Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #20242 > unrolled thread

Re: Python usage numbers

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Python usage numbers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 12:28 +1100
    Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 02:23 +0000
      Re: Python usage numbers Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-11 18:36 -0800
        Re: Python usage numbers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 15:38 +1100
          Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 05:51 +0000
            Re: Python usage numbers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 17:08 +1100
            Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 10:48 -0500
              Re: Python usage numbers Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-02-12 11:47 -0500
                Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 12:11 -0500
                  Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 22:49 +0000
            Re: Python usage numbers Dan Sommers <dan@tombstonezero.net> - 2012-02-12 15:55 +0000
            Re: Python usage numbers rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 08:50 -0800
              Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 12:21 -0500
              Re: Python usage numbers Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> - 2012-02-12 12:36 -0500
                entering unicode  (was Python usage numbers) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 19:09 -0800
                  Re: entering unicode  (was Python usage numbers) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-19 03:44 +0000
                    Re: entering unicode (was Python usage numbers) rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-02-19 00:52 -0800
              How do you Unicode proponents type your non-ASCII characters? (was: Python usage numbers) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-02-13 09:43 +1100
              Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 22:56 +0000
          Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 10:13 -0500
            Re: Python usage numbers Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-02-12 17:07 -0500
              Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 17:22 -0500
            Re: Python usage numbers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 09:14 +1100
              Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 17:27 -0500
                Re: Python usage numbers Dave Angel <davea@dejaviewphoto.com> - 2012-02-12 17:40 -0500
                Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 23:29 +0000
                  Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 18:41 -0500
                  Re: Python usage numbers Dave Angel <d@davea.name> - 2012-02-12 19:03 -0500
                  Re: Python usage numbers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 11:59 +1100
                    Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 20:11 -0500
            Re: Python usage numbers Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> - 2012-02-13 01:00 +0100
            Re: Python usage numbers Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-02-12 21:37 -0500
            Re: Python usage numbers Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-02-12 22:09 -0500
              Re: Python usage numbers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-02-12 22:57 -0500
                Re: Python usage numbers Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-02-13 15:19 +1100
                  Re: Python usage numbers Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 12:26 -0600
              Re: Python usage numbers jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 00:00 -0800
        Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 06:10 +0000
          Re: Python usage numbers Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 01:05 -0600
            Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 09:12 +0000
              Re: Python usage numbers Andrew Berg <bahamutzero8825@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 05:11 -0600
                Re: Python usage numbers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-12 22:30 +0000
                  Re: Python usage numbers Dave Angel <d@davea.name> - 2012-02-12 17:50 -0500
              Re: Python usage numbers Peter Pearson <ppearson@nowhere.invalid> - 2012-02-12 17:58 +0000
          Re: Python usage numbers Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 20:48 -0800
            Re: Python usage numbers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 16:03 +1100
            OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-13 08:05 +0000
              Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 08:01 -0800
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-13 16:12 +0000
                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 08:27 -0800
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 11:38 -0700
                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 13:01 -0800
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 08:27 +1100
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-13 21:46 +0000
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-14 00:19 +0000
                      Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 17:07 -0800
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 18:29 -0700
                      Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 17:13 -0800
                        Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 13:13 +1100
                        Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-18 02:39 +0000
                        Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 00:28 -0700
                          Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 07:02 -0800
                            Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-18 16:15 +0000
                              Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:34 -0800
                                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] random joe <pywin32@gmail.com> - 2012-02-18 10:49 -0800
                            Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-26 12:14 +0000
                        Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-02-18 04:16 -0500
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-02-14 19:41 +1100
                      Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 16:21 -0800
                        Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 11:44 +1100
                          Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 17:26 -0800
                            Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] John O'Hagan <research@johnohagan.com> - 2012-02-15 19:56 +1100
                              Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 07:04 -0800
                                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-15 15:18 +0000
                                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 08:27 -0800
                                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-15 17:16 +0000
                                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 09:46 -0700
                            Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-26 12:44 +0000
                              Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-26 12:35 -0800
                                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-27 07:50 +1100
                                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-26 14:32 -0800
                              Re: OT: Entitlements Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2012-02-27 07:46 +1100
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 07:47 +1100
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 14:46 -0700
                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 16:39 -0800
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2012-02-13 18:36 -0700
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 12:37 +1100
                      Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-17 17:37 -0800
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Tim Wintle <tim.wintle@teamrubber.com> - 2012-02-13 16:41 +0000
                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 16:40 -0800
                    RE: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] "Prasad, Ramit" <ramit.prasad@jpmorgan.com> - 2012-02-17 20:09 +0000
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-14 11:31 +0000
                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 07:06 -0500
                  Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 16:48 -0800
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 12:32 +1100
                    Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-15 09:47 +0000
                      Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Arnaud Delobelle <arnodel@gmail.com> - 2012-02-15 09:58 +0000
                        Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Duncan Booth <duncan.booth@invalid.invalid> - 2012-02-15 10:04 +0000
                          Kill files [was Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-02-15 10:27 +0000
                            Re: Kill files [was Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]] Ethan Furman <ethan@stoneleaf.us> - 2012-02-15 11:29 -0800
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2012-02-14 04:56 -0800
                Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2012-02-14 09:37 -0500
      Re: Python usage numbers Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> - 2012-02-12 09:14 +0100
        Re: Python usage numbers Matej Cepl <mcepl@redhat.com> - 2012-02-12 09:26 +0100
          Re: Python usage numbers Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-12 12:11 +0000
            Re: Python usage numbers alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2012-02-12 18:55 +0000
              Re: Python usage numbers jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 11:52 -0800
                French and IDLE on Windows  (was Re: Python usage numbers) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-02-12 18:30 -0500
          Re: Python usage numbers Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2012-02-15 11:56 +0200

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#20583 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Rick Johnson
>> I make a middle-class income and do not feel that I am anywhere near
>> being "enslaved" by my income taxes, which amount to less than 10% of
>> my gross income after deductions and credits.
>
> Ten percent?!?! You pay less income tax by percentage than most rich
> folks, including Mitt Romney! I envy you since you must be one of the
> lucky folks who ONLY pay income tax.

Yes, I feel terribly sorry for Mitt Romney.  I can't imagine what it
must be like to earn $27 million and only be allowed to keep $23
million of it.  Why, that's barely enough to buy a private island in
Dubai!  I think it says a lot about how far we've come as a nation,
though, that somebody who's practically a slave to the IRS can be a
front-runner to be elected President.

The 10% figure included Medicare, but not Social Security or other
taxes.  That's because health care coverage (you know, what we've been
talking about) is primarily funded by income tax, Medicare, and excise
taxes on certain kinds of treatments.  Most other taxes go to fund
specific unrelated programs.  If I were to add everything up, it would
probably come to around 30%, which still doesn't bother me, in part
because I know that it comes back to benefit the society I live in,
and by extension me, in one way or another..

> I guess you never purchase
> ANYTHING or live under the tyranny of local jurisdictions ON TOP of
> the federal jurisdiction?

Paying taxes to fund public schools, police departments, fire
departments, and road maintenance is "tyranny"?

> Here is a list of taxes most everyone else will encounter:

This list is awesome.  I love how you include inflation and fines
imposed for breaking the law as "taxes".  Also how you state that
"most everyone" will have to pay taxes for fishing licenses, hunting
licenses, CDL licenses, and even corporate income.  Marriage license
tax?  Yeah, I remember paying that fee.  Once.  I believe it was
somewhere around $50.  And cigarette tax?  Correct me if I'm wrong,
but isn't that one mostly paid by those "degenerates" you keep whining
about, the ones who aren't pulling their own weight?  I hope you can
understand that I find it a bit ironic that you're now complaining
about cigarette tax.

>> Say what you want about the income tax system, but at least net income
>> still basically increases monotonically.  If you make more gross than
>> me, chances are that you're going to make more net than me as well.
>
> So you support a flat tax system? A system where everybody pays the
> same percentage?

No, what makes you think that?  The statement I made is true under
either a flat tax or the progressive system we currently have.

> Actually i think 10% income tax is a fair amount although i believe
> taxing income silly. If the government cannot provide national
> security, domestic security, and LIMITED infratructure on 10% of what
> we make, they are wasting too much of OUR money.

Here's a neat table: government spending as a percentage of GDP, by country.

http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

In 2008, the United States spent 19.9% of its GDP in government
spending (it's gone up a few percent since then).  The only countries
on the chart that spent less than 10% were Turkmenistan and
Afghanistan.  Draw your own conclusions.

> People, THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH! Every product that is made and every
> service rendered was a result of someone's hard labor. Sleep on that
> you degenerates!

No shit.  I pay those taxes too, you know.  I have no delusions about
where the money comes from.

> Hypocrisy! It's no different than the idiots who whine for the fair
> treatment of fluffy mammals but them declare chemical warfare on
> insects and reptiles. To them ONLY fluffy mammals deserve fair
> treatment because they are so cuddly (and cute BTW) PUKE!.

I fail to see any connection whatsoever.  Animal lovers who only care
about mammals are stealing money from taxpayers?

> But you want to know the REAL reason? It's because mammals return love
> and reptiles and insects don't. It's because people are selfish. If
> another being will no reciprocate their love, then they murder that
> being with extreme prejudice, and not feel one bit guilty about it! Do
> you understand how backward you are? Do you understand how selfish and
> immoral you are? Do you understand how incredibly dense you are?

Yes, I am so selfish and immoral that I believe everybody should have
access to health care.  Instead I should be more like you, and label
people who can't afford their own health care as "degenerates", and
dismiss their health needs as being unimportant compared to my own
completely selfless desire that none of my personal income be used to
support the society that I live in and derive benefit from, without my
full and specific consent.

> Because of people like YOU, we don't deserve the right to evolve!

What does that even mean?  Evolution is a natural process.  That's
like saying "we don't deserve the right to be gravitationally bound to
the planet", or "we don't deserve the right to drown if we fall in the
ocean".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20585 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 18, 1:28 am, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rick Johnson


> If I were to [sum my tax burden], it would
> probably come to around 30%, which still doesn't bother me, in part
> because I know that it comes back to benefit the society I live in,
> and by extension me, in one way or another..

But do you think you'll get a higher return for your investment? Is it
possible to get a higher return on your investment in this type of
system? NO! You better off just paying for your own damn healthcare.

Well actually, there is a way to get a higher return by taking more
than your "fair share". Any intelligent person would realize that
public healthcare is advocated by degenerates or the bleeding heart
"degenerate eugenics" supporters. Fine, YOU want to subsidize
degeneracy? Then give to charity. The more you give the better you'll
feel. BTW: How much money do you give to charity?

Also, you mentioned Mitt paying 4 million dollars in taxes; that's
more tax than you'll pay in a lifetime!

> > I guess you never purchase
> > ANYTHING or live under the tyranny of local jurisdictions ON TOP of
> > the federal jurisdiction?
>
> Paying taxes to fund public schools, police departments, fire
> departments, and road maintenance is "tyranny"?

Read my comments and you will know that i support LIMITED
infrastructure. Enough with the spin!

> > Here is a list of taxes most everyone else will encounter:
>
> This list is awesome.  I love how you include inflation and fines
> imposed for breaking the law as "taxes".

Do you think that ALL traffic tickets are based on reality? You don't
think traffic cops are forced to meet ticket quotas? You don't believe
that some people are wrongly accused? You don't think some police
abuse their power? Have you heard of the many cases of death row
inmates being proven innocent by DNA evidence? You are a FOOL to
believe the justice system is perfect!

> Also how you state that
> "most everyone" will have to pay taxes for fishing licenses, hunting
> licenses, CDL licenses, and even corporate income.

Maybe you live in Amish country, but I have driven on many US highways
and i know for a fact that there are many, MANY, large trucks. All
those truck drivers require a CDL license. Maybe you just ignore the
people you consider to be "beneath you"?

>  Marriage license
> tax?  Yeah, I remember paying that fee.  Once.  I believe it was
> somewhere around $50.

And why do we need the state involved in our love lives?

>  And cigarette tax?  Correct me if I'm wrong,
> but isn't that one mostly paid by those "degenerates" you keep whining
> about, the ones who aren't pulling their own weight?  I hope you can
> understand that I find it a bit ironic that you're now complaining
> about cigarette tax.

It IS a tax nonetheless. Of course the sales pitch for cigarette tax
is that the profit will help offset the medical expenses of cancers
due to smoking, BUT, do you REALLY believe all that money is going
towards healthcare. HA! That's just more money in some politicians
pocket!

> > Actually i think 10% income tax is a fair amount although i believe
> > taxing income silly. If the government cannot provide national
> > security, domestic security, and LIMITED infratructure on 10% of what
> > we make, they are wasting too much of OUR money.
>
> Here's a neat table: government spending as a percentage of GDP, by country.

Don't trust polls. Heck, some polls even show Python rising in
popularity!

> > People, THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH! Every product that is made and every
> > service rendered was a result of someone's hard labor. Sleep on that
> > you degenerates!
>
> No shit.  I pay those taxes too, you know.  I have no delusions about
> where the money comes from.

Great. Thanks for being a productive member of society. But why do you
support measures that will increase your tax burden? You'll never get
back what you put in unless you're a degenerate. Also, you are
empowering the government with more money. They can't even manage the
money they have now! Has history taught you NOTHING! How many
revolutions is it going to take? How many billions of lives is is
going to take? When are you going to realize that taxation is tyranny?
When are you going to realize that degenerates deserve what they get?

> I fail to see any connection whatsoever.  Animal lovers who only care
> about mammals are stealing money from taxpayers?

Public healthcare is YOU robbing someone else so YOU can get a service
that you don't deserve! That's the hypocrisy!

> Yes, I am so selfish and immoral that I believe everybody should have
> access to health care.  Instead I should be more like you, and label
> people who can't afford their own health care as "degenerates",

I NEVER labeled people who can't afford healthcare degenerates. Enough
with the spin cycle already.

> > Because of people like YOU, we don't deserve the right to evolve!
>
> What does that even mean?  Evolution is a natural process.

Not for long my friend. By wielding eugenics, even debutante
intelligence's can harness evolution. In the near future, our
technology will soon allow much better ways to harness evolution for
our own gains.

However, in the grander scheme, these flesh bodies are useless to us.
Our fragile bodies where the best passport that evolution could give
us, and are nothing more than a means to an end; they delivered us
like the Santa Maria over perilous waters and into the new lands of
enlightenment.

Do you think we can travel the universe in biological bodies? That we
can withstand the radiation? The lack of atmosphere? NO!

Soon we shall cast these "flesh bags" away in the name of progress and
become more powerful than evolution itself -- and in the process, we
WILL cull the herd of all the selfish individuals and their foolish
worship of nostalgic minutia! The individual will be destroyed in the
name of progress. And the supreme being will be born! That is our
destiny. Embrace it!

THE HUMAN IS INSUFFICIENT!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20587 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On 18/02/2012 15:02, Rick Johnson wrote:

> But do you think you'll get a higher return for your investment? Is it
> possible to get a higher return on your investment in this type of
> system? NO! You better off just paying for your own damn healthcare.
>

I guess you'd better get wikipedia to correct its incorrect data then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

Specifically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%25_GDP.png

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20590 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 18, 10:15 am, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 18/02/2012 15:02, Rick Johnson wrote:
>
> > But do you think you'll get a higher return for your investment? Is it
> > possible to get a higher return on your investment in this type of
> > system? NO! You better off just paying for your own damn healthcare.
>
> I guess you'd better get wikipedia to correct its incorrect data then.

Sure. I'll do that as soon as you show me mathematical evidence of how
N people put X dollars each into a pot and then the same N people pull
out MORE than X dollars each. If you can create a proof that creates
money from nothing then we may find ourselves in the 1% tomorrow!

Louie-the-loose-screw Said: "I'll give you $15 if you'll give me $15!"

Okay Louie, but what is the point of that exercise besides money
laundering?

X + 0 = 0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20592 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 18, 12:34 pm, Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Louie-the-loose-screw Said: "I'll give you $15 if you'll give me $15!"

$15 dolla too beau coup! 5 dolla each!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20886 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

In article <c52c1114-647a-4887-926b-8856c939f2ee@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Rick Johnson  <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 1:28=A0am, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Rick Johnson
>
>
>> If I were to [sum my tax burden], it would
>> probably come to around 30%, which still doesn't bother me, in part
>> because I know that it comes back to benefit the society I live in,
>> and by extension me, in one way or another..
>
>But do you think you'll get a higher return for your investment? Is it
>possible to get a higher return on your investment in this type of
>system? NO! You better off just paying for your own damn healthcare.
>
>Well actually, there is a way to get a higher return by taking more
>than your "fair share". Any intelligent person would realize that
>public healthcare is advocated by degenerates or the bleeding heart
>"degenerate eugenics" supporters. Fine, YOU want to subsidize
>degeneracy? Then give to charity. The more you give the better you'll
>feel. BTW: How much money do you give to charity?

This is technically wrong. It is much cheaper for you to pay a few euro's
to combat TBC, then live in a TBC-infected society where you must
take great care not to be infected yourself.
Paying to rid the society of TBC is not charity, it is is common sense.
Your ideas only work for the anti-social few, in an otherwise social
society.
Education is another case in point. It is in you best interest to
allow a getto-genius into Harvard. Otherwise they will become
the master-minds of crime. And you will be too stupid to beat them.

Groetjes Albert


--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20584 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On 2/18/2012 2:28 AM, Ian Kelly wrote:

> Here's a neat table: government spending as a percentage of GDP, by
> country.
>
> http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/government-spending-as-percentage-of.html

The table is for "national government spending". That means spending by 
the national government. The US has a lot of spending by state, county, 
city, school, and special districts that is not included. Total 
government spending in the US is about 40% of measured GDP. I *suspect* 
that the US has a higher percentage of non-national government spending 
than most other countries. For instance, government education spending 
is about 6% of GDP and that is mostly non-national here but, I believe, 
more national in some other countries.

There are also issues with the denominator. In the US, if someone works 
at home without pay other than from a spouse, the value of the work is 
*not* included in GDP. If the same person goes to work elsewhere and 
hires someone to do the the same work around the home, that same work 
*is* counted. So the movement of house-spouses into the paid workforce 
has artificially inflated US GDP relative to, say, 50 years ago.

There are also issues of measuring and including the unofficial, 
off-government books, 'underground' economy. That is relatively larger 
in many countries than in the US. I have the strong impression that the 
US IRS is much more diligent about ferreting out taxable income than the 
equivalent in many other countries.

-- 
Terry Jan Reedy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20390 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 12:38 pm, Ian Kelly <ian.g.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hate being suckered in by trolls, but this paragraph demands a response.

Ditto...

> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Rick Johnson
> >
> > <rantingrickjohn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You are born with rights. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> > > Healthcare care is NOT a right, healthcare is a privileged.
[...]
> HOWEVER, healthcare is not a concern of the greater society, but only
> the individual -- with the exception of contagious disease of course,

[...snip half-baked, social-Darwinist, "there-is-no-such-thing-as-society", 
naive U.S.-capitalist-libertarian drivel...]

> > > Procreation should be a
> > > privilege, however sadly for our collective evolution, it's seems to
> > > be a right :(
> >
> > There is a word for the philosophy that procreation should be a
> > privilege reserved for those with good genes: eugenics.
> 
> No, the word is evolution; which means: "survival of the fittest".
>

Don't try to hijack real science to bolster a repugnant ideology.
Neither Herbert Spencer nor Darwin meant that phrase the way you do.
 
[...snip egregious, self-serving display of ignorance on the subjects of
evolution and genetics...] 

> 
> > Welcome to fascism, Rick.
> 
> Don't try to append me onto a specific ideology structure just because
> that group happens to support ONE of my beliefs. I carry no political
[...blah blah...]

It's called duck-typing.

I somewhat optimistically implore you, Rick, to do some basic research on your
chosen subjects. Failing that (almost certainly), here are three simple points
which debunk your agenda (and that of the U.S. Republican Right):

1. Publicly-funded healthcare is both cheaper and more effective than
privatised systems. It's also the right thing to do (i.e. you don't have
to stand by while someone dies because their illness is "their fault").
Which makes it a win-win-win.

2. The recent economic problems were not triggered by "degenerates" (are you
actually talking about homosexuals here, or just in the more general,
McCathyist sense?), but in fact by the operations of the same unregulated
markets you are advocating.

3. The central fallacy of social Darwinism is the misapprehension that because
natural selection occurs in nature, human society _should_ also work this
way. This is a failure to acknowledge the is/ought problem, and is usually
compounded (Rick is no exception) by the equally mistaken view that there exist
"superior" individuals whose possession of a "quality gene-pool" entitles them
to survival - an entitlement that is encroached upon by inferior sorts who take
up space by insisting on not dying. Can you guess in which group those who hold
this view place themselves?

In fact, a gene pool is held by a species, not an individual, and the
maintenance of its diversity is essential for long term-survival. And to the
great disappointment of those looking for a justification of dog-eat-dog, one
of the main drivers of evolution is not competition, but adapting to new
environments to _avoid_ competition. I'm told the Spanish have a saying
which translates as "dogs don't eat dogs".

Genetics is complicated. Switching one gene on switches others off in
unpredictable ways, people choose mates by unfathomable processes, good-looking
geniuses have dumb, ugly children and vice-versa. This is why eugenics projects
are doomed to failure. They are also morally wrong, which is another win-win.

If some featureless fungus, toxic to all other living things, engulfed the
globe, would that make it "superior"? Of course, not, it merely survived.

Considerations of what _should_ happen, of superiority and quality, are human,
social concerns. We are humans, so they are important to us. But they have
nothing to do with genetics or evolution. 

Social Darwinism is merely a psuedo-scientific attempt to justify inequity and
class divides. Furthermore, it is completely dead outside the U.S. - ironically
the only developed nation where real Darwinism is still seriously questioned.

[...]

> Go on believing that humans will be inhabiting this rock in
> the next 1000 years, or this universe in the next 10,000 -- because
> the enlightened few will have transcended into the mind hive and your @
> $$ will be glued to Terra firma forever!


Now that is some crazy shit! Maybe L. Ron _is_ still alive...


Regards,

John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20419 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 14, 2:41 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Publicly-funded healthcare is both cheaper and more effective than
> privatised systems. It's also the right thing to do (i.e. you don't have
> to stand by while someone dies because their illness is "their fault").

So you have no problem paying the medical bills of people who overeat
sugar, salt, and fat; refuse to put down the ho-ho's; and get a little
exercise? If so, then give to charity. Why do you need to FORCE me
(and others) to pay for your experiment of "degenerate eugenics"?

> 2. The recent economic problems were not triggered by "degenerates" (are you
> actually talking about homosexuals here, or just in the more general,
> McCathyist sense?)

WTF does homosexuality have to do with this conversation? I am talking
about lazy/slothful, drug/alcohol abusing, junk food eating, self-
induced illiterates, techno-phobic Luddite loving lemmings. Look, i
don't care how you want to live YOUR life, just leave me and my money
the hell out of it!

>, but in fact by the operations of the same unregulated
> markets you are advocating.

I am well aware of the sins of wall street and the ruling "corporate
class" (Greed.inc). That is half the problem, yes. However, you cannot
ignore the fact that we are spending trillions around the globe
supporting degenerates.

Look at Detroit MI. People like to blame GM for the state of the city
but GM is only a very small part of the problem. The REAL problem is
sleazy politicians and infections entitlements/welfare. When you crush
the tax payers with more and more tyrannical taxation to pay for your
entitlement programs, the taxpayers leave town; but the welfare
recipients stay! Why the heck would they quit a good thing? However,
now you find yourself in a major pickle. With the taxpayers gone,
who's going to fund the entitlement programs? NOBODY! The whole house
of cards comes crumbling down!

Of course i'm probably just wasting my time trying to educate you.
You'll just blab on and on about how evil i am for not paying other
people's bills so they can watch there hero degenerates on Jersey
Shore.

> 3. The central fallacy of social Darwinism is the misapprehension that because
> natural selection occurs in nature, human society _should_ also work this
> way.

I NEVER said we should adopt such a society. That is anarchy. And
anarchy will NEVER move us forward as a species.

> This is a failure to acknowledge the is/ought problem, and is usually
> compounded (Rick is no exception) by the equally mistaken view that there exist
> "superior" individuals whose possession of a "quality gene-pool" entitles them
> to survival - an entitlement that is encroached upon by inferior sorts who take
> up space by insisting on not dying. Can you guess in which group those who hold
> this view place themselves?

You'd be surprised which group i reside in. I know my place; but do
you know yours?

> Genetics is complicated. Switching one gene on switches others off in
> unpredictable ways, people choose mates by unfathomable processes, good-looking
> geniuses have dumb, ugly children and vice-versa. This is why eugenics projects
> are doomed to failure. They are also morally wrong, which is another win-win.

There is nothing wrong with denying degenerates the right to
reproduce. Would you allow a crack head to reproduce? How about
someone who carries a virus/illness/deadly defect for which there is
no cure and the virus/illness/deadly defect will be passed on to the
child? What if you knew without a doubt the baby would be born with
two heads, or mentally incapacitated, or brain dead, or etc...? Would
you allow the procreation anyway simply because people have a right to
be selfish?

What if the couple was healthy but had poor parenting skills, or
cannot feed the child, or cannot cloth the child, or etc...? Would you
allow the procreation anyway simply because people have a right to be
selfish?

What abut people who go around making babies but refuse to care for
them at all? I mean, birth control has been around for some time, but
we can't force degenerates to use it! Would you allow the procreation
anyway simply because people have a right to be selfish?

> If some featureless fungus, toxic to all other living things, engulfed the
> globe, would that make it "superior"? Of course, not, it merely survived.

I love when people contradict themselves in the same sentence -- makes
my job much easier!

> Considerations of what _should_ happen, of superiority and quality, are human,
> social concerns. We are humans, so they are important to us. But they have
> nothing to do with genetics or evolution.

Really??? I think you need to spend more time ruminating on the
subject. You can stick your head in the sand if you like, but
technology will advance with or without you. Humans will be cloned.
Humans will be genetically engineered. Humans will employ eugenics to
sculpt the gene pool. It is our destiny to use our intelligence to
drive our own evolution at an ever accelerating rate. To NOT use that
power would be to spit in the face of evolution itself!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20420 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2:41 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote:
>> This is a failure to acknowledge the is/ought problem, and is usually
>> compounded (Rick is no exception) by the equally mistaken view that there exist
>> "superior" individuals whose possession of a "quality gene-pool" entitles them
>> to survival - an entitlement that is encroached upon by inferior sorts who take
>> up space by insisting on not dying. Can you guess in which group those who hold
>> this view place themselves?
>
> You'd be surprised which group i reside in. I know my place; but do
> you know yours?

If you truly believe that only the best should be allowed to survive
and that you are not of the best, then the logical thing to do is to
immediately destroy yourself. Oddly enough, though, I don't see many
eugenics proponents committing mass suicide for the benefit of the
gene pool.

> There is nothing wrong with denying degenerates the right to
> reproduce.

Actually there is; I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't have been born if
such policies had been in place, and I strongly suspect that you
wouldn't have either. There was a country in the 20th century that
adopted a lot of the sorts of policies you're talking about, and it's
such a sensitive topic with MANY people that I'm not going to touch
it. Suffice it to say that the world does not appreciate such things.

>> If some featureless fungus, toxic to all other living things, engulfed the
>> globe, would that make it "superior"? Of course, not, it merely survived.
>
> I love when people contradict themselves in the same sentence -- makes
> my job much easier!

No, he did not contradict himself - he drew a distinction between
"superior" and "survived". You might argue that your definition of
"superior" *is* the ability to survive, but that's a matter for
logical argument, not for pointing and laughing.

> It is our destiny to use our intelligence to
> drive our own evolution at an ever accelerating rate. To NOT use that
> power would be to spit in the face of evolution itself!

Evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, not by us using
our intelligence to influence it.

It's high time I stood up for who I am. I *do* spit in the face of
evolution. I do not believe that we came here because we evolved from
some lesser life-form, and I do not believe that the world is best
served by such philosophies.

God created us, roughly 6000-10000 years ago, and since then, many
things have happened (both good and bad), but never has there been the
emergence of any form of "next-species human". Look at history (just
recent history if you like - the last few hundred years) and find the
times when one group of people deemed themselves "more evolved" than
another group. Why were Negros treated as slaves in the US? Why were
Australian Aboriginals treated like animals? And the one I hinted at
above. If you truly believe that evolution is the way forward, then go
find some of the lobbyists for these groups, and say to their faces
that you believe that some humans are lesser than others.

If you come out of that alive, report back. Preferably with video. It
should be interesting.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20423 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you truly believe that only the best should be allowed to survive
> and that you are not of the best, then the logical thing to do is to
> immediately destroy yourself. Oddly enough, though, I don't see many
> eugenics proponents committing mass suicide for the benefit of the
> gene pool.

I don't need to destroy myself Chris. Likewise i don't need to destroy
anyone else. You are trying to cast me as an evil blood thirsty
person, and i can assure you, i am not.

All i need to do is NOT reproduce and i've done my part. Likewise all
WE need to do is keep the rest "of us" from reproducing.

I am not a degenerate, but my genes are flawed. All i can hope to do
is make an intellectual contribution to our evolution as a species.
Just because you're flawed in one area, does not mean you cannot make
contributions in other areas. You can still be part of the whole -- AS
LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR PLACE!

> > There is nothing wrong with denying degenerates the right to
> > reproduce.
>
> Actually there is; I'm fairly sure that I wouldn't have been born if
> such policies had been in place, and I strongly suspect that you
> wouldn't have either.

So what's the problem with that?

> There was a country in the 20th century that
> adopted a lot of the sorts of policies you're talking about, and it's
> such a sensitive topic with MANY people that I'm not going to touch
> it. Suffice it to say that the world does not appreciate such things.

Of course people don't want to admit that they don't belong, or that
they are flawed, or that they are inferior. We are "wired" with egos
so that we don't purposely destroy ourselves; which is vital to our
"collective" evolution, but NOT our individual evolution.

However, like all software, the definitions don't always cover the
corner cases. Only WE, as intelligent beings, can compensate for the
missing code in our own software. Evolution is just a system. A very
dumb system. We are the only hope for evolution beyond what this base
system can create. We must take the reigns and drive our own
evolution.

> >> If some featureless fungus, toxic to all other living things, engulfed the
> >> globe, would that make it "superior"? Of course, not, it merely survived.
>
> > I love when people contradict themselves in the same sentence -- makes
> > my job much easier!
>
> No, he did not contradict himself - he drew a distinction between
> "superior" and "survived". You might argue that your definition of
> "superior" *is* the ability to survive, but that's a matter for
> logical argument, not for pointing and laughing.

"If" a fungus did in fact "engulf the earth", THEN it MUST be
superior!

> > It is our destiny to use our intelligence to
> > drive our own evolution at an ever accelerating rate. To NOT use that
> > power would be to spit in the face of evolution itself!
>
> Evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, not by us using
> our intelligence to influence it.

But WE are the fittest! Because we are INTELLIGENT!

> God created us, roughly 6000-10000 years ago, and since then, many
> things have happened (both good and bad), but never has there been the
> emergence of any form of "next-species human". Look at history (just
> recent history if you like - the last few hundred years) and find the
> times when one group of people deemed themselves "more evolved" than
> another group. Why were Negros treated as slaves in the US?

Because they allowed themselves to be subjected. Sad, but true.

> Why were
> Australian Aboriginals treated like animals?

Because they allowed them selves to be subjected. Sad, but true.

> And the one I hinted at
> above.

Because the Jews allowed themselves to be subjected. Sad, but true.

Slaves only exist because they allow themselves to exist. When people
fight back against tyranny, tyranny fails. When people subject
themselves to tyranny, tyranny prospers. There have been many
instances in history where people did not allow themselves to be
subjected; William Wallace comes to mind.

"Freeeeeedoooooooommmmmmm!"
"Live free, or die!"
"From my cold dead hand!"
"Over my dead body!"
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be
demanded by the oppressed."
"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be."
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will
not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20431 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 14, 6:44 pm, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> But WE are the fittest! Because we are INTELLIGENT!

And the whales say: But WE are the fittest! Because we are BIG!
And the rabbits say: But WE are the fittest! Because we are FERTILE!
And the snakes say: But WE are the fittest! Because we are VENOMOUS!

(Apologies to all animals mentioned for ascribing to them gratuitous
capitalisation and exclamation marks.)

Please read Darwin. He explicitly defined "fittest", in the context of
evolutionary science, to mean sufficiently well-adapted to immediate local
conditions to be able to reproduce. There is nothing generalisable about this.
Intelligence is only useful in human ecological niches; and if the world were
underwater you would gladly swap it for gills.

But I don't think you'll read Darwin, or any real science on the subject.
You'll cling to your popular-science cartoon version of evolution because you
need it to support your false, odious worldview, which finally emerges from the
swamp: 

> > Why were Negros treated as slaves in the US?
> 
> Because they allowed themselves to be subjected. Sad, but true.
> 
> > Why were
> > Australian Aboriginals treated like animals?
> 
> Because they allowed them selves to be subjected. Sad, but true.
> 
> > And the one I hinted at
> > above.
> 
> Because the Jews allowed themselves to be subjected. Sad, but true.

You have just demonstrated that you are the worst kind of racist. Not only have
you blamed the victim on a truly monstrous scale, you have assigned blame not to
individuals, but to entire "races". You are saying that something inherent in
each race caused them to "allow" their own subjugation. 

Calling it "sad" does not get you off the hook. Your cover was always
thin but now it's blown.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20444 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 15, 2:56 am, John O'Hagan <resea...@johnohagan.com> wrote:

> You have just demonstrated that you are the worst kind of racist. Not only have
> you blamed the victim on a truly monstrous scale, you have assigned blame not to
> individuals, but to entire "races".

Your tabloid sensationalism is the worst i've seen. You'll jump at any
chance to tag someone a racist, homophobic, sexist, or any other kind
of hate group you can muster in a weak attempt to win an argument you
cannot win by spewing ad hominem attacks.

You cannot stay on subject because your argument is baseless and mine
is the backed by truth. Just in case you have forgotten, here is the
main point: "degenerates are a drain on healthcare/society". Can you
counter that argument with a fact and prove they are not? The only
winning argument is that "degenerates pay their own medical bills"...
but as you and i know, most degenerates DON'T pay their own medical
bills. They expect US to pay them.

> You are saying that something inherent in
> each race caused them to "allow" their own subjugation.

I have PROVEN that when people FIGHT back, they will NOT be subjects
to tyranny; race has NOTHING to do with it. I gave one example in
history where people would rather die than be subjected to tyranny,
there are many more. "GIVE ME FREEDOM FOR GIVE ME DEATH!"

The world is full of evil people who seek to force their fellow man
into slavery. Those who refuse to fight for freedom will be victims,
on the other hand, those who are willing to sacrifice ALL in the name
of freedom will be free men.

300: "Go now! Run along and tell your Xerxes he faces free men here,
not slaves! Do it quickly, before we decide to make our wall just a
little bit bigger."

John, I have grown weary of educating you. Go back to your day job
writing op-eds for the National Inquirer and News of the World; they
love this vile sensationalist crap! Goodnight "John boy".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20445 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On 15/02/2012 15:04, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2:56 am, John O'Hagan<resea...@johnohagan.com>  wrote:

> John, I have grown weary of educating you. Go back to your day job
> writing op-eds for the National Inquirer and News of the World; they
> love this vile sensationalist crap! Goodnight "John boy".

The News of the Screws closed months ago.

As you didn't answer my question from some days back I'll ask it agin.

Please explain why previously healthy people get struck down with Common 
Fatigue Syndrome amongst other things.

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20449 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 15, 9:18 am, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As you didn't answer my question from some days back I'll ask it agin.
> Please explain why previously healthy people get struck down with Common
> Fatigue Syndrome amongst other things.

Why do you seek my counsel regarding medical ailments? Do you believe
i have special knowledge in the field? But more importantly: how is
your question germane to the "destruction of healthcare" and
"expansion of tyranny" by the degenerates of society; or by those who
support degeneracy by engaging in "degenerate eugenics"?

Was your question meant as rhetorical? Or merely yet ANOTHER crude
attempt to employ sophistry in hopes of coercing the less astute folks
among us to hop in your "clown car of delirium" and head-off down
ANOTHER path to that leads to logical fallacy?

Stay on subject!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20450 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On 15/02/2012 16:27, Rick Johnson wrote:
> On Feb 15, 9:18 am, Mark Lawrence<breamore...@yahoo.co.uk>  wrote:
>> As you didn't answer my question from some days back I'll ask it agin.
>> Please explain why previously healthy people get struck down with Common
>> Fatigue Syndrome amongst other things.
>
> Why do you seek my counsel regarding medical ailments? Do you believe
> i have special knowledge in the field? But more importantly: how is
> your question germane to the "destruction of healthcare" and
> "expansion of tyranny" by the degenerates of society; or by those who
> support degeneracy by engaging in "degenerate eugenics"?
>
> Was your question meant as rhetorical? Or merely yet ANOTHER crude
> attempt to employ sophistry in hopes of coercing the less astute folks
> among us to hop in your "clown car of delirium" and head-off down
> ANOTHER path to that leads to logical fallacy?
>
> Stay on subject!

I don't seek your counsel on anything.  You set the ball rolling and I 
quote "If you can't afford healthcare, then you die." and "You want to 
solve the healthcare problem then STOP TREATING PEOPLE WHO
DON'T HAVE INSURANCE!"

You later went on to say and I again quote
"Healthy people do not need healthcare very often, and in the rare
cases when they do, they don't bog down the system because their
bodies are strong. Why are their bodies strong? Because healthy people
eat correctly, healthy people exercise, therefore, healthy people have
correctly functioning immune systems -- of course quality genes always
help!"

The question was originally put in response to that, so you've resorted 
to your usual tactics of spewing ad hominem attacks on anybody who dares 
to challenge you in any way, shape or form.

If I were you I'd stick to things that you understand, like downloading 
workable help files.  But oh dear, you can't even manage that, you 
simply moan like hell because the help file you had didn't work 
correctly. Or IDLE is crap.  Or ...

-- 
Cheers.

Mark Lawrence.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20506 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have PROVEN that when people FIGHT back, they will NOT be subjects
> to tyranny; race has NOTHING to do with it. I gave one example in
> history where people would rather die than be subjected to tyranny,
> there are many more. "GIVE ME FREEDOM FOR GIVE ME DEATH!"
>
> The world is full of evil people who seek to force their fellow man
> into slavery. Those who refuse to fight for freedom will be victims,
> on the other hand, those who are willing to sacrifice ALL in the name
> of freedom will be free men.
>
> 300: "Go now! Run along and tell your Xerxes he faces free men here,
> not slaves! Do it quickly, before we decide to make our wall just a
> little bit bigger."

If you get all your history from Hollywood, then no wonder you are so
badly misinformed.  Braveheart and 300 are inspiring movies to be
sure, but they are also highly fictionalized.  In the real world, the
execution of William Wallace actually succeeded in quelling the
Scottish rebellion for a time -- when Robert the Bruce started it up
again half a year later, his motives were entirely political in nature
(he had murdered a rival in a church and been excommunicated; his
options were to place himself on the throne or become a fugitive), not
out of some noble sense of guilt or duty to Wallace or desire for
freedom as depicted in the film.

Your statement that the Africans brought to America allowed themselves
to be enslaved is simply false.  There were dozens of slave rebellions
in the United States prior to the Civil War.  Most of them failed and
ended in the executions of the rebels.  You won't see Hollywood making
too many movies about those, which is probably why you don't know
anything about them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20892 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

In article <40af8461-1583-4496-9d81-d52d6905d24d@b23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Rick Johnson  <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>Because the Jews allowed themselves to be subjected. Sad, but true.

Actually Jew stands for (relative) coward. Let me explain.
Jew comes from Juda, one of the 12 tribes. At some time Israel
was subjected and 11 tribes resisted to the death and are eradicated
since. Only the Juda tribe gave in and their land was called Judea since.
(So the name Israel for the current state is a propagandistic lie,
to claim the land once occupied by the 12 tribes.)

I don't blame them for the attitude of "live to fight another day"
or even for plain survival. If the Jews hadn't allow themselves
to be subjected, there would be no Jews.

>Slaves only exist because they allow themselves to exist. When people

Never been a slave, were you? Try to imagine what it is to be
born a slave.

>
>"Freeeeeedoooooooommmmmmm!"
>"Live free, or die!"
>"From my cold dead hand!"
>"Over my dead body!"
>"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be
>demanded by the oppressed."
>"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
>"Man is free at the moment he wishes to be."
>"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will
>not have, nor do they deserve, either one."

Black Panther comes to mind. The USA just killed them.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20906 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Feb 26, 6:44 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> I don't blame them for the attitude of "live to fight another day"
> or even for plain survival. If the Jews hadn't allow themselves
> to be subjected, there would be no Jews.

And may i borrow your time machine now that you are finished
researching what "may have happened" to the Jews had they adopted the
"live free or die" mentality? I always wondered what it would feel
like to be god.

> >Slaves only exist because they allow themselves to exist. When people
>
> Never been a slave, were you? Try to imagine what it is to be
> born a slave.

Don't try to cast me as siding with the slave-master. I detest them as
much as anyone. But my point is still valid; empower the people and
subjection is a thing of the past.

Bullying is a microcosm of slavery. You could take two distinct
defensive methods to fighting bullies:

 1. you could fight each bully on a case by case bases.
 2. you could empower people to fight bullies as a united group.

Method one will always fail. Sure, you may defeat the bully that
exists today, but tomorrow a new bully will be born.

Whereas method 2 will always prevail. Bullies need to exist in the
shadows, behind a veil of secrecy and fear. Remove the veil and they
will be exposed. Adopt a public policy that bullying will NOT be
allowed and the perp WILL be punished, and bulling disappears
forever.

History has shown that mob behavior can be both detrimentally sadistic
AND masochistic.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20908 — Re: OT: Entitlements [was Re: Python usage numbers]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Rick Johnson
<rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> wrote:
>  1. you could fight each bully on a case by case bases.
>  2. you could empower people to fight bullies as a united group.
>
> Adopt a public policy that bullying will NOT be
> allowed and the perp WILL be punished, and bulling disappears
> forever.

Hmm, I wonder how you go about adopting that policy... oh! I know! By
fighting each bully on a case-by-case basis! Funny though, you just
said that won't work.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web