War on humanity

[YD]

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:59:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:16:50 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:57:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

While the Majority is deprived of its rightful control of its
extended "body", the earth, this is not possible, those who
stole it must be dealt with harshly to instill fear in the
criminal portion of Human Nature, so that it does not show
itself.

You mean, like, throw bombs at capitalists?
---------------------
Majorities don't usually need to throw bombs, they come, take,
punish, and execute. But they might if you resist.

-Steve

Good, now we're going somewhere. Dunno exactly where yet but I see
some progress.

So tell me, who or what is this Majority of yours. Who tells them who
to punish and execute? And if some bomb throwing feels needed, at
whom, and who decides on it?
- YD.
------------------
I've dis<*WHAMMO*

Not in enough detail to have anything to go on. You blather on about
your math and logic and, whatzit, consensual syllogisms or somesuch,
but never offer up anything to take to the proof.

I know you've ranted on about your ideas of how to run the world
before, but hey, I'm too busy enjoying life to go over every post in
every thread in my current spool and google spews out a few hundred
thousand posts on the matter. No way am I going to wade through all of
that just to ferret out the few relevant ones.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:59:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So tell me, who or what is this Majority of yours. Who tells them who
to punish and execute? And if some bomb throwing feels needed, at
whom, and who decides on it?
- YD.
------------------
I've discussed all this here, you're just a wasting time.

Not in enough detail to have anything to go on. You blather on about
your math and logic and, whatzit, consensual syllogisms or somesuch,
but never offer up anything to take to the proof.
--------------------------

You never ask anything logical, you merely blabber and rant
your moronic ad hominems.

I know you've ranted on about your ideas of how to run the world
before, but hey, I'm too busy enjoying life to go over every post in
every thread in my current spool and google spews out a few hundred
thousand posts on the matter.
---------------------------

If you're not really interested, you're only blabbering here to
insult, disrupt and disinform.

I didn't really THINK you had a real reason for what you think,
none of my opponents ever really do!!

-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]

Captain wrote:

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

The leaders of the soviet Union were convinvced that their way of government
was best for "the masses",
-------------

The rich HERE are JUST SOOO SURE that what makes them rich will
magically be the "best thing" for the rest of us, so self-deception
abounds among the greedy. That's nothing surprising, since greed
arises as a deep neurosis of a defective self-esteem.

Brunowski said: "Beware of the men who know
they are right."
-----------------

Yes, yes. Like Brunowski.

and that is still very good advice. The Nazis knew they
were right. So did Pol Pot and his Kmer Rouge. So do Al Khaida.
-------------------

This is a defective semantic criticism:
People who are wrong all think they are right,
but then so do people who actually are right.
And most people deny they think they are right merely to be politic.

Once you
know you are right, you can do anything you want to do, no matter how
destructive and reprehensible, because what you are doing is right.
---------------------------

Or not destructive, if you think THAT'S right.
And then you wouldn't criticize it.

You see, what this points up is that all these criticisms are
semantically defective because they are instances of selective
attention.

I'm afraid Mr Waltz knows he is right, so everone else must agree or be,
hmm, I wonder what word he'll come up with - "Purged?", "Banned?",
"Terminated with extreme prejudice?".
--------------------------------

First, learn to spell my name,
Then quite confabulating things you're only AFRAID I'll say,
And read me just for comprehension.

Next, stop bothering to criticize me personally,
Because your ad hominem blather really won't do you any good,
since this stuff isn't anything personal.

Instead deal with my concepts alone.
I DARE you!!

Speaking as one of those greedy, capatilist bullies, I'd just like him to
know that he's on my "Do not hire" list.

Cap
---------------------------

You're avoiding my concepts with ad hominem blathering.

And as for laughable employment, I don't need you,
You have no effect.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:47:45 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:25 GMT, "Rich Grise" <null@example.net
wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40C36FAA.3C93@armory.com...
YD wrote:
Isn't it possible that you are
the deluded one but are so stuck with it you refuse to see it as a
delusion?
----------------------
No. This stuff is like mathematics, the process checks its work
backwards. You just don't even bother with the math and instead
you assert an answer merely because it pleases you. I'm bound by
the rules of logic and mathematics.

This is a self-imposed limitation, and you're deluded if you
believe otherwise.

Life is multi-valued and multi-faceted. What's good for you may
not be all that good for me,
--------------------
Nonsense, if people knew for themsselves what that was, then people
would all make themselves happy and just shut up.

So who's going to tell them what's good for them? Hey, the best for
you would be to throw away that computer and go live in the woods.
-------------------------

That's not what I think, where do you get that? I like computers and
cities. I like urban communalism. The woods are nice to visit, go
hunting for your colective, bring in six or eight bison.

but I don't mind as long as it's not imposed on me.
---------------
Even if you LIKED it?

If I did would I feel it's imposed? You really have a hard time
getting into the spirit of things.
-----------------------

No, I mean you'll like it a lot AFTERWARDS when you figure out
what I'm talking about without the words hindering you.

Happens a lot with the stuff I promote. I have a lot of
experience talking people into trying groupsex and loving
it when they thought "they could never do that"!

Problem is, this loon wants to impose his views on everybody. As
for his logic and math all I've seen of it this far is a rather
idealized description of tribal life about a million years ago.
-----------------------------
Nope, it bears no relation to ANYTHING I've said hus far, at best
it is a paranoid illiterate's version of what he was AFRAID I'D
SAY after he put his fingers in his ears.

So far you haen't said *anything* of value. At most I fear being
bored to death.
------------------

You didn't actually read it. I can tell, because you're still
acting like a shit.

I'd really hate a life ruled solely by logic and math, central
planning and five-year-plans may have their points but can be taken
too far.
-----------------------------
Naw, you'd love it, planning isn't "central", you go to a meeting
in a parking lot once or twice a month, later on it will be on the
computer/TV and you discuss your needs in groups and vote. You don't
just give some vague handwaving order to your grocer and hope for
the best, you tell them what you want! The math isn't at the level
of anyone's math-phobia.

Sounds even worse than some zentral komittee shuffling red tape
around, I'm sure everyone would hate it. How is that going to solve
anything without getting bogged down in shouting matches and pissing
contests?
------------

Rules of order.
All rants must be submitted in triplicate and burned on your head.

All it's going to lead to is a lot of undercover lobbying
and horse trading. Somewhere in a corner bar not far away: "Hey, you
vote for my project and I'll help you with that idea of yours."
------------------

Gee, I hope so, because that's Democracy!!
That *IS* how it all WORKS!!

As for groceries, I do my own shopping and get exactly what I want.
Ecxept for totting it up at the register, no math in that.
----------------------------

Same as most management/accounting tasks.

Like some bureaucrat decides there'll be a need for two
thousand sociologists or something in a few years time so turn up the
funding for humanities and sluice the good students that way whether
they want it or not.
----------------------------
There are NO "bureaucrats". You vote, and secretaries are empowered
to go get what you told them to, order what you said, and do what
the vote was, or they get their ass roasted two weeks later. As for
sociologists, we train people in a few subjects they like and employ
them according to the current need as expressed by your votes.
It's more like a prolonged scavenger hunt meeting.

Ho-hum. Tell us a bit more of the mechanics of that. Sounds like a
right pretty bureaucracy to me.
--------------------------------

Except they do what the voters say, not the reverse.

The end result will of course be at best half
competent professionals.
------------------------------
So are you under some delusion that we get what we actually need NOW,
leaving it to a few ignorant rich people and counting on them and their
greed, and they don't care about US at ALL, to magically come up with
a knowledge of what every speciality does, AND what WE say needs to be
done for us??????? Nonsense!! ANY Majority Democracy has GOT to be
better than a bunch of accidentally in-charge rich assholes with no
interest in YOUR NEEDS!!

Hey, if wanted to be rich I'd have studied to become a lawyer. I'm
poorer but a lot more content doing something I actually enjoy, like
electronics.
----------------------

Me too.

Not that I actually disagree with the bit about rich
assholes, but that's life.
---------------------------------

Then you should know better.

Real life in a real society with real people interacting has a bit of
chaos theory built into it, even if mostly predictable sometimes a
spanner gets thrown in the works. Like you have an appointment and hop
into the car to get over there. Somewhere along the line some idiot
runs a red light and has a crash. So traffic jams up and you miss the
deadline. Walk into a bar to sooth your nerves and grumble about it to
the guy next to you. Turns out he's in the same line of business and
offers you an even better deal than the one you missed out on.
-----------------------------------
Why not just use Google? Things don't have to be random and accidental

But they are, and I like it that way.
--------------------------

Don't steal and opportune against the rest of us. That means if you
find it, you share it, and we share with you, everybody is treated
fairly, chance shouldn't play into success. If you want to go and
explore for more oil, you can be a hero to the nation if you hit a
big field, but you won't be richer unless you work lots of hours.
If you don't like that, tough shit, you don't own the world, WE
ALL DO!!

anymore, we can POST what we need, and what we have, and the People's

Like e-bay on steroids?

data gatherers can report and we can decide to pay the labor cost and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
\ some kind of bureaurats?
---------------------

Our employed public servants who obey Our orders.

move it to where it is wanted.

Move what? Can't recall mentioning pianos or anything.
------------------------

Transport. Receiver pays the freight.

THEN you can walk into a bar and JUST
HAVE A DRINK!

How utterly boring.
--------------------------

Okay, drink at home, or learn darts.

But opportuning to get rich out of sight of everyone will get you
prison, and it wouldn't be possible to get away with it anyway,
as there is no money and property is registered.

Whatever. You know, don't you, you don't make this
society out to be more than a stupid crapshoot! We can do LOTS better
quite easily!

Read it again stupid. You *really* have a comprehension skill problem.
The story was just an example that life can be rather random and
chancy even with our best effort to order it. I have got some business
over the net but I really enjoy it when a client references me to some
friend who mentions it to an acquintance(sp) who calls me up wondering
if I'd know how to fix that muddy sounding guitar of his. Or
something, don't take it too literally.
----------------------------------

You'll have even more friends you can work for, with the State keeping
track of what you know and doing your advertising for you.

Hey, I *like* life a bit of a crapshoot.
-------------------

Then get a cheap suit and pretend you're a PI.
Investigate for the State.

By what you just described
we'd all end up regimented and lined up for the enjoyment of some high
muckety-muck.
- YD.
-------------------------------

Nonsense, most of us would arrange to work at home in the garage.
We'd work 25-30 hours a week and have three TIMES the purchasing
power we have now, given we don't have to keep the rich in the
style to which they have become accustomed anymore, and if they
have to do productive work alongside us in order to EAT!

-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]

x@x.x wrote:

YD <yd.techHAT@techie.com> says...

Read it again stupid. You *really* have a comprehension skill problem.
The story was just an example that life can be rather random and
chancy even with our best effort to order it. I have got some business
over the net but I really enjoy it when a client references me to some
friend who mentions it to an acquintance(sp) who calls me up wondering
if I'd know how to fix that muddy sounding guitar of his. Or
something, don't take it too literally.

Hey, I *like* life a bit of a crapshoot. By what you just described
we'd all end up regimented and lined up for the enjoyment of some high
muckety-muck.
There's an argument to be made that nothing is real. And nothing to
get hung about. Strawberry fields forever. But the technology of clay
and water gives rise to the biology of algae and amoebae. Biological
forces refine these beasts until they start to invent new
technologies. Biology and technology ceaselessly give rise to one
another. Real life then is a myth; the blue room and the blue screen
are inextricably ensorceled.

And yet there's that feeling of having one's face pressed against the
gears. Most of us recall a time when we didn't just sit and type, but
played and ran and lay in the long grass like tigers. We miss that,
hunched over these keyboards in our darkened cubicles. Wasn't that the
real stuff? Isn't that why we do this? The weekend barbeque, the
wine-smoked dinner with friends, the occasional pool-party where we
schmooze with future employers and employees ... that's not the same
thing, is it?

Perhaps when we're old and too faded to make the grade any more, when
the ceaseless one-upmanship of marketing and tinkering finally passes
us by, we hope, we'll lay in the long grass again. But like tigers?
Perhaps real life is something only children can truly enjoy.

Then again, who says you have to grow up? If you can drop the facade
of earnest endeavor and throw yourself down a beach, you're a kid
then. Taxes and mortgages have no power over you. Development? What
development?
------------------------------

Nice mind, come again.

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

 

[Captain]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40CA7EBD.719D@armory.com...

Captain wrote:

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

The leaders of the soviet Union were convinvced that their way of
government
was best for "the masses",
-------------
The rich HERE are JUST SOOO SURE that what makes them rich will
magically be the "best thing" for the rest of us, so self-deception
abounds among the greedy. That's nothing surprising, since greed
arises as a deep neurosis of a defective self-esteem.

On what scientific fact do you base this statement, Steve? Not wishing to
seem facetious; I'd really like to know. Is it, perhaps that you are not
rich, have no chance of becoming rich, and therefore have concluded that
there is something wrong with being rich.

Unless you are rich it is very hard to do good in this world. If you have
nothing, you cannot contribute much to the rest of the world. Having been
grindingly poor, broke and desperate, I know the feelings of the financially
un-empowered very well, and I remember that one of the worst aspects of that
stage in my life was the absolute inability to help others who obviously
needed help more than I did.

Compared to most of the inhabitants of the third world, you, Steve, are
fabulously rich. Does that make you greedy? Does that make you neurotic?
Or Don't you think about it much?

It isn't logical, Steve. You're arguing the general from the specific and
your arguement is " because some rich people are greedy, then all rich
people are greedy". And as for "greed arises as a deep neurosis of a
defective self-esteem.", where is the scientific basis of that statement.
Actually, in my case, the greed, that is the desire to have enough material
wealth not to have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, arose
from a determination to rise above the subsistence level and actually
achieve something in this world. If you think that's wrong, Steve, then all
I can say is that I feel sorry for you.

Brunowski said: "Beware of the men who know
they are right."
-----------------
Yes, yes. Like Brunowski.


and that is still very good advice. The Nazis knew they
were right. So did Pol Pot and his Kmer Rouge. So do Al Khaida.
-------------------
This is a defective semantic criticism:
People who are wrong all think they are right,
but then so do people who actually are right.
And most people deny they think they are right merely to be politic.

No, Steve, most people actually realize that they may occasionally be wrong
from time to time. I know I am. Quite frankly, I've made some pretty bad
decisions in my time. Replying to a post from someone who is obviously
convinced that he is right all the time is probably one of them.

One sign of maturity is the ability to realise that you may be wrong. Think
on that, Steve, you may be wrong. All your semantics and arguement may,
actually be wrong. I know it would be painful to accept, but, if you are
honest with yourself, you have to consider the possibility. If you don't,
if you remain permanently convinced that you, and only you, are right, then
you become one of Brunowski's men to beware of.

Once you
know you are right, you can do anything you want to do, no matter how
destructive and reprehensible, because what you are doing is right.
---------------------------
Or not destructive, if you think THAT'S right.
And then you wouldn't criticize it.

You see, what this points up is that all these criticisms are
semantically defective because they are instances of selective
attention.

The problem lies in not recognising that the possibilityof being wrong
exists. That is what was and is wrong with the people in my list, which is,
unfortunately, far from inclusive.

I'm afraid Mr Waltz knows he is right, so everone else must agree or be,
hmm, I wonder what word he'll come up with - "Purged?", "Banned?",
"Terminated with extreme prejudice?".
--------------------------------
You're avoiding my concepts with ad hominem blathering.

Unfortunately, your contentions are inseparable from your personality, due
to the hectoring manner in which they are presented.

And as for laughable employment, I don't need you,

You must be rich, then.

You have no effect.

Then why, Steve, are you replying to my post?

However compelling your concepts might be, your manner of defending them, in
your replies to the posts which have critised them, gives me no
encouragement to commit time and effort to studying them. Your manner is
abusive and immature and quite definitely ad hominem. I see no reason to
expect your efforts in other areas to be more logical.

Anyway, why are you posting your stuff here? Isn't there a forum somewhere
where it would fit in far better?

Cap

 

[Captain]

..

-------------------------------
Nonsense, most of us would arrange to work at home in the garage.
We'd work 25-30 hours a week and have three TIMES the purchasing
power we have now, given we don't have to keep the rich in the
style to which they have become accustomed anymore, and if they
have to do productive work alongside us in order to EAT!

Steve, I know a lot of rich people and most of them work their asses off. I

think you are referring tothe "idle rich" of whom a few still exist. The
hard working rich hold them in deep contempt.

You have absolutely no idea just how hard people who create wealth work.
Personally, except when I'm sleeping, I never stop working. But, then, is
it work if you are enjoying yourself? Come to think of it, replying to your
rather silly posts isn't a very productive use of my time, but, what the
hell, everyone needs a hobby!

Actually, I'd find it rather hard to check out my groceries if the person on
the till was working in his/her garage! Not everyone can telecommute or
work at home as an artizan. Most people actually have to go to their jobs,
be it a supermarket till, a client meeting or a large construction site.
Your premise just isn't realistic.

As far as I can make out, your system of society is just communism in a thin
disguise. Communism is the only socio-economic system which ever managed to
make absolutely everyone poor.

The Western system of multi party democracy and laize faire capitalism isn't
perfect, but its the best thing we've come up with so far, and it's far to
be preferred to some half baked system imposed fromthe top down.

Cap

 

[Captain]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40C9676B.609@armory.com...

YD wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 23:16:50 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:57:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

While the Majority is deprived of its rightful control of its
extended "body", the earth, this is not possible, those who
stole it must be dealt with harshly to instill fear in the
criminal portion of Human Nature, so that it does not show
itself.

You mean, like, throw bombs at capitalists?
---------------------
Majorities don't usually need to throw bombs, they come, take,
punish, and execute. But they might if you resist.

-Steve

Good, now we're going somewhere. Dunno exactly where yet but I see
some progress.

So tell me, who or what is this Majority of yours. Who tells them who
to punish and execute? And if some bomb throwing feels needed, at
whom, and who decides on it?
- YD.
------------------
I've discussed all this here, you're just a wasting time.

-Steve
--
Answer the question, Steve. Or is all your talk just that, empty posturing

based on ignorance. Who decides who throws the bombs and at whom they get
thrown? Is it you? Is it the "Central Committee"?

Are you and your "majority" going to throw bombs at me for the presumption
of disagreeing with you?

Quite frankly, old sport, I don't think you've got either the balls or
training to attempt such an act. And you certainly don't have the
personnel. It's all bluff and bluster really, isn't it.

By the way, if you reply to this post, please dont use the Latin "Ad
hominem". You overuse it. You might think of using "Mea culpa", but I
suppose that's too much to hope for.

Cap.

 

[YD]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 03:37:39 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:59:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

So tell me, who or what is this Majority of yours. Who tells them who
to punish and execute? And if some bomb throwing feels needed, at
whom, and who decides on it?
- YD.
------------------
I've discussed all this here, you're just a wasting time.

Not in enough detail to have anything to go on. You blather on about
your math and logic and, whatzit, consensual syllogisms or somesuch,
but never offer up anything to take to the proof.
--------------------------
You never a<*BLAST*

You never come up with anything to ask about. How logical is that?

I know you've ranted on about your ideas of how to run the world
before, but hey, I'm too busy enjoying life to go over every post in
every thread in my current spool and google spews out a few hundred
thousand posts on the matter.
---------------------------
If you're not really interested, you're only blabbering here to
insult, disrupt and disinform.

Disinform on what? AFAICR I haven't informed on anything, only made
some pointed questions which you refuse to answer. Not very surprising
either, you obviously haven't thought of all the ramifications of your
pipe dream.

As for insulting, it takes two to tangle.

I didn't really THINK.

Good to see you recognize that. Once you do you'll see the whole
construct of yours will fall flat on its arse. Of course, you're
already subconsciously aware of that, which is why you refuse to go
further into it and throw a tantrum whenever asked about it.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:28:12 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:47:45 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:25 GMT, "Rich Grise" <null@example.net
wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40C36FAA.3C93@armory.com...
YD wrote:
Isn't it possible that you are
the deluded one but are so stuck with it you refuse to see it as a
delusion?
----------------------
No. This stuff is like mathematics, the process checks its work
backwards. You just don't even bother with the math and instead
you assert an answer merely because it pleases you. I'm bound by
the rules of logic and mathematics.

This is a self-imposed limitation, and you're deluded if you
believe otherwise.

Life is multi-valued and multi-faceted. What's good for you may
not be all that good for me,
--------------------
Nonsense, if people knew for themsselves what that was, then people
would all make themselves happy and just shut up.

So who's going to tell them what's good for them? Hey, the best for
you would be to throw away that computer and go live in the woods.
-------------------------
That's not what I think, where do you get that? I like computers and
cities. I like urban communalism. The woods are nice to visit, go
hunting for your colective, bring in six or eight bison.

Hey, *I'm* the one telling you what's best for you, and of course I'm
always right, live with it.

Fuck the woods, my thing is loafing on a sunny beach. Preferably
packed with lovely young ladies.

but I don't mind as long as it's not imposed on me.
---------------
Even if you LIKED it?

If I did would I feel it's imposed? You really have a hard time
getting into the spirit of things.
-----------------------
No, I mean you'll like it a lot AFTERWARDS when you figure out
what I'm talking about without the words hindering you.

That makes no sense at all.

Happens a lot with the stuff I promote. I have a lot of
experience talking people into trying groupsex and loving
it when they thought "they could never do that"!


Problem is, this loon wants to impose his views on everybody. As
for his logic and math all I've seen of it this far is a rather
idealized description of tribal life about a million years ago.
-----------------------------
Nope, it bears no relation to ANYTHING I've said hus far, at best
it is a paranoid illiterate's version of what he was AFRAID I'D
SAY after he put his fingers in his ears.

So far you haen't said *anything* of value. At most I fear being
bored to death.
------------------
You didn't actually read it. I can tell, because you're still
acting like a shit.

Huh, read what? Oh, that silly little bit about some tribe ganging up
on a saber toothed tiger or something. So what's the connection?

I'd really hate a life ruled solely by logic and math, central
planning and five-year-plans may have their points but can be taken
too far.
-----------------------------
Naw, you'd love it, planning isn't "central", you go to a meeting
in a parking lot once or twice a month, later on it will be on the
computer/TV and you discuss your needs in groups and vote. You don't
just give some vague handwaving order to your grocer and hope for
the best, you tell them what you want! The math isn't at the level
of anyone's math-phobia.

Sounds even worse than some zentral komittee shuffling red tape
around, I'm sure everyone would hate it. How is that going to solve
anything without getting bogged down in shouting matches and pissing
contests?
------------
Rules of order.
All rants must be submitted in triplicate and burned on your head.

Your scalp must be a scorched mess by now. How about answering the
question?

All it's going to lead to is a lot of undercover lobbying
and horse trading. Somewhere in a corner bar not far away: "Hey, you
vote for my project and I'll help you with that idea of yours."
------------------
Gee, I hope so, because that's Democracy!!
That *IS* how it all WORKS!!

Uh-oh, *please* tell me you didn't write that. What I described above
is the genesis of pressure groups and political parties. How does that
fit in with that brave new world of yours? I don't think you've thunk
this through.

As for groceries, I do my own shopping and get exactly what I want.
Ecxept for totting it up at the register, no math in that.
----------------------------
Same as most mana<*SLAP*

So WTF are you on about math then?

Like some bureaucrat decides there'll be a need for two
thousand sociologists or something in a few years time so turn up the
funding for humanities and sluice the good students that way whether
they want it or not.
----------------------------
There are NO "bureaucrats". You vote, and secretaries are empowered
to go get what you told them to, order what you said, and do what
the vote was, or they get their ass roasted two weeks later. As for
sociologists, we train people in a few subjects they like and employ
them according to the current need as expressed by your votes.
It's more like a prolonged scavenger hunt meeting.

Ho-hum. Tell us a bit more of the mechanics of that. Sounds like a
right pretty bureaucracy to me.
--------------------------------
Except they do what the voters say, not the reverse.

What if they gang up vote to do what they damn well please? A right
mess that would be. No, it wouldn't, it's just what's happening today.

The end result will of course be at best half
competent professionals.
------------------------------
So are you under some delusion that we get what we actually need NOW,
leaving it to a few ignorant rich people and counting on them and their
greed, and they don't care about US at ALL, to magically come up with
a knowledge of what every speciality does, AND what WE say needs to be
done for us??????? Nonsense!! ANY Majority Democracy has GOT to be
better than a bunch of accidentally in-charge rich assholes with no
interest in YOUR NEEDS!!

Hey, if wanted to be rich I'd have studied to become a lawyer. I'm
poorer but a lot more content doing something I actually enjoy, like
electronics.
----------------------
Me too.


Not that I actually disagree with the bit about rich
assholes, but that's life.
---------------------------------
Then you should know better.

For the most part I ignore them, I don't mix with assholes.

Real life in a real society with real people interacting has a bit of
chaos theory built into it, even if mostly predictable sometimes a
spanner gets thrown in the works. Like you have an appointment and hop
into the car to get over there. Somewhere along the line some idiot
runs a red light and has a crash. So traffic jams up and you miss the
deadline. Walk into a bar to sooth your nerves and grumble about it to
the guy next to you. Turns out he's in the same line of business and
offers you an even better deal than the one you missed out on.
-----------------------------------
Why not just use Google? Things don't have to be random and accidental

But they are, and I like it that way.
--------------------------
Don't steal and opportune against the rest of us. That means if you
find it, you share it, and we share with you, everybody is treated
fairly, chance shouldn't play into success. If you want to go and
explore for more oil, you can be a hero to the nation if you hit a
big field, but you won't be richer unless you work lots of hours.
If you don't like that, tough shit, you don't own the world, WE
ALL DO!!

WTF? What the HELL are you on about now? That makes no sense at all.

anymore, we can POST what we need, and what we have, and the People's

Like e-bay on steroids?

data gatherers can report and we can decide to pay the labor cost and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
\ some kind of bureaurats?
---------------------
Our employed public servants who obey Our orders.

Or whoever's who'll suck their dick(s). BTW, I thought employment was
a no-no in Walzania.

move it to where it is wanted.

Move what? Can't recall mentioning pianos or anything.
------------------------
Transport. Receiver pays the freight.

Can't recall having ordered a piano or anything lately.

THEN you can walk into a bar and JUST
HAVE A DRINK!

How utterly boring.
--------------------------
Okay, drink at home, or learn darts.

But opportuning to get rich out of sight of everyone will get you
prison, and it wouldn't be possible to get away with it anyway,
as there is no money and property is registered.

Just like in Pol Pot's Cambodja?

Whatever. You know, don't you, you don't make this
society out to be more than a stupid crapshoot! We can do LOTS better
quite easily!

Read it again stupid. You *really* have a comprehension skill problem.
The story was just an example that life can be rather random and
chancy even with our best effort to order it. I have got some business
over the net but I really enjoy it when a client references me to some
friend who mentions it to an acquintance(sp) who calls me up wondering
if I'd know how to fix that muddy sounding guitar of his. Or
something, don't take it too literally.
----------------------------------
You'll have even more friends you can work for, with the State keeping
track of what you know and doing your advertising for you.

A zentral-kommittee telling me what I can do and for whom? Will the
State tell me who I can marry too? Or even who I may have some casual
sex with?

Hey, I *like* life a bit of a crapshoot.
-------------------
Then get a cheap suit and pretend you're a PI.
Investigate for the State.

You *really* have a hard time getting it, peanut.

By what you just described
we'd all end up regimented and lined up for the enjoyment of some high
muckety-muck.
- YD.
-------------------------------
Nonsense, most of us would arrange to work at home in the garage.
We'd work 25-30 hours a week and have three TIMES the purchasing
power we have now, given we don't have to keep the rich in the
style to which they have become accustomed anymore, and if they
have to do productive work alongside us in order to EAT!

By the above more likely to spend the whole week in a community
meeting haggling over where to place a lamp post or something equally
silly.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Captain wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40CA7EBD.719D@armory.com...
Captain wrote:

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

The leaders of the soviet Union were convinvced that their way of
government
was best for "the masses",
-------------
The rich HERE are JUST SOOO SURE that what makes them rich will
magically be the "best thing" for the rest of us, so self-deception
abounds among the greedy. That's nothing surprising, since greed
arises as a deep neurosis of a defective self-esteem.

On what scientific fact do you base this statement, Steve?
-------------------

It doesn't require "science".
Psychology doesn't HAVE to be "science".
Everyone from Isaiah to Jesus to modern psychology knows this truth.

Not wishing to
seem facetious; I'd really like to know. Is it, perhaps that you are not
rich, have no chance of becoming rich, and therefore have concluded that
there is something wrong with being rich.
---------------------

Now you're merely being disingenuous and prating ad hominem because
there is nothing else you can say.

Unless you are rich it is very hard to do good in this world.
--------------------

And if you remain rich it merely proves you haven't.

If you have
nothing, you cannot contribute much to the rest of the world.
-------------------

That's merely your failed circularity again. I just trashed it. Above.

Having been
grindingly poor, broke and desperate, I know the feelings of the financially
un-empowered very well, and I remember that one of the worst aspects of that
stage in my life was the absolute inability to help others who obviously
needed help more than I did.
-------------------------------

Your particulars are unimportant to the issue.

Compared to most of the inhabitants of the third world, you, Steve, are
fabulously rich. Does that make you greedy? Does that make you neurotic?
Or Don't you think about it much?
----------------------------------

My particulars are ALSO unimportant to the issue and constitute
your digression toward an ad hominem attack.

It isn't logical, Steve. You're arguing the general from the specific and
your arguement is " because some rich people are greedy, then all rich
people are greedy".
------------------

No.
Wealth necessarily arises from greed, because one who is not greedy
either fails to acquire wealth or divests themselves of it.

And as for "greed arises as a deep neurosis of a
defective self-esteem.", where is the scientific basis of that statement.
----------------

Now you're starting to repeat yourself.
The sure sign of mental poverty.

Actually, in my case, the greed, that is the desire to have enough material
wealth not to have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, arose
from a determination to rise above the subsistence level and actually
achieve something in this world. If you think that's wrong, Steve, then all
I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
----------------------------

That doesn't require "wealth". You seem to be under the erroneous belief
that what you have consitutes "wealth". Maybe you just have a guilt
complex combined with ignorance about what true wealth really IS!!

Brunowski said: "Beware of the men who know
they are right."
-----------------
Yes, yes. Like Brunowski.


and that is still very good advice. The Nazis knew they
were right. So did Pol Pot and his Kmer Rouge. So do Al Khaida.
-------------------
This is a defective semantic criticism:
People who are wrong all think they are right,
but then so do people who actually are right.
And most people deny they think they are right merely to be politic.

No, Steve, most people actually realize that they may occasionally be wrong
from time to time.
--------------

Irrelevant. Deal with issues, not people.

I know I am. Quite frankly, I've made some pretty bad
decisions in my time. Replying to a post from someone who is obviously
convinced that he is right all the time is probably one of them.
-----------------------

You're being silly.

One sign of maturity is the ability to realise that you may be wrong. Think
on that, Steve, you may be wrong. All your semantics and arguement may,
actually be wrong. I know it would be painful to accept, but, if you are
honest with yourself, you have to consider the possibility. If you don't,
if you remain permanently convinced that you, and only you, are right, then
you become one of Brunowski's men to beware of.
----------------------------------

Like Brunowski. Deal with issues, not people.

Once you
know you are right, you can do anything you want to do, no matter how
destructive and reprehensible, because what you are doing is right.
---------------------------
Or not destructive, if you think THAT'S right.
And then you wouldn't criticize it.

You see, what this points up is that all these criticisms are
semantically defective because they are instances of selective
attention.

The problem lies in not recognising that the possibilityof being wrong
exists. That is what was and is wrong with the people in my list, which is,
unfortunately, far from inclusive.
--------------

Deal with issues, not people, everyone with an opinion thinks they're
right, it's no indictment of anyone, nor is it worthwhile, except
as a disingenuous ad hominem. IT IS AN AVOIDANCE OF THE REAL ISSUES!!

I'm afraid Mr Waltz knows he is right, so everone else must agree or be,
hmm, I wonder what word he'll come up with - "Purged?", "Banned?",
"Terminated with extreme prejudice?".
--------------------------------
You're avoiding my concepts with ad hominem blathering.

Unfortunately, your contentions are inseparable from your personality, due
to the hectoring manner in which they are presented.
-----------------------

Irrelevant, you don't like me telling you you're wrong.

Don't just tell ME 'm wrong FOR TELLING YOU YOU'RE WRONG!
It's LAME!!

And as for laughable employment, I don't need you,

You must be rich, then.
--------------------------

No, just well-employed, as all honest people are.

You have no effect.

Then why, Steve, are you replying to my post?
--------------------------

Because of your deletions...
[Certainly NOT to obtain employment.
Which is why your blather about declining to hire me has NO EFFECT!]

However compelling your concepts might be, your manner of defending them, in
your replies to the posts which have critised them, gives me no
encouragement to commit time and effort to studying them.
----------------

You can't avoid it, I've said my piece and had affect.

Your manner is
abusive and immature and quite definitely ad hominem.
------------------

You just don't like being told you're wrong.

I see no reason to
expect your efforts in other areas to be more logical.
------------------------

You merely choose to depict my efforts as "illogical" because you
don't like being told you're wrong. You have done nothing but decline
to deal with the issues, you have stick to personaltiies, like any
ridiculous dunce might do.

Anyway, why are you posting your stuff here? Isn't there a forum somewhere
where it would fit in far better?
Cap
----------------------------

If someone brings it up here, I shove it back down their throat here.
You just got in the line of fire.

-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]

Captain wrote:

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

So tell me, who or what is this Majority of yours. Who tells them who
to punish and execute? And if some bomb throwing feels needed, at
whom, and who decides on it?
- YD.
------------------
I've discussed all this here, you're just a wasting time.

-Steve
--
Answer the question, Steve. Or is all your talk just that, empty posturing
based on ignorance. Who decides who throws the bombs and at whom they get
thrown? Is it you? Is it the "Central Committee"?
----------------------

You're merely blathering.
Mocking isn't useful,
it can be done as a response to anything,
as it has no real content.

Are you and your "majority" going to throw bombs at me for the presumption
of disagreeing with you?
------------------------

Afraid? Good.

Quite frankly, old sport, I don't think you've got either the balls or
training to attempt such an act.
---------------

Good for us.

And you certainly don't have the personnel.
---------------

Good for us.

It's all bluff and bluster really, isn't it.
-----------------------------

Irrelevant.
You're under some delusion that my political opinions constitute
some direct threat to you. You're a fucking paranoid raver.

-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]

Captain wrote:

Nonsense, most of us would arrange to work at home in the garage.
We'd work 25-30 hours a week and have three TIMES the purchasing
power we have now, given we don't have to keep the rich in the
style to which they have become accustomed anymore, and if they
have to do productive work alongside us in order to EAT!

Steve, I know a lot of rich people and most of them work their asses off. I
think you are referring tothe "idle rich" of whom a few still exist. The
hard working rich hold them in deep contempt.
-------------------------

Sure, but anyone who either DOES NOT WORK for a living, or is OVERPAID
PER HOUR is subject to the charge of thievery.

However, working lots of hours entitles you to more buying power.

You have absolutely no idea just how hard people who create wealth work.
Personally, except when I'm sleeping, I never stop working. But, then, is
it work if you are enjoying yourself? Come to think of it, replying to your
rather silly posts isn't a very productive use of my time, but, what the
hell, everyone needs a hobby!
-----------------------------------

And it is mine as well, I also work many hours.

Actually, I'd find it rather hard to check out my groceries if the person on
the till was working in his/her garage!
--------------------

Not in my society. It's not necessary to have grocery stores. You
submit orders online and are debited and it is delivered or you
pick it up.

But then not every job would one even WANT to do in their garage or
home, nor would it be suitable. I mentioned it because of the nature
of this newsgroup.

Not everyone can telecommute or
work at home as an artizan. Most people actually have to go to their jobs,
be it a supermarket till, a client meeting or a large construction site.
Your premise just isn't realistic.
-------------------

Some do. But as I said, see above.

As far as I can make out, your system of society is just communism in a thin
disguise.
--------------------

Hahahah! I didn't mean to disguise it AT ALL, I AM a Communist, I
thought you knew that, I was remiss! I say it SO MUCH that I assumed
everyone KNEW that!

Communism is the only socio-economic system which ever managed to
make absolutely everyone poor.
---------------------

Neither Russia nor China were/are communist, they were techno-klepto
oligarchic feudalisms. Any 1st year poli/sci major can tell you that!!

And they didn't make "everyone" poor, only those not in the privileged
Politburo families that comprised the Russian Mafia and now the Russian
government with Vlad Putin at its head, when HE ran the Russian Mafia!
The Politburo families got VERY VERY wealthy selling the Russian
people's products to the rest of the world, partying vastly, and
leaving them impoverished! Why did you THINK they called it The Party!

The Western system of multi party democracy and laize faire capitalism isn't
perfect, but its the best thing we've come up with so far, and it's far to
be preferred to some half baked system imposed fromthe top down.
Cap
------------------

That's garbage too, Communism is a ground up system. It's Capitalism
that is "top down" from the rich to their victims.

You'll just believe any old thing they tell you, wontcha little
feller?

-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]

YD wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 05:28:12 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 08:47:45 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 01:43:25 GMT, "Rich Grise" <null@example.net
wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40C36FAA.3C93@armory.com...
YD wrote:
Isn't it possible that you are
the deluded one but are so stuck with it you refuse to see it as a
delusion?
----------------------
No. This stuff is like mathematics, the process checks its work
backwards. You just don't even bother with the math and instead
you assert an answer merely because it pleases you. I'm bound by
the rules of logic and mathematics.

This is a self-imposed limitation, and you're deluded if you
believe otherwise.

Life is multi-valued and multi-faceted. What's good for you may
not be all that good for me,
--------------------
Nonsense, if people knew for themsselves what that was, then people
would all make themselves happy and just shut up.

So who's going to tell them what's good for them? Hey, the best for
you would be to throw away that computer and go live in the woods.
-------------------------
That's not what I think, where do you get that? I like computers and
cities. I like urban communalism. The woods are nice to visit, go
hunting for your colective, bring in six or eight bison.

Hey, *I'm* the one telling you what's best for you, and of course I'm
always right, live with it.
---------------------------

You'll get what we want everyone to have.

Fuck the woods, my thing is loafing on a sunny beach. Preferably
packed with lovely young ladies.
--------------------------

If everyone who works enough hours can't have something, then you
can't have it EITHER!! We don't need to coddle up a rich class of
people to admire or gossip about.

but I don't mind as long as it's not imposed on me.
---------------
Even if you LIKED it?

If I did would I feel it's imposed? You really have a hard time
getting into the spirit of things.
-----------------------
No, I mean you'll like it a lot AFTERWARDS when you figure out
what I'm talking about without the words hindering you.

That makes no sense at all.
-------------

Not now, not if you don;t want it to.

Happens a lot with the stuff I promote. I have a lot of
experience talking people into trying groupsex and loving
it when they thought "they could never do that"!

Problem is, this loon wants to impose his views on everybody. As
for his logic and math all I've seen of it this far is a rather
idealized description of tribal life about a million years ago.
-----------------------------
Nope, it bears no relation to ANYTHING I've said hus far, at best
it is a paranoid illiterate's version of what he was AFRAID I'D
SAY after he put his fingers in his ears.

So far you haen't said *anything* of value. At most I fear being
bored to death.
------------------
You didn't actually read it. I can tell, because you're still
acting like a shit.

Huh, read what? Oh, that silly little bit about some tribe ganging up
on a saber toothed tiger or something. So what's the connection?
---------------------------

You didn't read for comprehension.
Don't bother responding till you do.

I'd really hate a life ruled solely by logic and math, central
planning and five-year-plans may have their points but can be taken
too far.
-----------------------------
Naw, you'd love it, planning isn't "central", you go to a meeting
in a parking lot once or twice a month, later on it will be on the
computer/TV and you discuss your needs in groups and vote. You don't
just give some vague handwaving order to your grocer and hope for
the best, you tell them what you want! The math isn't at the level
of anyone's math-phobia.

Sounds even worse than some zentral komittee shuffling red tape
around, I'm sure everyone would hate it. How is that going to solve
anything without getting bogged down in shouting matches and pissing
contests?
------------
Rules of order.
All rants must be submitted in triplicate and burned on your head.

All it's going to lead to is a lot of undercover lobbying
and horse trading. Somewhere in a corner bar not far away: "Hey, you
vote for my project and I'll help you with that idea of yours."
------------------
Gee, I hope so, because that's Democracy!!
That *IS* how it all WORKS!!

Uh-oh, *please* tell me you didn't write that. What I described above
is the genesis of pressure groups and political parties. How does that
fit in with that brave new world of yours? I don't think you've thunk
this through.
---------------------------------

Sure I did, this isn't horsetrading between privileged power-brokers
in some "smoke-filled room", this is citizens saying to each other:
"You can have this if I can have that". That's legit, as long as it
is between political and economic equals.

As for groceries, I do my own shopping and get exactly what I want.
Ecxept for totting it up at the register, no math in that.
----------------------------
Same as most mana<*SLAP*
-------------

That stupid shit constitutes a mis/dis-quote of me, and as such
truncates this conversation due to your dishonesty. I'm tired of
restoring your dishonest misquotes.

Cease that shit or I'll start altering everything you say, and
I'll follow your fucking ass all over the net to do it.

The last time someone tried that cowardly shit with me they
regretted it.

The last time someone tried it in person they lost three teeth.

-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

 

[Captain]

On what scientific fact do you base this statement, Steve?
-------------------
It doesn't require "science".
Psychology doesn't HAVE to be "science".
Everyone from Isaiah to Jesus to modern psychology knows this truth.

Do you not, however, claim that all your contentions are based on science?
On logic? Except, apparantly, where a lack of science is replaced by
"Everyone knows." Merriam-Webster defines psychology as: "The science of
mind and behavior." Interestingly enough, the definition: "Stuff everyone
knows" doesn't appear anywhere. Since you replace a scientific definition
with "Everyone knows" the conclusion that there is no science in your
original statement is obvious.

Not wishing to
seem facetious; I'd really like to know. Is it, perhaps that you are
not
rich, have no chance of becoming rich, and therefore have concluded that
there is something wrong with being rich.
---------------------
Now you're merely being disingenuous and prating ad hominem because
there is nothing else you can say.

Actually, I'd really like a reply to the question What's your problem with
the desire desire to better oneself? With ambition?

Perhaps you could stop using the expression "ad hominem" quite so much.
You're in danger of becoming known as R Steve Ad Hominem Walz.

Unless you are rich it is very hard to do good in this world.
--------------------
And if you remain rich it merely proves you haven't.

Not at all. If you remain rich it merely indicates that you are managing
your money and resources wisely so that you will continue to have an excess
that can be disbursed in order to improve the lives of others.

Poor people don't give to charity.

If you have
nothing, you cannot contribute much to the rest of the world.
-------------------
That's merely your failed circularity again. I just trashed it. Above.

I didn't notice you trashing it. I did read an inaccurate statement which
proves beyond a doubt that you have never really considered the true uses of
wealth.

Ambition, hard work, intelligence and creativity create wealth. Investment
creates more wealth. And once achieved, wealth is to be used, not horded.
I have investors. Some of them are wealthy people, some are pretty ordinary
folk with a bit of spare change. They invested in me, my ideas, my
capabilities and I returned their trust by building up a company which in
turn creates more wealth. I have invested in other start up companies, and
their value has also, in the main, increased. This creates jobs, it creates
incomes, it creates security. I give to selected charities, I help, where I
can, those less fortunate than me.

I use my wealth to help others. Either through job creation or directly and
inthe meantime we produce useful products which improve peoples' lives.

Now, what exactly do you want to replace that with? And please do not
repetitiously prate on about "read my stuff". I've visited your web site
and all I see are a bunch of statistics which prove nothing. Where are your
words of wisdom, your great book of logical governance?

Is there anything there at all?

Having been
grindingly poor, broke and desperate, I know the feelings of the
financially
un-empowered very well, and I remember that one of the worst aspects of
that
stage in my life was the absolute inability to help others who obviously
needed help more than I did.
-------------------------------
Your particulars are unimportant to the issue.

My particualars show that I know what I'm talking about. I've been there,
down in the dirt. I've got myself up and built a decent life. I haven't sat
in some ivory tower and decided what's best for everyone.

Steve, you have no idea about the conditions of either wealth or poverty and
you obviously don't care about individuals. Perhaps they get in the way of
your theory

Compared to most of the inhabitants of the third world, you, Steve, are
fabulously rich. Does that make you greedy? Does that make you
neurotic?
Or Don't you think about it much?
----------------------------------
My particulars are ALSO unimportant to the issue and constitute
your digression toward an ad hominem attack.

There we go again. "Ad hominem". Still that aside, you haven't answered the
question nor shown that the initial statement is untrue. You are very
wealthy, because you live in America and have your own business.

It isn't logical, Steve. You're arguing the general from the specific
and
your arguement is " because some rich people are greedy, then all rich
people are greedy".
------------------
No.
Wealth necessarily arises from greed, because one who is not greedy
either fails to acquire wealth or divests themselves of it.

So why aren't you living in a mud hut in Uganda?

Why do you hang on to whatever it is that you've achieved in your life if
you aren't "greedy".

Or is Wealthy defined in your book as "Anybody better off than me"?

And as for "greed arises as a deep neurosis of a
defective self-esteem.", where is the scientific basis of that
statement.
----------------
Now you're starting to repeat yourself.
The sure sign of mental poverty.

If you repeat your baseless statements, I will continue to question them.

Isn't that getting a little "ad hominem" there, Steve.

Actually, in my case, the greed, that is the desire to have enough
material
wealth not to have to worry about where the next meal is coming from,
arose
from a determination to rise above the subsistence level and actually
achieve something in this world. If you think that's wrong, Steve, then
all
I can say is that I feel sorry for you.
----------------------------
That doesn't require "wealth". You seem to be under the erroneous belief
that what you have consitutes "wealth". Maybe you just have a guilt
complex combined with ignorance about what true wealth really IS!!

So, OK, Steve, define true wealth. what sare the boundary conditions which

define true wealth.

Brunowski said: "Beware of the men who know
they are right."
-----------------
Yes, yes. Like Brunowski.

Steve, Hve you any idea who Brunovski was?

and that is still very good advice. The Nazis knew they
were right. So did Pol Pot and his Kmer Rouge. So do Al Khaida.
-------------------
This is a defective semantic criticism:
People who are wrong all think they are right,
but then so do people who actually are right.
And most people deny they think they are right merely to be politic.

No, Steve, most people actually realize that they may occasionally be
wrong
from time to time.
--------------
Irrelevant. Deal with issues, not people

Strangely enough, I was under the impression that in any socio-economic
model, people are the issue. This is the most blatent digression we've had
from you yet. The fact remains that you may be wrong. You aren't accepting
that, and therefore aren't really connecting with the real world. Most
people know they are wrong occasionally, You, however, appear incapable of
accepting the possibility of error.

Except, in your case, accepting that you are in error would be to undermine
your whole raison d'etre.

I know I am. Quite frankly, I've made some pretty bad
decisions in my time. Replying to a post from someone who is obviously
convinced that he is right all the time is probably one of them.
-----------------------
You're being silly.

Hardly worth an answer!

One sign of maturity is the ability to realise that you may be wrong.
Think
on that, Steve, you may be wrong. All your semantics and arguement may,
actually be wrong. I know it would be painful to accept, but, if you
are
honest with yourself, you have to consider the possibility. If you
don't,
if you remain permanently convinced that you, and only you, are right,
then
you become one of Brunowski's men to beware of.
----------------------------------
Like Brunowski. Deal with issues, not people.

People ARE the issue.

I was going to reply to your other "points", but on looking over them, I see
that they are more of the same abusive and, frankly, quite stupid insistence
that you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Personally, I think you are a frustrated would be dictator. Fortunately,
you have no chance of ever imposing your poorly thought out and dangerous
"system" on the rest of us. All you are is a minor annoyance.

If this is "ad hominem" it's because you invite such comments. Also I
notice that you have no hesitiation in attacking the person rather than the
facts and arguement when you are caught in a corner.

Mr. Walz, you have nothing to offer, so please, do us all a favour and stop
posting your drivel on a technical forum.

I shan't be replying to any more of your posts. You have no arguements and,
frankly, I'm far too busy to waste my time on someone like you.

And don't you think you are very silly to threaten to throw bombs at people
and than show those same people your address on your web site?

Cap

 

[Captain]

Top posting on this one, because the Walz content isn't worth reading.

I see from your web site that the R in your name stands for Richard. Since
I feel I know you very well by now, you won't mind if I address you as Dick,
will you.

Dick, You haven't answered the questions, you haven't addressed any of the
issues raised, all you have done is become abusive. In your own favourite
words "ad hominem".

Since you refuse to defend your ideas apart from becoming foul mouthed, it
is not possible to come to any conclusion except that you have no defense.

Dick, you're a loud mouthed fool. Your ideas are poorly reworked communism,
your arguements are personnal abuse and you persistently refuse to answer
any questions about your supposed system which you want to impose on the
rest of us.

Now if you have any system to describe, either describe it here where
everone can read it, or stop telling us to read stuff that doesn't exist,
exept in your own feverish imaginings.

If your stuff is anywhere to be read, then let us know where it is.
Otherwise, Dick, just shut up will you, you tiresome little man.

Cap

PS - we know where you live!


"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40CBD9D8.74F5@armory.com...

Captain wrote:

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

So tell me, who or what is this Majority of yours. Who tells them
who
to punish and execute? And if some bomb throwing feels needed, at
whom, and who decides on it?
- YD.
------------------
I've discussed all this here, you're just a wasting time.

-Steve
--
Answer the question, Steve. Or is all your talk just that, empty
posturing
based on ignorance. Who decides who throws the bombs and at whom they
get
thrown? Is it you? Is it the "Central Committee"?
----------------------
You're merely blathering.
Mocking isn't useful,
it can be done as a response to anything,
as it has no real content.


Are you and your "majority" going to throw bombs at me for the
presumption
of disagreeing with you?
------------------------
Afraid? Good.


Quite frankly, old sport, I don't think you've got either the balls or
training to attempt such an act.
---------------
Good for us.


And you certainly don't have the personnel.
---------------
Good for us.


It's all bluff and bluster really, isn't it.
-----------------------------
Irrelevant.
You're under some delusion that my political opinions constitute
some direct threat to you. You're a fucking paranoid raver.

-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

 

[Captain]

Ecxept for totting it up at the register, no math in that.
----------------------------
Same as most mana<*SLAP*
-------------
That stupid shit constitutes a mis/dis-quote of me, and as such
truncates this conversation due to your dishonesty. I'm tired of
restoring your dishonest misquotes.

Cease that shit or I'll start altering everything you say, and
I'll follow your fucking ass all over the net to do it.

The last time someone tried that cowardly shit with me they
regretted it.

The last time someone tried it in person they lost three teeth.

-Steve
--

The final recourse of the mentally and morally incompetent; offer violence.
Also, this shows considerable mental instability.

Considering how often you mis-quote others, Dick, your sensetivity in this
area is just another example of your lack of ability to accept what you so
readily dish out. You use the term "ad hominem" ad nauseum, yet resort to
just such language yourself whenever anyone points out just how ridiculous
your ideas really are.

By the way, Dick, was the person who "lost three teeth" a fit adult male?

You are truly pathetic and despicable. You don't deserve the right to
converse with intellligent people since you have proved yourself incapable
of civilised discourse.

Cap

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40CBD81C.15B8@armory.com...

Now you're merely being disingenuous and prating ad hominem because
there is nothing else you can say.

google_groups(rstevew@armory.com & "disingenuous") = 740 hits

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Captain wrote:

On what scientific fact do you base this statement, Steve?
-------------------
It doesn't require "science".
Psychology doesn't HAVE to be "science".
Everyone from Isaiah to Jesus to modern psychology knows this truth.

Do you not, however, claim that all your contentions are based on science?
On logic?
---------------

That would be silly if I was maintaining something about just any old
species on any other planet. So no, reason and logic must be ABOUT
something, it is about our Nature. Our Nature can be argued for from
logical principles, but it is itself independent of them.

Except, apparantly, where a lack of science is replaced by
"Everyone knows." Merriam-Webster defines psychology as: "The science of
mind and behavior." Interestingly enough, the definition: "Stuff everyone
knows" doesn't appear anywhere.
------------------

It doesn't have to, we all know it, however people with distorted
agendas like you can try to lie about it.

Since you replace a scientific definition
with "Everyone knows" the conclusion that there is no science in your
original statement is obvious.
--------------------

There is no "science" in our Nature, except for our Nature, of course.

Now you're merely being disingenuous and prating ad hominem because
there is nothing else you can say.

Actually, I'd really like a reply to the question What's your problem with
the desire desire to better oneself? With ambition?
------------------

Nothing, as long as you don't commit theft to do it. Learning a
skill, or enhancing your life via enhancing your abilities is perfectly
acceptable.

Perhaps you could stop using the expression "ad hominem" quite so much.
You're in danger of becoming known as R Steve Ad Hominem Walz.
--------------

Argue the issues logically, and not dishonestly "at the man" (ad
hominem) and you won't need to hear it.

Unless you are rich it is very hard to do good in this world.
--------------------
And if you remain rich it merely proves you haven't.

Not at all. If you remain rich it merely indicates that you are managing
your money and resources wisely so that you will continue to have an excess
that can be disbursed in order to improve the lives of others.
------------------------------------

If you earn all your money via productive labor at the same wage as
everyone else, just by working more hours, then I care not, but you
can't GET very "rich" that way. You will just be fairly well-off.

If you profit wildly from something, it's because you're a thief
and are stealing.

Poor people don't give to charity.
--------------------

Equal people don't NEED charity.

If you have
nothing, you cannot contribute much to the rest of the world.
-------------------
That's merely your failed circularity again. I just trashed it. Above.

I didn't notice you trashing it.
-----------------

Sure you did, that's why you deleted it. Grow up.

I did read an inaccurate statement which
proves beyond a doubt that you have never really considered the true uses of
wealth.
-----------------

The uses of wealth are to enalave others to your will.
There are no others.

Ambition, hard work, intelligence and creativity create wealth.
---------------------

No, only theft creates wealth.

Investment creates more wealth.
----------------

Investment is theft, because you make money without labor.
That steals the labor of others for none of your own.

And once achieved, wealth is to be used, not horded.
----------------

All speculation is merely more theft.

I have investors. Some of them are wealthy people, some are pretty ordinary
folk with a bit of spare change. They invested in me, my ideas, my
capabilities and I returned their trust by building up a company which in
turn creates more wealth. I have invested in other start up companies, and
their value has also, in the main, increased. This creates jobs, it creates
incomes, it creates security. I give to selected charities, I help, where I
can, those less fortunate than me.
-------------------------------------

Jobs are created by human need. Not by wealthy people. They merely
pretend to do so by stealing money from the rest of us so that we
can't make OUR needs known and thus create jobs as a consequence.
Charities exist because the rich steal from the rest of us and
from the State so that it can meet its public obligations. And why?
To take eight vacations a year on average.

I use my wealth to help others. Either through job creation or directly and
inthe meantime we produce useful products which improve peoples' lives.
-------------

Pretend.

Now, what exactly do you want to replace that with?
--------------

The People democratically vote to offer wage for jobs they want done,
and thus create jobs, people take those jobs and produce the goods,
and they then get to purchase goods by ordering them from the State
stores. The goods are delivered and registered to the owner so that
they are even protected from theft, as their name is on it
permanently with severest penalties for illegal possession. Their
purchasing power is "taxes" by being reduced to allow the People
collectively as their State to support the aged, infirm, and retired,
and to guarantee everyone free total medical care, roads, protection,
power, gas, transportation with a massive bus system, and trucks for
moving large items, and home telecom and TV and wireless service.
If you want more you order goods you want and sign up for the extra
labor hours that those orders will authorize. People are ceded control
of their residence for life, and power to trade for any other straight
across, and to seek to trade for a plot of land to rebuild on over
time to provide ourselves with the home compounds we all want to have
and which we will undoubtedly vote to offer each and all of us.

And please do not
repetitiously prate on about "read my stuff". I've visited your web site
and all I see are a bunch of statistics which prove nothing. Where are your
words of wisdom, your great book of logical governance?
---------------------------

Google.

Is there anything there at all?
-----------------------

Not on my website. That's in the future. Google my newsgroup posts.

Having been
grindingly poor, broke and desperate, I know the feelings of the

Your particulars are unimportant to the issue.

My particualars show that I know what I'm talking about. I've been there,
down in the dirt. I've got myself up and built a decent life. I haven't sat
in some ivory tower and decided what's best for everyone.
----------------

Neither have I.

Steve, you have no idea about the conditions of either wealth or poverty and
you obviously don't care about individuals. Perhaps they get in the way of
your theory
--------------------

Ad hominem. Irrelevant.

My particulars are ALSO unimportant to the issue and constitute
your digression toward an ad hominem attack.

There we go again. "Ad hominem".
------------

If you don't want to hear it,
stick to the issues,
and ignore personalities.

Still that aside, you haven't answered the
question nor shown that the initial statement is untrue. You are very
wealthy, because you live in America and have your own business.
-----------------------

Nonsense.

It isn't logical, Steve. You're arguing the general from the specific
and
your arguement is " because some rich people are greedy, then all rich
people are greedy".
------------------
No.
Wealth necessarily arises from greed, because one who is not greedy
either fails to acquire wealth or divests themselves of it.

So why aren't you living in a mud hut in Uganda?
-----------------

Ad hominem. Illogical, not pertinent to the issues.

Why do you hang on to whatever it is that you've achieved in your life if
you aren't "greedy".
-------------------------

I don't steal by usury or speculation or hereditary claim.

Or is Wealthy defined in your book as "Anybody better off than me"?

----------------------

Ad hominem, disingenuous.

And as for "greed arises as a deep neurosis of a
defective self-esteem.", where is the scientific basis of that
statement.
----------------
Now you're starting to repeat yourself.
The sure sign of mental poverty.

If you repeat your baseless statements, I will continue to question them.
Isn't that getting a little "ad hominem" there, Steve.
---------------------------

Ad hominem, not pertinent to the issue.

So, OK, Steve, define true wealth. what sare the boundary conditions which
define true wealth.
----------------------

Theft by device, rather than equal trade of fair labor.
Usury, interest, speculation, investment, theft by instrument.

Brunowski said: "Beware of the men who know
they are right."
-----------------
Yes, yes. Like Brunowski.

Steve, Hve you any idea who Brunovski was?
--------------------------------

Sure. Jacob. "Ascent of Man", founded Anthropology.
He didn't know everything and you misapply him.

Irrelevant. Deal with issues, not people

Strangely enough, I was under the impression that in any socio-economic
model, people are the issue.
--------------

But NOT you and me.
That's a DODGE!

people know they are wrong occasionally, You, however, appear incapable of
accepting the possibility of error.
-------------------

Irrelevant to the issues, ad hominem, not pertinent.

Except, in your case, accepting that you are in error would be to undermine
your whole raison d'etre.
--------------------

You have NO grasp of MY raison d'etre!

You're being silly.

Hardly worth an answer!
--------------------

You spew more ad hominem. Irrelevant.

Like Brunowski. Deal with issues, not people.

People ARE the issue.
-----------------------

But NOT you and me.
That's a DODGE of the issue.

that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
---------------------

When all you offer is ad hominem and pretend there is nothing else
to say, you're the one pretending, and wrong.

Personally, I think you are a frustrated would be dictator.
--------------

All of your future ad hominems will now hencforth be deleted.
Let us see if there is anything left of you after they are subtracted.

[much more deleted]

Cap
-----------

No, I see there are not.

You have NO real content then and nothing logical or reasonable to
offer a discussion of the real issues.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Captain wrote:

Top posting on this one, because the Walz content isn't worth reading.
-------------

Or else you're illiterate.

I feel I know you very well by now, you won't mind if I address you as Dick,
will you.
---------------

My name is Steve to you.

issues raised, all you have done is become abusive. In your own favourite
words "ad hominem".
--------------------

Ad hominem is YOUR abuse, not mine.
You have offered no logical or reasoned questions or assertions
regarding the issues.

Since you refuse to defend your ideas apart from becoming foul mouthed, it
is not possible to come to any conclusion except that you have no defense.
--------------------

Since all you do is engage in ad hominem, you will get cursed.
Live with it or grow a mind and deal with the issues, not personalities.

I'll delete all future ad hominem of yours and we'll see if anything
at all remains of you that attempts reason and logic about the issues.

[much deleted]

Nope, guess not.
Steve