On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:55 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:03:46 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 12:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That, Sparky, IS stealing.

Antagonizing again, Tim. What did Big Bro' Robatoy tell you? It's too
smokey in here. Leave!


Or.....?????

I've already provided you with the calculus to shut me up.


Open Source software = collectivism, socialism, communism.


Dead wrong. OSS is *voluntary cooperation*. No one makes you
participate or use the resulting work product. Rather different
than if the government showed up and said "Every user of vi must
now convert to GNU emacs."

It is still collectivism, socialism and communism. Voluntary or not,
it fits the definition perfectly.


In the context of the political discussion here, the three notions all
include force.

You are a crack pot. That's the only option remaining.

See ya!

On Jan 5, 6:49*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk





wrote:
On 1/5/2010 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:15:59 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:36:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:21 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On 1/5/2010 12:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That, Sparky, IS stealing.

Antagonizing again, Tim. What did Big Bro' Robatoy tell you? It's too
smokey in here. Leave!

Or.....?????

I've already provided you with the calculus to shut me up.

Open Source software = collectivism, socialism, communism.

Has was anyone been forced to contribute to Open Source?

I don't know. Why would that matter? It's collectivism, socialism and
communism, regardless.

No it's not. *The specific objection folks like me have is *the use of
force*. *And it is force that characterizes collectivism, of which
socialism and communism are two forms. *Take away the force, and there
is no issue. *

That is where your train goes off the rails. Use of force has ZERO to
do with the definition of collectivism, socialism, or communism.

Open source software is a perfect example of collectivism, socialism
and communism at work.

You may wish to refine words as you like to argue your case, but the ordinary
meaning of all the above embraces the notion of force.

The word you're looking for, I believe, is "volunteerism".

No. You need to spend more time with a dictionary. It is you who is
projecting your own nonsense into the words collectivism, socialism
and communism. None of them are defined by force or coercion. You
clearly don't know what any of them truly mean. You use them as buzz
words with your own agenda making them into something they are not.

That's what he does.

On Jan 5, 6:49*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:55 -0600, Tim Daneliuk





wrote:
On 1/5/2010 2:34 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:03:46 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 12:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That, Sparky, IS stealing.

Antagonizing again, Tim. What did Big Bro' Robatoy tell you? It's too
smokey in here. Leave!

Or.....?????

I've already provided you with the calculus to shut me up.

Open Source software = collectivism, socialism, communism.

Dead wrong. *OSS is *voluntary cooperation*. *No one makes you
participate or use the resulting work product. *Rather different
than if the government showed up and said "Every user of vi must
now convert to GNU emacs."

It is still collectivism, socialism and communism. Voluntary or not,
it fits the definition perfectly.

In the context of the political discussion here, the three notions all
include force.

You are a crack pot. That's the only option remaining.

See ya!

By Jove, I think he left. In a Huff! (Ukrainian Fiat product)

On Jan 5, 7:08*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/5/2010 5:56 PM, Robatoy wrote:





On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On 1/5/2010 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:15:59 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:36:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:21 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On 1/5/2010 12:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That, Sparky, IS stealing.

Antagonizing again, Tim. What did Big Bro' Robatoy tell you? It's too
smokey in here. Leave!

Or.....?????

I've already provided you with the calculus to shut me up.

Open Source software = collectivism, socialism, communism.

Has was anyone been forced to contribute to Open Source?

I don't know. Why would that matter? It's collectivism, socialism and
communism, regardless.

No it's not. *The specific objection folks like me have is *the use of
force*. *And it is force that characterizes collectivism, of which
socialism and communism are two forms. *Take away the force, and there
is no issue. *

That is where your train goes off the rails. Use of force has ZERO to
do with the definition of collectivism, socialism, or communism.

Open source software is a perfect example of collectivism, socialism
and communism at work.

You may wish to refine words as you like to argue your case, but the ordinary
meaning of all the above embraces the notion of force.

The word you're looking for, I believe, is "volunteerism".

No. You need to spend more time with a dictionary. It is you who is
projecting your own nonsense into the words collectivism, socialism
and communism. None of them are defined by force or coercion. You
clearly don't know what any of them truly mean. You use them as buzz
words with your own agenda making them into something they are not.

That's what he does.

You mean like this:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...s=collectivism

From Wikipedia:

"Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or
social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in
some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual
goals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give
priority to group goals over individual goals."


This is where YOU add YOUR angle. You add it, defend it, and that is
easy because it is YOUR angle.

Now - show me any example of "putting the group first" as a political
system that isn't done with force or implicit force directed at
individuals

. *There was force/implicit force in all the 20th Century
dictatorships. *It exists in today's Western democracies when they force
some citizens to provide for others (try not paying your taxes and see
what kind of force is brought to bear on you). *It also exists in today's
various collectivist paradises like Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, Syria, ...

When government's stress collectivist outcomes, force or threat of same always
comes with it.

Come on Tim. That method of arguing is high-school grade.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:56:52 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 5:49 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:15:59 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:36:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:21 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On 1/5/2010 12:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That, Sparky, IS stealing.

Antagonizing again, Tim. What did Big Bro' Robatoy tell you? It's too
smokey in here. Leave!

Or.....?????

I've already provided you with the calculus to shut me up.

Open Source software = collectivism, socialism, communism.

Has was anyone been forced to contribute to Open Source?

I don't know. Why would that matter? It's collectivism, socialism and
communism, regardless.


No it's not. The specific objection folks like me have is *the use of
force*. And it is force that characterizes collectivism, of which
socialism and communism are two forms. Take away the force, and there
is no issue.

That is where your train goes off the rails. Use of force has ZERO to
do with the definition of collectivism, socialism, or communism.

Open source software is a perfect example of collectivism, socialism
and communism at work.


You may wish to refine words as you like to argue your case, but the ordinary
meaning of all the above embraces the notion of force.

The word you're looking for, I believe, is "volunteerism".

No. You need to spend more time with a dictionary. It is you who is
projecting your own nonsense into the words collectivism, socialism
and communism. None of them are defined by force or coercion. You
clearly don't know what any of them truly mean. You use them as buzz
words with your own agenda making them into something they are not.


Please cite one example of political collectivism that isn't or wasn't built
on force. Your OSS example is puerile - it is collective volunteerism but not
political collectivism.

Kibbutzim

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:29:31 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jan 5, 7:08*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/5/2010 5:56 PM, Robatoy wrote:





On Jan 5, 6:49 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:41:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On 1/5/2010 2:37 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:15:59 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

On 1/5/2010 2:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:36:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 5, 1:21 pm, wrote:
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:10:01 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

wrote:
On 1/5/2010 12:53 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 5, 1:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

That, Sparky, IS stealing.

Antagonizing again, Tim. What did Big Bro' Robatoy tell you? It's too
smokey in here. Leave!

Or.....?????

I've already provided you with the calculus to shut me up.

Open Source software = collectivism, socialism, communism.

Has was anyone been forced to contribute to Open Source?

I don't know. Why would that matter? It's collectivism, socialism and
communism, regardless.

No it's not. *The specific objection folks like me have is *the use of
force*. *And it is force that characterizes collectivism, of which
socialism and communism are two forms. *Take away the force, and there
is no issue. *

That is where your train goes off the rails. Use of force has ZERO to
do with the definition of collectivism, socialism, or communism.

Open source software is a perfect example of collectivism, socialism
and communism at work.

You may wish to refine words as you like to argue your case, but the ordinary
meaning of all the above embraces the notion of force.

The word you're looking for, I believe, is "volunteerism".

No. You need to spend more time with a dictionary. It is you who is
projecting your own nonsense into the words collectivism, socialism
and communism. None of them are defined by force or coercion. You
clearly don't know what any of them truly mean. You use them as buzz
words with your own agenda making them into something they are not.

That's what he does.

You mean like this:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl...s=collectivism

From Wikipedia:

"Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or
social outlook, that emphasizes the interdependence of every human in
some collective group and the priority of group goals over individual
goals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give
priority to group goals over individual goals."


This is where YOU add YOUR angle. You add it, defend it, and that is
easy because it is YOUR angle.

Now - show me any example of "putting the group first" as a political
system that isn't done with force or implicit force directed at
individuals

. *There was force/implicit force in all the 20th Century
dictatorships. *It exists in today's Western democracies when they force
some citizens to provide for others (try not paying your taxes and see
what kind of force is brought to bear on you). *It also exists in today's
various collectivist paradises like Iran, N. Korea, Cuba, Syria, ...

When government's stress collectivist outcomes, force or threat of same always
comes with it.

Come on Tim. That method of arguing is high-school grade.

All governments are socialist collectives, as are all religions.

On Jan 5, 8:33*pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/5/2010 6:29 PM, Robatoy wrote:
..

Come on Tim. That method of arguing is high-school grade.

You mean you lost a lot of arguments in high school (as you here) because
your views are indefensible.


I did very well in debates, as I do against you, here.

Stop acting stupid.
The fact that you won't accept reality and truth, does not mean my
positions are indefensible. A proper defense does not need your
approval. As long as you keep presenting your opinions as fact, you
continue to look like the idiot you are.
I know, I know... erect your 'ad hominim' straw man and I'll get my
matches... again.

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:46:12 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. You will never cease clouding
arguments with bull****, your views on politics and economic issues
are exclusively your own and you're entitled to your misguided views.
You no longer entertain me.

Till next time, ****face!

Ain't we got fun? Another day with idiot Timbit. Luckily, there's not
too many like him otherwise this world would be more of a horror show
than it is.

Have a good one.

On 1/5/2010 9:44 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 1/5/2010 9:33 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 18:46:12 -0800 (PST), Robatoy

Anyway, this has gone on long enough. You will never cease clouding
arguments with bull****, your views on politics and economic issues
are exclusively your own and you're entitled to your misguided views.
You no longer entertain me.

Till next time, ****face!

Ain't we got fun? Another day with idiot Timbit. Luckily, there's not
too many like him otherwise this world would be more of a horror show
than it is.

Have a good one.

Oh, I will be gone sooner than you know ...

Errrr... ?

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Jan 5, 12:13*pm, Dave Balderstone
wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
So, that leaves me with the
enviable task of criticizing you whenever the mood strikes me, which
is most of the time.

The Standard Advice is:

1. Ignore.

2. Killfile.

3. Help others do the same.

Consider the Standard Advice given.

Amen.

Sorry I didn't heed those who earlier warned me.

On Jan 6, 10:25*am, Neil Brooks wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:13*pm, Dave Balderstone





wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
So, that leaves me with the
enviable task of criticizing you whenever the mood strikes me, which
is most of the time.

The Standard Advice is:

1. Ignore.

2. Killfile.

3. Help others do the same.

Consider the Standard Advice given.

Amen.

Sorry I didn't heed those who earlier warned me.

It is easy to get caught up in this. I enjoy tossing a tennis ball
away from my dog. She'll always return it to me.... kinda like Tim....
but with less slobber.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:49:54 -0500, salty wrote:

You are a crack pot. That's the only option remaining.

What gave you the clue?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Tim Daneliuk writes:
On 1/5/2010 1:11 PM, Dave Balderstone wrote:
In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I'm here to improve my understanding of WWing

Cites facts not in evidence.

How does one prove one's passive intents?


By not posting, obviously.