Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #350343 > unrolled thread
| Started by | 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 149 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:34 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 16:47 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:45 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% William Poaster <wp@dev.null> - 2016-04-16 22:05 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 11:17 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:20 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 17:36 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:02 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:14 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:26 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:49 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:02 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 14:09 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 22:31 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 14:42 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:11 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:19 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 23:27 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 16:23 +0100
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 16:06 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-16 18:24 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:16 -0700
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-04-16 17:08 -0400
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Rick Sabian's Allstar Canadian Assworm Zydeco Band <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-04-16 20:00 -0700
Re: Please, don't expect them to be able to read (or Google). Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2016-04-19 20:00 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:02 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 12:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-16 16:03 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:40 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 17:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 14:25 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-17 21:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 15:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-17 16:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:01 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:22 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:40 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:54 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:46 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:13 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:39 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:50 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:09 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:41 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:40 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:31 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:08 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:21 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:46 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:36 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:07 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 17:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 00:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 18:08 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:51 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:09 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:22 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:58 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:22 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:26 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:43 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:50 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:24 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:34 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:45 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 04:49 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:30 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:35 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:47 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-18 05:55 +0200
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 10:21 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 22:38 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:46 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 11:42 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:39 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 02:55 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 20:20 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 03:50 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 21:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:33 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 09:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:14 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:27 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 13:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 10:58 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 11:12 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 11:55 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:39 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:53 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:38 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:36 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:34 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 12:52 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 09:56 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-20 14:14 -0700
Re: Am I poorer if you're richer ? No, _relative_ wealth doesn't matter. benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-04-18 01:55 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 18:28 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-18 01:53 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 19:07 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:25 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 12:15 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 18:45 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-18 16:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-19 08:44 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-19 09:18 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-17 08:44 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-17 09:27 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 07:19 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 12:03 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 09:12 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2016-04-17 14:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 14:53 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-17 20:07 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 19:56 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 08:28 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-17 12:57 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:14 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-04-18 08:59 -0500
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-18 10:37 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 13:06 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-17 10:29 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> - 2016-04-17 16:57 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:51 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-17 10:59 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 13:47 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 10:58 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% 7 <7@enemygadgets.com> - 2016-04-16 18:16 +0000
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-16 11:31 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> - 2016-04-16 11:43 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-16 11:52 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Silver Slimer <ahlstrom's_manhood@void.ca> - 2016-04-16 15:00 -0400
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-18 09:42 +0100
Re: Countless SMALL vendors write to the Microsoft Standard. Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Re: Appil sales plummet 30% Steve Carroll <fretwizzen@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 22:26 -0700
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <397c8ff1-30e2-4c8b-8d39-c3b3a9c7d661@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350544 |
That's not what it shows. Its all 2014 dollars. More people are making more money today than in 1971. I have no idea how anyone can look at this chart and see it as a negative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 00:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350544 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well >>> and in a very digestible form: >>> >>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >> >> What is it that you think that graph shows? > > It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. > I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily confused. >> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over >> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made >> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people >> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of >> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that >> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. > > Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. > Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage decreases in those lower income brackets. > It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is > shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class > becomes more and more productive. > It doesn't show that at all. The x-axis is income. The y-axis is percentage of households. It shows that over time the percentage of households in higher income brackets has increased, with the most marked increase in the percent of households making over $200K, while the percentage of households in lower income brackets has decreased. The same trend is shown in the section marked "middle income" as in the overall graph That is to say, decreases in percent of population on the lower-income side of the "middle income" group is balanced by increases in percent of population in the higher end, with the entire "middle income" group moving toward higher incomes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33976C6.702A3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350547 |
On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well >>>> and in a very digestible form: >>>> >>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >>> >>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >> >> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. > > I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily > confused. Below you noted your confusion was based on not realizing it was on inflation corrected dollars. >>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over >>> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made >>> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people >>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of >>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that >>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. >> >> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. > > Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of > adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. > Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing > on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage > decreases in those lower income brackets. The very lowest and the very highest go up. Their are more massively rich people by far (they have managed to have income redistributed to them) and their are more poor. >> It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is >> shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class >> becomes more and more productive. > > It doesn't show that at all. It does not show the productivity of the middle class. True. I showed that in the other link you snipped. It does show fewer people are in the 50-100K range. To be fair, more people are also making 100K. Maybe you are focusing on that? > The x-axis is income. The y-axis is percentage of households. It shows that > over time the percentage of households in higher income brackets has > increased, with the most marked increase in the percent of households making > over $200K, while the percentage of households in lower income brackets has > decreased. The lowest income bracket has increased... hard to say without exact numbers, but roughly doubled. > The same trend is shown in the section marked "middle income" as in the > overall graph That is to say, decreases in percent of population on the > lower-income side of the "middle income" group is balanced by increases in > percent of population in the higher end, with the entire "middle income" group > moving toward higher incomes. > > -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjd03afe4a.ki@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350549 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics well >>>>> and in a very digestible form: >>>>> >>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >>>> >>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >>> >>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. >> >> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily >> confused. > > Below you noted your confusion was based on not realizing it was on > inflation corrected dollars. > That does not matter. The same trend would show if it was held in 1971 dollars. They had to fix it somewhere, and the chose 2014 dollars. >>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over >>>> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made >>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people >>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of >>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that >>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. >>> >>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. >> >> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of >> adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. >> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing >> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage >> decreases in those lower income brackets. > > The very lowest and the very highest go up. In the lower income groups, the only significant increase was for making near $0K. That group went from about 1 percent to about 2.5 %. At pretty much every income level from that point to about $80K showed a decrease in population, with every income level from ~$80K to $200K+ showing increases in population. > Their are more massively rich > people by far (they have managed to have income redistributed to them) and > their are more poor. > That graph does not show that. The most dramatic increase on the graph is the number of people making over $200K+. >>> It shows MASSIVE income redistribution... to the rich. The middle class is >>> shrinking and the rich are getting their money, even as the middle class >>> becomes more and more productive. >> >> It doesn't show that at all. > > It does not show the productivity of the middle class. True. I showed that > in the other link you snipped. > > It does show fewer people are in the 50-100K range. To be fair, more people > are also making 100K. Maybe you are focusing on that? > I'm focusing on the trend that is shown in the graph you linked to. The trend is an overall decrease in population at lower income levels and an increase in population at higher income levels. >> The x-axis is income. The y-axis is percentage of households. It shows that >> over time the percentage of households in higher income brackets has >> increased, with the most marked increase in the percent of households making >> over $200K, while the percentage of households in lower income brackets has >> decreased. > > The lowest income bracket has increased... hard to say without exact > numbers, but roughly doubled. > Only increase on the low end was at the *very* bottom, near $0K, and that increase was not dramatic. Practically every "low" income bracket above $0K shows a decrease in population at that level, and every higher income bracket shows an increase.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D3397E51.702B4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350552 |
On 4/17/16, 5:40 PM, in article ghjd03afe4a.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics >>>>>> well >>>>>> and in a very digestible form: >>>>>> >>>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >>>>> >>>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >>>> >>>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. >>> >>> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily >>> confused. >> >> Below you noted your confusion was based on not realizing it was on >> inflation corrected dollars. > > That does not matter. Your error does not matter now? > The same trend would show if it was held in 1971 dollars. They had to fix it > somewhere, and the chose 2014 dollars. Right: the point is it is in inflation corrected dollars. You also made the mistake of believing I am a Communist... which is just weird given how I have never suggested I am. >>>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over >>>>> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made >>>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people >>>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of >>>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that >>>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. >>>> >>>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. >>> >>> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of >>> adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. >>> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing >>> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage >>> decreases in those lower income brackets. >> >> The very lowest and the very highest go up. > > In the lower income groups, the only significant increase was for making > near $0K. Those at the very bottom and top are growing. The middle is (pretty much by definition) shrinking. I went into more detail in another post. ... -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <thif3a34.3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350555 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 5:40 PM, in article ghjd03afe4a.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics >>>>>>> well >>>>>>> and in a very digestible form: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >>>>>> >>>>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >>>>> >>>>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. >>>> >>>> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily >>>> confused. >>> >>> Below you noted your confusion was based on not realizing it was on >>> inflation corrected dollars. >> >> That does not matter. > > Your error does not matter now? > I didn't make an error. >> The same trend would show if it was held in 1971 dollars. They had to fix it >> somewhere, and the chose 2014 dollars. > > Right: the point is it is in inflation corrected dollars. You also made the > mistake of believing I am a Communist... which is just weird given how I > have never suggested I am. > So you agree with me that it doesn't matter what dollars they use to show the trend. Good. Why did you bring it up? >>>>>> To me, it shows that in 1971 about 1% of the population made over >>>>>> $200K in 2014 dollars. And in 2015, nearly 8% of the population made >>>>>> over $200K in 2014 dollars. And across the board the number of people >>>>>> making over $100K appears to have at least doubled, while the number of >>>>>> people making less than $100K dropped by a similar amount. All of that >>>>>> makes sense in terms of incomes rising to keep up with inflation. >>>>> >>>>> Look at the header of the chart. It is inflation corrected dollars. >>>> >>>> Yes, the header which tells you that the y-axis shows percentage of >>>> adults. 0-8 on the y-axis is population percentage, not income. >>>> Income is the x-axis, from $0K - $200K. What you see decreasing >>>> on the left, i.e. the purple bars, represents population percentage >>>> decreases in those lower income brackets. >>> >>> The very lowest and the very highest go up. >> >> In the lower income groups, the only significant increase was for making >> near $0K. > > Those at the very bottom and top are growing. Those at every point above the middle point are growing. Those at every point below the middle point are shrinking, other than those hovering at $0K.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 19:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33990CA.702D7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350561 |
On 4/17/16, 6:46 PM, in article thif3a34.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 5:40 PM, in article ghjd03afe4a.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics >>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>> and in a very digestible form: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily >>>>> confused. >>>> >>>> Below you noted your confusion was based on not realizing it was on >>>> inflation corrected dollars. >>> >>> That does not matter. >> >> Your error does not matter now? >> > > I didn't make an error. You mean you did not make the error you claimed did not matter that you made? Whatever. Not interested in your games. To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>> The same trend would show if it was held in 1971 dollars. They had to fix >>> it somewhere, and the chose 2014 dollars. >>> >> Right: the point is it is in inflation corrected dollars. You also made the >> mistake of believing I am a Communist... which is just weird given how I have >> never suggested I am. >> > > So you agree with me that it doesn't matter what dollars they use to > show the trend. Good. Why did you bring it up? Because you showed no understanding that it was inflation adjusted dollars... and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a Communist. But this is getting into talking about you and your errors and not the actual topic. Not really interested in that. ... -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 02:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350568 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 6:46 PM, in article thif3a34.3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 5:40 PM, in article ghjd03afe4a.ki@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>> On 4/17/16, 5:01 PM, in article ghjde93.aa3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/17/16, 2:50 PM, in article ghjdkei0tqa.f@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>>>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is a lot of complexity to it but I think these cover the basics >>>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>>> and in a very digestible form: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <http://imgur.com/a2BEHjL>, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is it that you think that graph shows? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is quite clearly labeled. Not sure where you might find it confusing. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not confused by it. You are. But then, communists are easily >>>>>> confused. >>>>> >>>>> Below you noted your confusion was based on not realizing it was on >>>>> inflation corrected dollars. >>>> >>>> That does not matter. >>> >>> Your error does not matter now? >>> >> >> I didn't make an error. > > You mean you did not make the error you claimed did not matter that you > made? > That doesn't make any sense. Try again. > Whatever. Not interested in your games. > > To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> > > Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. > > Curious: whom are you backing for president? > Trump. >>>> The same trend would show if it was held in 1971 dollars. They had to fix >>>> it somewhere, and the chose 2014 dollars. >>>> >>> Right: the point is it is in inflation corrected dollars. You also made the >>> mistake of believing I am a Communist... which is just weird given how I have >>> never suggested I am. >>> >> >> So you agree with me that it doesn't matter what dollars they use to >> show the trend. Good. Why did you bring it up? > > Because you showed no understanding that it was inflation adjusted > dollars... Where did I show that? I said it doesn't matter whether they use 1971 dollars or 2014 dollars. They chose 2014 dollars because people can relate to those. The trend would be the same. > and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a > Communist. You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. > But this is getting into talking about you and your errors and > not the actual topic. > > Not really interested in that. > ... > Good. Arguing with a libtard is like arguing with a rock.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D339998F.702F4%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350577 |
On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: ... >> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >> >> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >> >> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >> >> Curious: whom are you backing for president? > > Trump. Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? ... >> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >> Communist. > > You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it means to support someone. ... -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fhjgi03af.jif@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #350583 |
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>> >>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>> >>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>> >>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >> >> Trump. > > Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? > Leadership. Personality. Vision. > ... >>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >>> Communist. >> >> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. > > That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant > about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it > means to support someone. > ... > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYquuFjE0cc This guy is interviewing some communists. I've seen Bernie's supporters. I don't see one smidgen of a difference between them and these kooks. Especially that Bangladouche guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-17 20:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D339A1E6.7030C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350586 |
On 4/17/16, 8:09 PM, in article fhjgi03af.jif@rooftop.invalid, "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>>> >>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>>> >>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>>> >>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>> >>> Trump. >> >> Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? > > Leadership. Personality. Vision. Can you give more details on his "vision" and reasons you think he has any leadership skills to speak of. >> ... >>>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >>>> Communist. >>> >>> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. >> >> That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant >> about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it >> means to support someone. >> ... >> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYquuFjE0cc > This guy is interviewing some communists. I've seen Bernie's supporters. > I don't see one smidgen of a difference between them and these kooks. > Especially that Bangladouche guy. I accept you "see" things incorrectly. But remember: your claim showed you are completely ignorant about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it means to support someone. To be clear: * Sanders is not a Communist. * Sanders does not push Communism. * Even if he did, one does not need to back all of what a candidate backs to back them. And, hey, when did I even say I was backing Sanders? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 08:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf2kfo$23s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350583 |
On 2016-04-17 10:50 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>> >>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>> >>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>> >>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >> >> Trump. > > Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? > > ... >>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >>> Communist. >> >> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. > > That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant > about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it > means to support someone. > ... Sanders is pushing Social Democracy. In the end, no matter how you look at it, it ends up being the same as Communism. Look at how his supporters behave (with his encouragement); there is absolutely no difference between what they are doing and what the Bolsheviks did in 1917. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A5C18.703DC%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350637 |
On 4/18/16, 5:41 AM, in article nf2kfo$23s$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: > On 2016-04-17 10:50 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>>> >>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>>> >>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>>> >>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>> >>> Trump. >> >> Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? >> >> ... >>>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >>>> Communist. >>> >>> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. >> >> That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant >> about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it >> means to support someone. >> ... > > Sanders is pushing Social Democracy. In the end, no matter how you look > at it, it ends up being the same as Communism. How do you figure? Communism pushes the idea of all property being publicly owned, a position which Sanders does not hold in any way, shape, or form. It also pushes a totalitarian state, something absolutely antithetical to the democracy and will of the people pushed by Sanders. > Look at how his supporters behave (with his encouragement); there is > absolutely no difference between what they are doing and what the Bolsheviks > did in 1917. No offense but that is absurd. Might be best for us to not discuss politics if you find this type of thing upsetting. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 13:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf35ft$5b2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350681 |
On 2016-04-18 12:40 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 5:41 AM, in article nf2kfo$23s$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-17 10:50 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>>>> >>>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>>>> >>>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>>>> >>>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>>> >>>> Trump. >>> >>> Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? >>> >>> ... >>>>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >>>>> Communist. >>>> >>>> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. >>> >>> That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant >>> about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it >>> means to support someone. >>> ... >> >> Sanders is pushing Social Democracy. In the end, no matter how you look >> at it, it ends up being the same as Communism. > > How do you figure? Communism pushes the idea of all property being publicly > owned, a position which Sanders does not hold in any way, shape, or form. It > also pushes a totalitarian state, something absolutely antithetical to the > democracy and will of the people pushed by Sanders. That's one version of Communism, not the only one. What you're referring to Stalinism, not Communism which believes that the means of production should be owned commonly. Nothing about the original definition of Communism requires for property to be common. Sanders is indeed interest in returning the fruits of production to the masses. >> Look at how his supporters behave (with his encouragement); there is >> absolutely no difference between what they are doing and what the Bolsheviks >> did in 1917. > > No offense but that is absurd. Might be best for us to not discuss politics > if you find this type of thing upsetting. I've seen the videos of Sanders' Communists engaging in mass protests and attacking people who don't share their views. Unlike the Trump supporters who are regularly the victims of their aggression, I don't think that I would accept being spit on; some of the Reds would die. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A70B9.70417%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350687 |
On 4/18/16, 10:31 AM, in article nf35ft$5b2$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: > On 2016-04-18 12:40 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/18/16, 5:41 AM, in article nf2kfo$23s$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-04-17 10:50 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>>>>> >>>>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>>>>> >>>>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our >>>>>> economy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>>>> >>>>> Trump. >>>> >>>> Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a >>>>>> Communist. >>>>> >>>>> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. >>>> >>>> That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant >>>> about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it >>>> means to support someone. >>>> ... >>> >>> Sanders is pushing Social Democracy. In the end, no matter how you look >>> at it, it ends up being the same as Communism. >> >> How do you figure? Communism pushes the idea of all property being publicly >> owned, a position which Sanders does not hold in any way, shape, or form. It >> also pushes a totalitarian state, something absolutely antithetical to the >> democracy and will of the people pushed by Sanders. > > That's one version of Communism, not the only one. What you're referring > to Stalinism, not Communism which believes that the means of production > should be owned commonly. Nothing about the original definition of > Communism requires for property to be common. Sanders is indeed interest > in returning the fruits of production to the masses. What makes you think that? Can you point to anything on his site which backs that? >>> Look at how his supporters behave (with his encouragement); there is >>> absolutely no difference between what they are doing and what the Bolsheviks >>> did in 1917. >> >> No offense but that is absurd. Might be best for us to not discuss politics >> if you find this type of thing upsetting. > > I've seen the videos of Sanders' Communists engaging in mass protests > and attacking people who don't share their views. Unlike the Trump > supporters who are regularly the victims of their aggression, I don't > think that I would accept being spit on; some of the Reds would die. I did an experiment to test whose supporters are nastier: Sanders or Clinton. Clinton supporters are FAR worse. I should do a similar test with Trump supporters. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 11:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87f4ad0c-ab9a-4cc4-b483-2c3cd421a7b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #350700 |
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 10:31 AM, in article nf35ft$5b2$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > > > On 2016-04-18 12:40 PM, Snit wrote: > >> On 4/18/16, 5:41 AM, in article nf2kfo$23s$2@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > >> <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >> > >>> On 2016-04-17 10:50 PM, Snit wrote: > >>>> On 4/17/16, 7:39 PM, in article ghjd003a.a3@rooftop.invalid, "owl" > >>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our > >>>>>> economy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? > >>>>> > >>>>> Trump. > >>>> > >>>> Not surprising. Can I ask for your reasoning? > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>>>> and you ignored your OTHER error of referring to me as a > >>>>>> Communist. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are a Sanders supporter. That makes you a communist. > >>>> > >>>> That is absurd... I mean, really, it just shows you are completely ignorant > >>>> about what it means to be a Communist, what Sanders is pushing, and what it > >>>> means to support someone. > >>>> ... > >>> > >>> Sanders is pushing Social Democracy. In the end, no matter how you look > >>> at it, it ends up being the same as Communism. > >> > >> How do you figure? Communism pushes the idea of all property being publicly > >> owned, a position which Sanders does not hold in any way, shape, or form. It > >> also pushes a totalitarian state, something absolutely antithetical to the > >> democracy and will of the people pushed by Sanders. > > > > That's one version of Communism, not the only one. What you're referring > > to Stalinism, not Communism which believes that the means of production > > should be owned commonly. Nothing about the original definition of > > Communism requires for property to be common. Sanders is indeed interest > > in returning the fruits of production to the masses. > > What makes you think that? LOL! Are you on crack again? Sanders' MO is largely based on income redistribution and he's using emotion against 'the rich" to build his platform. > Can you point to anything on his site which backs > that? Listen to Sanders for 5 minutes.... but remove your rose colored ear plugs first. > > >>> Look at how his supporters behave (with his encouragement); there is > >>> absolutely no difference between what they are doing and what the Bolsheviks > >>> did in 1917. > >> > >> No offense but that is absurd. Might be best for us to not discuss politics > >> if you find this type of thing upsetting. > > > > I've seen the videos of Sanders' Communists engaging in mass protests > > and attacking people who don't share their views. Unlike the Trump > > supporters who are regularly the victims of their aggression, I don't > > think that I would accept being spit on; some of the Reds would die. > > I did an experiment to test whose supporters are nastier: Sanders or > Clinton. Clinton supporters are FAR worse. I should do a similar test with > Trump supporters. And it was a scientifically conducted, unbiased experiment, right? LOL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 08:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf2kb3$23s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350577 |
On 2016-04-17 10:39 PM, owl wrote: < snip > >> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >> >> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >> >> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >> >> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >> > > Trump. About him. I back him as well even though I can't vote in the United States. However, I am now convinced that no matter how much support he gets, they will indeed take away the nomination from him. I am also disgusted how the mainstream, not just the news, is doing whatever it can to discredit him. Case in point, Saturday Night Live. A few weeks ago, I stopped watching because of their insistence on portraying Trump as equivalent to a Nazi in a sketch. I just happened to catch the intro and the beginning of the monologue this Saturday though. In the intro, Bernie Sanders (played by Larry David) is portrayed as the only Democrat who would raise taxes and the character goes on to tell the world to vote for Hillary. No joke. This is despite the fact that Hillary intends to raise taxes as much if not more. Then, in the monologue, moron Julia Louis-Dreyfuss decided that she would start by referring to Trump as a narcissistic bigot. All of it in the network's effort to make sure that the man is decimated by every one of the media it offers from news to comedy. It's disgusting and if my wife didn't insist on keeping it for certain shows, I would be ready to cancel cable and give up on American media altogether. < snip > >> Not really interested in that. >> ... >> > > Good. Arguing with a libtard is like arguing with a rock. Snit is better than most but the people I work with are probably the best example of libtards. They are convinced that Trump is a monster and that Marine Le Pen (of France) is as well but they can't tell you why. The media told them that they are and if the media says something, it's gospel. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 09:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A5D90.703E1%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350636 |
On 4/18/16, 5:39 AM, in article nf2kb3$23s$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: > On 2016-04-17 10:39 PM, owl wrote: > > < snip > > >>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>> >>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>> >>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>> >>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>> >> >> Trump. > > About him. I back him as well even though I can't vote in the United States. > However, I am now convinced that no matter how much support he gets, they will > indeed take away the nomination from him. I am also disgusted how the > mainstream, not just the news, is doing whatever it can to discredit him. > He will likely get the most votes but not enough to be the nominee. And then the Republican party will pick someone else. As much as Trump is demonstrably absurd, I think it is wrong for the Republican party to do this - as wrong as the Dem party would be if Sanders ends up with the most pledged delegates and they still give the nomination to Clinton (though I doubt that will happen - it is unlikely though not impossible that Sanders will get the most pledged delegates, and if he does I doubt the Dems will give it to Clinton). > Case in point, Saturday Night Live. A few weeks ago, I stopped watching > because of their insistence on portraying Trump as equivalent to a Nazi in a > sketch. > He shares a lot of the same tactics: pushes to create fear of the "outsider" and poor as much as he can. > I just happened to catch the intro and the beginning of the monologue this > Saturday though. In the intro, Bernie Sanders (played by Larry David) is > portrayed as the only Democrat who would raise taxes and the character goes on > to tell the world to vote for Hillary. No joke. This is despite the fact that > Hillary intends to raise taxes as much if not more. The media is MASSIVELY pro-Clinton. They are some of her major funders. > Then, in the monologue, moron Julia Louis-Dreyfuss decided that she > would start by referring to Trump as a narcissistic bigot. Which is an accurate description of him. > All of it in the network's effort to make sure that the man is decimated by > every one of the media it offers from news to comedy. It's disgusting and if > my wife didn't insist on keeping it for certain shows, I would be ready to > cancel cable and give up on American media altogether. > > < snip > > >>> Not really interested in that. >>> ... >>> >> >> Good. Arguing with a libtard is like arguing with a rock. > > Snit is better than most but the people I work with are probably the > best example of libtards. They are convinced that Trump is a monster and > that Marine Le Pen (of France) is as well but they can't tell you why. > The media told them that they are and if the media says something, it's > gospel. I can go into detail as to why I am against Trump's bigotry, his absurd, ever-changing and useless plan for a wall, his pushing of violence, etc. But at this point he is becoming just footnote in political history and he will simply use this campaign to push another TV show or even network. He is the world's best troll... being outrageous to get media attention. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Silver Slimer <peter@klown.is> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 13:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nf35pb$6ec$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #350682 |
On 2016-04-18 12:46 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/18/16, 5:39 AM, in article nf2kb3$23s$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" > <peter@klown.is> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-17 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >> >> < snip > >> >>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>>> >>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>>> >>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our economy. >>>> >>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>>> >>> >>> Trump. >> >> About him. I back him as well even though I can't vote in the United States. >> However, I am now convinced that no matter how much support he gets, they will >> indeed take away the nomination from him. I am also disgusted how the >> mainstream, not just the news, is doing whatever it can to discredit him. >> > He will likely get the most votes but not enough to be the nominee. And then > the Republican party will pick someone else. I see that as the most likely scenario. > As much as Trump is demonstrably absurd, I think it is wrong for the > Republican party to do this - as wrong as the Dem party would be if Sanders > ends up with the most pledged delegates and they still give the nomination > to Clinton (though I doubt that will happen - it is unlikely though not > impossible that Sanders will get the most pledged delegates, and if he does > I doubt the Dems will give it to Clinton). Democracy should extend not only to the results of an election for president but also for the selection of the nominee. The fact that neither group cares what the people want, to me, is evidence that the principles of democracy have no influence whatsoever in their decision-making and I HOPE that the citizens of your country will take now to start the process of revolution. >> Case in point, Saturday Night Live. A few weeks ago, I stopped watching >> because of their insistence on portraying Trump as equivalent to a Nazi in a >> sketch. >> > He shares a lot of the same tactics: pushes to create fear of the "outsider" > and poor as much as he can. No, he doesn't. He's simply pointing out what's going on. In the case of Mexicans, it is TRUE that they bring in the drugs (and has been true for decades) and it is TRUE that a large proportion of the people coming in are drug dealers, violent aggressors and rapists. There are news articles all the time of illegal immigrants committing crimes; the fact that your mainstream media refuses to put them on TV to give the guy more power is of no importance. >> I just happened to catch the intro and the beginning of the monologue this >> Saturday though. In the intro, Bernie Sanders (played by Larry David) is >> portrayed as the only Democrat who would raise taxes and the character goes on >> to tell the world to vote for Hillary. No joke. This is despite the fact that >> Hillary intends to raise taxes as much if not more. > > The media is MASSIVELY pro-Clinton. They are some of her major funders. The media is something I want to eliminate from my home before my first child is born. >> Then, in the monologue, moron Julia Louis-Dreyfuss decided that she >> would start by referring to Trump as a narcissistic bigot. > > Which is an accurate description of him. Narcissistic? Maybe. Bigot? No. < snip > >>> Good. Arguing with a libtard is like arguing with a rock. >> >> Snit is better than most but the people I work with are probably the >> best example of libtards. They are convinced that Trump is a monster and >> that Marine Le Pen (of France) is as well but they can't tell you why. >> The media told them that they are and if the media says something, it's >> gospel. > > I can go into detail as to why I am against Trump's bigotry, his absurd, > ever-changing and useless plan for a wall, his pushing of violence, etc. But > at this point he is becoming just footnote in political history and he will > simply use this campaign to push another TV show or even network. > > He is the world's best troll... being outrageous to get media attention. Isn't it possible that it's just his personality? He reminds me of me: right but criticized by people who are wrong not due to what was said but HOW it was said. -- Silver Slimer The silver-tongued heel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-18 11:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D33A7066.70416%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #350688 |
On 4/18/16, 10:36 AM, in article nf35pb$6ec$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" <peter@klown.is> wrote: > On 2016-04-18 12:46 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/18/16, 5:39 AM, in article nf2kb3$23s$1@dont-email.me, "Silver Slimer" >> <peter@klown.is> wrote: >> >>> On 2016-04-17 10:39 PM, owl wrote: >>> >>> < snip > >>> >>>>> Whatever. Not interested in your games. >>>>> >>>>> To get you back to the topic: <http://goo.gl/6cMDxC> >>>>> >>>>> Income inequality is growing... and that is a huge problem for our >>>>> economy. >>>>> >>>>> Curious: whom are you backing for president? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Trump. >>> >>> About him. I back him as well even though I can't vote in the United States. >>> However, I am now convinced that no matter how much support he gets, they >>> will >>> indeed take away the nomination from him. I am also disgusted how the >>> mainstream, not just the news, is doing whatever it can to discredit him. >>> >> He will likely get the most votes but not enough to be the nominee. And then >> the Republican party will pick someone else. > > I see that as the most likely scenario. Wow. We agree on something political. :) >> As much as Trump is demonstrably absurd, I think it is wrong for the >> Republican party to do this - as wrong as the Dem party would be if Sanders >> ends up with the most pledged delegates and they still give the nomination >> to Clinton (though I doubt that will happen - it is unlikely though not >> impossible that Sanders will get the most pledged delegates, and if he does >> I doubt the Dems will give it to Clinton). > > Democracy should extend not only to the results of an election for > president but also for the selection of the nominee. The fact that > neither group cares what the people want, to me, is evidence that the > principles of democracy have no influence whatsoever in their > decision-making and I HOPE that the citizens of your country will take > now to start the process of revolution. To a large extent that is what Sanders is pushing for. I think one of his big strengths as president, if he were to win, would be to use the bully pulpit and social media to push knowledge about upcoming bills. He would get the people involved. This *would* mean more debates in the country. People who tend to agree more with you and those that tend to agree more with me would be writing their representatives. They would have more active debates. One thing I have been happy to see in pro-Sanders groups is that when someone comes in and criticizes him, say questioning why he paid so little in taxes, the responses are mostly reasoned and respectful. In pro-Clinton and pro-Trump groups the responses are to attack ruthlessly. >>> Case in point, Saturday Night Live. A few weeks ago, I stopped watching >>> because of their insistence on portraying Trump as equivalent to a Nazi in a >>> sketch. >>> >> He shares a lot of the same tactics: pushes to create fear of the "outsider" >> and poor as much as he can. > > No, he doesn't. He's simply pointing out what's going on. In the case of > Mexicans, it is TRUE that they bring in the drugs (and has been true for > decades) and it is TRUE that a large proportion of the people coming in > are drug dealers, violent aggressors and rapists. There are news > articles all the time of illegal immigrants committing crimes; the fact > that your mainstream media refuses to put them on TV to give the guy > more power is of no importance. I can go into details as to why I disagree, but we have covered this in the past and it lead to you getting seemingly angry. Would prefer to not go their again. If you specifically want me to though I will. >>> I just happened to catch the intro and the beginning of the monologue this >>> Saturday though. In the intro, Bernie Sanders (played by Larry David) is >>> portrayed as the only Democrat who would raise taxes and the character goes >>> on to tell the world to vote for Hillary. No joke. This is despite the fact >>> that Hillary intends to raise taxes as much if not more. >>> >> The media is MASSIVELY pro-Clinton. They are some of her major funders. > > The media is something I want to eliminate from my home before my first > child is born. We have no TV, though I do read many online articles and watch videos. My kids, 8 and 10, have shown interest in the election and have been watching at least some of the debates. And they ask questions better than many of the ones I see adults asking. >>> Then, in the monologue, moron Julia Louis-Dreyfuss decided that she >>> would start by referring to Trump as a narcissistic bigot. >> >> Which is an accurate description of him. > > Narcissistic? Maybe. Bigot? No. Again, disagree on the latter... but will not go into my evidence unless you say you want to see it (and I think I have shared much of it with you before). > < snip > > >>>> Good. Arguing with a libtard is like arguing with a rock. >>> >>> Snit is better than most but the people I work with are probably the >>> best example of libtards. They are convinced that Trump is a monster and >>> that Marine Le Pen (of France) is as well but they can't tell you why. >>> The media told them that they are and if the media says something, it's >>> gospel. >> >> I can go into detail as to why I am against Trump's bigotry, his absurd, >> ever-changing and useless plan for a wall, his pushing of violence, etc. But >> at this point he is becoming just footnote in political history and he will >> simply use this campaign to push another TV show or even network. >> >> He is the world's best troll... being outrageous to get media attention. > > Isn't it possible that it's just his personality? From those close to him: seems not. But, I would say at least part of it is. > He reminds me of me: right but criticized by people who are wrong not due to > what was said but HOW it was said. I think he is both wrong in WHAT he says and HOW. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web