War on humanity

[Rich Grise]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409D7BA3.36EF@armory.com...

Rich Grise wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409C7EA8.814@armory.com...
Rich Grise wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409AE5BF.5915@armory.com...

But what I DID say is documented elsewhere in countless places,

SO SHOW US ONE, LIAR!
------------------------
Look them up yourself, search till you find them.

Can't do it.
------------------------
I don't doubt that you're too stupid or lazy.

No, I know you're wrong, and all the rest of the reasoning people
around here know you're wrong. You're the only one who doesn't know
you're wrong.

And the proof that you're wrong is that every time anyone calls
you on your BS, all you do is start cussing and name-calling.

You're sub-human, Walz.

You fantasize, believe your own fantasies, and when you can't
provide one single shred of supporting documentation, you throw
a tantrum.

I have yet to see one single example of anything that would
corroborate your assertions.

Maybe you don't know you're a liar. Maybe you're so self-deceived,
you really believe that your fantasies are true.

Maybe it's impossible for you to ever attain Humanness. You can't
back up your words, and you try to act tough by advocating child
molestation and murder of the weak and defenseless.

I'd like to confront you in real life - you'd piss your pants,
or are you already?

Since you believe your body's an illusion, do you need an attendant
to change your diapers since you're so unfeeling that you don't
even know when you have to defecate? Or is it just that it's been
so long since you've defecated that it's backed up and that's
what your skull cavity is full of?

Yeah. That must me it..

R. Steven Walz is a Shithead.

QED.

Regards,
Rich Grise

 

[Rich Grise]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409D7C14.79E5@armory.com...

Rich Grise wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409C9CD9.7453@armory.com...
Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409C7EA8.814@armory.com...

Look them up yourself, search till you find them.

I know that scandalizes you, me demanding that you hunt up support
for MY argument, but what I claim is SO obvious and prevalent that
you actually SHOULD have to ACTUALLY do so before ever pretending
*I* can't!!

No one has to pretend you can't.
-----------------
Of coure they have.

No, you can't. It's that simple. You're a liar, and a fool.
----------------------
You desperately wish this were so, because you know you can't deal
logically, reasonably and honestly with my structural arguments.
And you KNOW it, or you wouldn't lie and disinform so wildly as
a means of avoiding real argument.

Pfaugh.

 

[Rich Grise]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409D7DD2.6D62@armory.com...

Rich Grise wrote:

--------------------
I have lots of emails from people who agree with me consistently
over many years. The only ones who make negative noises are
the noisy damaged ones anyway.

And, of course, you disdain to show us that,
-----------------------
My personal emails? Why should I do that?
It's not even ethical.

Because if you don't, you're a liar.

You should do that because that's what you claim will back up your
claims.

You haven't got one single email "people who agree with me consistently."

If you had, you'd show it, rather than making up excuses.

You ain't got it. All you have is the capacity to molest children
and murder the weak and defenseless

Just a wussy little posturing wannabe bully.

 

[YD]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 13:02:17 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 08 May 2004 17:14:31 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 08 May 2004 06:00:35 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409C784F.899@armory.com>:


I have carefully poured over all primate research.

Chimp leadership is a separate issue entirely from sexual access,
and both issues are decided by the females by their influencing
their male supporters.
Even that sounds familiar...
Maybe we should not be fighting Bush, but the first lady?
Who else did she do it with?

---
You, Panteltje, are a disgusting pig to even hint that there is some
impropriety in the First Lady's behavior.

If you have some evidence, present it, otherwise shut your filthy
mouth.

I believe Jan forgot to insert the <humor></humor> tags in his post.
Seems some people can recognize tongue-in-cheek at a glance, others
won't even if it hopped up and bit them.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Rich Grise wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409D7BA3.36EF@armory.com...
Rich Grise wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409C7EA8.814@armory.com...
Rich Grise wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409AE5BF.5915@armory.com...

But what I DID say is documented elsewhere in countless places,

SO SHOW US ONE, LIAR!
------------------------
Look them up yourself, search till you find them.

Can't do it.
------------------------
I don't doubt that you're too stupid or lazy.

No, I know you're wrong, and all the rest of the reasoning people
around here know you're wrong. You're the only one who doesn't know
you're wrong.
----------------

Nope, engineers are simply uneducated politically. They are used to
believing they are educated, so they assume they do when this stuff
can indeed be explained to them historically so they can get it.

And the proof that you're wrong is that every time anyone calls
you on your BS, all you do is start cussing and name-calling.
--------------------

That's not true, you ignore the fact that I specifically use
profanity and insult EXACTLY when they become disingenuous and
lie as their only remainng mode of argument.

You fantasize, believe your own fantasies, and when you can't
provide one single shred of supporting documentation, you throw
a tantrum.

I have yet to see one single example of anything that would
corroborate your assertions.
-----------------

That's because you were so well brainwashed to believe that anyone
who espouses this "heresy" (to you) is dangerous and insane that you
get overly exercised and your blood pressure rises till you can't
even think straight.

Maybe you don't know you're a liar. Maybe you're so self-deceived,
you really believe that your fantasies are true.

Maybe it's impossible for you to ever attain Humanness.
----------------

Communism *IS* Humanness!!

You can't
back up your words, and you try to act tough by advocating child
molestation and murder of the weak and defenseless.
-------------------

You moron, you imagine that CARING for the sexual desires of
children is "acting tough"?????????

I'd like to confront you in real life - you'd piss your pants,
or are you already?
------------------------

You'd have the chance to die. Like all the other little weenies
I've seen, you'd push it away from you.

Since you believe your body's an illusion, do you need an attendant
to change your diapers since you're so unfeeling that you don't
even know when you have to defecate? Or is it just that it's been
so long since you've defecated that it's backed up and that's
what your skull cavity is full of?

Yeah. That must me it..

R. Steven Walz is a Shithead.

QED.

Regards,
Rich Grise
----------------------------

The only shit in anyone's head is yours, replacing your ability
to think.

-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]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <409D7A27.108A@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <ZZAmc.170878$L31.11346@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
null@example.net says...
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

If I need to go a mile in four minutes, I'll use a bicycle.

If King Walz allows you to have one.
------------------
Don't be stupid, I don't promote monarchies,
you cowardly disinformational fucking liar!!

Sure you do, bit won't admit it. If anyone in your kingdom
disagrees with you; "off with their head"!
-----------

I both predict and promote a society where that authority rests
solely with the Democratic Majority. You KNOW this, which is
why you're a liar! You HAVE to or you're LOST!

...trial date to be
set next week. You've made that perfectly clear in your
rantings.
--------------

It's what I'd like to see, what I support and promote, and what
will inevitably happen in the Future.

Or a car. ;-)

A definite no-no in Walzland.
----------------------
A bus anywhere every 5 minutes, and dispatchable buses for planned
trips. Cars reserved for longer group trips.

...or they're shot. Yep, that's the Walzland we've been hearing
so much about.
--------------------

That's true of all law, you violate it and resist it and they shoot
you.

If I need to lift a ton, I'll use a crane.

Nope. That would imply stealing someone's labor to build the
crane.
---------------------------
More lies. Can't you think?
Is this why you limit yourself to lying as a argumentative tactic??

I'm just extending the "world according to Walz". SOmeone had to
pay for the labor that wen into that crane. Obviosly the one
that wanted the ton lifted didn't, since he didn't know he wanted
a ton lifted when the ore had to be mined for make the steel for
that crane.
------------------------------

He has to pay the labor hours required to amortize the cost of the
crane over time. Then, it's just as it is now, except Fair!

If I need to design a digital signal processing system, I'll hire
somebody.

Not allowed in the Kingdom of Walz. You should be *shot* for
even thinking this way!
Keith
----------------------------
More of your cowardly ignorant lies.

Cowardly? ...and no lies. That's *exactly* the kingdom you've
been dreaming about for years. What a nice thing to dream; being
king of all humanity. Childish, but nice.
Keith
----------------------

It's not a monarchy, you dishonest coward!
The only mode of argument you're capable of is simple LYING!

-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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 May 2004 19:59:55 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409E8E83.2347@armory.com>:

------------------
Don't be stupid, I don't promote monarchies,
you cowardly disinformational fucking liar!!

Sure you do, bit won't admit it. If anyone in your kingdom
disagrees with you; "off with their head"!
-----------
I both predict and promote a society where that authority rests
solely with the Democratic Majority. You KNOW this, which is
why you're a liar! You HAVE to or you're LOST!
Now seriously think for a moment.

Go out in the street, or any place public, and ask opinion about
some electronics problem.
Write all these down.
Now take the one you got the highest score for, and try it.
Pure democracy majority.
But will it work?
In the same way, majority cannot make a good decision.
Because majority lacks specific knowledge.
The best majority can do is assign some one knowledgable to the problem.
That will likely not always happen.
This is how we struggle along....
This is also why Bush is now in the white house.
However I do not know a better system, a technocratic small group
that runs everything oops, yes we know that too.
JP

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 09 May 2004 15:28:01 -0300, YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote:

I believe Jan forgot to insert the <humor></humor> tags in his post.

---
Without incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, I don't see where
alluding to improper sexual conduct by a good woman is other than
intentionally malicious and defamatory, but had that not been the case
I would have expected at least an apology from him by now.
---

Seems some people can recognize tongue-in-cheek at a glance, others
won't even if it hopped up and bit them.

---
And, perhaps, some people need to be taught the difference between
humor and slander.

--
John Fields

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 May 2004 19:59:55 GMT) it happened
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in > <409E8E83.2347@armory.com>:

Don't be stupid, I don't promote monarchies,
you cowardly disinformational fucking liar!!

Sure you do, bit won't admit it. If anyone in your kingdom
disagrees with you; "off with their head"!
-----------
I both predict and promote a society where that authority rests
solely with the Democratic Majority. You KNOW this, which is
why you're a liar! You HAVE to or you're LOST!

Now seriously think for a moment.
Go out in the street, or any place public, and ask opinion about
some electronics problem.
Write all these down.
Now take the one you got the highest score for, and try it.
Pure democracy majority.
But will it work?
------------------

Not for electronics. But that's not what a sensible majority will
decide to do to determine the answer to an electronic problem.

And a sensible majority arises given the time to determine what
is sensible by sufficient tenure suffering from its mistakes and
using its collective power to determine this and correct it.

You see, the majority resembles the actions of a king who is
stupid but who is at least virtuous, he may not figure it out
right away, but given time and his power, he will, and he will
use his power to correct it.

The problem with either a non-virtuous king, or an impowered
elite is that while they have the power, they have no guaranteed
virtuous intent, and they will be nothing more than opportuning
thieves.

At least the democracy must seek good for its members as a
whole in order to obtain them for anyone.

The only problems with a less than fully participatory democracy
is precisely, than an elite can use it solely to gain control for
themselves to be criminal by divesting the democracy of its total
control to impede democracy, as has happened in the western world.

The only hope we have is a much more participatory democracy
with obtain even more power than any elite will want it to have!!

In the same way, majority cannot make a good decision.
Because majority lacks specific knowledge.
The best majority can do is assign some one knowledgable to the problem.
That will likely not always happen.
--------------------------

No, but it will happen enough with a democracy that becomes more
and more experienced due to failuires. The democracy will act to
punish those who know facts and will not teach those facts and inform as
many as possible
of them.

This is how we struggle along....
This is also why Bush is now in the white house.
However I do not know a better system, a technocratic small group
that runs everything oops, yes we know that too.
JP
---------------------------

I wouldn't mind a non-democratic elite running everything, if they
would do it absolutely fairly and equally without biases against
people less able and opportuning to thieve from them and enslave
them. So far historically we have been ruled by elites and I don't
see it being other than criminal.

Democracy at least suffers collectively for its own ignorance and
failure, so that, given the time to discover this, it can decide to
obtain whatever knowledge it requires by imposing its own
collective power to demand that all knowledge be revealed to all
or else that those who possess the knowledge and refuse to reveal
it entirely by teaching to everyone else be killed if they will
not.

You see, the assumption that some among the majority are unable to
learn something leaves out the fact that others among them will be,
and will wish to serve the democracy even if they are able to learn
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

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 May 2004 19:59:55 GMT) it happened
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in > <409E8E83.2347@armory.com>:

Don't be stupid, I don't promote monarchies,
you cowardly disinformational fucking liar!!

Sure you do, bit won't admit it. If anyone in your kingdom
disagrees with you; "off with their head"!
-----------
I both predict and promote a society where that authority rests
solely with the Democratic Majority. You KNOW this, which is
why you're a liar! You HAVE to or you're LOST!

Now seriously think for a moment.
Go out in the street, or any place public, and ask opinion about
some electronics problem.
Write all these down.
Now take the one you got the highest score for, and try it.
Pure democracy majority.
But will it work?
------------------

Not for electronics. But that's not what a sensible majority will
decide to do to determine the answer to an electronic problem.

And a sensible majority arises given the time to determine what
is sensible by sufficient tenure suffering from its mistakes and
using its collective power to determine this and correct it.

You see, the majority resembles the actions of a king who is
stupid but who is at least virtuous, he may not figure it out
right away, but given time and his power, he will, and he will
use his power to correct it.

The problem with either a non-virtuous king, or an impowered
elite is that while they have the power, they have no guaranteed
virtuous intent, and they will be nothing more than opportuning
thieves.

At least the democracy must seek good for its members as a
whole in order to obtain them for anyone.

The only problems with a less than fully participatory democracy
is precisely, than an elite can use it solely to gain control for
themselves to be criminal by divesting the democracy of its total
control to impede democracy, as has happened in the western world.

The only hope we have is a much more participatory democracy
with obtain even more power than any elite will want it to have!!

In the same way, majority cannot make a good decision.
Because majority lacks specific knowledge.
The best majority can do is assign some one knowledgable to the problem.
That will likely not always happen.
--------------------------

No, but it will happen enough with a democracy that becomes more
and more experienced due to failuires. The democracy will act to
punish those who know facts and will not teach those facts and
inform as many of them as possible. It will make it impossible
for any elite to benefit from any special knowledge, and force
them to have it benefit all of us. The purpose of democracy is
to learn to be be an unstoppable bully who defends everyone of
us from the few.

This is how we struggle along....
This is also why Bush is now in the white house.
However I do not know a better system, a technocratic small group
that runs everything oops, yes we know that too.
JP
---------------------------

I wouldn't mind a non-democratic elite running everything, if they
would do it absolutely fairly and equally without biases against
people less able and opportuning to thieve from them and enslave
them. So far historically we have been ruled by elites and I don't
see it being other than criminal.

Democracy at least suffers collectively for its own ignorance and
failure, so that, given the time to discover this, it can decide to
obtain whatever knowledge it requires by imposing its own
collective power to demand that all knowledge be revealed to all
or else that those who possess the knowledge and refuse to reveal
it entirely by teaching to everyone else be killed if they will
not. Someone of those who are intelligent will also be those who
do not wish to die.

You see, the assumption that some among the majority are unable to
learn something leaves out the fact that others among them will be,
and will wish to serve the democracy even if they are able to learn
more than others, and that we can kill the rest of them who just go
criminal.

-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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 May 2004 23:37:41 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409EC18E.3CD8@armory.com>:

You see, the assumption that some among the majority are unable to
learn something leaves out the fact that others among them will be,
and will wish to serve the democracy even if they are able to learn
more than others, and that we can kill the rest of them who just go
criminal.
OK, but this killing thing I disagree.

Although a bit of bashing Bush head would perhaps wake him up.
Perhaps not.
It is very difficult when you start looking at individual people.
Some are more intelligent then others, some are extremely violent,
some are mass murderers, most are opportunist, some do all asked of them,
some never do anything asked of them.
I look at it as a neural net.
You can train it, but everyone due to experiences in life is different.
What makes it common is things we all know, thirst, hunger, pain, love,
etc.
So, unless some serious chemical malfunctioning is happening in the brain,
exposing it to some good influence may perhaps lead to some better
programming.
Some is hardwired, as some neuron patterns seem to form at very young age.
Some is inherited.
But just because of this fact, be very careful to say that (and take into
account evolution) you and your ideas are the best for the (future of)
the species.
It is this diversity that is really one of our strength.
So, killing, no.
Better let go of your system, any system, see: the system is there to serve US,
now, not we for some system (later).
Systems are always a bit of a straight jacket, no system will ever fit all.
It makes no sense to make a chair for yourself that fits, and then to chop
heads of those that do not fit in it.
Let go of this specific 'system' idea.
Utopia will always be utopia.
Reality is always more complex and more beautiful then a dream.
JP

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 09 May 2004 23:37:41 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <409EC18E.3CD8@armory.com>:

You see, the assumption that some among the majority are unable to
learn something leaves out the fact that others among them will be,
and will wish to serve the democracy even if they are able to learn
more than others, and that we can kill the rest of them who just go
criminal.

OK, but this killing thing I disagree.
------------------

Aesthetic boobism. Killing those who steal and enslave you is merely
what you must do not to be a their slaves. It is the price of Freedom,
you don't have to do it really often, just threatening it resolutely
is usually entirely sufficient, but it must be totally resolute!!

Although a bit of bashing Bush head would perhaps wake him up.
Perhaps not.
It is very difficult when you start looking at individual people.
Some are more intelligent then others, some are extremely violent,
some are mass murderers, most are opportunist, some do all asked of them,
some never do anything asked of them.
-----------------------------

We can say, simply: You will be safe from us if you do not do any of
these things, or things anything like them when we have warned you
publically, or you will surely die and horribly if you do it again.
If you are a resolute majority anyone would have to be stupid to try
it!!

I look at it as a neural net.
You can train it, but everyone due to experiences in life is *different.
What makes it common is things we all know, thirst, hunger, pain, love,
etc.
----------------

Then if it is, train it with your threat!!
It will respond to believable dire threat.

So, unless some serious chemical malfunctioning is happening in the brain,
exposing it to some good influence may perhaps lead to some better
programming.
Some is hardwired, as some neuron patterns seem to form at very young age.
Some is inherited.
-------------------------

None of this matters, we will never know how much of it we can stop
merely by resolute dire threat unless we try. This is not saying we
cannot spare the insane, if they are insane. This is to say we can
and should make good our threat to kill when someone is told not to
do something and they do it anyway, as if to spite our will.

If someone is insane we can hobble them and control them, and if they
are fit to work we can morally enslave them to support themselves at
a reasonable work and we can grant them most of the same enjoyments
that we afford to ourselves, good food, sex, media, learning,
accomplishment, etc.

We can even do that with the most vicious offenders if they will
accede to it, one and only one chance to decide to die or to live
under our control forever.

But those who do not, or those who violate their promise, we must
kill.

But just because of this fact, be very careful to say that (and take into
account evolution) you and your ideas are the best for the (future of)
the species.
-----------------------------

They are indeed. And I do say this, now and forever.

It is this diversity that is really one of our strength.
So, killing, no.
----------------------

Diversity within the law is a fine thing. Outside it must be ended.

Better let go of your system, any system, see: the system is there to serve US,
now, not we for some system (later).
Systems are always a bit of a straight jacket, no system will ever fit all.
------------------------

My system arises from the individual's need not to be endangered.

It makes no sense to make a chair for yourself that fits, and then to chop
heads of those that do not fit in it.
-------------------------------

Procrustes is irrelevant, that is exactly what we do with Law itself.

Let go of this specific 'system' idea.
Utopia will always be utopia.
Reality is always more complex and more beautiful then a dream.
JP
----------------------------------

Utopia is unnecessary, we can be as happy as we are capable of being
if we are entitled to our share of the planet and our own share of
our inheritance of the aedifices and works of our species as our free
residence, and if we are simply not robbed and enslaved by illcit
wealth-seeking opportunists, and if we get to eliminate them when
they are captured till there are very very few or none of them out
running around scamming and stealing from us.

We can be as happy as anyone needs to be, owning our home unfettered
and unquestionably, being paid equally for our hours of labor, and
developing our talents for our own gratification and those of others.

No one needs to own the lives of others by their sheer wealth, no
one needs to be indolent and do nothing, having everyone else do
their work for them, no one needs more home than he could have built
himself. And having such and denying it to others is theft and
banditry!!

-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

 

[KR Williams]

In article <409E8E83.2347@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...

KR Williams wrote:

In article <409D7A27.108A@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <ZZAmc.170878$L31.11346@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
null@example.net says...
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

If I need to go a mile in four minutes, I'll use a bicycle.

If King Walz allows you to have one.
------------------
Don't be stupid, I don't promote monarchies,
you cowardly disinformational fucking liar!!

Sure you do, bit won't admit it. If anyone in your kingdom
disagrees with you; "off with their head"!
-----------
I both predict and promote a society where that authority rests
solely with the Democratic Majority. You KNOW this, which is
why you're a liar! You HAVE to or you're LOST!

No, Steve. We all know what you are. You want to control
others, at least if they don't vote *your* way. You are a petty
tyrant-wannabe, and that's all you'll ever be. This has been
shown many times, over the years.

...trial date to be
set next week. You've made that perfectly clear in your
rantings.
--------------
It's what I'd like to see, what I support and promote, and what
will inevitably happen in the Future.

NOthing is "inevitable". Your vision of "utopia" certainly
doesn't match anyone else's, and thus cannot happen.

Or a car. ;-)

A definite no-no in Walzland.
----------------------
A bus anywhere every 5 minutes, and dispatchable buses for planned
trips. Cars reserved for longer group trips.

...or they're shot. Yep, that's the Walzland we've been hearing
so much about.
--------------------
That's true of all law, you violate it and resist it and they shoot
you.

The difference is that, in theory, we're a country of laws, not a
country of people. As much as this has failed, is how much we've
failed. Your country of people (democracy) is a non-starter,
particularly since only you count yourself as "people". THys
you're a petty tyrant-wannabe.

If I need to lift a ton, I'll use a crane.

Nope. That would imply stealing someone's labor to build the
crane.
---------------------------
More lies. Can't you think?
Is this why you limit yourself to lying as a argumentative tactic??

I'm just extending the "world according to Walz". SOmeone had to
pay for the labor that wen into that crane. Obviosly the one
that wanted the ton lifted didn't, since he didn't know he wanted
a ton lifted when the ore had to be mined for make the steel for
that crane.
------------------------------
He has to pay the labor hours required to amortize the cost of the
crane over time. Then, it's just as it is now, except Fair!

Wait just a minute, Walz! How do you "amortize" anything without
the concept of money or interest? What a moron!

If I need to design a digital signal processing system, I'll hire
somebody.

Not allowed in the Kingdom of Walz. You should be *shot* for
even thinking this way!
Keith
----------------------------
More of your cowardly ignorant lies.

Cowardly? ...and no lies. That's *exactly* the kingdom you've
been dreaming about for years. What a nice thing to dream; being
king of all humanity. Childish, but nice.
Keith
----------------------
It's not a monarchy, you dishonest coward!

No coward (as if this has anything to do with the subject at
hand), Walz. You're simply a moron.

The only mode of argument you're capable of is simple LYING!

Rant all you wish, you're simply a loser who's too lazy to be
productive, but wants to be a little king. Tyrant twit!

--
Keith

 

[R. Steve Walz]

KR Williams wrote:

In article <409E8E83.2347@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <409D7A27.108A@armory.com>, rstevew@armory.com says...
KR Williams wrote:

In article <ZZAmc.170878$L31.11346@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
null@example.net says...
"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message

If I need to go a mile in four minutes, I'll use a bicycle.

If King Walz allows you to have one.
------------------
Don't be stupid, I don't promote monarchies,
you cowardly disinformational fucking liar!!

Sure you do, bit won't admit it. If anyone in your kingdom
disagrees with you; "off with their head"!
-----------
I both predict and promote a society where that authority rests
solely with the Democratic Majority. You KNOW this, which is
why you're a liar! You HAVE to or you're LOST!

No, Steve. We all know what you are. You want to control
others, at least if they don't vote *your* way. You are a petty
tyrant-wannabe, and that's all you'll ever be. This has been
shown many times, over the years.
----------------------------

Nope, I don't want the job, I want to live in that society once it
occurs, nothing more. I would rather build electronic toys. I would
prefer the society came ready-made as I picture it, and that it
does away with its enemies out of my view.

Therefore, this is merely you posturing because you know there is
no way to defeat me in honest argument, and you are desperate to
frighten others away from my ideas by any means you can find, so
you are become a petty disingenuous dishonest fear-monger.

Apparently to achieve this imaginary status all one needs to do is
strongly favor a political position other than the current paradigm.

...trial date to be
set next week. You've made that perfectly clear in your
rantings.
--------------
It's what I'd like to see, what I support and promote, and what
will inevitably happen in the Future.

NOthing is "inevitable". Your vision of "utopia" certainly
doesn't match anyone else's, and thus cannot happen.
------------------------------

Nonsense. Countless millions want freedom from paying tribute to
the wealthy, in the form of rent or mortgage, it is one of the
most common desires. So far that wish manifests itself as a vengeful
desire to become rich so as to turn the tables, but anyone who can
think at all is gradually realizing that this is merely an instance
of the same system without any guarantee of safety or secureity for
anyone.

Or a car. ;-)

A definite no-no in Walzland.
----------------------
A bus anywhere every 5 minutes, and dispatchable buses for planned
trips. Cars reserved for longer group trips.

...or they're shot. Yep, that's the Walzland we've been hearing
so much about.
--------------------
That's true of all law, you violate it and resist it and they shoot
you.

The difference is that, in theory, we're a country of laws, not a
country of people.
------------------

Nonsense, a country of laws is fine, as long as it will be the right
ones. When Democracy wakes to them the whole world will change.

As much as this has failed, is how much we've
failed. Your country of people (democracy) is a non-starter,
particularly since only you count yourself as "people". THys
you're a petty tyrant-wannabe.
---------------------------------

More of your petty ad hominem nonsense. I don't want any such job,
it would bore me to tears. Nor do we need any one guy to do it, as
I have said, we simply need the Democracy to write some slightly
different laws.

If I need to lift a ton, I'll use a crane.

Nope. That would imply stealing someone's labor to build the
crane.
---------------------------
More lies. Can't you think?
Is this why you limit yourself to lying as a argumentative tactic??

I'm just extending the "world according to Walz". SOmeone had to
pay for the labor that wen into that crane. Obviosly the one
that wanted the ton lifted didn't, since he didn't know he wanted
a ton lifted when the ore had to be mined for make the steel for
that crane.
------------------------------
He has to pay the labor hours required to amortize the cost of the
crane over time. Then, it's just as it is now, except Fair!

Wait just a minute, Walz! How do you "amortize" anything without
the concept of money or interest? What a moron!
-------------------------------

Simple, did you seriously think that amortization requires money?
The People's Democratic State by vote authorizes the construction
of such devices and simply charges for their use, in labor hours,
the amount of the price amortized over the labor hours that were
required to build the crane, mining, smelting metals, pressing,
forming, welding, etc. And the cost of maintenance for it over time
in labor hours sets the price per hour of use.

The price of every consumer item is evaluated in the same way. No
currency is needed, this is merely a matter of public record of
manufacture and maintenance.

If I need to design a digital signal processing system, I'll hire
somebody.

Not allowed in the Kingdom of Walz. You should be *shot* for
even thinking this way!
Keith
----------------------------
More of your cowardly ignorant lies.

Cowardly? ...and no lies. That's *exactly* the kingdom you've
been dreaming about for years. What a nice thing to dream; being
king of all humanity. Childish, but nice.
Keith
----------------------
It's not a monarchy, you dishonest coward!

No coward (as if this has anything to do with the subject at
hand), Walz. You're simply a moron.
--------------------------

You're too cowardly to argue from reason and logic, you know that
you'd LOSE, so you have taken to lying and petty ad hominem instead
of losing, AS YOUR BACKWARD THINKING NORMALLY WOULD!!

The only mode of argument you're capable of is simple LYING!

Rant all you wish, you're simply a loser who's too lazy to be
productive, but wants to be a little king. Tyrant twit!
Keith
-------------------------------

I'm quite productive, thanks, and of sufficient middle
income, you shitty little liar!

You're simply lying again, bald-facedly!!

I want no such position, nor do I want it for anyone else.

I simply want to fix this society, and you're intentionally
trying to bar the way by lies and dishonesty, because you're
terrified of a world where you can't lord wealth over others
to whom you pettily and falsely fancy yourself superior.

You're so obviously strident and invested about this, quite literally!
You're probably a landlord, and you crave your petty
abusive power over those less fortunate whom you imagine are lazy
to salve your conscience! You MOST hate me for guilting you about
your petty tyranny!!it!! In other words, you lie so vociferously
for the same reason men lied about Jesus!! Because I SHAME you!!

-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

 

[Mark Fergerson]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:


Mark Fergerson wrote:


R. Steve Walz wrote:

snip

I've kept out of this thread because you've been doing so
well so far.

But you wrote:



Will Rogers always appealed to the worst and most pessimistic about
government and democracy. Remember, humorists never have anything
true or positive to say ONLY because that just wouldn't be very
funny, not because they're right. Humor is the last refuge of
someone who can't commit to anything important.

It may also be the sole way to express political ideas
that would get you Gulaged if you presented them _as_
political thought. Examples; Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, and
Yakov Smirnoff.

Agreed.

I thought so.


But they are still not suited to represent absolute truth.

Of course not (let's don't get into the "absolute truth"
argument again, please). Even with a sympathetic audience,
they have to sorta sidle up to the truths they're telling
and let the audience figure them out on their own to keep
the censors from going pre-emptively ballistic. Sometimes I
envy that kind of creative patience.

Mark L. Fergerson

--------------------
All those are are entertainers, they deal in amusing fiction,
not reality or Truth. The audience carries their water, even
creates their meaning to suit themselves. The humor doesn't
really have to take a side if its audience does.

Granted, the humor wouldn't work if there weren't some
degree of receptivity to begin with. Yet you agree that
would-be censors see the undercurrents of such humorists'
efforts (otherwise they wouldn't trouble themselves with
censoring political humorists)? Consider how Mark Twain was
hounded by certain sociopolitical elements of his times for
writing drastically revolutionary ideas as fiction and
making socially unacceptable concepts palatable by sneaking
them past readers in his tales (frinst the fact that the
hero of one of his most famed works wasn't the protagonist,
but actually Nigger Jim).

I don't see such things as political humor as
diversionary from the ideas presented but rather an
_incremental_ method of change. I understand that you're
something of a Nihilist (in that you want Change all at
once) but I also know that you know enough history to
recognize that incremental changes permit people to discard
old ways of thought more comfortably. Getting people to
laugh at their own dearly-held (but uncritically examined)
sillinesses is a very effective way to make them understand
that they've been fooled without forcing them to defend
those sillinesses reflexively. I could mention Swift's
_Modest Proposal_ as an example.

As I see it, incrementalism of this sort sidesteps the
brainwashing imposed on an otherwise competent population by
rulers who do not want critical examination of their control
methodologies.

Did you ever see _Life Of Brian_? The protagonist assumes
(for various dramatic reasons) that he's The Messiah and
tries to do the "standup philosopher" bit without the skill
shown in _History Of The World Part I_ by Mel Brooks. Brian
is criticized by his audience not because they're
unreceptive to his ideas, but because he just blurts them
out rather than couching them as comfortable parables. He
gets crucified in the end for being sufficiently annoying to
the Romans, but fails completely to have a lasting effect
because he didn't know how to work an audience.

Would-be political humorists should watch L.O.B. as a
cautionary tale. People simply do not want Absolute Truth
when it contravenes their dearly-held bullshit. People must
be weaned off it or they'll kill you for trying to make them
go cold turkey.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I do expect you
to critically examine your belief that Change must, ot even
can, happen all at once.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

All those are are entertainers, they deal in amusing fiction,
not reality or Truth. The audience carries their water, even
creates their meaning to suit themselves. The humor doesn't
really have to take a side if its audience does.

Granted, the humor wouldn't work if there weren't some
degree of receptivity to begin with. Yet you agree that
would-be censors see the undercurrents of such humorists'
efforts (otherwise they wouldn't trouble themselves with
censoring political humorists)? Consider how Mark Twain was
hounded by certain sociopolitical elements of his times for
writing drastically revolutionary ideas as fiction and
making socially unacceptable concepts palatable by sneaking
them past readers in his tales (frinst the fact that the
hero of one of his most famed works wasn't the protagonist,
but actually Nigger Jim).

I don't see such things as political humor as
diversionary from the ideas presented but rather an
_incremental_ method of change. I understand that you're
something of a Nihilist (in that you want Change all at
once)
-----------

No, that's NOT what nihilist means.

but I also know that you know enough history to
recognize that incremental changes permit people to discard
old ways of thought more comfortably. Getting people to
laugh at their own dearly-held (but uncritically examined)
sillinesses is a very effective way to make them understand
that they've been fooled without forcing them to defend
those sillinesses reflexively. I could mention Swift's
_Modest Proposal_ as an example.

As I see it, incrementalism of this sort sidesteps the
brainwashing imposed on an otherwise competent population by
rulers who do not want critical examination of their control
methodologies.

Did you ever see _Life Of Brian_? The protagonist assumes
(for various dramatic reasons) that he's The Messiah and
tries to do the "standup philosopher" bit without the skill
shown in _History Of The World Part I_ by Mel Brooks. Brian
is criticized by his audience not because they're
unreceptive to his ideas, but because he just blurts them
out rather than couching them as comfortable parables. He
gets crucified in the end for being sufficiently annoying to
the Romans, but fails completely to have a lasting effect
because he didn't know how to work an audience.

Would-be political humorists should watch L.O.B. as a
cautionary tale. People simply do not want Absolute Truth
when it contravenes their dearly-held bullshit. People must
be weaned off it or they'll kill you for trying to make them
go cold turkey.

I don't expect to change your mind, but I do expect you
to critically examine your belief that Change must, ot even
can, happen all at once.

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

Nothing happens all at once, nor do I actually specify any time-table
for change. My promotion of these changes is stated to be only my
profound belief that they will be the final state of human government
and that they will be coming along somewhere from "sometime real soon"
to "any time now". Nor do I state, or even think, that they will be
implemented in my lifetime. And yet, because of their very nature,
and because I have the walnuts to posit them as the final state of
human imperfection and one which even makes individual perfection
unnecessary, and because of the specific backwardnesses of this time
in history and their nature, my assertions are hailed as somehow quite
scandalous, and even horrific.

This is because of the topics they address, property, theft, and sex.

Now, this is finally a time in which I shall probably not be executed
for my assertions, or for even privately living according to those
very principles we hold true about human nature and its best final
form of public state, if we keep to ourselves. In previous times I
might have had to be far more careful to shield my identity and scrawl
this stuff only on pieces of bark or wood or papyrus and leave it
about anonymously, but now is a time I can speak my peace of mind.

--
These are crimes, and should be punished:

Unequal division of the earth and undemocratic control of it and
all human aedifices we inherit from our collective ancestry so as
to enslave many or most to pay monthly tribute (rent/mortgage) to
those alleged to be their supposely more deserving socio-econmic
"betters", whether by birth or luck of life, is the most profound
criminality, and anyone engaged in it is a criminal who should be
killed!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Everyone deserves a decent place to live from which they can *
* never be evicted, and a job the society has authorized them *
* for which they are paid the same per hour as everyone else *
* in an economy in which their labor is their only source of *
* wealth. - Richard Steven Walz *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lesser payment than others of anyone for his hour of work is crime of
victimization of him/her by theft/crime/banditry/enslavement and is
punishable by death!

Obtaining wealth by ANY means other than productive labor by the
hour is the crime of theft from the rest of us, and the penalty
is death.

Speculation in pursuit of wealth is punishable by death.

Seeking to defeat these economic protections is punishable by death.

--
The best penalty for crime is death so that no one has the temerity
to perform it and then expect to weasel away somehow. All other
penalties are cowardly on the part of a society and are mostly
ineffective, and any decent human society in its final form should
have the guts to simply kill anyone who intentionally violates its
laws, or else it doesn't really believe in them very much!

Examples:

The penalty for leaving yor car in the intersection blocking
cross traffic should be death, because NO one does that who doesn't
fucking know better!!

The penalty for not moving over and stopping or moving out of the
way for an emergency vehicle should be immediate execution!

The penalty for littering should be death simply because anyone who
does it is aware they are being a criminal and are cheekily asking
for it.

The penalty for hit and run is death to prevent this crime entirely.

Fleeing to avoid arrest of any kind brings immediate death because
it endangers others and we shouldn't have to bother with you at all
if you won't face public justice.

The penalty for playing loud music outdoors without a permit and
after being once told officially on record to turn it down should be
death. You know better.

The penalty for driving in an offensive bullying manner should be
immediate death in one's vehicle by immolation. If you use your
vehicle as a weapon for abuse, you will die.

The penalty for bullying your smaller weaker spouse or child in
public or private should be death.

The penalty for public demonstrations that impede the normal flow
of traffic and disrupt public convenience to get attention is death.

If you want to give a speech go to the speaking park and bother
those who want to listen, or else write a book or a website and
promote it peacably by handouts or set up a table. Society does
NOT have to stop its function to give you a special voice.

If you demonstrate in a violent or threatening manner you will be
shot down like dogs en masse with machine guns.

--
The penalty for being most kinds of asshole should be death, because
these are things people do intentionally and only because they imagine
they can get away with them, for which then surely therefore the
penalty should be death!

Children should be made to memorize and recite a much longer list of
these examples, and also be told the principle that they may be
killed for any criminality that even resembles these obvious crimes,
and then they should be told once in school at an age where they will
remember it, that they have now been officially warned and chastened
by society and can NOW be killed immediately for violating ANY of
them.

The killing, especially of young violators of these rules, should
be regarded as the culling of genetic psychopathic personalities
from our species.

Also:

Interference with pubic or private nudity sex is punishable by death.

Interfering with ANYONE'S right, adult or child, to consensual sex
with uninfected partners using reasonable precautions is punishable
by immediate death.

The coercion of sex from anyone brings immediate death.

Those infected with non-curable STDs must show the standardized
state warning tattoo to warn others or they will be killed
immediately upon discovery and capture.

These are the principles from which the final form of human society
will be implemented.

-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

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40A01D14.160E@armory.com...

Interference with pubic or private nudity sex is punishable by death.

What does this mean, exactly?

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 05 May 2004 21:39:11 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

No, I am not sure about that, I would still be interested in electronics,
science, and if I had a choice would do what I liked, EVEN it if was more
complicated to do.

---
Poor baby... Your hands are tied and you're being forced to live a
life you don't like?

Since when _don't_ you have a choice?

--
John Fields

 

[Greg Neill]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:409AA666.314C@armory.com...

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2004 00:49:43 GMT, R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

My labor is worth more than yours is.
-------------------------
No it's not. An assertion without reason is meaningless.

Labor is worth what the market will pay for it.

Business favors the competent over the incompetent,
unless there are strong reasons for the contrary
(ie, subsidies). Quantity has a quality of its own.

When labor prices itself out of business, business
finds labor elsewhere.

Now then, where's the electronics in this thread?

 

[Guy Macon]

Greg Neill <gneillREM@OVE.netcom.ca> says...

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

Jeffrey C. Dege wrote:

My labor is worth more than yours is.

No it's not

Labor is worth what the market will pay for it.

All three of you seem to be confusing "worth" with "cost."

A mother waking up to feed the baby at 4AM has a large worth
but a small cost. A CEO typically has a huge cost and a
very small worth. Many lawyers do work that has have a large
cost and negative worth.

Now then, where's the electronics in this thread?

The in crowd is now marking all posts that don't involve electronics
with [OT] after the Re: It is well known that doing so makes one
more attractive to one's preferred gender...