Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #86492 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200 |
| Last post | 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 211 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-12 17:33 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-12 08:57 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-12 18:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 04:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:40 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:48 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 14:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:55 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-05-13 19:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:41 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-14 02:01 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 08:38 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 13:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:57 +0000
Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-13 18:26 +0000
Re: Age verification methods (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-13 22:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-14 03:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-12 20:45 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-13 06:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-13 00:24 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:55 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-13 17:54 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-05-13 17:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-05-14 05:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-15 21:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:42 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 03:04 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 08:56 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 23:55 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-17 10:59 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-18 20:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-18 22:49 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:09 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:02 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-20 13:16 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 23:46 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:39 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-05-18 21:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:54 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 05:08 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-19 02:03 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 09:03 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:42 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:50 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-17 19:59 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 22:42 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-22 18:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-23 08:43 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 00:37 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-16 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:44 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 23:42 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 06:07 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-17 02:17 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 10:28 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 21:02 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-17 16:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 18:19 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-18 21:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 00:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-18 18:01 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-18 21:57 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 04:58 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-19 02:38 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-19 16:31 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 09:04 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:12 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-05-16 09:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:41 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-17 14:43 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-17 13:08 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-17 22:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:34 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-19 21:07 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 23:46 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-20 01:13 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-20 02:00 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-20 02:35 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:42 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-21 03:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 03:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-21 06:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:25 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-23 08:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 12:17 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-23 14:05 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 13:43 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:12 +0000
See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 21:48 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:47 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-24 09:39 +0200
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2026-05-24 10:33 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:19 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:18 +0200
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 22:50 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:16 +0100
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 17:44 +0000
Re: See sig (Was: Linux to be illegal in California?) Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-24 23:02 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 20:46 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 05:47 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-05-25 07:14 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-25 11:39 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:50 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 23:47 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:21 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 00:16 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 18:15 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:49 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 23:45 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-26 07:18 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-26 05:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-26 07:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:22 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-26 07:18 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2026-05-25 06:54 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 13:00 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-25 18:04 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-25 21:13 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-24 01:03 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-24 05:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 12:15 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:43 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-22 10:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 04:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-23 00:34 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-23 11:18 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-23 01:15 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:29 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 04:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 21:51 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 23:22 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-22 00:05 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-22 02:21 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-22 05:03 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-22 02:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-22 09:48 +0200
[OT] Means of proportional representation (was: Re: Linux to be illegal in California?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-22 09:09 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:40 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 17:22 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-21 23:23 +0000
[OT] Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:57 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:54 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-20 06:51 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-20 14:54 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 02:53 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:46 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-21 08:56 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-21 10:26 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-21 13:48 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-24 11:59 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-24 21:30 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-21 11:12 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 08:47 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-20 18:26 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-16 12:32 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-16 09:49 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:32 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:44 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-16 20:40 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 23:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:27 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:14 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Borax Man <boraxman@geidiprime.invalid> - 2026-05-18 12:37 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-18 13:48 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-18 18:09 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-18 16:14 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-19 02:07 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-19 04:52 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-19 12:52 +0100
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-16 21:16 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-15 22:54 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-15 23:56 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:47 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-05-16 08:11 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 11:24 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-05-16 20:15 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:05 +0200
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-05-16 22:24 +0000
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-05-16 16:21 -0700
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-16 23:38 -0400
Re: Linux to be illegal in California? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 12:44 +0100
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 01:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4DOdnSzLttwOG4_3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #86997 |
On 5/23/26 04:40, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2026 13:25:48 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote:
>
>> On 2026-05-21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> What keeps democracies safe is something called “checks and
>>> balances”.
>>
>> Then, to be pedantic, you don't really have a democracy which is
>> literally "majority rules".
>
> If that’s your definition of “democracy”, then you have to admit that
> the USA is closer to that than we in NZ are.
Plato argued successfully against "pure democracy" - saw
where it led.
"Representative democracies" were intended as The Fix.
Sometimes, but doesn't always work well. IMHO it just
mostly DELAYS the faults of 'pure' democracy.
But, alas, the alts all SUCK WORSE.
8 billion people = 8 billion notions of
"How It Should Be Done". Trying to herd
people is worse than trying to herd cats.
> Checks and balances are essential to the proper functioning of a
> democracy. Without them, you get a dictatorship: this is when the
> leader claims that the support of the people gives him the right to do
> anything he wants.
>
> Remember: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Most always. Occasionally you get a 'saint', but usually not.
"You take a mortal man,
You put him in control.
Watch him become a god,
watch the heads a-roll"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 05:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7fi3aFr6b5U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87035 |
On Sun, 24 May 2026 01:03:06 -0400, c186282 wrote: > On 5/23/26 04:40, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Thu, 21 May 2026 13:25:48 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: >> >>> On 2026-05-21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> What keeps democracies safe is something called “checks and >>>> balances”. >>> >>> Then, to be pedantic, you don't really have a democracy which is >>> literally "majority rules". >> >> If that’s your definition of “democracy”, then you have to admit that >> the USA is closer to that than we in NZ are. > > Plato argued successfully against "pure democracy" - saw where it > led. iirc 'The Republic' advocated a philosopher king with censorship and noble lies to keep the sheep in the fold. The world has always been short on philosopher kings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-24 12:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10uumjs$f933$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87035 |
On 24/05/2026 06:03, c186282 wrote: >> Remember: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. > > Most always. Occasionally you get a 'saint', but usually not. > > "You take a mortal man, > You put him in control. > Watch him become a god, > watch the heads a-roll" The higher up the mountain, The greener is the grass, The higher up the monkey climbs The more you see his ass. -- “The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” Herbert Spencer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n78rtbFr5fiU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86951 |
On Thu, 21 May 2026 06:21:36 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > On Thu, 21 May 2026 03:27:20 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > >> On 2026-05-21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the >>> people to agree on anything. >> >> Possibly not at this time, at least. But if at some point 51% or more >> of the people get riled up en masse over some issue and look for a >> scapegoat it could lead to some difficulties if there is nothing to >> restrain them. > > We’ve seen that happen in the USA already. > > What keeps democracies safe is something called “checks and balances”. What makes 'democracies' safe is inertia and unelected bureaucracies that persist with a life of their own. If you say ACA failed because of Republican intransigence or the SAFE act was stillborn because of Democrat intransigence, or activist judges get above themselves you're looking at checks and balances. 'Progress' has unfortunate overtones so I'll say meaningful change is almost impossible. AIPAC just bought a nomination for a dependably Zionist candidate and are very proud of themselves. It only cost $20 million in their eyes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 13:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10umukv$nv8k$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86947 |
On 21/05/2026 04:27, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2026-05-21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the >> people to agree on anything. > > Possibly not at this time, at least. But if at some point 51% or > more of the people get riled up en masse over some issue and > look for a scapegoat it could lead to some difficulties if there > is nothing to restrain them. > I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise Donald Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be -- "I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently. This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and all women"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n78t0hFr5fiU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86962 |
On Thu, 21 May 2026 13:43:11 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/05/2026 04:27, Roger Blake wrote: >> On 2026-05-21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >>> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the >>> people to agree on anything. >> >> Possibly not at this time, at least. But if at some point 51% or more >> of the people get riled up en masse over some issue and look for a >> scapegoat it could lead to some difficulties if there is nothing to >> restrain them. >> > I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise Donald > Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be As a philosopher I'm sure you are familiar with the term dilemma. Ann Coulter has an acid tongue but she was one of the few that supported Trump in the never-Trump days leading up to the 2016 election. She was rapidly disillusioned when the Big Beautiful Wall never happened. She would post 'How many miles of wall were built today? Zero.' https://anncoulter.com/2026/03/20/dont-stop-with-iran-mr-president-youre- on-a-roll1/ "American democracy is the kind of system where you can vote and vote and vote, but no matter how many times you vote for less war and less immigration, the government is going to give you more war and more immigration. It’s always World War II, we’re always fighting Hitler, and we always have no choice because we’ve got to stop [Fill In Targeted Country Here] from acquiring nuclear weapons. Even if we’ve just totally obliterated their nuclear program."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XDHPR.40367$bo1.25778@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #86962 |
On 2026-05-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 21/05/2026 04:27, Roger Blake wrote: > >> On 2026-05-21, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the >>> people to agree on anything. >> >> Possibly not at this time, at least. But if at some point 51% or >> more of the people get riled up en masse over some issue and >> look for a scapegoat it could lead to some difficulties if there >> is nothing to restrain them. >> > I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise > Donald Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be Nevertheless, a lot of them still find the Democrats sufficiently distasteful that they'll put up with Trump anyway. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-22 10:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10up9de$1cu2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86971 |
On 21/05/2026 18:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-05-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise >> Donald Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be > > Nevertheless, a lot of them still find the Democrats sufficiently > distasteful that they'll put up with Trump anyway. > Well whose fault is that? -- Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 04:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4X9QR.25173$u0G1.16873@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #86986 |
On 2026-05-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 21/05/2026 18:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > >> On 2026-05-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise >>> Donald Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be >> >> Nevertheless, a lot of them still find the Democrats sufficiently >> distasteful that they'll put up with Trump anyway. > > Well whose fault is that? Just about everybody's, unfortunately: the Democrats who can't/won't get their ass in gear, and voters who don't know the difference between bad and worse. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 00:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5umcncYPEOfOs4z3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #86990 |
On 5/23/26 00:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-05-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 21/05/2026 18:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-05-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise >>>> Donald Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be >>> >>> Nevertheless, a lot of them still find the Democrats sufficiently >>> distasteful that they'll put up with Trump anyway. >> >> Well whose fault is that? > > Just about everybody's, unfortunately: the Democrats who can't/won't > get their ass in gear, and voters who don't know the difference > between bad and worse. "The Electorate" has most always been fact/sense-deficit. It judges on IMAGE and RHETORIC and who has the most GLITZ and best line of BULLSHIT. It's an inherent weakness of "democracy" alas. Even Plato kind of understood this. Still beats authoritarianism, but .... Maybe the Machiavellian view offers SOME 'hope' - the public 'rulers' are rarely the ACTUAL rulers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 11:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10urutd$26nab$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86991 |
On 23/05/2026 05:34, c186282 wrote: > "The Electorate" has most always been fact/sense-deficit. > It judges on IMAGE and RHETORIC and who has the most GLITZ > and best line of BULLSHIT. > > It's an inherent weakness of "democracy" alas. Even Plato > kind of understood this. > > Still beats authoritarianism, but .... There are signs that people are slowly waking up to the fact that its not clever to believe politicians just because they are, or want to be, politicians -- The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about. Anon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 18:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <M0mQR.833874$HcOe.552443@fx20.iad> |
| In reply to | #87001 |
On 2026-05-23, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 23/05/2026 05:34, c186282 wrote: > >> "The Electorate" has most always been fact/sense-deficit. >> It judges on IMAGE and RHETORIC and who has the most GLITZ >> and best line of BULLSHIT. >> >> It's an inherent weakness of "democracy" alas. Even Plato >> kind of understood this. Yes, for democracy to work it requires minimum levels of intelligence and social responsibility. These things have been sinking below these minima, and now we're seeing the consequences. >> Still beats authoritarianism, but .... > > There are signs that people are slowly waking up to the fact that its > not clever to believe politicians just because they are, or want to be, > politicians I certainly hope so. I see isolated cases of intelligence, but social media is quite depressing. It's time we started teaching young people to not blindly trust everything they see or hear, but it won't be easy - and the Powers That Be will be fighting it every inch of the way. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 01:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BKmdncnJeb9hqoz3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #86990 |
On 5/23/26 00:21, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-05-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 21/05/2026 18:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-05-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise >>>> Donald Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be >>> >>> Nevertheless, a lot of them still find the Democrats sufficiently >>> distasteful that they'll put up with Trump anyway. >> >> Well whose fault is that? > > Just about everybody's, unfortunately: the Democrats who can't/won't > get their ass in gear, and voters who don't know the difference > between bad and worse. Kinda true alas. Trump HAS been much better than Joe/K ... but by the rampant propaganda you'd never know it. Voters are generally unimpressed with facts/stats. They go for the glitz, the image, the rhetoric. It's a forever problem with 'democracy'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 17:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7e6fnFlt2eU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86992 |
On Sat, 23 May 2026 01:15:24 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Voters are generally unimpressed with facts/stats. > They go for the glitz, the image, the rhetoric. It's a forever > problem with 'democracy'. Facts and stats are overrated. In NYS Gillebrand got her start in the 20th district upstate, which is conservative and leans Republican. She got a decent NRA rating and checked enough boxes to get elected. Clinton the Carpetbagger traded up Secretary of State Gillebrand was appointed to fill the empty seat and became Hillary Jr.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-23 17:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7e60bFlt2eU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86990 |
On Sat, 23 May 2026 04:21:20 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-05-22, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> On 21/05/2026 18:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> >>> On 2026-05-21, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I think it is clear that by now over 51% of Americans realise Donald >>>> Trump was not so good a choice as he was cracked up to be >>> >>> Nevertheless, a lot of them still find the Democrats sufficiently >>> distasteful that they'll put up with Trump anyway. >> >> Well whose fault is that? > > Just about everybody's, unfortunately: the Democrats who can't/won't get > their ass in gear, and voters who don't know the difference between bad > and worse. I'm watching Maine for amusement. Platner must be giving the Democrats heartburn. If I lived in Maine I might vote for him. If the Republicans lose Collins they haven't lost much.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 04:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n77h4lFknumU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86946 |
On Thu, 21 May 2026 03:05:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the people > to agree on anything. In 2020, 51.3% of the people agreed Granpa Biden would make a stellar president along with his faithful sidekick Robin, er, Kamala. Usually the margins are slim but in 1964 61.1% of the people chose the corrupt, lying, war-mongering Texas bag of bullshit LBJ. Democracy is great! People who you wouldn't send down to the corner store to get a quart of milk vote!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <WDHPR.40365$bo1.1444@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #86949 |
On 2026-05-21, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Thu, 21 May 2026 03:05:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: > >> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the people >> to agree on anything. > > In 2020, 51.3% of the people agreed Granpa Biden would make a stellar > president along with his faithful sidekick Robin, er, Kamala. > > Usually the margins are slim but in 1964 61.1% of the people chose the > corrupt, lying, war-mongering Texas bag of bullshit LBJ. Democracy is > great! People who you wouldn't send down to the corner store to get a > quart of milk vote! You're lucky you only have two parties to choose from. Here in Canada the ruling party usually gets no more than 40% of the vote. Combined with a 60% voter turnout, this means politicians claim a "mandate from the masses" when only one in four eligible voters cast a ballot for them. -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 21:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pb44emxk0o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #86969 |
On 2026-05-21 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-05-21, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 21 May 2026 03:05:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the people >>> to agree on anything. >> >> In 2020, 51.3% of the people agreed Granpa Biden would make a stellar >> president along with his faithful sidekick Robin, er, Kamala. >> >> Usually the margins are slim but in 1964 61.1% of the people chose the >> corrupt, lying, war-mongering Texas bag of bullshit LBJ. Democracy is >> great! People who you wouldn't send down to the corner store to get a >> quart of milk vote! > > You're lucky you only have two parties to choose from. Here in > Canada the ruling party usually gets no more than 40% of the vote. > Combined with a 60% voter turnout, this means politicians claim a > "mandate from the masses" when only one in four eligible voters > cast a ballot for them. > The others have no reason to complain. Next time, vote. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-21 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n79id2F4q4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #86973 |
On Thu, 21 May 2026 21:51:53 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-05-21 19:52, Charlie Gibbs wrote: >> On 2026-05-21, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 21 May 2026 03:05:11 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>>> In our freedom-loving secular democracy, we can’t get 51% of the >>>> people to agree on anything. >>> >>> In 2020, 51.3% of the people agreed Granpa Biden would make a stellar >>> president along with his faithful sidekick Robin, er, Kamala. >>> >>> Usually the margins are slim but in 1964 61.1% of the people chose the >>> corrupt, lying, war-mongering Texas bag of bullshit LBJ. Democracy is >>> great! People who you wouldn't send down to the corner store to get a >>> quart of milk vote! >> >> You're lucky you only have two parties to choose from. Here in Canada >> the ruling party usually gets no more than 40% of the vote. >> Combined with a 60% voter turnout, this means politicians claim a >> "mandate from the masses" when only one in four eligible voters cast a >> ballot for them. >> >> > The others have no reason to complain. Next time, vote. Bullshit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-22 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10uo6l1$14800$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #86969 |
On Thu, 21 May 2026 17:52:54 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > You're lucky you only have two parties to choose from. You can’t have democracy unless the voter has a realistic option of more than two parties to choose from. With only two parties, there’s too much of this “but if you don’t vote for us, then the other side wins” mentality. Greetings from 🇳🇿, a country with 6 parties currently represented in Parliament (which is about average for us).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web