Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[Bill Sloman]

"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message news:<RxlLa.32435$VQ6.7875@lakeread01>...

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bdkmma$p43$1@sparta.btinternet.com...

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to his
needs.


I need 10 gorgeous blondes for some orgasmic fun. Would I get them under
socialism? If yes, I'll convert.

Only if you have the ability to keep all ten orgiastically happy at once.

Even if you have prehensile toes and a forked tongue, ten could be tricky.

------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 18:27:22 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
<g4fgq.regp@btinternet.com> wrote:

Capitalism is the means whereby the rich are enabled to rob the poor.
Every capitalist knows this.

Communism is the means to make everybody poor (or, as often, dead.)
You silly boy.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to hs
needs.

Nice quote from Karl Marx ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| Jim-T@analog_innovations.com Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

For proper E-mail replies SWAP "-" and "_"

Get Lolita Out of Debt... Add Three Inches to Your Mortgage!

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Carlos Antunes wrote:

"Ben Sharvy" <bsharvy@mac.com> wrote in message
news:d196ca8d.0306281310.72523549@posting.google.com...
"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:<rcNJa.12419$VQ6.5017@lakeread01>...
Captilaism has two common senses: 1) a political system in which the
means of production are privately held, and, 2) a motivation to turn a
profit. Neither sense requires that "human rights apply equally to
everybody." The US under slavery is widely regarded as a capitalist
society.


Well, I suggest you don't rely on the Marxist definition of Capitalism.

http://www.capitalism.org/tour/preamble1.htm

Carlos Antunes
----------

Quit citing that pathetic weak little site.
You embarrass yourself.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3EFE095C.34C5@armory.com...

Wants are not needs


Oh, so you get to define what *MY* needs are. I'll stick with Capitalism,
thanks!

Carlos Antunes
---------------------

Nope, you only define your wants.
You don't GET to define your needs!
That opens the door to greedy opportunism by you.
But your wants are not more than those of others,
so you get no more than others.
-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Woodard R. Springstube]

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@btinternet.com> wrote in
news:bdkmma$p43$1@sparta.btinternet.com:

Capitalism is the means whereby the rich are enabled to
rob the poor. Every capitalist knows this.

Communism is the means to make everybody poor (or, as
often, dead.) You silly boy.

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each
according to hs needs.

And, who decides what I am able to contribute? Who decides what
I need? In the implimentation, there will be a citizens'
committee (run by some elite that has co-opted the whole
process) that will decide that dissidents only need one gram of
bread and one milliliter of water per day.

Socialism leads to gulags and killing fields. Every attempt has
resulted in brutally repressive regimes that tyrannize their
citizens in the name of "the people."

 

[Reg Edwards]

QUOTATION

Stalin, who ought to know, said -

"The Chinese are like radishes - red on the outside and white within."

The Chinese, are 1/4 of the world's population, highly intelligent, 6000
years of education, hardworking, peaceful people, whose friendship should be
cultivated. Time is running out. Armagedon is upon us.

We shall need their help to clear up the mess we Viagra-sex-ridden,
ill-educated, aggressive, armed-to-the-teeth with weapons of mass
destruction, TV and drug addicts, gun-toting, atmospheric-polluting,
Earth-warming, little-old-lady-mugging, oil-thirsty wild-westerners are
making of our over-populated portion of this tiny globe.

I'm all right Jack - I'm in the dinghy!

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3EFE291B.ECE@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

Carlos Antunes wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3EFE095C.34C5@armory.com...

Wants are not needs


Oh, so you get to define what *MY* needs are. I'll stick with Capitalism,
thanks!

Carlos Antunes
---------------------
Nope, you only define your wants.

I know 'tard, only *you* get to decide "needs". You are the neo-
Stalin. Give it up Carlos, Steevie knows what's best for you.

You don't GET to define your needs!

No, but under capitalism *I* get to prioritize my needs->wants.
I don't have to beg your ass for the want of toilet paper. I
need it, and it's magically available. ...a wondrous thing.

That opens the door to greedy opportunism by you.
But your wants are not more than those of others,
so you get no more than others.

Carlos, no TP for you! steevie has decreed it!

....though I can understand why steevie wouldn't value TP, cuz his
feces are perfumed!

--
Keith

 

[Roger Johansson]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

What a stupid question. Lemme gues, NOT only are you a bipolar manic
depressive who thinks that he cured himself through grunting hard
enough

A very intelligent sentence.

The male mind is made up like that.

Nowadays even women and youngsters have become such shockwave riders,
using will power to overcome the problems and pains of living in a
violent culture.

Trying to abolish the patriarchal society by making everybody into men
is like trying to abolish wars by bombing the whole world back to the
stone age.

--
Roger J.

 

[Roger Johansson]

"Reg Edwards" <g4fgq.regp@btinternet.com> wrote:

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to hs
needs.

It takes a lot of bureaucracy to determine the needs and abilities.
A better alternative is material equality and voluntary work.

Everybody gets the same amount of private property, like a house, a
car, a boat, furniture, and people may decide for themselves what and
when they want to work.

Then we will have individual freedom, no centralized command, and
everybody get what they need no matter if they are ill, young,
studying, elderly, handicapped, etc..

Capitalism gives the pay to the worker, usually than man in the
family, which gives him the power over his wife and children, which
leads to a patriarchal society, with all its negative sides.

--
Roger J.

 

[Carlos Antunes]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3EFE2873.188@armory.com...

Quit citing that pathetic weak little site.
You embarrass yourself.

You mean, this site?

http://www.capitalism.org/tour/preamble1.htm

Carlos Antunes

 

[Carlos Antunes]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:3EFE291B.ECE@armory.com...

You don't GET to define your needs!

That was obvious from your previous reply. As I said, I'll stick with
Capitalism where *I* get to choose *MY* needs.

I thus propose: to each according to his abilities. Simple and just.

Carlos Antunes

 

[Carlos Antunes]

"Roger Johansson" <no-email@home.se> wrote in message
news:2p0tfvk1a3cclk3bf51lt2n3oh991sumkp@4ax.com...

"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

I need 10 gorgeous blondes for some orgasmic fun. Would I get them under
socialism? If yes, I'll convert.

You cannot buy people, except in capitalism.

Are you saying that under your system I would be able to get the blondes?
Man, your system sucks!

Carlos Antunes

 

[Roger Johansson]

"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

I would like to know how people would be able to get all these things if
everybody decided not to work

There is no reason to assume that everybody would decide not to do
anything useful.

A lot of people are interested in the future for themselves and their
children.
A lot of people are interested in subjects like electronics, medicine,
computers, science, etc..
A lot of people are restless and want to do something, and get to meet
other people.

There wouldn't be much to do beside doing something for fun or for the
common good. There would be no use in trying to get a lot of money, by
gambling, stealing, etc.. because there would be nothing you can buy
with money.

Much of what people are doing today would be meaningless, like trying
to fool other people into buying something, there would be no
commercials or ads, no spam to trick people into buying things.

Imagine such a world.

Even people who decide to not do anything useful would soon realize
that they are doing something good.
For example some guys just go fishing every day.
But then they realize that the lake would have more and bigger fish if
they could get some kalcium (potassium) into the lake, because it is
to acidic.
So they work together to arrange for some truckloads of kalcium to be
put into the lake.. and suddenly they realize that they have done
something useful after all, even though they had decided to be
completely useless.

I would not be easy to be completely useless in such a world, even if
you tried

We actually live in a world of abundance, even if capitalism tries as
hard as it can to create lack of resources to keep prices up.

Houses are torn down in my country, to keep the rents up.
Food is destroyed in the world to keep prices up.
Capitalism tries to tell people how poor and starving we would be
without capitalism, but it is a great big lie.
We would be much better off without the extremely wasteful capitalism.

Capitalism takes the credit for the scientific and technological
advances during the last hundreds of years, but we would have had an
even better development without capitalism interfering in science and
technology.

Capitalism also justifies itself by pointing to the richness in USA,
the most capitalist country in the world.

It is like the most violent and ruthless gangster in town says:
Look at me, I am rich, people want to come to me and be part of my
gang, so gangsterism is the best system there is.
It is no coincidence that the most violent and ruthless guy in town is
also the richest guy in town.

--
Roger J.

 

[Roger Johansson]

"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

I need 10 gorgeous blondes for some orgasmic fun. Would I get them under
socialism? If yes, I'll convert.

You cannot buy people, except in capitalism.

Are you saying that under your system I would be able to get the blondes?
Man, your system sucks!

Well, if you have absolutely nothing to offer besides money, you will
be in trouble in a better world than capitalism

But you will still have the same standard of living.
That is guaranteed by the constitution in a system without money.

In most countries there is already a car register, which registers you
as the owner of a car when you buy it.
There is also a land and house register, which you register the house
you buy.

This kind of register would be used to insure that everybody has the
same maximum amount of private property.
When you want a new car you go to the car shop and select one,
register it, and if you have enough free points you get to register
it.

You might have to give something back first to afford the new car,
like your old car and a sailing boat.
The number of points will increase every year, as new products are
manufactured.
Old things get reduced in value, so you will get new property points
every year.

In this way we can keep track of how much property value each citizen
owns, and insure that nobody can register more than the maximum limit,
which is the same limit for every grown-up.
Children and youngsters have lower limits, to be handled by their
parents until they reach certain ages.

Think about how much human effort we would save. No more money
problems, no more worries about the future.

The only ones who would lose on such a system are people who want to
control other people with the use of money.

The only way you can influence others in such a system is with good
arguments.
Democratic processes would be used to decide where to build new
bridges or factories.
The people who work, voluntarily, in a workplace would decide what to
produce.

The most experienced engineers would have a lot of influence, because
they have the best arguments.
The most experienced doctors would have a lot of influence in the
hospitals, etc..

When need arises of workers in a certain field it would be known
through media, and people can decide for themselves if they want to
fill the needs.


--
Roger J.

 

[Roger Johansson]

"bigmike" <bigmike@cornhusker.net> wrote:

Somewhere, over the rainbow - Everybody sing!

If you have no counter-arguments, and you find no flaws in this
suggestion, okay, let's sing.

...On a clear day, you can see forever..


Ghandi: "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you. Then you win".

Common consumption goods can be free. Just go down to the shop and
take the food, clothes and toiletpaper you need.

Travels and russian caviar are special consumption items and can be
regulated with the help of personal consumption cards. They could work
like credit cards but the value cannot be transferred to anybody else,
to insure that everybody gets the same amount of such commodities.

Democracy would be used to take decisions, at the appropriate level so
decisions are taken by the people who are affected.

The big decisions in a hospital or an industry are taken by the people
who work there. The decisions in the surgery part of the hospitals are
taken by the people who work there.

If the town council votes to build a new bridge over the river that
decision is sent to the road and bridges technical office in the town,
and the workers there vote if they want to build the new bridge.

Any worker who does not want to support that decision is free to not
help with that project.

After all, everybody work voluntarily, so there is no way to force
anybody to help out with anything he doesn't accept or like.

This gives the final decision to the people who actually do the work,
no matter what the democratic assembly has voted for.


--
Roger J.

 

[bigmike]

"Roger Johansson" <no-email@home.se> wrote in message
news:fa9tfvg87vtq7hqi9kadik7ptn5k66lje6@4ax.com...

"Carlos Antunes" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

I need 10 gorgeous blondes for some orgasmic fun. Would I get them
under
socialism? If yes, I'll convert.

You cannot buy people, except in capitalism.

Are you saying that under your system I would be able to get the blondes?
Man, your system sucks!

Well, if you have absolutely nothing to offer besides money, you will
be in trouble in a better world than capitalism

But you will still have the same standard of living.
That is guaranteed by the constitution in a system without money.

In most countries there is already a car register, which registers you
as the owner of a car when you buy it.
There is also a land and house register, which you register the house
you buy.

This kind of register would be used to insure that everybody has the
same maximum amount of private property.
When you want a new car you go to the car shop and select one,
register it, and if you have enough free points you get to register
it.

You might have to give something back first to afford the new car,
like your old car and a sailing boat.
The number of points will increase every year, as new products are
manufactured.
Old things get reduced in value, so you will get new property points
every year.

In this way we can keep track of how much property value each citizen
owns, and insure that nobody can register more than the maximum limit,
which is the same limit for every grown-up.
Children and youngsters have lower limits, to be handled by their
parents until they reach certain ages.

Think about how much human effort we would save. No more money
problems, no more worries about the future.

The only ones who would lose on such a system are people who want to
control other people with the use of money.

The only way you can influence others in such a system is with good
arguments.
Democratic processes would be used to decide where to build new
bridges or factories.
The people who work, voluntarily, in a workplace would decide what to
produce.

The most experienced engineers would have a lot of influence, because
they have the best arguments.
The most experienced doctors would have a lot of influence in the
hospitals, etc..

When need arises of workers in a certain field it would be known
through media, and people can decide for themselves if they want to
fill the needs.


--
Roger J.

Somewhere, over the rainbow - Everybody sing!

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3F00E7AD.261E@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

Keith R. Williams wrote:

In article <sj5ufvk31uecv9f6hgnbf77u0eni3vajrh@4ax.com>, Jim-
T@analog_innovations.com says...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:48:54 +0200, Roger Johansson <no-email@home.se
wrote:

Scott Higdon <s.higdon@mindspring.com> wrote:

Socialism: From each according to his ability, to each according to hs
needs.

This is a nonsense phrase. Needs and abilities have
nothing to do with each other. In fact, they're almost
inversely proportional.

A newborn baby has almost no abilities. But they have
many needs. The older they get, the more they're able
to do, the less they need someone else to do things
for them.

The only sensible interpretation of "From each..."
is that those with abilities will be forced to provide
for those with needs.

Exactly.

The first attempts to create a better system, the first socialist
ideas, were about replacing the capitalist power with worker power,
but they didn't think much about changing the repressive and
controlling system, they just took it over.

This created state capitalism.

The conflict between bolsjevik communists and liberal communists,
anarkists and utopian writers was about this.

The liberal and utopian side wanted to change the whole system,
liberate the individual, not just take over the existing power
structure and put a worker at the top of it.

You are one sick puppy; without a clue about human nature.

Fortunately your "utopia" will never be.

Oh, but his "utopia" has been and continues to be! Think Nazi
Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, and countless other
examples of the marvels of communism.

--
Keith
--------------
Why do you Rightists always just LIE when you can't think of any
logical reasons for the shit you believe???

Why do you Stalin wannabe's always LIE when you run out of ideas?

Communism was never TRIED in modern times. If it had been none
of those societies would have rich people, and they do! And you
mistakenly associated fascisms with feudalisms.

Sure it's been tried. It fails every time for exactly the same
reasons. It's not a stable system.

--
Keith

 

[Keith R. Williams]

In article <3F00F3C6.1C26@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

Roger Johansson wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

What a stupid question. Lemme gues, NOT only are you a bipolar manic
depressive who thinks that he cured himself through grunting hard
enough

A very intelligent sentence.

The male mind is made up like that.

Nowadays even women and youngsters have become such shockwave riders,
using will power to overcome the problems and pains of living in a
violent culture.
----------------

No, you missed it, there is no such thing as "Free Whim".

Perhaps, according to your religious belief. ...it's certainly
not a belief held by the majority. If there is no free-will then
you become pointless.

Trying to abolish the patriarchal society by making everybody into men
is like trying to abolish wars by bombing the whole world back to the
stone age.

--
Roger J.
----------------
That wasn't the point. Even though that is how it happens in western
culture.

Actually, you want to make everyone your "children". Such a
"kind and gentile" *Dictator*. No thanks Steeve!

--
Keith

 

[Guillaume]

Sure it's been tried. It fails every time for exactly the same
reasons. It's not a stable system.

It fails every time, because it deprives people of their
very essence as human beings: their free will. Since it
negates our very core as human beings, it cannot be
acceptable.

I don't mean to possess any universal truth, but I do
think the problem is as simple and as basic as I just
stated above, and a thousand more posts on the topic
will not get us any further.

 

[Chris Carlen]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

It doesn't have to be, show me JUST ONE demonstrated instance of
something violating physical cause and effect, NO matter HOW complex.

I don't really understand your question so can you give me some examples
from your point of view.

-----------
Don't be ridiculous. Use your mind.

The one who's responses are all predetermined, no doubt.

Why are Rightists always such shit-fucking disingenuous liars
about logic and argument?

It's like you have no honor of any kind because you have
no rudder for Truth.

I have enough of a rudder to know that nothing that comes out of your
mouth is truth.

Guess what? That's riiiiight! What did you think a brain is anyway?

And who or what is in control of all of this? The tooth fairy?

-----------------
Show me ANYTHING that does NOT obey cause and effect.

Here's one that will never, ever, so long as you live be understandable
with your mighty logic, Steve. That is, the reason the mind can be
changed, and isn't predetermined, is precisely because it perfectly
obeys cause and effect.

You see Steve there is a little prerequisite for becoming aware of
truths of the mind, and of the nature of life and existence, that you
demonstrate unerringly to have none of. And that is humility. You are
absolutely convinced of your rightness, and that is the reason why you
know nothing.


Good day!




--
_______________________________________________________________________
Christopher R. Carlen
Principal Laser/Optical Technologist
Sandia National Laboratories CA USA
crcarle@sandia.gov -- NOTE: Remove "BOGUS" from email address to reply.