Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #286560 > unrolled thread
| Started by | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-29 13:24 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-03-29 15:50 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 413 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 13:24 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 15:41 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 13:59 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 16:00 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:09 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 16:10 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:19 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-29 16:16 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:20 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:35 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 11:09 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:59 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 16:04 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:18 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 16:23 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-29 12:38 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 17:02 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-29 13:08 -0400
Re: fucking firefox John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 13:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 03:48 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:04 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:15 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:20 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 10:30 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 11:07 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-29 21:04 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 01:21 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 12:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:39 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:37 +0000
Re: fucking firefox John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 07:30 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-30 11:21 +0100
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 14:39 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:06 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 17:09 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:17 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:16 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:31 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 19:47 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 14:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 13:35 -0500
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 13:57 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 20:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 20:56 -0400
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 22:22 +0100
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:59 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-30 20:02 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:53 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 05:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-31 10:59 +0100
The Apache Software Foundation Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 06:11 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 13:07 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:32 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:28 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:17 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 08:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 17:24 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 12:10 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 18:37 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 10:15 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 19:51 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:20 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:22 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:27 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:49 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 01:01 +0200
Re: fucking wintrolls ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 23:01 +0000
Re: fucking lintrolls GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:46 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:51 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:45 -0600
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-02 05:00 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:44 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 19:06 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:12 +0200
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:39 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:17 -0600
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:27 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:30 -0700
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:35 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:47 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 12:01 -0700
Re: fucking firefox cc <scatnubbs@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-01 12:14 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 13:02 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 22:57 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-01 23:46 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:02 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-02 00:08 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:23 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:43 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:41 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-04 09:36 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 20:11 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 20:30 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 18:30 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 16:39 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 21:02 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 23:47 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-02 06:09 +0200
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-02 08:58 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 09:23 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 08:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-04-04 02:17 +0000
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 09:38 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:57 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:56 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:35 -0500
Re: fucking wintrolls ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 22:17 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:46 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:58 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 00:13 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:20 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-04-01 21:31 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:38 -0400
Ezekiel doesn't care, obviously. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 08:20 -0700
Re: Ezekiel doesn't care, obviously. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 12:01 -0400
Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 09:55 -0700
Re: Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-02 13:37 -0400
Re: Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 14:20 -0400
Re: Your Usenet skills reflect your email skills. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 11:34 -0700
If you don't need more, than fine. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 19:25 -0700
Re: If you don't need more, than fine. Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-02 23:50 -0400
Re: If you don't need more, than fine. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:10 +0200
Re: If you don't need more, than fine. Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-03 12:58 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:17 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 19:49 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-02 01:53 +0200
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 12:36 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:16 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:59 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 09:25 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 09:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 00:04 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:29 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 20:49 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 21:56 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 10:50 +0100
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 12:11 +0200
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 07:07 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 14:42 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-31 13:45 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:13 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-31 11:35 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 08:09 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 11:59 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:15 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 15:26 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:42 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 15:01 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:43 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-01 19:54 -0400
If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 06:16 -0700
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 13:47 -0500
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-04-02 20:14 +0000
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 17:57 -0400
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 18:21 -0400
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 16:48 -0700
Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 22:14 -0400
Define "Good things". Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 19:29 -0700
Re: Define "Good things". Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 22:15 -0500
Re: Define "Good things". Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-02 23:49 -0400
The House of Saud. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-04-02 07:55 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 12:07 -0400
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-01 18:40 +0000
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 14:52 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:40 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 11:56 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 20:31 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 12:03 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:43 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 07:38 -0700
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-01 14:42 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 17:13 +0200
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:14 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:13 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 13:49 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:39 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:15 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:33 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:35 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:50 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:28 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 06:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:28 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-03-30 23:26 +0000
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-30 08:05 -0400
Hooting owl Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 05:56 -0400
Re: Hooting owl William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 11:01 +0100
Re: Hooting owl Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 08:58 -0700
Re: Hooting owl Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:43 -0700
Re: Hooting owl GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:26 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:28 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:25 -0600
fucking owl Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-29 12:27 -0400
Re: fucking owl Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-29 12:32 -0400
Re: fucking owl GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 16:00 -0600
Fucking bowel Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-03-29 18:41 +0000
Re: fucking owl owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 18:54 +0000
Re: fucking owl GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:58 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-29 09:45 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-29 15:54 +0200
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:06 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 10:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:55 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 09:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 14:38 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:43 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-29 16:42 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:55 -0600
Re: fucking firefox taka0038@gmail.com - 2015-04-01 09:23 -0700
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 14:41 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 14:55 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:25 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:29 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:24 -0600
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:44 +0000
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 09:05 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 09:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 09:40 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:23 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:22 -0600
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-29 16:19 +0100
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 15:41 +0000
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:54 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:09 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:23 +0000
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 04:32 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 04:40 +0000
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 09:06 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 10:06 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:21 -0600
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 20:45 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:20 -0600
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-30 09:02 +0100
Irritable bowel chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 07:09 -0500
Re: Irritable bowel DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 10:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-30 10:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-03-30 11:25 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:18 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:16 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:53 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-30 03:47 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-30 08:23 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2015-03-30 16:06 +0100
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 15:15 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 09:43 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 16:57 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 12:13 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 19:24 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 12:35 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-03-29 12:44 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 19:54 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 13:06 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-29 20:29 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 13:59 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 00:55 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 18:15 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 01:38 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 18:54 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 02:25 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 22:53 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 03:12 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-29 22:56 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 13:06 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 19:46 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 14:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 20:15 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 11:42 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 20:54 +0200
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-30 14:03 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 12:12 -0700
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-30 14:22 -0500
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-30 15:37 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:50 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-30 21:51 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:49 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-30 20:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:50 +0200
"What's a Sea drive?" Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 05:57 -0400
Re: "What's a Sea drive?" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 08:40 -0400
Re: "What's a Sea drive?" chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 09:14 -0500
Re: "What's a Sea drive?" DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 13:22 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:57 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:11 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:40 -0400
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 11:47 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 13:29 -0400
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:29 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-03-31 18:39 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 13:31 -0500
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-02 14:19 -0500
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-02 15:42 -0500
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-04-02 21:19 +0000
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-04-02 23:41 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:37 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-04-02 12:49 -0700
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-02 22:56 +0100
C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:40 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 09:40 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 06:04 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:07 +0200
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 12:16 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 07:11 -0500
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:35 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:35 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 07:57 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 15:21 +0200
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 09:42 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 16:03 +0200
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 10:16 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 10:16 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:35 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-03 10:20 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:34 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 22:29 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-04 09:33 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 09:49 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 09:10 -0500
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:31 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-03 11:00 -0500
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 12:24 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 12:36 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:30 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:30 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:29 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 15:01 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:25 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:28 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-03 22:29 +0100
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:28 -0600
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-03 13:01 -0400
Re: C:, D:, relics of DOS, in Windows flagship offering GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:27 -0600
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 16:55 -0700
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-02 17:21 -0700
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-02 22:06 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 13:02 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 07:53 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-03 15:19 +0200
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 09:36 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:27 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 09:51 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:26 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:25 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-02 19:03 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-02 19:35 -0400
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-03 06:49 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-03 09:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-03 12:22 -0600
Re: fucking firefox "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2015-04-03 14:55 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-04 16:24 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Tomas <tgif9fri@numo.net> - 2015-04-03 09:39 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-04-03 11:03 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-31 17:40 -0700
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 08:45 -0400
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-31 09:33 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:11 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:19 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:42 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 13:18 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 11:43 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 20:30 +0200
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-31 22:36 +0100
Re: fucking firefox Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-03-31 23:51 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 00:18 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 19:52 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:27 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 08:23 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 12:10 -0600
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:30 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-04-01 16:30 -0600
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:41 -0600
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:49 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-31 19:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 21:35 -0400
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-31 16:40 -0600
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-03-31 22:33 +0100
Re: fucking firefox ronb <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2015-03-31 22:39 +0000
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-03-31 12:04 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 13:34 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-31 10:50 -0700
Re: fucking firefox chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-03-31 08:33 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 12:15 -0700
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-03-30 15:31 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 16:23 -0700
Re: fucking firefox owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-03-30 23:36 +0000
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 17:44 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 15:26 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-30 22:06 +0200
Re: fucking firefox JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2015-03-30 15:19 -0500
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 23:02 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:49 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:52 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 11:39 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 12:16 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-03-30 19:46 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 08:47 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 08:50 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-03-31 17:07 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-31 11:37 -0400
Re: fucking firefox vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2015-04-01 09:03 -0700
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 12:56 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-04-01 19:50 +0200
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-04-01 14:21 -0400
Re: fucking firefox William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2015-04-01 22:45 +0100
Re: fucking firefox DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-04-01 21:01 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2015-04-01 20:00 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Slimer <slvrslmr@lv.c> - 2015-03-30 12:54 -0400
Re: fucking firefox Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-03-30 10:08 -0700
Re: fucking firefox GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2015-03-29 15:50 -0600
Page 8 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 21 Next page →
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfdrqa$t62$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286926 |
Desk Rabbit wrote: > On 31/03/2015 04:56, GreyCloud wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 3/30/2015 5:29 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>> ronb wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:09:28 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I can run firefox from home dir no problem, but I prefer using >>>>>> package manager ... Manjaro rulleeeeez!!! >>>>> >>>>> Who wouldn't prefer the package manager? -- it's just one of the ways >>>>> Linux is superior to WinCrap. >>>>> >>>> Really? Give an example of this so-called superiority. >>> >>> >>> sudo pacman -S xfce4 >>> >>> That's all that's required to download and install to Manjaro the entire >>> xfce desktop environment in about 1 minute. >> >> I've already got the xfce desktop. I don't like it tho. >> I don't see how it is any better than just downloading a program for >> windows and then just running the installer. >> A lot of linux software comes in the tarball format. Still have to >> download it tho, and if the user isn't familiar with what a tar format is >> they'll >> start scratching their head about what to do next. It just isn't that >> intuitive. >> > > Considering the number of Windows users who download a file and then > wonder why nothing happened, asking them to tar -zxf and then compile a > program is a step too far. I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and folders, and windows users in general are not much smarter than those
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 07:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ma3lhal0ls4rl273f81mbba1asens7biju@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #286932 |
Peter Köhlmann wrote: >I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and folders, Just be sure that you use the words "folders" and not "directories", or you will really freak them out. You might later find them curled-up in the fetal position, clutching their iPads. -- "You need a PhD and years of IT experience to run Linux." - RayDopez
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 14:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfe4l8$tdo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286939 |
chrisv wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and >>folders, > > Just be sure that you use the words "folders" and not "directories", > or you will really freak them out. Well, I did not want to drive them directly into the need for a prolonged stay in an asylum > You might later find them > curled-up in the fetal position, clutching their iPads. > You mean like Snit Michael Glasser, shortly before he starts up hundreds of threads to keep people from posting his latest lies again and again?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 13:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mfe4sb$ub4$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org> |
| In reply to | #286939 |
On 31/03/2015 13:07, chrisv wrote: > Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and folders, > > Just be sure that you use the words "folders" and not "directories", > or you will really freak them out. You might later find them > curled-up in the fetal position, clutching their iPads. > Xenophobic nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 08:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfe5g5$rj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286932 |
On 3/31/2015 6:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Desk Rabbit wrote: > >> On 31/03/2015 04:56, GreyCloud wrote: >>> DFS wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/30/2015 5:29 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:09:28 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I can run firefox from home dir no problem, but I prefer using >>>>>>> package manager ... Manjaro rulleeeeez!!! >>>>>> >>>>>> Who wouldn't prefer the package manager? -- it's just one of the ways >>>>>> Linux is superior to WinCrap. >>>>>> >>>>> Really? Give an example of this so-called superiority. >>>> >>>> >>>> sudo pacman -S xfce4 >>>> >>>> That's all that's required to download and install to Manjaro the entire >>>> xfce desktop environment in about 1 minute. >>> >>> I've already got the xfce desktop. I don't like it tho. >>> I don't see how it is any better than just downloading a program for >>> windows and then just running the installer. >>> A lot of linux software comes in the tarball format. Still have to >>> download it tho, and if the user isn't familiar with what a tar format is >>> they'll >>> start scratching their head about what to do next. It just isn't that >>> intuitive. >>> >> >> Considering the number of Windows users who download a file and then >> wonder why nothing happened, asking them to tar -zxf and then compile a >> program is a step too far. > > I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and folders, > and windows users in general are not much smarter than those It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy, and it's the wealthier people who buy Apple products. So Apple/OSX users are actually smarter than broke Linux users, not only genetically but in their choice of quality computer products. Look at this newsgroup: on the Linux side are the absolute morons John Gohde, Dumb Willie, Melzzzzz, Nobody, and Tattoo Vampire.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 17:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfedhu$uk3$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286951 |
DFS wrote: > On 3/31/2015 6:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> Desk Rabbit wrote: >> >>> On 31/03/2015 04:56, GreyCloud wrote: >>>> DFS wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 3/30/2015 5:29 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:09:28 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I can run firefox from home dir no problem, but I prefer using >>>>>>>> package manager ... Manjaro rulleeeeez!!! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Who wouldn't prefer the package manager? -- it's just one of the >>>>>>> ways Linux is superior to WinCrap. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Really? Give an example of this so-called superiority. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> sudo pacman -S xfce4 >>>>> >>>>> That's all that's required to download and install to Manjaro the >>>>> entire xfce desktop environment in about 1 minute. >>>> >>>> I've already got the xfce desktop. I don't like it tho. >>>> I don't see how it is any better than just downloading a program for >>>> windows and then just running the installer. >>>> A lot of linux software comes in the tarball format. Still have to >>>> download it tho, and if the user isn't familiar with what a tar format >>>> is they'll >>>> start scratching their head about what to do next. It just isn't that >>>> intuitive. >>>> >>> >>> Considering the number of Windows users who download a file and then >>> wonder why nothing happened, asking them to tar -zxf and then compile a >>> program is a step too far. >> >> I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and >> folders, and windows users in general are not much smarter than those > > > It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy, Nope. Thats bullshit. And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to spend more for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they needlessly spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior in many cases
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-31 11:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfeepr$71i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #286978 |
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message news:mfedhu$uk3$5@dont-email.me... > DFS wrote: > >> On 3/31/2015 6:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> Desk Rabbit wrote: >>> >>>> On 31/03/2015 04:56, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>> DFS wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 3/30/2015 5:29 PM, GreyCloud wrote: >>>>>>> ronb wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:09:28 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can run firefox from home dir no problem, but I prefer using >>>>>>>>> package manager ... Manjaro rulleeeeez!!! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Who wouldn't prefer the package manager? -- it's just one of the >>>>>>>> ways Linux is superior to WinCrap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really? Give an example of this so-called superiority. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> sudo pacman -S xfce4 >>>>>> >>>>>> That's all that's required to download and install to Manjaro the >>>>>> entire xfce desktop environment in about 1 minute. >>>>> >>>>> I've already got the xfce desktop. I don't like it tho. >>>>> I don't see how it is any better than just downloading a program for >>>>> windows and then just running the installer. >>>>> A lot of linux software comes in the tarball format. Still have to >>>>> download it tho, and if the user isn't familiar with what a tar format >>>>> is they'll >>>>> start scratching their head about what to do next. It just isn't that >>>>> intuitive. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Considering the number of Windows users who download a file and then >>>> wonder why nothing happened, asking them to tar -zxf and then compile a >>>> program is a step too far. >>> >>> I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and >>> folders, and windows users in general are not much smarter than those >> >> >> It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy, > > Nope. Thats bullshit. It's actually a fact. Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal. Read the last couple of paragraphs from Dr. Noble at Columbia University. (Columbia is one of the top Universities in the world). The neuroscience research on poverty and brain development explains the reason. <quote> Brains, Wealth (or Its Lack) and Academic Achievement Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid and few stupid people are wildly successful. March 31, 2015 Regarding Charles Murray's "Why the SAT Isn't a 'Student Affluence Test,'" (op-ed, March 25): Everybody knows that intelligence and economic success are connected. Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid, and few stupid people are wildly successful. Intelligence is also associated with positive lifestyle choices. In general, intelligent people don't make stupid personal decisions. They don't drop out of school, commit crimes, have children out of wedlock and go on public assistance. They know that's a dead end. Economically and socially successful families tend to be made up of intelligent people. IQ and success go hand-in-hand. These genes are passed on to the offspring. That's why they get into college in larger numbers. ... ... New neuroscience research suggests that childhood poverty may shape brain development, potentially explaining differences in subsequent cognitive skills and behavior. We and others have reported compelling links between family income and brain structure and function, in brain regions associated with skills important for academic success. By identifying how income affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty policies that better support children's well-being. Mr. Murray concludes that "blaming inequality of academic outcomes on economic inequality" potentially punishes "children whose strengths do not lie in academics." Yet it is this outlook that may be punitive. Poverty may be the greatest barrier to a child attaining his or her full academic potential. Kimberly G. Noble, M.D., Ph.D. Columbia University </quote> http://www.wsj.com/articles/brains-wealth-or-its-lack-and-academic-achievement-letters-to-the-editor-1427734470 > And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to spend > more > for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they needlessly > spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior in > many > cases Actually they are. But it's an effect and not a cause. They're not smarter+wealthier because they buy Apple products. They are already smarter+wealthier so they're easily able to buy Apple products than the typical minimum wage dimwit. You can substitute Apple products with any other premium product and get the same result. People who drink (and afford) Woodford Reserve bourbon are smarter and wealthier than people who drink Old Crow bourbon. People who eat at Smith and Wollensky steakhouse are smarter and wealthier than people who eat at Sizzler. People who live in the Upper East Side of Manhattan are smarter and wealthier than people who live in the slums.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <551c0a19$0$44764$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #286980 |
On 03/31/2015 08:35 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:mfedhu$uk3$5@dont-email.me...
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/31/2015 6:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/03/2015 04:56, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/30/2015 5:29 PM, GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>>> ronb wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 17:09:28 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can run firefox from home dir no problem, but I prefer using
>>>>>>>>>> package manager ... Manjaro rulleeeeez!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Who wouldn't prefer the package manager? -- it's just one of the
>>>>>>>>> ways Linux is superior to WinCrap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Really? Give an example of this so-called superiority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> sudo pacman -S xfce4
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's all that's required to download and install to Manjaro the
>>>>>>> entire xfce desktop environment in about 1 minute.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've already got the xfce desktop. I don't like it tho.
>>>>>> I don't see how it is any better than just downloading a program for
>>>>>> windows and then just running the installer.
>>>>>> A lot of linux software comes in the tarball format. Still have to
>>>>>> download it tho, and if the user isn't familiar with what a tar format
>>>>>> is they'll
>>>>>> start scratching their head about what to do next. It just isn't that
>>>>>> intuitive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering the number of Windows users who download a file and then
>>>>> wonder why nothing happened, asking them to tar -zxf and then compile a
>>>>> program is a step too far.
>>>>
>>>> I am certain of that. OSX users cringe at the thought of files and
>>>> folders, and windows users in general are not much smarter than those
>>>
>>>
>>> It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy,
>>
>> Nope. Thats bullshit.
>
> It's actually a fact. Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal.
> Read the last couple of paragraphs from Dr. Noble at Columbia University.
> (Columbia is one of the top Universities in the world). The neuroscience
> research on poverty and brain development explains the reason.
>
> <quote>
> Brains, Wealth (or Its Lack) and Academic Achievement
> Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid and few stupid people are
> wildly successful.
> March 31, 2015
>
> Regarding Charles Murray's "Why the SAT Isn't a 'Student Affluence Test,'"
> (op-ed, March 25): Everybody knows that intelligence and economic success
> are connected. Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid, and few
> stupid people are wildly successful.
>
> Intelligence is also associated with positive lifestyle choices. In general,
> intelligent people don't make stupid personal decisions. They don't drop out
> of school, commit crimes, have children out of wedlock and go on public
> assistance. They know that's a dead end.
>
> Economically and socially successful families tend to be made up of
> intelligent people. IQ and success go hand-in-hand. These genes are passed
> on to the offspring. That's why they get into college in larger numbers.
>
> ...
> ...
>
> New neuroscience research suggests that childhood poverty may shape brain
> development, potentially explaining differences in subsequent cognitive
> skills and behavior. We and others have reported compelling links between
> family income and brain structure and function, in brain regions associated
> with skills important for academic success. By identifying how income
> affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty policies
> that better support children's well-being.
>
> Mr. Murray concludes that "blaming inequality of academic outcomes on
> economic inequality" potentially punishes "children whose strengths do not
> lie in academics." Yet it is this outlook that may be punitive. Poverty may
> be the greatest barrier to a child attaining his or her full academic
> potential.
>
> Kimberly G. Noble, M.D., Ph.D.
> Columbia University
> </quote>
>
> http://www.wsj.com/articles/brains-wealth-or-its-lack-and-academic-achievement-letters-to-the-editor-1427734470
A Roger Murdock newspaper's op-ed glad-handing the wealthy? I've never
heard of such a thing!
Oh, but "new...research suggests" and "potentially explaining" are solid
bricks upon which to build a case, so we should certainly pay
attention...to the peer-reviewed literature, not to an op-ed. Because
you can bet that the author's ideas are challenged there.
Having said that, I think every opportunity for good nutrition, good
nurturing, and good education should be given to those in poverty. But
people in that situation? They grow up with a different set of smarts.
>> And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to spend
>> more
>> for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they needlessly
>> spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior in
>> many
>> cases
>
> Actually they are. But it's an effect and not a cause. They're not
> smarter+wealthier because they buy Apple products. They are already
> smarter+wealthier so they're easily able to buy Apple products than the
> typical minimum wage dimwit.
There is so much wrong with this paragraph, one barely knows where to begin.
First, "Actually, they are." Bzzt. You don't know that -- nor does Dr.
Noble.
You're also equivocating, but I'll get to that in a second.
> You can substitute Apple products with any other premium product and get the
> same result.
This is an unsupported assertion. The only thing that can be said about
purchasers of products perceived as "premium" is that the buyer's have
the cash to buy the product...and have bought into the product's marketing.
> People who drink (and afford) Woodford Reserve bourbon are
> smarter and wealthier than people who drink Old Crow bourbon.
People who drink bourbon are stupider than people who don't drink. That
has nothing to do with their wealth or upbringing, but because they're
imbibing in a drug. So, REALLY stupid example.
But that's not why we're here -- we're here because of your
equivocation. You've taken "wealthier" and turned it into
"smarter+wealthier" based on an op-ed from a Roger Murdock newspaper,
which (as shown above) is using very tenuous language to begin with.
Probably the best you could say is that "SOME evidence suggests people
in poverty grow up disadvantaged". But the fact that America is a
mobile society, with people going above and below the poverty line all
the time, goes to show that your conclusions do not follow your premise.
> People who eat
> at Smith and Wollensky steakhouse are smarter and wealthier than people who
> eat at Sizzler.
You haven't shown anything to support such a statement, and there are
countless counter-examples.
For example, where would you expect college students to eat, given these
two choices?
--
-v
101 USES FOR A DEAD MICROPROCESSOR
(1) Scarecrow for centipedes
(2) Dead cat brush
(3) Hair barrettes
(4) Cleats
(5) Self-piercing earrings
(6) Fungus trellis
(7) False eyelashes
(8) Prosthetic dog claws
.
.
.
(99) Window garden harrow (pulled behind Tonka tractors)
(100) Killer velcro
(101) Currency
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 11:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfh4hm$j9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #287172 |
"vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message
news:551c0a19$0$44764$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com...
> On 03/31/2015 08:35 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the
>>>> less-wealthy,
>>>
>>> Nope. Thats bullshit.
>>
>> It's actually a fact. Here's an article from today's Wall Street Journal.
>> Read the last couple of paragraphs from Dr. Noble at Columbia University.
>> (Columbia is one of the top Universities in the world). The neuroscience
>> research on poverty and brain development explains the reason.
>>
>> <quote>
>> Brains, Wealth (or Its Lack) and Academic Achievement
>> Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid and few stupid people
>> are
>> wildly successful.
>> March 31, 2015
>>
>> New neuroscience research suggests that childhood poverty may shape brain
>> development, potentially explaining differences in subsequent cognitive
>> skills and behavior. We and others have reported compelling links between
>> family income and brain structure and function, in brain regions
>> associated
>> with skills important for academic success. By identifying how income
>> affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty policies
>> that better support children's well-being.
>>
>> Mr. Murray concludes that "blaming inequality of academic outcomes on
>> economic inequality" potentially punishes "children whose strengths do
>> not
>> lie in academics." Yet it is this outlook that may be punitive. Poverty
>> may
>> be the greatest barrier to a child attaining his or her full academic
>> potential.
>>
>> Kimberly G. Noble, M.D., Ph.D.
>> Columbia University
>> </quote>
>>
>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/brains-wealth-or-its-lack-and-academic-achievement-letters-to-the-editor-1427734470
>
> A Roger Murdock newspaper's op-ed glad-handing the wealthy? I've never
> heard of such a thing!
>
> Oh, but "new...research suggests" and "potentially explaining" are solid
> bricks upon which to build a case, so we should certainly pay
> attention...to the peer-reviewed literature, not to an op-ed. Because
> you can bet that the author's ideas are challenged there.
Hint for you - this is just ONE example. There are many, many more studies
that have researched the correlation between intelligence and income. This
one example was used because it was relevant and just happened to be
published in the past 24 hours.
The doctor making those statements is a researcher at an Ivy League
University has seen this "research" and this is actually what she
specializes in. Note the "Her research focuses on socioeconomic disparities
in child neurocognitive development" part.
<quote>
Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, with a
joint interdisciplinary appointment at the Sergievsky Center. Her research
focuses on socioeconomic disparities in child neurocognitive development,
with an emphasis on reading and language development.
</quote>
So yes, since this is what she specializes in then she has seen LOTS of
research and may actually know more about the subject than some usenet moron
named "vallor" who offers zero evidence to backup his unsubstantiated
claims.
> Having said that, I think every opportunity for good nutrition, good
> nurturing, and good education should be given to those in poverty. But
> people in that situation? They grow up with a different set of smarts.
I have no problem with helping those in poverty. But that's not the issue
here. The issue here is the original premise of "It's well known that
wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy,"
The fact that smarter people earn more than stupid people has also been
confirmed by another Ivy League University. Here's what Cornell University
has to say about this in a paper that appeared in American Psychologist. Pay
attention to the "well documented" part.
<quote>
Schooling, Intelligence, and Income
Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams
Cornell University
(October 1997 • American Psychologist)
Contrasting the Roles of Schooling and IQ in Economic Outcomes
***It is well documented that IQ influences earnings*** and that schooling
also influences earnings. But are these two effects independent? Consider an
empirical example of IQ's effect on schooling and schooling's effect on IQ.
How does the relationship between schooling and IQ inform the analysis of
why some people earn more than others?
...because workers who score higher on IQ tests get more valued positions
and get promoted in them faster than their lower IQ peers. None of the seven
types of evidence we reviewed disconfirm this hypothesis (i.e., that IQ
influences job performance and advancement).
Consider the data on IQ, schooling, and earnings represented in Figure 1. As
can be seen in Figure 1, even among those with comparable levels of
schooling, the higher a person's level of intellectual ability, the higher
will be that person's weekly earnings. As shown in this figure, there is a
linear trend for a rise in earnings to be associated with increasing
cognitive ability.
</quote>
http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf&sa=U&ei=9wwcVYG_IYifNvHbglg&ved=0CDEQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHql5VuWxjLdBZr-TLSZPkp-Ed91Q
>>> And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to spend
>>> more
>>> for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they
>>> needlessly
>>> spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior in
>>> many
>>> cases
>>
>> Actually they are. But it's an effect and not a cause. They're not
>> smarter+wealthier because they buy Apple products. They are already
>> smarter+wealthier so they're easily able to buy Apple products than the
>> typical minimum wage dimwit.
>
> There is so much wrong with this paragraph, one barely knows where to
> begin.
You have nowhere to begin because it's true.
> First, "Actually, they are." Bzzt. You don't know that --
> nor does Dr. Noble.
>
> You're also equivocating, but I'll get to that in a second.
No. I'm repeating what Dr. Noble at Columbia has stated based on the
research she's seen. This is also consistent with what Cornell University
concluded when they published their findings in American Psychologist. This
is also consistent with much other research that shows that smarter people
earn more than stupid people.
"there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to be
associated with increasing cognitive ability."
So it's your position that stupid people earn more than their smarter peers?
>> You can substitute Apple products with any other premium product and get
>> the
>> same result.
>
> This is an unsupported assertion. The only thing that can be said about
> purchasers of products perceived as "premium" is that the buyer's have
> the cash to buy the product...and have bought into the product's
> marketing.
"Buying into the marketing" has nothing to do with this. Poor idiots also
buy into marketing, and if anything people with a lower IQ are more
susceptible to marketing hype.
The part of "the buyers' have the cash to buy the product" is *exactly* my
point. This has been documented (Cornell - "It is well documented that IQ
influences earnings... there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to be
associated with increasing cognitive ability."). People with higher IQs
(smarter people) earn more than dumber people which is why they have the
cash to buy premium products.
>> People who drink (and afford) Woodford Reserve bourbon are
>> smarter and wealthier than people who drink Old Crow bourbon.
>
> People who drink bourbon are stupider than people who don't drink. That
> has nothing to do with their wealth or upbringing, but because they're
> imbibing in a drug. So, REALLY stupid example.
It's an *example* of a premium product vs. a bargain product. The steak
example can also be called "really stupid" because of the health risks of
eating too much red meat. Are the trees blocking your view of the forest?
> But that's not why we're here -- we're here because of your
> equivocation. You've taken "wealthier" and turned it into
> "smarter+wealthier" based on an op-ed from a Roger Murdock newspaper,
> which (as shown above) is using very tenuous language to begin with.
No. It's based on research that's readily available on the web from many
different sources which consistently conclude that intelligence often
results in higher income/earnings which results in greater wealth.
BREAKING NEWS - Smart people have better jobs and earn more money than
stupid people. Film at 11:00.
> Probably the best you could say is that "SOME evidence suggests people
> in poverty grow up disadvantaged".
*NEARLY ALL* evidence suggests this. You have absolutely ZERO evidence to
suggest that it doesn't.
> But the fact that America is a mobile society, with people
> going above and below the poverty line all the time, goes to
> show that your conclusions do not follow your premise.
These are not my conclusions. These are the "well documented" conclusions
that researchers have been studying for decades.
>
>> People who eat
>> at Smith and Wollensky steakhouse are smarter and wealthier than people
>> who
>> eat at Sizzler.
>
> You haven't shown anything to support such a statement, and there are
> countless counter-examples.
The support is simple and you said it yourself:
"buyer's have the cash to buy the product"
And research has come to the "well documented" conclusion that smarter
people are much more likely to have the cash than dumber people.
> For example, where would you expect college
> students to eat, given these two choices?
>
I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick question?
--
It takes a special breed of dishonest idiot, like "Ezekiel", to twist
"founder" into "fail".
[FOUNDER (verb) - To become wrecked; *fail* utterly:
"The project foundered because public support was lacking."]
chrisv - too stupid to use a simple dictionary
Message-ID: <ns6nm7dcjighhd19qqeqho4sgt4s9uc6o7@4ax.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 12:15 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <DOidndryWOJLqIHInZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #287188 |
Ezekiel wrote: > > "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message > news:551c0a19$0$44764$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com... >> On 03/31/2015 08:35 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>> "Peter K�hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the >>>>> less-wealthy, >>>> >>>> Nope. Thats bullshit. >>> >>> It's actually a fact. Here's an article from today's Wall Street >>> Journal. Read the last couple of paragraphs from Dr. Noble at Columbia >>> University. (Columbia is one of the top Universities in the world). The >>> neuroscience research on poverty and brain development explains the >>> reason. >>> >>> <quote> >>> Brains, Wealth (or Its Lack) and Academic Achievement >>> Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid and few stupid people >>> are >>> wildly successful. >>> March 31, 2015 >>> >>> New neuroscience research suggests that childhood poverty may shape >>> brain development, potentially explaining differences in subsequent >>> cognitive skills and behavior. We and others have reported compelling >>> links between family income and brain structure and function, in brain >>> regions associated >>> with skills important for academic success. By identifying how income >>> affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty policies >>> that better support children's well-being. >>> >>> Mr. Murray concludes that "blaming inequality of academic outcomes on >>> economic inequality" potentially punishes "children whose strengths do >>> not >>> lie in academics." Yet it is this outlook that may be punitive. Poverty >>> may >>> be the greatest barrier to a child attaining his or her full academic >>> potential. >>> >>> Kimberly G. Noble, M.D., Ph.D. >>> Columbia University >>> </quote> >>> >>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/brains-wealth-or-its-lack-and-academic- achievement-letters-to-the-editor-1427734470 >> >> A Roger Murdock newspaper's op-ed glad-handing the wealthy? I've never >> heard of such a thing! >> >> Oh, but "new...research suggests" and "potentially explaining" are solid >> bricks upon which to build a case, so we should certainly pay >> attention...to the peer-reviewed literature, not to an op-ed. Because >> you can bet that the author's ideas are challenged there. > > Hint for you - this is just ONE example. There are many, many more studies > that have researched the correlation between intelligence and income. This > one example was used because it was relevant and just happened to be > published in the past 24 hours. > > The doctor making those statements is a researcher at an Ivy League > University has seen this "research" and this is actually what she > specializes in. Note the "Her research focuses on socioeconomic > disparities in child neurocognitive development" part. > > <quote> > Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, with a > joint interdisciplinary appointment at the Sergievsky Center. Her research > focuses on socioeconomic disparities in child neurocognitive development, > with an emphasis on reading and language development. > </quote> > > So yes, since this is what she specializes in then she has seen LOTS of > research and may actually know more about the subject than some usenet > moron named "vallor" who offers zero evidence to backup his > unsubstantiated claims. > > > >> Having said that, I think every opportunity for good nutrition, good >> nurturing, and good education should be given to those in poverty. But >> people in that situation? They grow up with a different set of smarts. > > I have no problem with helping those in poverty. But that's not the issue > here. The issue here is the original premise of "It's well known that > wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy," > > The fact that smarter people earn more than stupid people has also been > confirmed by another Ivy League University. Here's what Cornell University > has to say about this in a paper that appeared in American Psychologist. > Pay attention to the "well documented" part. > > <quote> > Schooling, Intelligence, and Income > Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams > Cornell University > (October 1997 � American Psychologist) > > Contrasting the Roles of Schooling and IQ in Economic Outcomes > > ***It is well documented that IQ influences earnings*** and that schooling > also influences earnings. But are these two effects independent? Consider > an empirical example of IQ's effect on schooling and schooling's effect on > IQ. How does the relationship between schooling and IQ inform the analysis > of why some people earn more than others? > > ...because workers who score higher on IQ tests get more valued positions > and get promoted in them faster than their lower IQ peers. None of the > seven types of evidence we reviewed disconfirm this hypothesis (i.e., that > IQ influences job performance and advancement). > > Consider the data on IQ, schooling, and earnings represented in Figure 1. > As can be seen in Figure 1, even among those with comparable levels of > schooling, the higher a person's level of intellectual ability, the higher > will be that person's weekly earnings. As shown in this figure, there is a > linear trend for a rise in earnings to be associated with increasing > cognitive ability. > </quote> > http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf&sa=U&ei=9wwcVYG_IYifNvHbglg&ved=0CDEQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHql5VuWxjLdBZr- TLSZPkp-Ed91Q > > > >>>> And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to spend >>>> more >>>> for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they >>>> needlessly >>>> spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior in >>>> many >>>> cases >>> >>> Actually they are. But it's an effect and not a cause. They're not >>> smarter+wealthier because they buy Apple products. They are already >>> smarter+wealthier so they're easily able to buy Apple products than the >>> typical minimum wage dimwit. >> >> There is so much wrong with this paragraph, one barely knows where to >> begin. > > You have nowhere to begin because it's true. > > >> First, "Actually, they are." Bzzt. You don't know that -- >> nor does Dr. Noble. >> >> You're also equivocating, but I'll get to that in a second. > > No. I'm repeating what Dr. Noble at Columbia has stated based on the > research she's seen. This is also consistent with what Cornell University > concluded when they published their findings in American Psychologist. > This is also consistent with much other research that shows that smarter > people earn more than stupid people. > > "there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to be > associated with increasing cognitive ability." > > So it's your position that stupid people earn more than their smarter > peers? > > > >>> You can substitute Apple products with any other premium product and get >>> the >>> same result. >> >> This is an unsupported assertion. The only thing that can be said about >> purchasers of products perceived as "premium" is that the buyer's have >> the cash to buy the product...and have bought into the product's >> marketing. > > "Buying into the marketing" has nothing to do with this. Poor idiots also > buy into marketing, and if anything people with a lower IQ are more > susceptible to marketing hype. > > The part of "the buyers' have the cash to buy the product" is *exactly* my > point. This has been documented (Cornell - "It is well documented that IQ > influences earnings... there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to > be associated with increasing cognitive ability."). People with higher IQs > (smarter people) earn more than dumber people which is why they have the > cash to buy premium products. > > > >>> People who drink (and afford) Woodford Reserve bourbon are >>> smarter and wealthier than people who drink Old Crow bourbon. >> >> People who drink bourbon are stupider than people who don't drink. That >> has nothing to do with their wealth or upbringing, but because they're >> imbibing in a drug. So, REALLY stupid example. > > It's an *example* of a premium product vs. a bargain product. The steak > example can also be called "really stupid" because of the health risks of > eating too much red meat. Are the trees blocking your view of the forest? > > >> But that's not why we're here -- we're here because of your >> equivocation. You've taken "wealthier" and turned it into >> "smarter+wealthier" based on an op-ed from a Roger Murdock newspaper, >> which (as shown above) is using very tenuous language to begin with. > > No. It's based on research that's readily available on the web from many > different sources which consistently conclude that intelligence often > results in higher income/earnings which results in greater wealth. > > BREAKING NEWS - Smart people have better jobs and earn more money than > stupid people. Film at 11:00. > > >> Probably the best you could say is that "SOME evidence suggests people >> in poverty grow up disadvantaged". > > *NEARLY ALL* evidence suggests this. You have absolutely ZERO evidence to > suggest that it doesn't. > > >> But the fact that America is a mobile society, with people >> going above and below the poverty line all the time, goes to >> show that your conclusions do not follow your premise. > > These are not my conclusions. These are the "well documented" conclusions > that researchers have been studying for decades. > > >> >>> People who eat >>> at Smith and Wollensky steakhouse are smarter and wealthier than people >>> who >>> eat at Sizzler. >> >> You haven't shown anything to support such a statement, and there are >> countless counter-examples. > > The support is simple and you said it yourself: > > "buyer's have the cash to buy the product" > > And research has come to the "well documented" conclusion that smarter > people are much more likely to have the cash than dumber people. > > >> For example, where would you expect college >> students to eat, given these two choices? >> > > I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick question? > Looks to me like you singed scoots arse hairs pretty good. LOL!!! If he was very wealthy he wouldn't be here at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 15:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfhgm4$8o1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #287236 |
"GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:DOidndryWOJLqIHInZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@bresnan.com... > Ezekiel wrote: > >> >> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message >> news:551c0a19$0$44764$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com... >>> On 03/31/2015 08:35 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >>>>>> >>>>>> It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the >>>>>> less-wealthy, >>>>> >>>>> Nope. Thats bullshit. >>>> >>>> It's actually a fact. Here's an article from today's Wall Street >>>> Journal. Read the last couple of paragraphs from Dr. Noble at Columbia >>>> University. (Columbia is one of the top Universities in the world). The >>>> neuroscience research on poverty and brain development explains the >>>> reason. >>>> >>>> <quote> >>>> Brains, Wealth (or Its Lack) and Academic Achievement >>>> Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid and few stupid people >>>> are >>>> wildly successful. >>>> March 31, 2015 >>>> >>>> New neuroscience research suggests that childhood poverty may shape >>>> brain development, potentially explaining differences in subsequent >>>> cognitive skills and behavior. We and others have reported compelling >>>> links between family income and brain structure and function, in brain >>>> regions associated >>>> with skills important for academic success. By identifying how income >>>> affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty >>>> policies >>>> that better support children's well-being. >>>> >>>> Mr. Murray concludes that "blaming inequality of academic outcomes on >>>> economic inequality" potentially punishes "children whose strengths do >>>> not >>>> lie in academics." Yet it is this outlook that may be punitive. Poverty >>>> may >>>> be the greatest barrier to a child attaining his or her full academic >>>> potential. >>>> >>>> Kimberly G. Noble, M.D., Ph.D. >>>> Columbia University >>>> </quote> >>>> >>>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/brains-wealth-or-its-lack-and-academic- > achievement-letters-to-the-editor-1427734470 >>> >>> A Roger Murdock newspaper's op-ed glad-handing the wealthy? I've never >>> heard of such a thing! >>> >>> Oh, but "new...research suggests" and "potentially explaining" are solid >>> bricks upon which to build a case, so we should certainly pay >>> attention...to the peer-reviewed literature, not to an op-ed. Because >>> you can bet that the author's ideas are challenged there. >> >> Hint for you - this is just ONE example. There are many, many more >> studies >> that have researched the correlation between intelligence and income. >> This >> one example was used because it was relevant and just happened to be >> published in the past 24 hours. >> >> The doctor making those statements is a researcher at an Ivy League >> University has seen this "research" and this is actually what she >> specializes in. Note the "Her research focuses on socioeconomic >> disparities in child neurocognitive development" part. >> >> <quote> >> Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, with a >> joint interdisciplinary appointment at the Sergievsky Center. Her >> research >> focuses on socioeconomic disparities in child neurocognitive development, >> with an emphasis on reading and language development. >> </quote> >> >> So yes, since this is what she specializes in then she has seen LOTS of >> research and may actually know more about the subject than some usenet >> moron named "vallor" who offers zero evidence to backup his >> unsubstantiated claims. >> >> >> >>> Having said that, I think every opportunity for good nutrition, good >>> nurturing, and good education should be given to those in poverty. But >>> people in that situation? They grow up with a different set of smarts. >> >> I have no problem with helping those in poverty. But that's not the issue >> here. The issue here is the original premise of "It's well known that >> wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy," >> >> The fact that smarter people earn more than stupid people has also been >> confirmed by another Ivy League University. Here's what Cornell >> University >> has to say about this in a paper that appeared in American Psychologist. >> Pay attention to the "well documented" part. >> >> <quote> >> Schooling, Intelligence, and Income >> Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams >> Cornell University >> (October 1997 ? American Psychologist) >> >> Contrasting the Roles of Schooling and IQ in Economic Outcomes >> >> ***It is well documented that IQ influences earnings*** and that >> schooling >> also influences earnings. But are these two effects independent? Consider >> an empirical example of IQ's effect on schooling and schooling's effect >> on >> IQ. How does the relationship between schooling and IQ inform the >> analysis >> of why some people earn more than others? >> >> ...because workers who score higher on IQ tests get more valued positions >> and get promoted in them faster than their lower IQ peers. None of the >> seven types of evidence we reviewed disconfirm this hypothesis (i.e., >> that >> IQ influences job performance and advancement). >> >> Consider the data on IQ, schooling, and earnings represented in Figure 1. >> As can be seen in Figure 1, even among those with comparable levels of >> schooling, the higher a person's level of intellectual ability, the >> higher >> will be that person's weekly earnings. As shown in this figure, there is >> a >> linear trend for a rise in earnings to be associated with increasing >> cognitive ability. >> </quote> >> > http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf&sa=U&ei=9wwcVYG_IYifNvHbglg&ved=0CDEQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHql5VuWxjLdBZr- > TLSZPkp-Ed91Q >> >> >> >>>>> And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to spend >>>>> more >>>>> for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they >>>>> needlessly >>>>> spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior in >>>>> many >>>>> cases >>>> >>>> Actually they are. But it's an effect and not a cause. They're not >>>> smarter+wealthier because they buy Apple products. They are already >>>> smarter+wealthier so they're easily able to buy Apple products than the >>>> typical minimum wage dimwit. >>> >>> There is so much wrong with this paragraph, one barely knows where to >>> begin. >> >> You have nowhere to begin because it's true. >> >> >>> First, "Actually, they are." Bzzt. You don't know that -- >>> nor does Dr. Noble. >>> >>> You're also equivocating, but I'll get to that in a second. >> >> No. I'm repeating what Dr. Noble at Columbia has stated based on the >> research she's seen. This is also consistent with what Cornell University >> concluded when they published their findings in American Psychologist. >> This is also consistent with much other research that shows that smarter >> people earn more than stupid people. >> >> "there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to be >> associated with increasing cognitive ability." >> >> So it's your position that stupid people earn more than their smarter >> peers? >> >> >> >>>> You can substitute Apple products with any other premium product and >>>> get >>>> the >>>> same result. >>> >>> This is an unsupported assertion. The only thing that can be said about >>> purchasers of products perceived as "premium" is that the buyer's have >>> the cash to buy the product...and have bought into the product's >>> marketing. >> >> "Buying into the marketing" has nothing to do with this. Poor idiots also >> buy into marketing, and if anything people with a lower IQ are more >> susceptible to marketing hype. >> >> The part of "the buyers' have the cash to buy the product" is *exactly* >> my >> point. This has been documented (Cornell - "It is well documented that IQ >> influences earnings... there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to >> be associated with increasing cognitive ability."). People with higher >> IQs >> (smarter people) earn more than dumber people which is why they have the >> cash to buy premium products. >> >> >> >>>> People who drink (and afford) Woodford Reserve bourbon are >>>> smarter and wealthier than people who drink Old Crow bourbon. >>> >>> People who drink bourbon are stupider than people who don't drink. That >>> has nothing to do with their wealth or upbringing, but because they're >>> imbibing in a drug. So, REALLY stupid example. >> >> It's an *example* of a premium product vs. a bargain product. The steak >> example can also be called "really stupid" because of the health risks of >> eating too much red meat. Are the trees blocking your view of the forest? >> >> >>> But that's not why we're here -- we're here because of your >>> equivocation. You've taken "wealthier" and turned it into >>> "smarter+wealthier" based on an op-ed from a Roger Murdock newspaper, >>> which (as shown above) is using very tenuous language to begin with. >> >> No. It's based on research that's readily available on the web from many >> different sources which consistently conclude that intelligence often >> results in higher income/earnings which results in greater wealth. >> >> BREAKING NEWS - Smart people have better jobs and earn more money than >> stupid people. Film at 11:00. >> >> >>> Probably the best you could say is that "SOME evidence suggests people >>> in poverty grow up disadvantaged". >> >> *NEARLY ALL* evidence suggests this. You have absolutely ZERO evidence to >> suggest that it doesn't. >> >> >>> But the fact that America is a mobile society, with people >>> going above and below the poverty line all the time, goes to >>> show that your conclusions do not follow your premise. >> >> These are not my conclusions. These are the "well documented" conclusions >> that researchers have been studying for decades. >> >> >>> >>>> People who eat >>>> at Smith and Wollensky steakhouse are smarter and wealthier than people >>>> who >>>> eat at Sizzler. >>> >>> You haven't shown anything to support such a statement, and there are >>> countless counter-examples. >> >> The support is simple and you said it yourself: >> >> "buyer's have the cash to buy the product" >> >> And research has come to the "well documented" conclusion that smarter >> people are much more likely to have the cash than dumber people. >> >> >>> For example, where would you expect college >>> students to eat, given these two choices? >>> >> >> I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick >> question? >> > > Looks to me like you singed scoots arse hairs pretty good. > LOL!!! > > If he was very wealthy he wouldn't be here at all. > > It's just the (statistical) facts. Smart people generally do better than dumber people. There are certainly exceptions. I'm sure there are absolutely gorgeous supermodels out there that are as dumb as a goat but get paid $150k/hour to model some dress. There are also professional athletes who can dunk basketballs or hit a 100-MPH baseball but have an intellect that's rivaled only by garden tools. The pro athlete will earn more money in a month or two than most people make their entire life. On the other side there's some very smart people who never perused high paying careers, halted their career due to family/health and things like that. But if someone were to draw the proverbial "Bell curve" these would be the edge cases. They are few and far between and statistically insignificant. People may not want to face it but the ugly truth that's backed by many studies concludes that if you're poor and living in the ghetto then you're most likely dumber and poorer than someone living on the nice side of town. -- "Knowing 'Word or Excel' is a hindrance." The "Hardon" moron (now "Crabbit Bampot") (now some other nym) <KLJcr.103621$4c4.97437@news.usenetserver.com>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 16:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <weCdnfBK0YvO6YHInZ2dnUU7-U-dnZ2d@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #287262 |
Ezekiel wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mist@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:DOidndryWOJLqIHInZ2dnUU7-V2dnZ2d@bresnan.com... >> Ezekiel wrote: >> >>> >>> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message >>> news:551c0a19$0$44764$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com... >>>> On 03/31/2015 08:35 AM, Ezekiel wrote: >>>>> "Peter K?hlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote in message >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's well known that wealthier people are smarter than the >>>>>>> less-wealthy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. Thats bullshit. >>>>> >>>>> It's actually a fact. Here's an article from today's Wall Street >>>>> Journal. Read the last couple of paragraphs from Dr. Noble at Columbia >>>>> University. (Columbia is one of the top Universities in the world). >>>>> The neuroscience research on poverty and brain development explains >>>>> the reason. >>>>> >>>>> <quote> >>>>> Brains, Wealth (or Its Lack) and Academic Achievement >>>>> Very few wildly successful individuals are stupid and few stupid >>>>> people are >>>>> wildly successful. >>>>> March 31, 2015 >>>>> >>>>> New neuroscience research suggests that childhood poverty may shape >>>>> brain development, potentially explaining differences in subsequent >>>>> cognitive skills and behavior. We and others have reported compelling >>>>> links between family income and brain structure and function, in brain >>>>> regions associated >>>>> with skills important for academic success. By identifying how income >>>>> affects early child development, we hope to inform anti-poverty >>>>> policies >>>>> that better support children's well-being. >>>>> >>>>> Mr. Murray concludes that "blaming inequality of academic outcomes on >>>>> economic inequality" potentially punishes "children whose strengths do >>>>> not >>>>> lie in academics." Yet it is this outlook that may be punitive. >>>>> Poverty may >>>>> be the greatest barrier to a child attaining his or her full academic >>>>> potential. >>>>> >>>>> Kimberly G. Noble, M.D., Ph.D. >>>>> Columbia University >>>>> </quote> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.wsj.com/articles/brains-wealth-or-its-lack-and-academic- >> achievement-letters-to-the-editor-1427734470 >>>> >>>> A Roger Murdock newspaper's op-ed glad-handing the wealthy? I've never >>>> heard of such a thing! >>>> >>>> Oh, but "new...research suggests" and "potentially explaining" are >>>> solid bricks upon which to build a case, so we should certainly pay >>>> attention...to the peer-reviewed literature, not to an op-ed. Because >>>> you can bet that the author's ideas are challenged there. >>> >>> Hint for you - this is just ONE example. There are many, many more >>> studies >>> that have researched the correlation between intelligence and income. >>> This >>> one example was used because it was relevant and just happened to be >>> published in the past 24 hours. >>> >>> The doctor making those statements is a researcher at an Ivy League >>> University has seen this "research" and this is actually what she >>> specializes in. Note the "Her research focuses on socioeconomic >>> disparities in child neurocognitive development" part. >>> >>> <quote> >>> Kimberly Noble, MD, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, with a >>> joint interdisciplinary appointment at the Sergievsky Center. Her >>> research >>> focuses on socioeconomic disparities in child neurocognitive >>> development, with an emphasis on reading and language development. >>> </quote> >>> >>> So yes, since this is what she specializes in then she has seen LOTS of >>> research and may actually know more about the subject than some usenet >>> moron named "vallor" who offers zero evidence to backup his >>> unsubstantiated claims. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Having said that, I think every opportunity for good nutrition, good >>>> nurturing, and good education should be given to those in poverty. But >>>> people in that situation? They grow up with a different set of smarts. >>> >>> I have no problem with helping those in poverty. But that's not the >>> issue here. The issue here is the original premise of "It's well known >>> that wealthier people are smarter than the less-wealthy," >>> >>> The fact that smarter people earn more than stupid people has also been >>> confirmed by another Ivy League University. Here's what Cornell >>> University >>> has to say about this in a paper that appeared in American Psychologist. >>> Pay attention to the "well documented" part. >>> >>> <quote> >>> Schooling, Intelligence, and Income >>> Stephen J. Ceci and Wendy M. Williams >>> Cornell University >>> (October 1997 ? American Psychologist) >>> >>> Contrasting the Roles of Schooling and IQ in Economic Outcomes >>> >>> ***It is well documented that IQ influences earnings*** and that >>> schooling >>> also influences earnings. But are these two effects independent? >>> Consider an empirical example of IQ's effect on schooling and >>> schooling's effect on >>> IQ. How does the relationship between schooling and IQ inform the >>> analysis >>> of why some people earn more than others? >>> >>> ...because workers who score higher on IQ tests get more valued >>> positions and get promoted in them faster than their lower IQ peers. >>> None of the seven types of evidence we reviewed disconfirm this >>> hypothesis (i.e., that >>> IQ influences job performance and advancement). >>> >>> Consider the data on IQ, schooling, and earnings represented in Figure >>> 1. As can be seen in Figure 1, even among those with comparable levels >>> of schooling, the higher a person's level of intellectual ability, the >>> higher >>> will be that person's weekly earnings. As shown in this figure, there is >>> a >>> linear trend for a rise in earnings to be associated with increasing >>> cognitive ability. >>> </quote> >>> >> http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/psych/pdf/critique_income_.pdf&sa=U&ei=9wwcVYG_IYifNvHbglg&ved=0CDEQFjAE&usg=AFQjCNHql5VuWxjLdBZr- >> TLSZPkp-Ed91Q >>> >>> >>> >>>>>> And apple users are not wealthier than others, they just tend to >>>>>> spend more >>>>>> for shiny gadgets. They are on the whole dumb as bread, as they >>>>>> needlessly >>>>>> spend 2 to 3 times as much money to get something which is inferior >>>>>> in many >>>>>> cases >>>>> >>>>> Actually they are. But it's an effect and not a cause. They're not >>>>> smarter+wealthier because they buy Apple products. They are already >>>>> smarter+wealthier so they're easily able to buy Apple products than >>>>> the typical minimum wage dimwit. >>>> >>>> There is so much wrong with this paragraph, one barely knows where to >>>> begin. >>> >>> You have nowhere to begin because it's true. >>> >>> >>>> First, "Actually, they are." Bzzt. You don't know that -- >>>> nor does Dr. Noble. >>>> >>>> You're also equivocating, but I'll get to that in a second. >>> >>> No. I'm repeating what Dr. Noble at Columbia has stated based on the >>> research she's seen. This is also consistent with what Cornell >>> University concluded when they published their findings in American >>> Psychologist. This is also consistent with much other research that >>> shows that smarter people earn more than stupid people. >>> >>> "there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings to be >>> associated with increasing cognitive ability." >>> >>> So it's your position that stupid people earn more than their smarter >>> peers? >>> >>> >>> >>>>> You can substitute Apple products with any other premium product and >>>>> get >>>>> the >>>>> same result. >>>> >>>> This is an unsupported assertion. The only thing that can be said >>>> about purchasers of products perceived as "premium" is that the buyer's >>>> have the cash to buy the product...and have bought into the product's >>>> marketing. >>> >>> "Buying into the marketing" has nothing to do with this. Poor idiots >>> also buy into marketing, and if anything people with a lower IQ are more >>> susceptible to marketing hype. >>> >>> The part of "the buyers' have the cash to buy the product" is *exactly* >>> my >>> point. This has been documented (Cornell - "It is well documented that >>> IQ influences earnings... there is a linear trend for a rise in earnings >>> to be associated with increasing cognitive ability."). People with >>> higher IQs >>> (smarter people) earn more than dumber people which is why they have the >>> cash to buy premium products. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> People who drink (and afford) Woodford Reserve bourbon are >>>>> smarter and wealthier than people who drink Old Crow bourbon. >>>> >>>> People who drink bourbon are stupider than people who don't drink. >>>> That has nothing to do with their wealth or upbringing, but because >>>> they're >>>> imbibing in a drug. So, REALLY stupid example. >>> >>> It's an *example* of a premium product vs. a bargain product. The steak >>> example can also be called "really stupid" because of the health risks >>> of eating too much red meat. Are the trees blocking your view of the >>> forest? >>> >>> >>>> But that's not why we're here -- we're here because of your >>>> equivocation. You've taken "wealthier" and turned it into >>>> "smarter+wealthier" based on an op-ed from a Roger Murdock newspaper, >>>> which (as shown above) is using very tenuous language to begin with. >>> >>> No. It's based on research that's readily available on the web from many >>> different sources which consistently conclude that intelligence often >>> results in higher income/earnings which results in greater wealth. >>> >>> BREAKING NEWS - Smart people have better jobs and earn more money than >>> stupid people. Film at 11:00. >>> >>> >>>> Probably the best you could say is that "SOME evidence suggests people >>>> in poverty grow up disadvantaged". >>> >>> *NEARLY ALL* evidence suggests this. You have absolutely ZERO evidence >>> to suggest that it doesn't. >>> >>> >>>> But the fact that America is a mobile society, with people >>>> going above and below the poverty line all the time, goes to >>>> show that your conclusions do not follow your premise. >>> >>> These are not my conclusions. These are the "well documented" >>> conclusions that researchers have been studying for decades. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> People who eat >>>>> at Smith and Wollensky steakhouse are smarter and wealthier than >>>>> people who >>>>> eat at Sizzler. >>>> >>>> You haven't shown anything to support such a statement, and there are >>>> countless counter-examples. >>> >>> The support is simple and you said it yourself: >>> >>> "buyer's have the cash to buy the product" >>> >>> And research has come to the "well documented" conclusion that smarter >>> people are much more likely to have the cash than dumber people. >>> >>> >>>> For example, where would you expect college >>>> students to eat, given these two choices? >>>> >>> >>> I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick >>> question? >>> >> >> Looks to me like you singed scoots arse hairs pretty good. >> LOL!!! >> >> If he was very wealthy he wouldn't be here at all. >> >> > > It's just the (statistical) facts. Smart people generally do better than > dumber people. > > There are certainly exceptions. I'm sure there are absolutely gorgeous > supermodels out there that are as dumb as a goat but get paid $150k/hour > to model some dress. There are also professional athletes who can dunk > basketballs or hit a 100-MPH baseball but have an intellect that's rivaled > only by garden tools. The pro athlete will earn more money in a month or > two than most people make their entire life. > > On the other side there's some very smart people who never perused high > paying careers, halted their career due to family/health and things like > that. That brings to mind Linus Torvalds. He could've been very wealthy. In this it would be his upbringing. > > But if someone were to draw the proverbial "Bell curve" these would be the > edge cases. They are few and far between and statistically insignificant. > > People may not want to face it but the ugly truth that's backed by many > studies concludes that if you're poor and living in the ghetto then you're > most likely dumber and poorer than someone living on the nice side of > town. > That also has a basis in upbringing. No real mentors to help push them along in the right direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 15:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <551c6abc$0$46453$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #287236 |
On 04/01/2015 11:15 AM, GreyCloud wrote: > Ezekiel wrote: > >> >> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message >>> For example, where would you expect college >>> students to eat, given these two choices? >>> >> >> I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick question? >> > > Looks to me like you singed scoots arse hairs pretty good. > LOL!!! Looks more like a dodge to me. When clowns make absolute statements, only one counterexample is needed to show the absolute statement false. We haven't even touched on the baseline fallacy, which this Zeke is also succumbing to: the idea that because (say) most people who buy a product are "wealthier", then _all_ people who buy a product are "wealthier". This simple point is missed in the generous heat being liberated from all this hot air. > > If he was very wealthy he wouldn't be here at all. And how do you come to this conclusion? (I'll take my answer on the air, because I'm going to a hockey game, while you do...what, exactly?) -- -v Great American Axiom: Some is good, more is better, too much is just right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 16:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <weCdnfNK0YsV6YHInZ2dnUU7-U8AAAAA@bresnan.com> |
| In reply to | #287290 |
vallor wrote: > On 04/01/2015 11:15 AM, GreyCloud wrote: >> Ezekiel wrote: >> >>> >>> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message > >>>> For example, where would you expect college >>>> students to eat, given these two choices? >>>> >>> >>> I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick >>> question? >>> >> >> Looks to me like you singed scoots arse hairs pretty good. >> LOL!!! > > Looks more like a dodge to me. > > When clowns make absolute statements, only one counterexample is needed > to show the absolute statement false. > > We haven't even touched on the baseline fallacy, which this Zeke is also > succumbing to: the idea that because (say) most people who buy a > product are "wealthier", then _all_ people who buy a product are > "wealthier". > > This simple point is missed in the generous heat being liberated from > all this hot air. > >> >> If he was very wealthy he wouldn't be here at all. > > And how do you come to this conclusion? > > (I'll take my answer on the air, because I'm going to a hockey game, > while you do...what, exactly?) > Easy, very wealthy people are more inclined to pay attention on how to keep their wealth... they worry about it a lot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-01 19:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mfi0d2$b5r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #287290 |
"vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message
news:551c6abc$0$46453$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a@news.astraweb.com...
> On 04/01/2015 11:15 AM, GreyCloud wrote:
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in message
>
>>>> For example, where would you expect college
>>>> students to eat, given these two choices?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I expect them to eat at the school dining hall. Is this a trick
>>> question?
>>>
>>
>> Looks to me like you singed scoots arse hairs pretty good.
>> LOL!!!
>
> Looks more like a dodge to me.
No. The dodge is the person (you in this case) who did a snip and run of
everything that was posted in this thread.
> When clowns make absolute statements, only one counterexample is needed
> to show the absolute statement false.
>
> We haven't even touched on the baseline fallacy, which this Zeke is also
> succumbing to: the idea that because (say) most people who buy a
> product are "wealthier", then _all_ people who buy a product are
> "wealthier".
"(Studies) consistently conclude that intelligence *often*
results in higher income/earnings which results in greater wealth"
"research has come to the "well documented" conclusion
that smarter people are much *more likely* to have the cash..."
So in your language words like "often" and "more likely" are absolute
statements that you think apply to _all_ people?
> This simple point is missed in the generous heat being liberated from
> all this hot air.
>
The simple point you're still missing is that numerous research by people
who specialize in the field have consistently shown that more intelligent
people earn better wages than less intelligent people. It's not exactly
rocket science. The research that you conveniently snipped so that you won't
have to address it.
--
"I've done for example SQL optimization and the reason I could do it better
than the best high level experts can do was because I think in hex and bits
and byte movements. If you know the assembler in detail, you would know what
"select * from employees" would translate into assembler and how different
and yet similar that would be from "select name from employees"
Babbling idiot "7"
<qAN5r.607$ya.432@newsfe03.ams2>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 06:16 -0700 |
| Subject | If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Apr.2{6.16A.Seattle.2015}> |
| In reply to | #287188 |
<PRE Style='Font-Family: OCR A !important;'><big><big> Ezekiel and DFS are anonymous for a reason, they're ashamed. If wealth and/or IQ made you happy, Bill Gates would be the happiest man on earth. Obviously, he isn't. I just watched a documentary called "40 Kids By 20 Women"; the father is a serious drunk who only cares about one thing: sex. He lives off welfare and he's damn near retarded. Because the illusion of free·will requires ignorance, people worship it ( ignorance ), clinging to the shadows. The more vasectomies we get, the better our lives will become. Otherwise, we'll be killing ourselves over every last drop of oil. Because humanity ·always· breeds exponentionally, like bugs, crime, war, and mass·extinctions are inevitable. Eventually, our oceans will support nothing but slime. ..... God is nature, nothing more, nothing less. Science is the best religion. For more on this, see: ＜<A hRef="http://Jeff-Relf.Me/Einstein.HTM" target=_blank>Einstein's religion, pantheism</A>＞
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 13:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... |
| Message-ID | <Ufednbvst60nE4DInZ2dnUU7-YednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #287397 |
Give me a lot of money and I can make lots of contribution enriching my communities. You got money -- do good things with it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 20:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... |
| Message-ID | <0jk0vb-hc6.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #287450 |
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote: > Give me a lot of money and I can make lots of contribution enriching > my communities. You got money -- do good things with it. Perhaps if you spent less time cut and pasting off topic crap from public web sites and more time doing something, you would have money, ass hat. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <nobody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 17:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... |
| Message-ID | <iXiTw.149291$_F4.5392@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #287450 |
On 04/02/2015 02:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Give me a lot of money and I can make lots of contribution enriching
> my communities. You got money -- do good things with it.
Typical Lib. Always wanting to steal other people's money at gunpoint
using the excuse that they know "better" what to do with it than the
previous owners!
Here's an idea, Sam. Give YOUR salary and everything you own to a "good
cause" to enrich your community. I hear Algore's jet plane uses a lot of
fuel. Your money should be able to fund a couple of CO2-spewing trips
for him!
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-02 18:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: If wealth and/or IQ made you happy... |
| Message-ID | <mfkfai$u30$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #287478 |
"benj" <nobody@gmail.com> wrote in message news:iXiTw.149291$_F4.5392@fx21.iad... > On 04/02/2015 02:47 PM, Sam Wormley wrote: >> Give me a lot of money and I can make lots of contribution enriching >> my communities. You got money -- do good things with it. > > Typical Lib. Always wanting to steal other people's money at gunpoint > using the excuse that they know "better" what to do with it than the > previous owners! > > Here's an idea, Sam. Give YOUR salary and everything you own to a "good > cause" to enrich your community. I hear Algore's jet plane uses a lot of > fuel. Your money should be able to fund a couple of CO2-spewing trips for > him! > I love this story from Austin. The people there voted for every freaking program in the world and now they're "dumbfounded" that these things need to be paid for. <quote> Austin Taxpayers Are Dumbfounded That They Have To Pay For the Services They Voted For (10 months ago) But there is more going on than just a dysfunctional tax system. Residents have voted for a bunch of stuff that costs money and now they're getting billed for it. One homeowner, completely missing the irony of the words coming out of his mouth, said I'm at the breaking point. It's not because I don't like paying taxes. I have voted for every park, every library, all the school improvements, for light rail, for anything that will make this city better. But now I can't afford to live here anymore. I'll protest my appraisal notice, but that's not enough. Someone needs to step in and address the big picture. Turns out, you can't have your park, library, school improvements, light rail and not pay for them, too. </quote> http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/144485-austin-taxpayers-upset-totally-like-whoa-dude-pay-stuff-voted/ -- Unix has no "official governing body." The "Nobody" nym <mcvr6p$g57$1@news.albasani.net> The Open Group holds the definition of what a UNIX system is and its associated trademark in trust for the industry.... UNIX 03 Certification is governed by the Open Brand http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web