist programme is capable of
> living up to those ideals.
>
I don't think Communism in general is capable of being successfully implemented
by people. There is too much desire for power in the human race, and although if
a large group of people with very strong ideological belief in Communism could
be brought together a proper and idealistic Communist society could result,
people in general are just too fallible. At least with Democracy, there's checks
and balances against individuals or small groups becoming too powerful (And
although they may not be as effective as some of us hope, they still do manage
something).
> Sorry "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific" is Engels not Lenin -- it has
> been 30 years since I went into this stuff -- and I have had much wine
> this evening ;-)
>
P.S. Wine and other spirits always allow one's thoughts to flow more freely and
make debates more interesting! :)
-=Straxus=-
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
In my Accepted Opinion??
Geoff
>>
> How very apt all of this is since I am studying for a Philosophy midterm
> tonight! :)
Good luck with it. Loooong time since I revised for such an examination.
Philosophy is an entertaining game, but don't let the professionals
persuade you that it has practical applications. IMHO Hegel was right
when he said:
"Philosophy comes too late to teach the world what it should be... "
(Preface to Rechtsphilosophie)
<snip>
> I'll defer to your judgement, as I'm no Marx expert. :)
Nor I really. My study of Marx proceeds on the basis of the first law of
survival - "Know thine enemy".
<snip>
> I don't think Communism in general is capable of being successfully
> implemented by people. There is too much desire for power in the human
> race, and although if a large group of people with very strong
> ideological belief in Communism could be brought together a proper and
> idealistic Communist society could result, people in general are just
> too fallible.
Amen
<snip>
> P.S. Wine and other spirits always allow one's thoughts to flow more
> freely and make debates more interesting! :)
Yep. As Bobby Dylan says :
--
Well, ask me why I'm drunk alla time,
It levels my head and eases my mind.
I just walk along and stroll and sing,
I see better days and I do better things. ...
Geoff
Juraj Betak
> My manners erupt usually after they have been stirred.
> I'm not sure about that. Your Mozilla essays were all written to stir emotion.
I'm not sure about that. Your Mozilla essays were all written to stir
emotions. Had you been interested in facts, you would have researched
your topic better and chosen a different writing style. The Mozilla
community has not done any harm to you or anyone in your family. It
was your choice to write inflammatory articles and then complain when
people ridiculed you in the same fashion you have chosen to ridicule
them and their project.
>
> 1 year for every what? Elephants? Peanuts? Is this one year for the
> entire project? If it's for the entire project, why does Mozilla exist
> now? Volunteers are the only things that keep Mozilla and thus the
> Netscape browser together. The sheer number of bugs would be undoable
> without a larger number of people.
I thought we were talking about the same thing - mozilla.org. Their
original goal was to create a platform and an application suite
showcasing their technology on all major platforms. It took 4 years to
reach this milestone.
I'm glad you brought the bug numbers up. There are about 155,167
resolved bugs in Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org), about 117,877
have been resolved by Netscape employees. Additional 15,841 have been
resolved by mozilla.org staffers, largely Netscape employees.
> Okay, give me facts. How much did AOL spend for the Netscape browser?
> How much goes to Mozilla? How many Netscape employees are there? How
> many are actively working on Mozilla code in any given day (meaning
> not software like AIM etc)? How many volunteers are there? Bugzilla
> accounts of active but nonpaid volunteer? Not so easy to answer I
> understand.
AOL spent about $4 billion on the Netscape acquisition. The browser
business directly accounted for about 25% of Netscape's revenue at the
time and indirectly contributed to the rest. This means that AOL has
spent at least $1 billion on the acquisition of the browser business
and related intellectual property.
In addition to donating the original source code, AOL/Netscape have
funded about 1000 man years and all the equipment and facilities
required for the Mozilla project. They had about 100 full-time coders
on Mozilla throughout the whole project and complained publicly that
the level of outside contributions was below their expectations.
And for the third (and final) time, there are about 10,000 active
Bugzilla accounts. The $220 million figure is an upper cap on the
actual value of all outside contributions. Just by looking at the bug
fix numbers (about 85% were addressed by paid staff), you will realize
that the actual number is significantly lower. A Bugzilla query would
likely provide a good guidance, but I don't have the time and
inclination to fiddle with it right now. It's something you should be
worrying about.
> Emotion with facts still has facts. I do not try to replace the
> content (facts) with the display (emotion). There is no substitute for
> real content.
Actions speak a clearer language. Had you been interested in facts,
you'd have researched your articles better. Most of the numbers I have
mentioned here are on public record and virtually all of them can be
researched by using Google and a bit of common sense.
You seem to switch deliberately between facts and emotional outbursts.
If you are stirring up shit, don't act surprised when you get dirty.
>
> Well Gee, no one has actually commented on the essay per se, meaning
> on actual passages/sentences. Just the general idea. One email I got
> from some Mozilla fan blasted that Mozilla was not a "communist
> infiltrator." Had the person actually read more than a sentence from
> my essay, he would have not made such foolish comments.
Andras, do you want us to write the article for you? This is not a
school environment; I wouldn't expect anyone to take your essay and
point out errors to you on a line-by-line basis. I'd say that most
people on this board find your writings offensive and poorly
researched. It's up to you to engage them and up until now you have
been doing it in a very immature way. I don't think that anyone would
be interested in wasting their time on a punk.
Juraj Betak
> ground
> when everyone turns away in embarrassment."
>
> GREAT LINE !! :-D
;-)
andkonDOTcom
I don't see how. You need oppression by the middle class before the
marvelous route to communism can begin?
> Geoff
andkonDOTcom
When did I say "we" are morally on high ground? Better than Stalin and
Hitler, yes, but thats all relative really. As far as I can tell,
there was no need for Stalin to be part of the Allies, anyway. Looking
back, there is absolutely no reason for the western pact with Stalin.
andkonDOTcom
> >
> > My manners erupt usually after they have been stirred.
> > I'm not sure about that. Your Mozilla essays were all written to stir emotion.
>
> I'm not sure about that. Your Mozilla essays were all written to stir
> emotions. Had you been interested in facts, you would have researched
> your topic better and chosen a different writing style. The Mozilla
> community has not done any harm to you or anyone in your family. It
> was your choice to write inflammatory articles and then complain when
> people ridiculed you in the same fashion you have chosen to ridicule
> them and their project.
>
No "they" havent done any harm to me. I feel a bit anxious though that
the main outlets of media are owned by 5 big companies with similar
interests. But let's go back to where my Mozilla hatred began. 'Twas a
gloomy spring day in my favorite class of the day, Computer Science.
Yes, C++ this and C++ that. The teacher started talking about how MS
sucks and how open source is so cool. Well, okay, he then mentioned
Mozilla and how it was gonna kick IE's ass. Prior to that one mention,
I've been to the Mozilla site once (the first thing I noticed was the
communist imagery by the way). Just to prove the teacher wrong, I
started looking up info about Mozilla and found a nice link from
Mozilla to AOLTW. Gee let's see. We have open source, basically "free"
software and we have a corporation that's only interest is money. I
sensed, and still do, a conflict of interest. The two are too
radically different to be housed under the same dwelling. The weaker
one, Mozilla, will of course give into (be the bitch) the stronger,
AOLTW.
> >
> > 1 year for every what? Elephants? Peanuts? Is this one year for the
> > entire project? If it's for the entire project, why does Mozilla exist
> > now? Volunteers are the only things that keep Mozilla and thus the
> > Netscape browser together. The sheer number of bugs would be undoable
> > without a larger number of people.
>
> I thought we were talking about the same thing - mozilla.org. Their
> original goal was to create a platform and an application suite
> showcasing their technology on all major platforms. It took 4 years to
> reach this milestone.
>
I still do not think Netscape could have done this alone. Think of
just the testing and bugs. Without thousands of people over the years
who submitted bugs and what not, there wouldnt be a Netscape browser.
> I'm glad you brought the bug numbers up. There are about 155,167
> resolved bugs in Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org), about 117,877
> have been resolved by Netscape employees. Additional 15,841 have been
> resolved by mozilla.org staffers, largely Netscape employees.
>
And who brought them up? It's great that they are resolved but you
know who brings the bugs up?
> > Okay, give me facts. How much did AOL spend for the Netscape browser?
> > How much goes to Mozilla? How many Netscape employees are there? How
> > many are actively working on Mozilla code in any given day (meaning
> > not software like AIM etc)? How many volunteers are there? Bugzilla
> > accounts of active but nonpaid volunteer? Not so easy to answer I
> > understand.
>
> AOL spent about $4 billion on the Netscape acquisition. The browser
> business directly accounted for about 25% of Netscape's revenue at the
> time and indirectly contributed to the rest. This means that AOL has
> spent at least $1 billion on the acquisition of the browser business
> and related intellectual property.
>
Somewhat sad if you think AOL is still using IE, which it is renting
out for another nice big sum from Microsoft.
> In addition to donating the original source code, AOL/Netscape have
> funded about 1000 man years and all the equipment and facilities
> required for the Mozilla project. They had about 100 full-time coders
> on Mozilla throughout the whole project and complained publicly that
> the level of outside contributions was below their expectations.
>
If the open source is such a failure (or just bleak), why even have
Mozilla then?
> And for the third (and final) time, there are about 10,000 active
> Bugzilla accounts. The $220 million figure is an upper cap on the
> actual value of all outside contributions. Just by looking at the bug
> fix numbers (about 85% were addressed by paid staff), you will realize
> that the actual number is significantly lower. A Bugzilla query would
But without the bugs coming to light, no one would have fixed them.
How many of bugs were SUBMITTED by Netscape employees.
> likely provide a good guidance, but I don't have the time and
> inclination to fiddle with it right now. It's something you should be
> worrying about.
>
$220 million, your estimate, is still pretty damn big. Considering all
it got was one lousy adware browser and a whole host of non end user
browsers.
> > Emotion with facts still has facts. I do not try to replace the
> > content (facts) with the display (emotion). There is no substitute for
> > real content.
>
> Actions speak a clearer language. Had you been interested in facts,
> you'd have researched your articles better. Most of the numbers I have
> mentioned here are on public record and virtually all of them can be
> researched by using Google and a bit of common sense.
>
Well I dont know... What's the whole charade of having communistic
imagery (I am supposing its adding to the idea of "free" and "open")
when you say the majority of the work is done by Netscape employees.
What's all the hubbub about when you say Mozilla is basically 85%
Netscape?
> You seem to switch deliberately between facts and emotional outbursts.
> If you are stirring up shit, don't act surprised when you get dirty.
>
> >
> > Well Gee, no one has actually commented on the essay per se, meaning
> > on actual passages/sentences. Just the general idea. One email I got
> > from some Mozilla fan blasted that Mozilla was not a "communist
> > infiltrator." Had the person actually read more than a sentence from
> > my essay, he would have not made such foolish comments.
>
> Andras, do you want us to write the article for you? This is not a
> school environment; I wouldn't expect anyone to take your essay and
> point out errors to you on a line-by-line basis. I'd say that most
School environment doesnt do that either. I get a letter grade on the
top left corner with illegible comments.
> people on this board find your writings offensive and poorly
> researched. It's up to you to engage them and up until now you have
> been doing it in a very immature way. I don't think that anyone would
> be interested in wasting their time on a punk.
Well what issues are so "punk"? That I dare mention Mozilla uses
imagery that was used by a regime that killed 100 million people? That
I dare mention Mozilla is funded by a giant corporation? My essays
argued on the assumption that Mozilla volunteers matter in a very
large part. You are saying that Netscape really does all the work, and
if there werent any volunteers then hell with it, Netscape would go
on. Once again, in this route too we come to trickery. So let me guess
all these below mean nothing?
http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html
"The real work gets done by people like you."
"As explained earlier, those of us here at mozilla.org are not the
primary coders of the Mozilla web browser. We function as a
switchboard, facilitating the cooperation of the thousands of
participants out on the net. And we assemble the fruit of that labor
in one place. "
http://www.mozilla.org/why-mozilla-matters.html
"From a utilitarian perspective, it is irrelevant what you think of
Netscape's code or their programmers or their business practices or
whether you want them to succeed or fail in general. The material
issue is that a loud success for mozilla.org will be a triumphant
victory for open-source software, and it will be imitated."
"I have no affiliation with Netscape. I'm telling you, from one lover
of open-source software to another, that this is the best chance that
you may ever see to advance the software industry toward more open
source code."
http://www.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html
"The Mozilla project goes beyond just AOL and Netscape though; as many
people have commented, "the code is out there" now and in a sense
belongs to everyone. As such its prospects can be improved not just by
the work of AOL and Netscape, but by the help of anyone who sees its
value and wants to get involved."
Well all those things sound nice. Unfortunantly, they are the things
that never became. Maybe Netscape's domination was the culprit?
Geoff
>> Of course some Communist ideologues try to turn the Russian experience
>> to their advantage, by asserting that Russian society (being
>> essentially medieval in character), was not ripe for a socialist
>> revolution. As Hegel might have said .. Yeah right .. good luck with
>> that one boys.
>>
>>
> I don't see how. You need oppression by the middle class before the
> marvelous route to communism can begin?
>
You certainly need oppression *of* the middle class ("socialism",
"dictatorship of the proletariat" ), and that of course is itself preceded
by oppression *by" the middle class (bourgeouis "democracy").
I don't really see how we are disagreeing (if you think that we are).
I am the antithesis (pun) of a Communist idealogue and I don't intend to
spend any more time here expounding (my understanding of), their redundant
world-view.
Geoff
--
Sredni Vashtar went forth,
His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white.
Daniel Wang
> sp...@betak.net wrote:
>
>> I thought we were talking about the same thing - mozilla.org. Their
>> original goal was to create a platform and an application suite
>> showcasing their technology on all major platforms. It took 4 years to
>> reach this milestone.
>
> I still do not think Netscape could have done this alone. Think of
> just the testing and bugs. Without thousands of people over the years
> who submitted bugs and what not, there wouldnt be a Netscape browser.
Volunteer work does not go unrecongized.
>> I'm glad you brought the bug numbers up. There are about 155,167
>> resolved bugs in Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org), about 117,877
>> have been resolved by Netscape employees. Additional 15,841 have been
>> resolved by mozilla.org staffers, largely Netscape employees.
>
> And who brought them up? It's great that they are resolved but you
> know who brings the bugs up?
Unfortunately, as a ex-QA volunteer, I must say mostly uninformed
people. But that's my opinion.
>>AOL spent about $4 billion on the Netscape acquisition. The browser
>>business directly accounted for about 25% of Netscape's revenue at the
>>time and indirectly contributed to the rest. This means that AOL has
>>spent at least $1 billion on the acquisition of the browser business
>>and related intellectual property.
>
> Somewhat sad if you think AOL is still using IE, which it is renting
> out for another nice big sum from Microsoft.
[Andras is off topic]
Whatever, the question about $$$ is answered.
>> In addition to donating the original source code, AOL/Netscape have
>> funded about 1000 man years and all the equipment and facilities
>> required for the Mozilla project. They had about 100 full-time coders
>> on Mozilla throughout the whole project and complained publicly that
>> the level of outside contributions was below their expectations.
The question abut $$$ is anwered.
> If the open source is such a failure (or just bleak), why even have
> Mozilla then?
Most people here still believe in Mozilla. (and either you are changing
the subject again when proved wrong, or you don't believe in Mozilla and
mozilla.org and are anxious of proving it)
>> And for the third (and final) time, there are about 10,000 active
>> Bugzilla accounts. The $220 million figure is an upper cap on the
>> actual value of all outside contributions. Just by looking at the bug
>> fix numbers (about 85% were addressed by paid staff), you will realize
>> that the actual number is significantly lower. A Bugzilla query would
>
> But without the bugs coming to light, no one would have fixed them.
> How many of bugs were SUBMITTED by Netscape employees.
As an ex-QA volunteer, I must say your comment is very irritating. If we
must do accounting, I prefer to do accounting on bugs that have been
resolved FIXED. There are just too many duplicate, invalid, and
worksforme bug reports on Bugzilla.
>> Actions speak a clearer language. Had you been interested in facts,
>> you'd have researched your articles better. Most of the numbers I have
>> mentioned here are on public record and virtually all of them can be
>> researched by using Google and a bit of common sense.
>>
> Well I dont know... What's the whole charade of having communistic
> imagery (I am supposing its adding to the idea of "free" and "open")
[Andras is going off topic again]
> when you say the majority of the work is done by Netscape employees.
> What's all the hubbub about when you say Mozilla is basically 85%
> Netscape?
What hubbub?
>>Andras, do you want us to write the article for you? This is not a
>>school environment; I wouldn't expect anyone to take your essay and
>>point out errors to you on a line-by-line basis. I'd say that most
>>people on this board find your writings offensive and poorly
>>researched. It's up to you to engage them and up until now you have
>>been doing it in a very immature way. I don't think that anyone would
>>be interested in wasting their time on a punk.
>
> Well what issues are so "punk"?
you?
> That I dare mention Mozilla uses imagery that was used by a regime
> that killed 100 million people?
That Marx's ideas are "idiotic [and] completely backwards ideas"
That Marx lived a "sad and pathetic" life (therefore he is a moron?)
mozilla.org uses Constructivist-inspired graphic arts.
Stalin used Constructivist graphic arts.
Stalin is an idiot and a murderer.
Check your logic. Anything that says "Constructivist graphics do not
`deserved' to be used"? Anything that implies "Constructivist graphics
represent violence and murder"? Anything that says "mozilla.org is
communist?"
> That I dare mention Mozilla is funded by a giant corporation?
Attacking AOL w/o due recognition of their contributions.
And the long thread on the name of whats-his-name.
> My essays argued on the assumption that Mozilla volunteers matter in
> a very large part.
Ideally it matters, but practically it is small (not significant).
> You are saying that Netscape really does all the work, and if
> there werent any volunteers then hell with it, Netscape would go
> on.
Netscape does NOT do all the work. Nothing in Juraj's message says that.
> Once again, in this route too we come to trickery. So let me guess
> all these below mean nothing?
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html
>
> "As explained earlier, those of us here at mozilla.org are not the
> primary coders of the Mozilla web browser. We function as a
> switchboard, facilitating the cooperation of the thousands of
> participants out on the net. And we assemble the fruit of that labor
> in one place. "
>
> [snip]
>
> Well all those things sound nice. Unfortunantly, they are the things
> that never became.
> Maybe Netscape's domination was the culprit?
What are you talking about?
David Spade
I think it has just been definitely proved that you haven't read much about
World War II.
If the USSR had not been funneled massive amounts of weaponry and machinery from
the USA, Britain, and other Allied nations, Moscow would have surely fallen (For
those that do not know, Germany made it within a few kilometres of Moscow at
their point of greatest extent into the USSR). If Moscow had fallen, the impact
upon the USSR military effort would have been large, and if Stalin were being
ignored by the Allies there is a very good chance that he would have signed a
separate peace with Germany.
Fast forward to 1943. The USSR is defeated, and has signed a peace treaty with
Germany giving them plenty of "Lebensraum" (Territory). The German military now
turns it's aim to a constant thorn in its side, Britain. The entire German
Luftwaffe is brought to bear on Britain, and the second Battle of Britain does
not go as well as the first. Plans for Operation Overlord (The invasion of
Normandy) are shelved, as the constant presence of the Luftwaffe in the skies
prevents any collecting of invasion forces in the south of Britain. Eventually,
the British Royal Air Force is worn down, and the coastal defences are
sufficiently weakened for an invasion to go forward. The German casualties are
very high, but Britain succumbs after a vicious year-long campaign.
Now, the USA is isolated on the other side of the Atlantic. They fight and win a
war with Japan, and then turn their attention to "Festung Europa", which has now
had over 5 years of perparations. By this point, Germany has the nuclear bomb as
well (They almost had it in 1943), and a stalemate develops.
The Allies didn't need Stalin? Right.
-=Straxus=-
David Spade
> David Spade <mi...@home.com> wrote in message news:<b1vd6u$bh...@ripley.netscape.com>..
>>Humour is something that is notoriously difficult to convey on newsgroups.
>>
> Let me think. Would you it acceptable for me to have a ASCII middle
> finger to every post that I don't like? Or to posts that I can't find
> a logical argument to (not of course that this would ever happen)?
>
Quite honestly, I'd find it rather funny if an ASCII finger appeared every now
and then! :)
>>You know, people would have a lot more respect for you if you didn't indulge in
>>personal attacks. When someone flames me personally, I'll generally ignore it.
>>If you think an attack is personal, you can always take it up with the person
>>through email, and spare us all from having to watch this (admittedly amusing at
>>times) show.
>>
> Time has shown that if I do not defend myself at every junction,
> misinformation spreads around. How many people in here actually went
> to validator.w3.org and typed in http://www.andkon.com/stuf/ ??? Had
> it not been for my flaming of the jackass, many people would think
> that and later circulate that I myself do not validate, clearly false.
> And what good is an email to someone who is so ruffled up? They'll
> ignore it, and utterly false accusations will float around. The best
> plan of attack is to publicly respond and publicly humiliate as to
> prevent future lies. The more forceful I am on a point or accusation,
> the less likely it will come back. That's why no one has questioned my
> HTML knowledge now because they know they know I will ask for their
> website and point out their own flaws, just like I did for this
> jackass. Not surprisingly, he hasn't responded. And mind you, all of
> this without me demonstrating any knowledge yet.
>
As far as the whole validation thing, I really believe that you are the only one
that cares about validation. People only discuss validation as it relates to you
on this newsgroup, and that's only because you've made such a large deal of it.
"It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought of as a fool than to open
it and remove all doubt".
As a final note, this is a newsgroup. I will never meet any of the people on
this newsgroup, and it's not like this is a PR battle being waged on the front
page of a newspaper. Keep that in mind. If someone flames me on a newsgroup,
good for them. I hope they feel better, because I don't really give a damn.
>>Yes, maybe the other person started it. Maybe they didn't. However, that's no
>>excuse. When so many of your posts degenerate to meaningless personal flames and
>>strange arguments, people stop listening to you and any good point that you were
>>trying to make is lost utterly in the noise that is generated. Your information
>
> I'm not the one who brings up the senseless personal crap. However, I
> do try to go back to original argument as I am not going to fall prey
> to subarguments that have no relevance.
>
See above, ignore "senseless personal crap".
>>may (MAY - I haven't read it) be good, but the presentation definitely needs work.
>>
> Well I suggest reading it then. It's very foolish to judge something
> before you've even looked at it. It's like saying GEE some book looks
> ugly and author's picture looks grumpy so the book must suck.
> http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/ If people who argued with me
> actually took the 3 minutes to read it, then I wouldnt have to copy
> and paste parts of my essay everywhere (complaint from someone).
Last I checked, I specifically haven't said a word about the essay and
specifically haven't judged it in any way, shape or form. I have no interest in
it, as I have rather a lot of things outside of this little beige box that
require my attention.
And, although it may not be logical to judge a book by it's cover, many people
still do. It's rather difficult to convince someone to look at the content if
the presentation sucks.
You know, if you'd appeared on the scene and said "I have an interesting essay
on the path that Mozilla.org has taken located at [url]", then good and
meaningful discussion might have arisen. As it stands, you'll probably have to
go away for a few months and change your nick before anyone will listen to you
since you've been associated with rambling and nonsense.
-=Straxus=-
Hans-Peter Fischer
> I am the antithesis (pun) of a Communist idealogue and I don't intend to
> spend any more time here expounding (my understanding of), their redundant
> world-view.
Seeing that this interesting session seems to be drawing to an end now I
would like to thank you and the other lecturers very much - also on
behalf of the Mozilla developers whose forum this is supposed to be -
for expounding on the redundant world-view of the Communists in such an
insightful and delicate way. The world desperately needs people like
you, especially at this point in time. (I mean, with the Communists
preparing once again to attack another country and kill innocent people.)
HP
--
Las penas y las vaquitas
se van por la misma senda.
Las penas son de nosotros,
las vaquitas son ajenas.
(Atahualpa Yupanqui)
::: http://www.stalkerzone.net/ :::
Geoff
<snip>
> Seeing that this interesting session seems to be drawing to an end now I
> would like to thank you and the other lecturers very much - also on
> behalf of the Mozilla developers whose forum this is supposed to be -
> for expounding on the redundant world-view of the Communists in such an
> insightful and delicate way.
Helllo HP - it has been while since you and I last exchanged posts here.
Bearing in mind the yards and yards of OT stuff (in this thread and
others), in which I have *not* participated during that time, I do think
it is just a teensy bit harsh of you to pick on my attempt to close this
thread as the butt of your criticism. I don't believe that I said
anything particularly controversial or unwarranted about Communism, -
indeed I spent some time presenting the utterly conventional and
sympathetic analysis that I learned at the knee of a polyglot Yugoslav
Internationalist (married to a Russian wife), all those years ago.
> The world desperately needs people like you, especially at this point in
> time. (I mean, with the Communists preparing once again to attack
> another country and kill innocent people.)
Ah .. but here comes the point of your intervention. I assume that you
are referring to the threat of the impoverished, bellicose, North
Vietnamese to invade the land of their prosperous and free southern
brothers. Standing as I do, somewhere to the right of Vlad the Impaler on
the political spectrum, I can only express my hope that the USA will find
the strength of will and constancy of purpose to put an end to that
threat, just as soon as they have liberated Iraq. I would not, however,
be surprised to find that the betrayals of the appeasing, spineless French
and German governments drive the USA into an isolationism that would be a
disaster for us all long before that work is done.
Peace and Love
Geoff
--
Faustus : How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Mephistophilis : Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Geoff
For Vietnamese read Korean of course. Sometimes I type too fast.
Geoff
Rob Stow
> I think it has just been definitely proved that you haven't read much
> about World War II.
>
> If the USSR had not been funneled massive
Massive ??? The amount of foreign aid received by Russia was
hardly more than symbolic. The number of ports through which
the allies could ship to Russia was limited to a handful simply
by geography: Germany quickly cut Russia off from the Baltic
and Black Seas and ports elsewhere were blocked by ice for all
but a couple of months each year. The limited number of ports
also made it easy for the U-boats to ambush the freighters:
when you know where the freighters are going, all you have to
do is be waiting when they get there. Losses in convoys heading
for Russian ports were so high that it was just plain stupid
for the allies to risk too many of those convoys when their
cargoes were needed elsewhere.
When you look at the absolute numbers of tons of aid that Russia
received in spite of their lack of ice-free ports and in spite of
the U-boats, it might seem impressive. But put those numbers
up against what the Russians did for themselves and the foreign
aid starts to look like just a few drops in the bucket.
> amounts of weaponry and
> machinery from the USA, Britain, and other Allied nations, Moscow would
> have surely fallen (For those that do not know, Germany made it within a
> few kilometres of Moscow at their point of greatest extent into the
> USSR). If Moscow had fallen, the impact upon the USSR military effort
> would have been large, and if Stalin were being ignored by the Allies
> there is a very good chance that he would have signed a separate peace
> with Germany.
There was *no* chance of Stalin ever again signing a deal with Hitler.
The Russians were well aware that they had the natural resources
and population to defeat Germany all by themselves. If the USA and
the UK had pulled out every soldier, gun, and tank that they had
in continental Europe they would have only delayed the Russian
entrance into Berlin by a year or two at the most.
A Russian victory over Germany's was *always* inevitable. Stalin knew
it, Churchill knew it, Roosevelt knew it, and everybody in Germany
except Hitler and a few of his boot-lickers knew it. Both Russia and
the western allies were well aware that what they were really fighting
for was to decide how the iron curtain was going to fall across Europe.
All the talk in the news about a grand alliance between Russia and
the western powers was just propaganda for public consumption. The
few allied ships that did make it into Russian ports were little
more than publicity stunts to feed the propaganda mill. In reality
the cold war had already effectively begun. The West and the Russians
might not have been shooting at each other (except in a few small
incidents when the western and eastern fronts finally met), but
they were well aware from day one that they were competing with each
other for the spoils of post-Nazi Europe.
The only thing that the western powers did that had a significant
effect on the Russian ability to hold Moscow was their invasion of
Italy in 1943. Forcing the Germans to divert a few divisions that
otherwise could have been sent to the eastern front helped the
Russians but it is still generally conceded that it was not enough
of a difference to have decided the issue.
> Fast forward to 1943. The USSR is defeated, and has signed a peace
> treaty with Germany giving them plenty of "Lebensraum" (Territory). The
> German military now turns it's aim to a constant thorn in its side,
> Britain. The entire German Luftwaffe is brought to bear on Britain, and
> the second Battle of Britain does not go as well as the first. Plans for
> Operation Overlord (The invasion of Normandy) are shelved, as the
> constant presence of the Luftwaffe in the skies prevents any collecting
> of invasion forces in the south of Britain. Eventually, the British
> Royal Air Force is worn down, and the coastal defences are sufficiently
> weakened for an invasion to go forward. The German casualties are very
> high, but Britain succumbs after a vicious year-long campaign.
All of that is predicated on the absurd fantasy that Russia would have
signed a deal with Hitler. Just as Russia didn't need the western
allies to defeat Germany, the western allies did not need Russia to
defeat Germany either. Stalin was every bit as aware of that fact as
were Churchill and Roosevelt - he would not have signed a peace with
Germany simply because he wanted to grab what he could before the
western powers got there.
Note also that by early 1943 the allies had air superiority over the
Atlantic coast and were pretty close to it on the Mediterranean. By
then Germany could have stripped every plane from the eastern front
and still not have had enough air power to make a difference on the
western front. American industrial capacity to make planes still had
not peaked, while German capacity was already beginning to fall.
>
> Now, the USA is isolated on the other side of the Atlantic. They fight
> and win a war with Japan, and then turn their attention to "Festung
> Europa", which has now had over 5 years of perparations. By this point,
> Germany has the nuclear bomb as well (They almost had it in 1943), and a
> stalemate develops.
>
> The Allies didn't need Stalin? Right.
>
They didn't. You would be pretty hard pressed to find a credible
military historian who wouldn't agree that Germany's defeat was
inevitable once the US entered the war.
So long as the Allies held the British Isles there was no way for
Germany to stop the full weight of North America's population,
natural resources, and industrial might from being brought to bear
on them. It is generally agreed that Hitler could have (and should
have) invaded the British Isles in 1940, but he didn't and that was
sufficient to seal his fate.
The way the UK is often described as a giant unsinkable aircraft
carrier sitting off the coast of Europe is an *extremely* apt
analogy - and by early 1941 it was too well armed and garrisoned
for Hitler to ever have another hope of conquering it and hence
preventing it from being used against him.
By trying to take on both the east and the west, Hitler shortened
the course of the war a great deal, but it is pretty much generally
agreed that he would have eventually lost even if he had taken on
only one front.
As well, the idea that the US would have defeated Japan and then
"turned their attention to Festung Europa" betrays a certain level
of ignorance. From the moment the US entered the war they promised
that their priority was Europe and they lived up to that promise
pretty well. American naval forces were concentrated in the Pacific,
but their ground forces were concentrated in Europe and North Africa -
the different natures of the European and Pacific wars made that
rather inevitable.
Your mention of the year 1943 is interesting. Did you know that
by August 1943 the allies had already gotten half way up the
Italian penisula ? Did you know that the US wanted to land in
Normandy in *1942* and Churchill just barely managed to convince
them to hold off for a while ? Did you know that the US was
strongly against the invasion of Italy in 1943 because - surprise,
surprise - they wanted to invade France instead ? To me one of
the most amazing things about WWII is that the invasion of France
was delayed as long as it was. I often wonder how differently the
war would have gone if Overlord had happened in 1943 instead of 1944.
--
Get your morning chuckle via e-mail from the Daily Shark at ...
http://www.cwrld.com/nl/sub.asp
Sailfish
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:39:32 +0000, Geoff wrote:
>
> For Vietnamese read Korean of course. Sometimes I type too fast.
>
interested in having a second "go" of it :-)
Geoff
> Geoff wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 19:39:32 +0000, Geoff wrote:
>>
>> For Vietnamese read Korean of course. Sometimes I type too fast.
>>
> Yeah, we already tried that one ... and I don't think anyone's all too
> interested in having a second "go" of it :-)
Point taken. As it happens it is (yet) another subject on which I have
rather strong feelings and about which I have been doing some further
reading of late - hence, I guess, the typing error.
/me goes off to play Country Joe & the Fish
Geoff
--
"Miss Doggett again looked puzzled; it was as if she had heard that men
only wanted one thing, but had forgotten for the moment what it was. ..."
David Spade
> David Spade wrote:
>
>> I think it has just been definitely proved that you haven't read much
>> about World War II.
>>
>> If the USSR had not been funneled massive
>
>
> Massive ??? The amount of foreign aid received by Russia was
> hardly more than symbolic. The number of ports through which
> the allies could ship to Russia was limited to a handful simply
> by geography: Germany quickly cut Russia off from the Baltic
> and Black Seas and ports elsewhere were blocked by ice for all
> but a couple of months each year. The limited number of ports
> also made it easy for the U-boats to ambush the freighters:
> when you know where the freighters are going, all you have to
> do is be waiting when they get there. Losses in convoys heading
> for Russian ports were so high that it was just plain stupid
> for the allies to risk too many of those convoys when their
> cargoes were needed elsewhere.
>
> When you look at the absolute numbers of tons of aid that Russia
> received in spite of their lack of ice-free ports and in spite of
> the U-boats, it might seem impressive. But put those numbers
> up against what the Russians did for themselves and the foreign
> aid starts to look like just a few drops in the bucket.
>
[Preface - It's extremely difficult for either of us to claim knowledge of what
exactly would have happened. What we are talking about didn't happen, so unless
you have some crystal ball that allows you to see alternate futures, we're both
guessing and it's a bit difficult to definitively be proven wrong.]
The material which was shipped to the USSR was shipped at the time that the USSR
most needed it. Their manufacturing plants had been disassembled and shipped
East to prevent them from falling into German hands, and they were still in the
process of ramping up production of military equipment. The material which was
supplied by the Allies filled a gap and slowed the German war machine down
enough that the USSR was able to start churning out more and more equipment.
Once the German army was halted at Moscow and Stalingrad, that was it.
> > amounts of weaponry and
>
>> machinery from the USA, Britain, and other Allied nations, Moscow
>> would have surely fallen (For those that do not know, Germany made it
>> within a few kilometres of Moscow at their point of greatest extent
>> into the USSR). If Moscow had fallen, the impact upon the USSR
>> military effort would have been large, and if Stalin were being
>> ignored by the Allies there is a very good chance that he would have
>> signed a separate peace with Germany.
>
>
> There was *no* chance of Stalin ever again signing a deal with Hitler.
> The Russians were well aware that they had the natural resources
> and population to defeat Germany all by themselves. If the USA and
> the UK had pulled out every soldier, gun, and tank that they had
> in continental Europe they would have only delayed the Russian
> entrance into Berlin by a year or two at the most.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that, once Moscow fell, Stalin would press
for peace with Germany. He would then take the interval to generate a large
amount of military equipment and to train his troops, and then launch a surprise
attack in the middle of the Russian winter against the entrenched but
unsuspecting German troops.
> A Russian victory over Germany's was *always* inevitable. Stalin knew
> it, Churchill knew it, Roosevelt knew it, and everybody in Germany
> except Hitler and a few of his boot-lickers knew it. Both Russia and
> the western allies were well aware that what they were really fighting
> for was to decide how the iron curtain was going to fall across Europe.
>
> All the talk in the news about a grand alliance between Russia and
> the western powers was just propaganda for public consumption. The
> few allied ships that did make it into Russian ports were little
> more than publicity stunts to feed the propaganda mill. In reality
> the cold war had already effectively begun. The West and the Russians
> might not have been shooting at each other (except in a few small
> incidents when the western and eastern fronts finally met), but
> they were well aware from day one that they were competing with each
> other for the spoils of post-Nazi Europe.
>
> The only thing that the western powers did that had a significant
> effect on the Russian ability to hold Moscow was their invasion of
> Italy in 1943. Forcing the Germans to divert a few divisions that
> otherwise could have been sent to the eastern front helped the
> Russians but it is still generally conceded that it was not enough
> of a difference to have decided the issue.
The invasion of Italy was specifically launched as a way of appeasing Stalin,
and of convincing him that the Allies really did intend to help out with the war
against Germany rather than let the USSR do all of the dirty work and then walk
in later and claim the prize after the two powers had been exhausted. If there
wasn't an alliance between Stalin and the Allies, the invasion of Italy would
not have gone forward when it did.
You know, the entire war would have been a lot different were it not for the
mistaken calculations of a single German scientist involved in the German
nuclear program. He calculated that Graphite would not be sufficient as a
component in nuclear weapons, and calculated instead that only Heavy Water
(Deuterium) could be used. This was flawed, and the US nuclear weapons used
graphite in their construction and were able to produce a nuclear explosion in
1945, whereas the first German test in 1943 using Heavy Water failed.
In a situation where a single aircraft has the power to obliterate a city, the
buildup of material in Britain wouldn't have mattered a whole lot. However,
Germany had a lot of very advanced concepts on the table as far as aircraft
design (The Me-262 Schwalbe being the most obvious example). Since I don't
believe the thought of Stalin and Hitler signing a deal for (at the least) a
ceasefire is so absurd, the extra time that would have been given would have
allowed the Germans to produce these advanced weapons in greater numbers. Given
another 6 months, they might have perfected the rocket goudance systems they
were working on, leading to the first air-to-air missiles. The amount of
technology floating around Germany during World War II was amazing, and their
ideas fuelled a lot of scientific advances in the Allied nations after the war.
>>
>> Now, the USA is isolated on the other side of the Atlantic. They fight
>> and win a war with Japan, and then turn their attention to "Festung
>> Europa", which has now had over 5 years of perparations. By this
>> point, Germany has the nuclear bomb as well (They almost had it in
>> 1943), and a stalemate develops.
>>
>> The Allies didn't need Stalin? Right.
>>
>
> They didn't. You would be pretty hard pressed to find a credible
> military historian who wouldn't agree that Germany's defeat was
> inevitable once the US entered the war.
>
> So long as the Allies held the British Isles there was no way for
> Germany to stop the full weight of North America's population,
> natural resources, and industrial might from being brought to bear
> on them. It is generally agreed that Hitler could have (and should
> have) invaded the British Isles in 1940, but he didn't and that was
> sufficient to seal his fate.
>
> The way the UK is often described as a giant unsinkable aircraft
> carrier sitting off the coast of Europe is an *extremely* apt
> analogy - and by early 1941 it was too well armed and garrisoned
> for Hitler to ever have another hope of conquering it and hence
> preventing it from being used against him.
In the way things unfolded, yes. However, given the scenario I've described, I
don't think that statement's necessarily true. German-occupied France was also
well armed and garrisoned, however they were worn down by air power (And by
removal of units for use in the Eastern front). If Germany and the USSR had
ceased hostilities, I believe that the flow of supplies could have been slowed
and the forces in Britain worn down over time.
> By trying to take on both the east and the west, Hitler shortened
> the course of the war a great deal, but it is pretty much generally
> agreed that he would have eventually lost even if he had taken on
> only one front.
Curious. Where do you get "generally agreed" from? I've never heard this
particular line of reasoning before, and not many texts that I've read have made
such statements.
> As well, the idea that the US would have defeated Japan and then
> "turned their attention to Festung Europa" betrays a certain level
> of ignorance. From the moment the US entered the war they promised
> that their priority was Europe and they lived up to that promise
> pretty well. American naval forces were concentrated in the Pacific,
> but their ground forces were concentrated in Europe and North Africa -
> the different natures of the European and Pacific wars made that
> rather inevitable.
The US was more active in the Pacific theatre than they were in the European
theatre during 1942 and 1943. The USAAF was getting quite a workout in Europe,
however the Army was mostly stationary in Britain. During these two years, they
could definitely be considered as having their focus on the Pacific, while at
the same time building up in Europe in preparation for the renewing of the
offensive against Germany. As well, North Africa was not a theatre which
involved a lot of soldiers, and was more of a peripheral theater.
> Your mention of the year 1943 is interesting. Did you know that
> by August 1943 the allies had already gotten half way up the
> Italian penisula ? Did you know that the US wanted to land in
> Normandy in *1942* and Churchill just barely managed to convince
> them to hold off for a while ? Did you know that the US was
> strongly against the invasion of Italy in 1943 because - surprise,
> surprise - they wanted to invade France instead ? To me one of
> the most amazing things about WWII is that the invasion of France
> was delayed as long as it was. I often wonder how differently the
> war would have gone if Overlord had happened in 1943 instead of 1944.
Interesting mentioning Italy. The fatal blow from the West did not come from the
Italian landing, but rather from the Normandy landing. The Italy landing was
used as a smaller-scale invasion with the twin aims of appeasing Stalin and
practicing amphibious invasion. As well, it's worth noting that, at the end of
1944, they had not yet completely liberated Italy. This is consistent with the
Italian invasion's status as a minor theater in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, the US wanted to land in Normandy in 1942. Are you familliar with the
Dieppe invasion? There were 237 landing craft in all of England, and they were
all used for Dieppe (A raid with 6000 soldiers). Yes, the US was pushing for an
invasion, however there simply was not yet the material available for such an
undertaking.
If Overlord had gone off in 1943, it would have been far less successful than it
was. There was not the material, quite simply. There weren't enough aircraft,
naval forces were tied up in other theatres, and Hitler still had many divisions
in Western Europe because he didn't realize that the battle against the USSR was
doomed to failure. As he realized this more and more through 1943, he pulled
more and more divisions from the west and threw them into the eastern front. I
truly believe that, if Overlord had gone off in 1943 with the militaries in the
states they were in, that the invasion would have failed and Normandy would have
become a second Dunkirk rather than a catch-word for victory.
As I mentioned before though, this is all speculation and neither of us will
ever definitely be proven right.
-=Straxus=-
Pete
> For Vietnamese read Korean of course. Sometimes I type too fast.
Doesn't matter which as the previous adventures in both countries failed
dismally. Besides, an invasion of N Korea is highly unlikely as there is
no oil there.
--
Pete.
"Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of
relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of
disparity [U.S. military-economic supremacy]... To do so, we will have
to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming... We should cease
to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the
raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far
off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The
less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better." - George
Kennan, Director of Policy Planning, U.S. State Department, 1948
andkonDOTcom
> On 11/02/2003 00:19, andkonDOTcom wrote:
> > Gervase Markham <ge...@mozilla.org> wrote in message news:<b27ut8$8e...@ripley.netscape.com>...
> >
> >>>"What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting
> >>>Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who
> >>>also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in
> >>>starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939
> >>>to 1942!
> >>
> >>And our best friend from 1942-1945, I believe. A bit slippery up there
> >>on the moral high ground, is it?
> >>
> >>Gerv
> >
> >
> > When did I say "we" are morally on high ground? Better than Stalin and
> > Hitler, yes, but thats all relative really. As far as I can tell,
> > there was no need for Stalin to be part of the Allies, anyway. Looking
> > back, there is absolutely no reason for the western pact with Stalin.
>
(I am going to put some of the words together in your original
message, as some words just skip a line by themselves..)
> I think it has just been definitely proved that you haven't read much about
> World War II.
>
It's common practice, or should be, to put such conclusions at the
bottom. You havent proved anything yet.
> If the USSR had not been funneled massive amounts of weaponry andmachineryfrom
> the USA, Britain, and other Allied nations, Moscow would have surelyfallen(For
> those that do not know, Germany made it within a few kilometres of Moscow at
> their point of greatest extent into the USSR). If Moscow had fallen, theimpact
> upon the USSR military effort would have been large, and if Stalin were being
> ignored by the Allies there is a very good chance that he would have signed a
> separate peace with Germany.
>
And let's see... How did the West "funnel" machinery into Moscow?
Perhaps behind the Germans and skipping over them or was it thru
Alaska to Siberia (past Japan of course)? LOL
Now just to make sure, I picked up a copy of AJP Taylor's WWII book
and found no mention of aid either. He said that while Stalin urged
Roosevelt and Churchill to open a second front, both leaders hesitated
and did pretty much nothing. Pretty much nothing in aid, or attacking
Hitler to
PEACE TREATY? Haha, Hitler would have mowed down Russia and wouldnt
have waited for "peace." Stalin was being ignored by the allies. Pick
up a bit more detailed history book. The saving of Moscow was not due
to ... And had Moscow fallen, the goverment would have relocated
elsewhere (perhaps without schizo-paranoid Stalin who was seen
mumbling in his the Kremlin in the days of the Moscow siege) and
wouldnt have given up since Hitler wasnt going to settle on peace.
> Fast forward to 1943. The USSR is defeated, and has signed a peace treaty with
> Germany giving them plenty of "Lebensraum" (Territory). The German militarynow
Well okay "peace treaty" meaning complete take over (as opposed to the
WWI peace treaty that assured the power to the Bolsheviks).
> turns it's aim to a constant thorn in its side, Britain. The entire German
> Luftwaffe is brought to bear on Britain, and the second Battle of Britain does
And how long do you think it would have taken for the Germans to stage
a complete takeover of the USSR? Just because Moscow fell doesnt mean
the entire country or even goverment is taken over. It would have
taken another few months even after the fall of Moscow at least to
take over Russia and then come back.
> not go as well as the first. Plans for Operation Overlord (The invasion of
> Normandy) are shelved, as the constant presence of the Luftwaffe in the skies
> prevents any collecting of invasion forces in the south of Britain.Eventually,
> the British Royal Air Force is worn down, and the coastal defences are
And where is America? Wouldnt it be sending aid this way? As it was
ALREADY doing? Sure America is not fully mobile (lets say its 1943),
but it could have, as it did before, send supplies.
> sufficiently weakened for an invasion to go forward. The German casualties are
> very high, but Britain succumbs after a vicious year-long campaign.
>
> Now, the USA is isolated on the other side of the Atlantic. They fight andwina
> war with Japan, and then turn their attention to "Festung Europa", whichhasnow
> had over 5 years of perparations. By this point, Germany has the nuclearbombas
> well (They almost had it in 1943), and a stalemate develops.
>
Current historical records show that any secret weapons the German
scientists were far off. A nuclear bomb would not have happened. It
was not inevitable. V1 and V2 were as bad as Germany was going to get.
http://www.bearcave.com/bookrev/uclub.htm Read that if you cant read
the book.
> The Allies didn't need Stalin? Right.
>
Nope. Read a detailed history book. I blew every argument to pieces.
Even if you can find errors in mine, you need to find "higher" ones
first since the lower ones are built on top of the first ones (which
if they are false, it doesnt matter what is "below" them) and so
forth.
> -=Straxus=-
andkonDOTcom
> on this newsgroup, and that's only because you've made such a large deal ofit.
>
ONLY ONE THAT CARES? That's the lone group I like to be in. Isnt
Mozilla based to be compliant with the W3 standards in the first
place? The browser of standards to end the prop IE? No? Well, I
discover new things everyday!
> "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought of as a fool than toopen
> it and remove all doubt".
>
This now applies to you.
> As a final note, this is a newsgroup. I will never meet any of the people on
> this newsgroup, and it's not like this is a PR battle being waged on the front
> page of a newspaper. Keep that in mind. If someone flames me on a newsgroup,
> good for them. I hope they feel better, because I don't really give a damn.
>
Okay. I dont see relevance but okay.
> >>Yes, maybe the other person started it. Maybe they didn't. However, that's no
> >>excuse. When so many of your posts degenerate to meaningless personal flames and
> >>strange arguments, people stop listening to you and any good point that you were
> >>trying to make is lost utterly in the noise that is generated. Your information
> >
> > I'm not the one who brings up the senseless personal crap. However, I
> > do try to go back to original argument as I am not going to fall prey
> > to subarguments that have no relevance.
> >
>
> See above, ignore "senseless personal crap".
>
> >>may (MAY - I haven't read it) be good, but the presentation definitely needs work.
> >>
> > Well I suggest reading it then. It's very foolish to judge something
> > before you've even looked at it. It's like saying GEE some book looks
> > ugly and author's picture looks grumpy so the book must suck.
> > http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla3/ If people who argued with me
> > actually took the 3 minutes to read it, then I wouldnt have to copy
> > and paste parts of my essay everywhere (complaint from someone).
>
> Last I checked, I specifically haven't said a word about the essay and
> specifically haven't judged it in any way, shape or form. I have no interestin
> it, as I have rather a lot of things outside of this little beige box that
> require my attention.
>
As I said, its foolish to make comments when you havent read something
that might explain things, as far as my views are concerned. I do not
like to repeat myself a hundred times. That's why i have a website to
provide a basis.
> And, although it may not be logical to judge a book by it's cover, many people
> still do. It's rather difficult to convince someone to look at the content if
> the presentation sucks.
>
Ummm okay. What's the presentation? You don't like the orange-yellow
on gray :)? I would especially read it if the person was seen by me as
a moron. I could take better stabs at him. So please read and attempt
to stab.
> You know, if you'd appeared on the scene and said "I have an interesting essay
> on the path that Mozilla.org has taken located at [url]", then good and
Somewhat true. My attitude can be blamed for some hostility but hey it
would have ended up the same even if my first post wasnt along the
lines of "Mozilla is a bag of crap."
> meaningful discussion might have arisen. As it stands, you'll probably have to
> go away for a few months and change your nick before anyone will listen to you
> since you've been associated with rambling and nonsense.
>
Nonsense? What nonsense?
That Mozilla uses imagery that comes directly out of the a system that
killed 100 million people? That corporation whose only goal is
monetary profit is running Mozilla? Those are undeniably facts by the
way. The only thing me and the Mozilla people differ is their
implications.
> -=Straxus=-
andkonDOTcom
> andkonDOTcom wrote:
> > sp...@betak.net wrote:
> >
> >> I thought we were talking about the same thing - mozilla.org. Their
> >> original goal was to create a platform and an application suite
> >> showcasing their technology on all major platforms. It took 4 years to
> >> reach this milestone.
> >
> > I still do not think Netscape could have done this alone. Think of
> > just the testing and bugs. Without thousands of people over the years
> > who submitted bugs and what not, there wouldnt be a Netscape browser.
>
> Volunteer work does not go unrecongized.
>
Well would you agree with the 85% Netscape contribution?
> >> I'm glad you brought the bug numbers up. There are about 155,167
> >> resolved bugs in Bugzilla (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org), about 117,877
> >> have been resolved by Netscape employees. Additional 15,841 have been
> >> resolved by mozilla.org staffers, largely Netscape employees.
> >
> > And who brought them up? It's great that they are resolved but you
> > know who brings the bugs up?
>
> Unfortunately, as a ex-QA volunteer, I must say mostly uninformed
> people. But that's my opinion.
>
> >>AOL spent about $4 billion on the Netscape acquisition. The browser
> >>business directly accounted for about 25% of Netscape's revenue at the
> >>time and indirectly contributed to the rest. This means that AOL has
> >>spent at least $1 billion on the acquisition of the browser business
> >>and related intellectual property.
> >
> > Somewhat sad if you think AOL is still using IE, which it is renting
> > out for another nice big sum from Microsoft.
>
> [Andras is off topic]
> Whatever, the question about $$$ is answered.
>
$1 billion for a browser that is only used as Netscape and not AOL is
clearly a waste of money. Sure offtopic but true.
> >> In addition to donating the original source code, AOL/Netscape have
> >> funded about 1000 man years and all the equipment and facilities
> >> required for the Mozilla project. They had about 100 full-time coders
> >> on Mozilla throughout the whole project and complained publicly that
> >> the level of outside contributions was below their expectations.
>
> The question abut $$$ is anwered.
>
> > If the open source is such a failure (or just bleak), why even have
> > Mozilla then?
>
> Most people here still believe in Mozilla. (and either you are changing
> the subject again when proved wrong, or you don't believe in Mozilla and
> mozilla.org and are anxious of proving it)
>
Well okay "belief" and "reality" are two different things.
> >> And for the third (and final) time, there are about 10,000 active
> >> Bugzilla accounts. The $220 million figure is an upper cap on the
> >> actual value of all outside contributions. Just by looking at the bug
> >> fix numbers (about 85% were addressed by paid staff), you will realize
> >> that the actual number is significantly lower. A Bugzilla query would
> >
> > But without the bugs coming to light, no one would have fixed them.
> > How many of bugs were SUBMITTED by Netscape employees.
>
> As an ex-QA volunteer, I must say your comment is very irritating. If we
> must do accounting, I prefer to do accounting on bugs that have been
> resolved FIXED. There are just too many duplicate, invalid, and
> worksforme bug reports on Bugzilla.
>
Okay. So would you agree with the 85% figure?
> >> Actions speak a clearer language. Had you been interested in facts,
> >> you'd have researched your articles better. Most of the numbers I have
> >> mentioned here are on public record and virtually all of them can be
> >> researched by using Google and a bit of common sense.
> >>
> > Well I dont know... What's the whole charade of having communistic
> > imagery (I am supposing its adding to the idea of "free" and "open")
>
> [Andras is going off topic again]
>
I am saying that if 85%, a huge majority, of the work is done by PAID
employees of a FORPROFIT corporation, what's the use of making Mozilla
seem open source when it is merely in the hands of AOL? AOL decides
what features to implement, the only thing volunteers (i guess the
remaining 15%) can do is fix bugs of those Netscape induced features.
> > when you say the majority of the work is done by Netscape employees.
> > What's all the hubbub about when you say Mozilla is basically 85%
> > Netscape?
>
> What hubbub?
>
Why make Mozilla seem open when in reality no one but Netscape
employees work on it. Sure anyone can "take" the code, but there arent
too many (perhaps in the single digits) situations when
smaller/independent groups do something with Mozilla code. (and just
to ask, what's the point of one of these groups, mozdev.org? Since
Mozilla isnt an enduser browser, isnt it useless to develop features
that only the few who download Mozilla will use?)
> >>Andras, do you want us to write the article for you? This is not a
> >>school environment; I wouldn't expect anyone to take your essay and
> >>point out errors to you on a line-by-line basis. I'd say that most
> >>people on this board find your writings offensive and poorly
> >>researched. It's up to you to engage them and up until now you have
> >>been doing it in a very immature way. I don't think that anyone would
> >>be interested in wasting their time on a punk.
> >
> > Well what issues are so "punk"?
>
> you?
>
I can't wait to tell my friends that I am now a punk.
> > That I dare mention Mozilla uses imagery that was used by a regime
> > that killed 100 million people?
>
> That Marx's ideas are "idiotic [and] completely backwards ideas"
>
That too.
> That Marx lived a "sad and pathetic" life (therefore he is a moron?)
>
That too. A half retarded chimpanzee could have listed the problems in
Europe dueing Marx's time. Wow, you write a paper (some parts overly
simplified) about social injustice addressing some problems with a
flawed and vague solution, and you are now famous. Amazing. The
Communist Manifesto BTW was one of the only social injustice Marx
penned as most of his vastly BORING writings had to do with economic
ideas.
> mozilla.org uses Constructivist-inspired graphic arts.
> Stalin used Constructivist graphic arts.
> Stalin is an idiot and a murderer.
>
> Check your logic. Anything that says "Constructivist graphics do not
> `deserved' to be used"? Anything that implies "Constructivist graphics
> represent violence and murder"? Anything that says "mozilla.org is
> communist?"
>
Well first of all, I am not familiar Constructivism's artwork, so a
link or such would be appreacited before I comment any further.
> > That I dare mention Mozilla is funded by a giant corporation?
>
> Attacking AOL w/o due recognition of their contributions.
>
Well okay they made a browser.
> And the long thread on the name of whats-his-name.
>
Gee I never really found out what happened... Someone/someones
was/were lying though thats for sure.
> > My essays argued on the assumption that Mozilla volunteers matter in
> > a very large part.
>
> Ideally it matters, but practically it is small (not significant).
>
So then whats with the charade?
> > You are saying that Netscape really does all the work, and if
> > there werent any volunteers then hell with it, Netscape would go
> > on.
>
> Netscape does NOT do all the work. Nothing in Juraj's message says that.
>
"Ideally it matters, but practically it is small (not significant)."
Guess who's quote that is.
> > Once again, in this route too we come to trickery. So let me guess
> > all these below mean nothing?
> >
> > http://www.mozilla.org/mission.html
> >
> > "As explained earlier, those of us here at mozilla.org are not the
> > primary coders of the Mozilla web browser. We function as a
> > switchboard, facilitating the cooperation of the thousands of
> > participants out on the net. And we assemble the fruit of that labor
> > in one place. "
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Well all those things sound nice. Unfortunantly, they are the things
> > that never became.
>
> > Maybe Netscape's domination was the culprit?
>
> What are you talking about?
None of those optimistic things came about. The entire mozilla project
has shown failure in those ideals.