Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #154844 > unrolled thread
| Started by | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 321 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 10:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-07 23:49 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-07 22:38 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-08 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2015-12-08 17:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 10:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:18 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-08 16:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 23:10 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-09 07:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-08 14:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-08 12:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) - 2015-12-09 01:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center maus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-12-09 11:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-09 08:47 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 10:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 16:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-09 17:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> - 2015-12-09 17:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-09 18:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-12-10 04:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 14:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 12:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 19:32 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 21:53 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-10 15:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-10 23:03 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 22:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-09 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-09 18:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-09 11:04 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-12-09 16:06 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:36 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-10 07:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-12-10 16:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-10 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:58 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-11 01:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-12-11 15:18 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:21 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-12-09 17:47 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-12-09 22:17 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Ranger" <r5432@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 17:20 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-12-11 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2015-12-10 01:41 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-10 10:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 17:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-10 16:45 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-11 07:26 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2015-12-11 14:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-11 15:31 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-12 08:11 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2015-12-12 16:58 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-12-12 11:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-12-13 15:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 10:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-03 16:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 17:12 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 20:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-04 06:13 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:16 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:16 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:51 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-03 20:20 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 06:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 10:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 09:51 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 17:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 19:04 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 22:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:24 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:30 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 05:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:19 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:22 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 16:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-06 07:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:26 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:36 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:00 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-01-07 23:56 -0400
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 07:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-08 17:32 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 20:42 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-08 11:03 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 06:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:48 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:50 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-07 10:49 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 12:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:40 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:56 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 19:01 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 09:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:12 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:38 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-05 22:11 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:35 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 02:00 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 05:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-09 11:48 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2016-01-09 20:45 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-10 05:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:37 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:16 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 12:46 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 12:17 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-05 12:50 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-05 13:02 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 22:17 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-06 15:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 10:53 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:58 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:03 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-08 14:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-09 09:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:14 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:56 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:22 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:19 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:42 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-08 10:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-08 16:08 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:29 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:18 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 18:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:28 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-01-07 14:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 15:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 16:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 19:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 08:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:33 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:56 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:25 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:06 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-01-07 08:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:24 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 22:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:28 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-06 15:04 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:22 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:29 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:33 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 08:10 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:29 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 19:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:02 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 20:12 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-05 20:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:28 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:00 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:49 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:51 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:36 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 13:24 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 13:52 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 19:54 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 16:22 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:51 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 06:31 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:44 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 13:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 19:13 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:16 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 10:23 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 15:59 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-06 08:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:39 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-06 09:09 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 10:09 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 09:49 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 18:07 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:47 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-06 11:01 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:06 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-07 20:46 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:44 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-01-08 10:49 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-09 05:48 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-01-06 06:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:21 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 13:05 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:15 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 05:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 14:57 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 16:46 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 14:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 16:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 13:05 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-07 03:42 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-07 07:45 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-07 08:30 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:55 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 17:01 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-07 09:52 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-11 12:34 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-01-11 10:22 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-05 16:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 23:01 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:14 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 07:57 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 11:14 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-06 06:54 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-06 12:11 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 11:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-06 11:39 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-01-06 14:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 14:46 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:32 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-07 11:33 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 06:11 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-01-07 13:28 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-08 15:30 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:57 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 17:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-06 07:59 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 18:58 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-07 12:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 18:04 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-08 06:55 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-08 06:37 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 23:56 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:59 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 20:45 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-06 04:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-06 08:05 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "879" <879@nospam.com> - 2016-01-07 15:38 +1100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2016-01-07 16:09 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 18:10 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 11:21 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-04 20:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-01-04 21:25 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:44 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:21 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 06:36 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:32 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-01-05 04:27 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 15:03 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 16:14 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-01-04 13:34 -0800
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 16:53 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-01-04 18:12 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-04 21:38 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 21:35 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 10:23 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 05:43 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 11:20 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 11:43 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 16:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 17:09 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 07:02 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 13:30 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 09:17 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 18:52 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-01-05 12:42 -0600
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2016-01-05 18:53 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-05 19:24 -0500
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-01-05 21:19 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-01-05 21:40 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center mausg@mail.com - 2016-01-05 21:50 +0000
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-12-08 21:25 +0100
Re: 1970--protesters seize computer center Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-08 11:55 -0500
Page 12 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 Next page →
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 15:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df6809Fo8pmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156023 |
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:87ziwjpsyg.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: > >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:54:27 -0000 (UTC) >> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>> > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe for >>> > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. >> >> BTW I make that 5 million jobs - but still a lot less than 17 >> million. > > About half of them were 'no better than the job the undermployed already > had' ... if I'm making $7 frying chips at Bob's Burgers, that is > substantially similar to making $7 frying chips at Tio Ticos Tacos. > > The report was addressing a specific problem with some of the leading > joblessness indicators -- there are classes of people who count as > 'employed', even though they are functionally unemployed. > > I genuinely believe -- we are rapidly approaching the point where the > number of "jobs that can be filled by people" will be a minuscule > fraction of the population (on every single level: subnational, > national and supranational). Have fun explaining how the unemployment rate is just 4.x% and the absolute vast majority of working age women work now and they didn't in say the 50s. > For the last hundred years, the vast majority of people "go do some > kind of work, get money, trade money for goods and services". How > do we solve that equation when there is no work to be had? There clearly is plenty of work to be had with an unemployment rate of just 4.x% > One way to look at the "prepper" movement is as a group who believe > the solution is to fall back to an agrarian (but heavily armed) society. That's only a microscopic minority of even the US. There will always be a few completely rabid loons that have never had a fucking clue. > A cure that is even bleaker than the disease, in my eyes. It isnt a cure for anything and there is no disease either. > CGP Grey has a great video on the topic on youtube "Humans Need > Not Apply", which I recommend highly - it's only about 15 minutes. Problem is he can't explain the unemployment rate of just 4.x% and the vast majority of working age women working with far fewer of those working in the 50s. > People like Mr. Blake seem to have this irrational belief that if you're > not smart or strong or lucky enough to be in a position to create your > own wealth that its your own problem, and none of his concern. My > response to that is: Hungry dogs bite. Doesn't happen like that when there are only 4.x% unemployed. The bulk of those are between jobs or have chosen not to work because the state pays them enough so they don't have to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 15:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df66j8Fnv1lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156019 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160105213026.adb69361d0d60dc5012f28fe@eircom.net... > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:54:27 -0000 (UTC) > Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >> > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe for >> > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. > > BTW I make that 5 million jobs - but still a lot less than 17 million. But there are millions more that don't get listed because they get plenty knocking on their door asking if they have work. With an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the bulk of those are only temporarily between jobs or prefer not to work and to put their hand out to the state instead. >> You still have the option of starting a business and effectively creating >> your own job. Many have done so, myself included. "Find a need and fill >> it," as Henry Kaiser used to say. > > Now what was that figure for the percentage of start up small > businesses that fail in the first year ? ISTR it being quite high, > and then of course is the problem of startup capital. You don't need any real capital with plenty of small business like mowing lawns, doing handyman work for people, walking their pets, feeding their pets in their own houses while they are away, doing their TV antennas, cleaning up their yards, minding their kids, cleaning their houses and cars, doing their ironing, teaching their kids to swim, cleaning their pools, doing their tax returns, writing a useful app for their phones etc etc etc. >> There are no guarantees in life, in particular no guarantee that someone >> else is going to create a job for you. > > That is true, there are no guarantees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 20:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <osr2mc-ma1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156182 |
In article <df66j8Fnv1lU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: > > >"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message >news:20160105213026.adb69361d0d60dc5012f28fe@eircom.net... >> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:54:27 -0000 (UTC) >> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>> > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe for >>> > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. >> >> BTW I make that 5 million jobs - but still a lot less than 17 million. > >But there are millions more that don't get listed because they >get plenty knocking on their door asking if they have work. > >With an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the bulk of those are only >temporarily between jobs or prefer not to work and to put their >hand out to the state instead. The reported unemployment rate is so easily manipulated. And it is. Look at the precentage of the population engaged in gainful employment, at ~70% (31 hours/week) as a minimum. This figure had a huge hit in the US 2007-2009. falling from (already low) ~72% to 59%. For comparison, Finland had the top rate at 85% before the Nokia crash, and Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia hover at the top 70s, dipping down to 71-72 in severe recessions. This means that the burden of support (of the non-working) is nearly twice as big in the US. >>> You still have the option of starting a business and effectively creating >>> your own job. Many have done so, myself included. "Find a need and fill >>> it," as Henry Kaiser used to say. >> >> Now what was that figure for the percentage of start up small >> businesses that fail in the first year ? ISTR it being quite high, >> and then of course is the problem of startup capital. > >You don't need any real capital with plenty of small business >like mowing lawns, doing handyman work for people, walking >their pets, feeding their pets in their own houses while they are >away, doing their TV antennas, cleaning up their yards, minding >their kids, cleaning their houses and cars, doing their ironing, >teaching their kids to swim, cleaning their pools, doing their >tax returns, writing a useful app for their phones etc etc etc. You can incorporate a limited company for around $4k almost everywhere now; with a limit of around $750k in turnover. You can use those $4k for wages or equipment. >>> There are no guarantees in life, in particular no guarantee that someone >>> else is going to create a job for you. >> >> That is true, there are no guarantees. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 15:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df8t63Fedk2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156227 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:osr2mc-ma1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <df66j8Fnv1lU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >>"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message >>news:20160105213026.adb69361d0d60dc5012f28fe@eircom.net... >>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:54:27 -0000 (UTC) >>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>>> > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe >>>> > for >>>> > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. >>> >>> BTW I make that 5 million jobs - but still a lot less than 17 million. >> >>But there are millions more that don't get listed because they >>get plenty knocking on their door asking if they have work. >> >>With an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the bulk of those are only >>temporarily between jobs or prefer not to work and to put their >>hand out to the state instead. > > The reported unemployment rate is so easily manipulated. And it is. But the standardised OECD unemployment rate can't be and only differs by a couple of tenths of a percent at most. > Look at the precentage of the population engaged in gainful employment, > at ~70% (31 hours/week) as a minimum. This figure had a huge hit in the > US 2007-2009. falling from (already low) ~72% to 59%. For comparison, > Finland had the top rate at 85% before the Nokia crash, and Germany, the > Netherlands, Scandinavia hover at the top 70s, dipping down to 71-72 in > severe recessions. That is a quite different measure, under employment. > This means that the burden of support (of the non-working) is nearly > twice as big in the US. You haven't established that those do need to be 'supported' >>>> You still have the option of starting a business and effectively >>>> creating >>>> your own job. Many have done so, myself included. "Find a need and fill >>>> it," as Henry Kaiser used to say. >>> >>> Now what was that figure for the percentage of start up small >>> businesses that fail in the first year ? ISTR it being quite high, >>> and then of course is the problem of startup capital. >> >>You don't need any real capital with plenty of small business >>like mowing lawns, doing handyman work for people, walking >>their pets, feeding their pets in their own houses while they are >>away, doing their TV antennas, cleaning up their yards, minding >>their kids, cleaning their houses and cars, doing their ironing, >>teaching their kids to swim, cleaning their pools, doing their >>tax returns, writing a useful app for their phones etc etc etc. > > You can incorporate a limited company for around $4k almost > everywhere now; with a limit of around $750k in turnover. You don’t need to do anything like that with any of the businesses I listed, just get the equipment you need and in the case of most of them a $500 vehicle is fine for the ones that need one. Most already have one anyway. > You can use those $4k for wages or equipment. You don’t need any wages at all when starting out with most small business. >>>> There are no guarantees in life, in particular no guarantee that >>>> someone >>>> else is going to create a job for you. >>> >>> That is true, there are no guarantees.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-08 10:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1ad4mc-lr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #156237 |
In article <df8t63Fedk2U1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: > > >"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >news:osr2mc-ma1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >> In article <df66j8Fnv1lU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message >>>news:20160105213026.adb69361d0d60dc5012f28fe@eircom.net... >>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:54:27 -0000 (UTC) >>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>>>> > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe >>>>> > for >>>>> > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. >>>> >>>> BTW I make that 5 million jobs - but still a lot less than 17 million. >>> >>>But there are millions more that don't get listed because they >>>get plenty knocking on their door asking if they have work. >>> >>>With an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the bulk of those are only >>>temporarily between jobs or prefer not to work and to put their >>>hand out to the state instead. >> >> The reported unemployment rate is so easily manipulated. And it is. > >But the standardised OECD unemployment rate can't be >and only differs by a couple of tenths of a percent at most. > >> Look at the precentage of the population engaged in gainful employment, >> at ~70% (31 hours/week) as a minimum. This figure had a huge hit in the >> US 2007-2009. falling from (already low) ~72% to 59%. For comparison, >> Finland had the top rate at 85% before the Nokia crash, and Germany, the >> Netherlands, Scandinavia hover at the top 70s, dipping down to 71-72 in >> severe recessions. > >That is a quite different measure, under employment. > >> This means that the burden of support (of the non-working) is nearly >> twice as big in the US. > >You haven't established that those do need to be 'supported' Whatever. But currently, they are. Sometimes by family, sometimes by insurance, sometimes by the state. I am pointing out that the nominally quite laizses-faire(sp?) US system is quite a bit worse off in this respect compared to the "big welfare" economies of Northern Europe. This seems surprising at first sight. >>>>> You still have the option of starting a business and effectively >>>>> creating >>>>> your own job. Many have done so, myself included. "Find a need and fill >>>>> it," as Henry Kaiser used to say. >>>> >>>> Now what was that figure for the percentage of start up small >>>> businesses that fail in the first year ? ISTR it being quite high, >>>> and then of course is the problem of startup capital. >>> >>>You don't need any real capital with plenty of small business >>>like mowing lawns, doing handyman work for people, walking >>>their pets, feeding their pets in their own houses while they are >>>away, doing their TV antennas, cleaning up their yards, minding >>>their kids, cleaning their houses and cars, doing their ironing, >>>teaching their kids to swim, cleaning their pools, doing their >>>tax returns, writing a useful app for their phones etc etc etc. >> >> You can incorporate a limited company for around $4k almost >> everywhere now; with a limit of around $750k in turnover. > >You don’t need to do anything like that with any of the >businesses I listed, just get the equipment you need and >in the case of most of them a $500 vehicle is fine for the >ones that need one. Most already have one anyway. > >> You can use those $4k for wages or equipment. > >You don’t need any wages at all when >starting out with most small business. If you have a proper, limited company you need to pay someone to do stuff. Like yourself. I generally recommend incorporating early. This removes a lot of stress regarding taxes etc; when the business and you are different legal persons. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-09 05:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dfael0Fqnd7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156245 |
"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message news:1ad4mc-lr.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... > In article <df8t63Fedk2U1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> wrote: >> >> >>"Morten Reistad" <first@last.name.invalid> wrote in message >>news:osr2mc-ma1.ln1@sambook.reistad.name... >>> In article <df66j8Fnv1lU1@mid.individual.net>, 879 <879@nospam.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message >>>>news:20160105213026.adb69361d0d60dc5012f28fe@eircom.net... >>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 19:54:27 -0000 (UTC) >>>>> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: >>>>>> > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe >>>>>> > for >>>>>> > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. >>>>> >>>>> BTW I make that 5 million jobs - but still a lot less than 17 million. >>>> >>>>But there are millions more that don't get listed because they >>>>get plenty knocking on their door asking if they have work. >>>> >>>>With an unemployment rate of 4.x%, the bulk of those are only >>>>temporarily between jobs or prefer not to work and to put their >>>>hand out to the state instead. >>> >>> The reported unemployment rate is so easily manipulated. And it is. >> >>But the standardised OECD unemployment rate can't be >>and only differs by a couple of tenths of a percent at most. >> >>> Look at the precentage of the population engaged in gainful employment, >>> at ~70% (31 hours/week) as a minimum. This figure had a huge hit in the >>> US 2007-2009. falling from (already low) ~72% to 59%. For comparison, >>> Finland had the top rate at 85% before the Nokia crash, and Germany, the >>> Netherlands, Scandinavia hover at the top 70s, dipping down to 71-72 in >>> severe recessions. >> >>That is a quite different measure, under employment. >> >>> This means that the burden of support (of the non-working) is nearly >>> twice as big in the US. >> >>You haven't established that those do need to be 'supported' > > Whatever. But currently, they are. Sometimes by family, sometimes by > insurance, sometimes by the state. Much more often those don’t have any support, they just make do with the income they have with the less than ideal living standards. You don’t need anything like 31 hours a week to live quite adequately in the affluent modern first and second world. > I am pointing out that the nominally quite laizses-faire(sp?) US > system is quite a bit worse off in this respect compared to the "big > welfare" economies of Northern Europe. But it is still where most of the illegals choose to go to. So it can't actually be that bad in practice. > This seems surprising at first sight. Only if you don’t realise that its quite possible to live quite adequately on less than 31 hours a week. >>>>>> You still have the option of starting a business and effectively >>>>>> creating >>>>>> your own job. Many have done so, myself included. "Find a need and >>>>>> fill >>>>>> it," as Henry Kaiser used to say. >>>>> >>>>> Now what was that figure for the percentage of start up small >>>>> businesses that fail in the first year ? ISTR it being quite high, >>>>> and then of course is the problem of startup capital. >>>> >>>>You don't need any real capital with plenty of small business >>>>like mowing lawns, doing handyman work for people, walking >>>>their pets, feeding their pets in their own houses while they are >>>>away, doing their TV antennas, cleaning up their yards, minding >>>>their kids, cleaning their houses and cars, doing their ironing, >>>>teaching their kids to swim, cleaning their pools, doing their >>>>tax returns, writing a useful app for their phones etc etc etc. >>> >>> You can incorporate a limited company for around $4k almost >>> everywhere now; with a limit of around $750k in turnover. >> >>You don’t need to do anything like that with any of the >>businesses I listed, just get the equipment you need and >>in the case of most of them a $500 vehicle is fine for the >>ones that need one. Most already have one anyway. >> >>> You can use those $4k for wages or equipment. >> >>You don’t need any wages at all when >>starting out with most small business. > > If you have a proper, limited company > you need to pay someone to do stuff. No you don’t, and you don’t need a proper, limited company do to small business either. > Like yourself. You don’t have to pay yourself a wage. > I generally recommend incorporating early. I don’t. It makes a lot more sense not to for most small business. > This removes a lot of stress regarding taxes etc; when > the business and you are different legal persons. That doesn’t in fact make any real difference to taxes and most of those that do incorporate deliberately move whatever they can of personal costs to the company just because of the tax advantage with that. But the massive downside with incorporation is that it costs a lot more than not doing that and corporate tax is a flat tax in most regimes which is a massive downside when you are just starting out and your entire income is from the small business. Its much better to take advantage of the income tax free threshold that you get with the personal income tax system. And the first step of the personal income tax rate is generally lower than the corporate income tax rate too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 06:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b6b65755-8321-4b78-9003-2a59bb2f02db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #155996 |
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 12:57:07 PM UTC-7, Roger Blake wrote: > On 2016-01-05, Lawrence Statton <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote: (quoting someone else) > > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe for > > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. > You still have the option of starting a business and effectively creating > your own job. Many have done so, myself included. "Find a need and fill > it," as Henry Kaiser used to say. > There are no guarantees in life, in particular no guarantee that someone > else is going to create a job for you. Clearly, your post is based on ideology, not reason. That is, you have an aversion to the government seeing that not everyone is content, and passing laws, and spending tax money, until they've fixed things. Now, individual freedom versus government regulation is indeed a good thing. But Sweden is not the Soviet Union, thus it should be evident that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian dictatorship because its rulers wanted it that way, not because that is the inevitable place where government taking from the rich and giving to the poor will ultimately lead. The question of whether it is *possible* for the government to guarantee that just about every young man who graduates from high school will be able, in relatively short order, to start a family is one that should be investigated in a calm, objective, and scientific fashion. That is: We should all agree that this is a desirable goal. We should all agree that achieving that goal is more important than ideological purity. Yes, there are prices we would not pay to achieve this goal - like suppression of dissent, not having elections, not having a free press - but aside from dire consequences like that, this is a more important goal than adhering to some vision of what the Founding Fathers meant and so on. Now, then... Can we achieve this goal? Well, the U.S. is rich in resources! So, if any country could achieve this, one would think the U.S. would be that country. Now, what happens when people start families? They have children. Back in the 1948 to 1968 period, when the desirable economic conditions existed - most young men out of high school got jobs right away - the population was growing at a rate of 2% per year. However, the productivity of agricultural land has not been growing at 2% per year - and in any case, it could hardly be expected not only to do so now, but to continue to do so, every year, in a sustainable manner, as years turn into decades, as decades turn into centuries, as centuries turn into millenia... and so on until the Sun leaves the Main Sequence. So the _first_ obvious consequence of achieving eternal full employment is that we will need to engage in population control. That _may_ already be regarded as unacceptable. If it isn't, though, then we must consider other matters. Basically, eternal full employment is a goal not just because we want to make *one group of people* happy. It's because we want to _abolish war_. If young men are not content, they get into trouble. They might join gangs that sell drugs. They might listen to terrorist preachers, and go off to fight jihad. They might vote a demagogue into power who starts a war. Now then: At birth, the human sex ratio is 105 males to 100 females. But males have a higher mortality rate than females. On the average, men tend to marry women who are two years younger than they are. The population was growing at the rate of 2% per year during the 1948-1968 period. Conclusion: In addition to population control measures to maintain a stable population, we will have to augment the proportion of females to males by 4%. Otherwise, having a steady job will not produce the actual ultimately desired result for many young men, and thus Darwinian forces will lead to them causing trouble again. John Savard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 13:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df60e0FmlpsU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155995 |
"Lawrence Statton" <lawrence@senguio.mx> wrote in message news:874merreh1.fsf@redbull.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me... > scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > >> Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes: >> >>>What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >>>stay poor for very long. There are plenty of ways to make a buck for >>>someone who is willing to go out and do so. >> >> Speaking of loads of crap. Cite please. > > I suspect there was a time when this was true It still is. > -- when any man with a strong back (or mind) and a desire to do > whatever it took to make ends meet could at least stave off starvation. You don't need to do anything to stave off starvation anymore, just put your hand out. > Some statistics that came across my desk > the other day about work in the US: > 17,000,000 the number of willing-to-work people who have either no work, > or are 'seriously underemployed' (making less than 30% of their highest > wage). The second group aren't starving. And neither is the first either. > 2,900,000 the number of open postings that pay minimum wage. And plenty more that don't bother to advertise because they get enough knocking on their door asking if there is work available. > 2,100,000 the number of open postings that pay more than minimum wage. > > Seventeen million workers chasing two million jobs is not a recipe for > pulling oneself up by ones bootstraps. But anyone who wants to do that can still do that. When a mate of mine got sacked for being a bludger and couldn't find any jobs available, he offered to work for nothing at one of the local operations that was doing the sort of work that he knew something about. They were happy to have him and did start paying him when they could see that he knew what he was doing. He moved on from that to installing TV antennas and other electrical stuff like alarms etc, working for himself. Last time I heard he was a cleaning contractor working for himself. One of the neighbour's kids has just shown up with a big bag of cash to get me to put it on paypal for him, $360 from busking in just one day. One of the garage/yard salers buys up second hand mirrors and etches them and sells them at the farmers market and on facebook. Three of the other garage/yard salers buys stuff to resell, one of them at the farmers market. There are quite a few that do stuff like gardening, lawn mowing, odd jobs, house maintenance, pet grooming, pet microchipping etc etc etc on the local facebook buy sell swap groups. Many of those I know have started their own businesses. That can be done with almost no capital at all now with ebay and amazon making that so easy to do and I have bought quite a bit of stuff from people who have done that. My own sister has done that too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 13:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df5vgcFmf80U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #155990 |
"Scott Lurndal" <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote in message news:dzUiy.63394$hF6.11026@fx38.iad... > Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes: > >> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated >> rarely stay poor for very long. There are plenty of ways to make >> a buck for someone who is willing to go out and do so. > > Speaking of loads of crap. Cite please. Don’t need a cite for something like that. There is always some way to make a buck even if you have to move to do that. That doesn’t necessarily mean that you aren't poor tho in some situations. I knew that buskers could earn more than you might expect but I was amazed when one of the neighbour's kids showed up with a fucking great bag of money which he was getting me to put on PayPal for him. He'd earned $360 in just one day before Xmas.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 21:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160105211509.1863dcbfc49596e17c381f8f@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #155986 |
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:50:52 -0000 (UTC) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely Not everyone is intelligent and motivated. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160105163256@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156009 |
On 2016-01-05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > Not everyone is intelligent and motivated. Too bad for them. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 05:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160107052344.8d22ecf361e7df2e21760e87@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156013 |
On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 21:30:55 -0000 (UTC) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-05, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote: > > Not everyone is intelligent and motivated. > > Too bad for them. Or healthy - which you left out but is a real requirement. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "879" <879@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 14:57 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <df661rFnr9iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #156009 |
"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <steveo@eircom.net> wrote in message news:20160105211509.1863dcbfc49596e17c381f8f@eircom.net... > On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 18:50:52 -0000 (UTC) > Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > >> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely > > Not everyone is intelligent and motivated. You don't need to be to find a job or start working for yourself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 16:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6hdev$17v$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #155986 |
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes: > On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. > > Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone > else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, > right? No flies on you!)) > >> You are an example >> of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely >> hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. > > What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely > stay poor for very long. There are plenty of ways to make a buck for > someone who is willing to go out and do so. Yes, intelligent and motivated is a winning combination. Health and good looks are nice to have too. And people that are 7 ft tall and athletic can make a fortune on the basket ball court. Not sure what point you are trying to make. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Kn9jy.64809$IX3.32987@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #156016 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes: > >> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. >> >> Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone >> else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, >> right? No flies on you!)) >> >>> You are an example >>> of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely >>> hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >> >> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >> stay poor for very long. There are plenty of ways to make a buck for >> someone who is willing to go out and do so. > >Yes, intelligent and motivated is a winning combination. >Health and good looks are nice to have too. > >And people that are 7 ft tall and athletic can make a fortune >on the basket ball court. > >Not sure what point you are trying to make. Rogers point is "I got mine, fuck you".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 14:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160106144220.dee8abaab9909d7751d1c979@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156092 |
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:19:22 GMT scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >Not sure what point you are trying to make. > > > Rogers point is "I got mine, fuck you". "I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack" Pink Floyd. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0Tajy.93563$_r1.79020@fx24.iad> |
| In reply to | #156101 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes: >On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:19:22 GMT >scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote: > >> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: > >> >Not sure what point you are trying to make. >> >> >> Rogers point is "I got mine, fuck you". > > "I'm all right Jack, keep your hands off of my stack" Pink Floyd. A different, but much nicer (these days, anyway), Roger :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 13:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n6jks4$4g7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #156092 |
scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes: >>Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> writes: >> >>> On 2016-01-05, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> So let's see, somebody has a car, the state prevents him from using it, >>>> and now it's my responsibility to drive him to work. >>> >>> Ah, so you are not willing to help people yourself, you expect someone >>> else to do it. (Heck, you can't be expected to be your brother's keeper, >>> right? No flies on you!)) >>> >>>> You are an example >>>> of why we have so much poverty in the US--you have somebody who's barely >>>> hanging on and your solution is to push him over the edge. >>> >>> What a load of crap. People who are intelligent and motivated rarely >>> stay poor for very long. There are plenty of ways to make a buck for >>> someone who is willing to go out and do so. >> >>Yes, intelligent and motivated is a winning combination. >>Health and good looks are nice to have too. >> >>And people that are 7 ft tall and athletic can make a fortune >>on the basket ball court. >> >>Not sure what point you are trying to make. > > Rogers point is "I got mine, fuck you". Maybe, but I took it as, I only care about the intelligent and motivated. But then he asserted that just motivation is enough in another post. So far he's ignored intelligent and motivated but sick or ugly. But, you may be right. I was just trying to uncover any reasoning and not make any enemies. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 03:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160106215925@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #156133 |
On 2016-01-06, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > But, you may be right. I was just trying to uncover any > reasoning and not make any enemies. The bottom line is that I categorically reject the welfare state and the the idea put forth by "progressives" that the individual is a helpless child that requires the intervention of the criminal gang calling itself "government" in order to survive. As far as "democratic" governments are concerned - elected gangsters are still gangsters. (If you do not believe that governments are criminal organizations I can only suggest you open a history book and see for yourself the level of theft, extortion, slavery, coercion, torture, and murder practiced by *all* governments. The evidence is clear and irrefutable.) Do you believe that the unintelligent, unmotivated people that so many here appear to be concerned about have the right to go out into the street and start holding up people and stealing from them by force? Do they have the right to hire someone else to do so by proxy? Of course not. Well, this is exactly what happens what happens when government engages in its wealth redistribution schemes. Watch as politicans beat around the bush and snap when confronted with a simple question regarding this issue: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/watch-politicians-snap-when-alternative-media-journalist-asks-them-one-short-question.html Of course you are free to assist anyone that you care to with your own resources. However, you have no business hiring a band of armed thugs to steal from anyone else in order to do so. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-07 07:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20160107074539.a1e0abb71b806e2584d43564@eircom.net> |
| In reply to | #156179 |
On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 03:42:03 -0000 (UTC) Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote: > On 2016-01-06, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > > But, you may be right. I was just trying to uncover any > > reasoning and not make any enemies. > > The bottom line is that I categorically reject the welfare state and the > the idea put forth by "progressives" that the individual is a helpless > child that requires the intervention of the criminal gang calling itself How about the proposal that there exist people who do require support in order to live. You yourself may become one on short notice should you become afflicted with some condition that prevents you from working such as chronic fatigue syndrome, or any number of progressive degenerative conditions. Is it your contention that under such circumstances you should be left to die in unsupported misery ? Consider for a moment Stephen Hawking - he is a very fortunate man in that his genius enables him to be productive and valued despite a body that is almost completely useless. Could you survive in his condition without support ? How about a person of average intelligence in his condition, should they be left to die in the street ? > "government" in order to survive. As far as "democratic" governments are > concerned - elected gangsters are still gangsters. (If you do not believe > that governments are criminal organizations I can only suggest you open a > history book and see for yourself the level of theft, extortion, slavery, > coercion, torture, and murder practiced by *all* governments. The evidence > is clear and irrefutable.) Certainly this is true - you do realise I hope that a good proportion of your wealth derives from the fact that the government you so deride manages to arrange matters such that the 5% of the world's population that lives under it consumes around 25% of the world's resources ? If you truly believe that life is better without a criminal gang running things for the benefit of it's population then move to Somalia and see how well you can live. > Do you believe that the unintelligent, unmotivated people that so many > here appear to be concerned about have the right to go out into the > street and start holding up people and stealing from them by force? Do > they have the right to hire someone else to do so by proxy? Of course > not. Well, this is exactly what happens what happens when government > engages in its wealth redistribution schemes. OK - so do you believe this criminal gang of which you speak has the right to: Steal money by force to pay for the weapons and thugs it uses to do this stealing ? Steal money by force to build the roads you use ? Steal money by force to run courts and prisons ? Steal money by force to provide a currency ? Steal money by force to provide a police force ? Steal money by force to provide a body of law ? Steal money by force to interfere in the affairs of other countries ? Steal money by force to even exist ? If the answer to *any* of these is yes then please explain why welfare is special in this regard. I believe the purpose of a government (or state or whatever you wish to call it) is to be of benefit to it's citizens in whatever way they collectively desire. > Of course you are free to assist anyone that you care to with your own > resources. However, you have no business hiring a band of armed thugs > to steal from anyone else in order to do so. Ah so the unfortunate must depend on the charity of those with a conscience. I might even agree with this but then I would have to follow through and suggest that *all* taxation must be voluntary and paid directly to the bodies the payer chooses to support. Unfortunately I strongly suspect that this would lead to a mess worse than any seen in history to date. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web