I programmed at MS. Best job of my life. They treat you very well for one thing. There are no cubes, free drinks, and very little stress. You work with really smart people. There's usually a PM who designs your program, and a dedicated tester who finds bugs.
Microsoft has enough money to hire a huge, well-qualified internal support structure for engineers. That must have been nice!
Everything about that job was great, although I tired of programming after a while and decided to change careers.
What about Microsoft's use of force and fraud to make money? How did you handle that? (I would guess rationalization or denial.)
The best part, if you don't like the project you're working on you can easily transfer to another dept.
Behold, the awesome power of Win32 and MSOffice! I mean, honestly, outside of those two operations, Microsft is purely a charity organization for money-losing enterprises. It's just that Win32 and MSOffice are so insanely lucrative that they can support all those money-losing dogs and still have millions upon millions to spare.
How bad is it to be a MS programmer? I'm not doubting that it's bad or implying that it must be. I'm curious as to how bad it is compared to programming in other environemnts (Unix, Linux, AS/400, MVS, etc). I mean, I truly hate Microsoft for their force- and fraud-related activites, and lots of people joke about how bad it is to program using their technology. Can you give me the technical reasons why it sucks?
Having a man and a woman raise a child is always better than 2 men or 2 women or even 1 man or 1 woman. There are many single parent families in the US and although they may get by okay and the child doesn't seem to be affected too much the best way to raise a child is to have 1 woman and 1 man.
Single-parent families are bad for children because no parent is actually parenting the child for much of the day. Parenting ends up being done by day-care workers and school officials. Parents have a hard time enforcing limits on children when they're not around. We all know kids who didn't have any limits growing up. Not too pretty, is it? So I agree with you that singe-parent famlies are bad for kids. How does that make a two-parent, same-sex family bad for children?
It takes both to raise a child because each sex can provide a certain side of child rearing that is needed to raise a child the best way possible.
1. What precisely do children need to be raised the "best way possible"? Please qualify and quantify your answer.
2. What can a man give a child than a woman cannot give, and what can a woman give a child that a man can not give? Please, be specific.
Not to mention that 2 women are 2 men lowers the values set aside by society as a whole and although your mind says it is okay to live that way society as a whole does not want children thinking that it is okay.
"Society as a whole" does not agree on any one single issue. What you're actually talking about is the majority of society imposing its opinions on the minority. I believe that James Madison wrote about this. He called it "The Tyranny of the Majority," and much of the Constitution was written with this thought and how to thwart it in mind.
If it was okay then everyone would be like that but then again if everyone was like that the species would cease to exist. Makes sense doesn't it?
It does in a really stupid and redneck way. It seems that most guys really love fucking pussy as frequently as possible with as many different, anonymous, young partners as possible, so I think the dangers of depopulation through faggification are greatly overstated.
Same sex marriage is wrong.
And most of the conservatives' arguments on the issue boil down to this: "It's wrong because we say it is!" It's called argument by assertion. Once your opponents ask, "And why do you feel that way?" then the inherent fag-bashing bigotry rears its ugly head. Since you feel that way, why not just come out and say it? It's become trendy to buck "policital correctness," so why not go whole hog and just say that you don't like gay people? (Not counting the hot lipstick lesbians in your porn collection, of course.)
If we were meant to act that way and not be with the opposite sex the species would become extinct so maybe that would tell you something about whether it is in the best interest of a child, let alone the society/species as a whole.
If the main goal of our lives were to continue the species, then I can't see why marraige and its procreative-limiting features would be beneficial. The better idea would be to groom (read: force) women to be nothing more than baby-producing machines and then have a means of choosing the men who would have the best seed with which to impregnate them. The womb and its accursedly-long 9-month incubation cycle is the ultimate commodity in a world where the continuation of the species is the ultimate value.
By all means, write back. This really is fun for me.
Since I have a vested interest in this issue, I have done quite a bit of thinking about it.
Mostly, I feel annoyed that neither the pro-gay-marraige nor the anti-gay-marriage crowds will talk about what is issue is really about. And, since I'm so unbelievably intelligent;) I'll share that with the world at this moment:
What gay people really want is for sexuality to be a non-issue. They want the "average joes" of the world to treat it like the non-issue, amoral concept that most everyone treats heterosexuality. (Keep in mind that "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", like "black" and "white", are defined solely by our culture, and not by science or anything else.) The problem with this is that our culture will have to change dramatically for the "average joes" to treat homosexuality as the amoral, non-issue that it should be.
The pro-gay-marraige folks' thought about this is that they'll force culture to change through the courts. The anti-gay-marraige folks' thought about that is that they'll use force to keep that from happening. This issue is going to be decided with force, not with science or reason or facts. The anti-gay-marraige folks have decided that they've had enough, and now they are emboldened and are fighting back. If the constitutional amendment passes (and I think it will easily pass congress but will probably die in the states), then I can think of some gay activists that I would like to see die alone and afraid for their immense stupidity.
So what if the amendment fails, and gays are granted legal right to marry? Well, the result of this is that if two consenting adults have the right to marry, then why not three? Conservatives can see the writing on the wall, and I think their predictions on this issue are correct. If marraige is not "only one man and only one woman", then it can be any arrangement of consenting adults. I'm not putting a value judgement on this; in fact, I think any consenting adult should be granted the freedom to associate in any way with any other consenting adult provided that it does not deprive another of life, liberty, or property. What I am arguing is that this would change society in a way that lots and lots of straight, conservative people would not like it to change, and they're willing to fight to make sure it stays the way it is.
That said, I think all of the arguments that conservatives use against gay people suck. Let's run through them "right quick":
1. "Marraige is about raising children"
If this is true, then all infertile couples' marraiges are terminated. When a woman enters menopause, her marraige rights are terminated.
2. "Marraige is the foundation of society"
Not in America, it ain't. We Americans like convenience and individual freedoms. We choose to make and break relationships as they suit us, and that includes marraiges. Our society contines along and adapts. If marraige truly were "the foundation" of society, then I don't see how America could be where it is right now. I think the foundation of American society is capitalism, which, by the way, has no support in the Bible (for all your "Christian businessmen" out there).
3. "Studies show that children do better with one male parent and one female parent in a stable, committed relationship"
And what does "do better" mean? I would accept that it means that children in the gay families will "do worse," which means that there is harm done to the children. Okay, fine. What kind of harm, and how much harm? I'm asking you to qualify and quantify this alleged "harm." Conservatives consistently fail to produce this evidence.
Oh, and here's a little comment that I'd like to make to all the straight readers of this message, especially the conservative ones: failure rates of marraige, even among born-again Christians, are about 50%. 50% is an F. You straights have earned an F in marraige, even with mighty Jesus's help. You have failed. Your claims
It is, in fact, the people of the state of Georgia who have decided to distribute beer this way. Your beef is with the people of Georgia not with the institution of government.
Incorrect. Most of the people in Georgia do not even have an inkling of an idea about the liquor laws in Georgia. They span thousands of pages. The reason why they don't know that they are passed is because the laws don't affect non-business owners. It's "doesn't affect me!" syndrome again. My beef is with the legislators who passed these laws, not with "the people" who had no clue that these laws were passed. Should the government have the right to deprive me of arbitrary amounts of my property if someone else doesn't care if that happens? What about "the people" who didn't vote? Should my "beef" be with them? The perpetrator here is the legislators who passed the laws. I won't let them off easy like you will.
Governments allow us to do things collectively that are impossible for individuals to accomplish and unprofitable for corporations to invest in (transportation, fire and police protection, justice, etc.)
No, government doesn't allow us, government does. And what it does, it does poorly. Pick your favorite government program (Social Security, TSA, Medicare, welfare) and rate it A to F. I will grant you that government is generally very good and destroying and killing.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about fire and roads, am I? I am talking about the unnecessary meddling of government in business. Their increased taxes on "the rich" allow them to set up new vote-buying programs. The formula is simple: take money by force from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people who promise to vote for you. It's power through force rather than power through hard work and good decisions.
Government (ostensibly) is the process by which the people express their will for a workable society.
So what! That doesn't mean that government does a good job. People vote for whomever is giving them the money.
Most government is, however, currently broken due to neglect, misplaced animosity (you do realize you oppose your own power when you oppose government, right), and corporate meddling.
"Government would work if just...." Government fails because it is a monopoly (monopolies are bad, remember?) based on force. Since they don't have to compete to survive, they don't have to work hard. Sine providing government jobs is a form of welfare, growing the size of government is a way to secure political power. And since the government can legally destroy my business or me at a whim for no reason whatsoever (for example, the local cops can choose to shine their lights on every person who walks in or out of my restaurant), your claim that my opposition of government is a means of opposing my own power is not reasonable.
I notice that you didn't have anything to say about a person whose monopoly over a product is protected by the government. Are you okay with that, or is it just that that crime is so petty compared to the horrible blasphemy of my dissing of government in general? I maintain: Leftism is a religion, and its God is the State.
Many companies would desire to maintain a monopoly.
All companies would, because all people would like to have a job in which a) they can never be fired, b) they can change the price of their sold goods/services with impunity, c) customer opinion is irrelevent, and d) the wealth you make is limited merely by your sense of pity.
And we need the government to protect us from people like this, right? Well, guess again! The government supports people like this in many, many ways!
Case in point: I am in the process of opening a restaurant in Georgia. (This process has earned me a fresh, new hatred for all things government as they are rackets that "skim off the top" of the efforts of people who are believed to have money, and I dare anyone to point out to me the "government services" that these looting taxes are allegedly providing me.) If you want to buy Budweiser in Georgia (for resale, that is), then you will buy it from one distributor. Every institution in Georgia that sells Budweiser to consumers has bought that beer from one distributor. Just take a guess at what his margins are.
Oh, why can't we buy from another? Because the law forces us to buy Budweiser from one distributor. That's right, the law. The alleged arbiter of fairness and justice.
The reason that the law can exist in this state is because I live in a state that is replete with conservative Christians who believe (or pretend) that alcohol is "sinful" and thus those who trade in it deserve to be persecuted by the state.
Money can't be protected? Care to tell that to all the banks! And all the guys who write the laws specifically protecting money... Not the best argument I've ever heard starting a rebuttal, I must say:)
It's not the money that's being protected, but the bank's right to it. My argument stands and yours fails.
Again, you're proving your point. I'ts not about geographical closeness, but political and financial.
Policital and financial "closeness" (I'll co-opt your undefined term) are always directly affected by geography.
In those respects, the US is a member of the world and as such has an obligation to at least try to exist with everyone else.
It is trying and succeeding to exist with everyone else. You're actually talking about something other than "existing with everyone else" and not calling a spade a spade.
Before you start saying Islam is a violent religion, I must ask you - have you read the Koran? Obviously not from your reply.
Sura 4:34 encourages wife-beating. Sure, it's a Christian site, and I am certainly not Christian, but their analysis of the issue is good.
So, wife-beating and sexism in the Koran along with Jihad. Yes, Islam encourages violence.
Most other countries are well aware that, like people, they're equal.
History stands against your assertion. How do Russians feel about black and handicapped people? How do the English feel about other Europeans? How do the French feel about other cultures? How do the Japanese compare themselves to the gai-jin ("anyone who is not Japanese")?
In my experience, it's only the USA that thinks like this.
If you hate Americans from the get-go, then it's fitting that you would think of this. By the way, is Americans, not "the USA" who would "think like this".
I'm talking about true patriotism.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Patriotism in the US is not what it is elsewhere in the world, not by a long shot.
And how exactly do you quantify and qualify the patriotism in the USA? You must have some method since it is "not by a long shot" similar to "elsewhere in the world".
Saying the US has unbridled capitalism isn't necessarily a good thing.
Incorrect. Capitalism is moral.
In the process, the needy are more needy than ever, and the gap between rich and poor is growing. If you care for your fellow man, you should be outraged at that.
What if the rich are geting richer because they earned it? Furthermore, there are not just two social classes in the USA. I know it's befitting to your philosophy to think of things in terms of "the rich" and "the poor" and pretend like there is no one in between, but it is not represenative of reality.
Also, saying the US has smart leaders (especially at this time) is pretty laughable.
Laughter is the first refuge of those with nothing intelligent to say.
The very act of putting US troops on foreign soil lead directly to 9/11.
So easy to say, so much harder to show.
Extortionate and immoral practices are common place in the American political world. Again, this boils down to the "We're American, so it's OK" mentality.
It's more like this: "We're American, and these are our interests." In the world of diplomacy, there are no friends, only interests. "Moral" and "immoral" in the realm of diplomacy are defined according to the interests that you support. Are you French? Then that which is in France's intersts is "moral".
Take a look at Iraq - woefull lack of training has meant they're killing themselves and innocents at a startling rate. Hardly the action of a strong military.
Emotional language with no hard facts. How does the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq compare with the occupation and
There are only 14 million Jews in the entire world, and less than 5 million Jews in Israel. The $5 billion donation from the U.S. government is about $1,000 for every Jewish Israeli man, woman, and child.
Thank you! Not enough people know this. It is apparently not in the US Government's interest to talk about this with their constitutents. "Aid" for Israel enjoys wide, bipartisan support in the U.S. Government. Why do the Democraps and Repugnicans agree so solidly on this issue when they fight like children on almost every other?
I believe that no violence is justified.
This is a stupid statement, and you can't possibly believe it. If someone tries to kill you, is your violent self-defense justified? Or should you just roll over and let violent predators have their way with you?
The present violence started when the U.S. government's CIA division secretly overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran, President Mossadegh, so that U.S. oil profits would be protected.
I can't remember who said it, but, "In diplomacy, there are no friends, only interests." It's hard to pin blame because all nations are, essentially, at some degree of war with one another.
America's commercially-powered government and responsibilities means its true nature isn't one of protection of people, but protection of money.
Money, in and of itself, cannot be "protected". What is being protected is individual property rights. Individual property rights impede wealth redistribution, and that is why they are hated by Leftists.
It all stems from that. America is insular because Americans want American money in America.
No, I think America is insular because it is surrounded by two politically insigificant neighbors and two oceans. The oceans have loaned to Americans much of their sense of self-reliance. I'm not talking about the American Government, I'm talking about Americans. People keep confusing the state with "the people" and it spawns all sorts of idiotic ideas (such as "The French hate Americans").
Al Qaida are after the US because the US put its troops in Saudi Arabia to launch planes into Iraq yet never took them out
That may be part of their motivation. Another part is that the US sends millions of dollars to Israel every year, and that is a thorn in the side of many Jew-hating Muslims. Another reason is that Jihad (which means "holy war" and meant that for centuries until recently when apologists have tried to redefine it as "struggle") is built into the religion itself.
It's all come to the point where you get Americans seemingly under the impression America is "better" than other countries, and that everything America does is, by very definition, "good".
This is part of almost every culture. It is not a wholly American phenomenon. I think what makes the Americans' cultural pride seem worse is the fact that America runs the world (for now).
The only thing America is better at than the rest of the world is impregnating incredibly baseless patriotism into its citizens, and gun crime.
I don't think that other nations need America to form their own patriotism, and I am interested in what you would consider to be "non-baseless" patriotism. Gun crime is part of American culture, but remember that America has more than one culture (just as France has more than one culture -- ask the Euskadi or Bretons), and some sub-cultures are more prone to gun crime than are others. To examine that question is not politically correct, so it doesn't get talked about much.
I think the one thing that America does better than other countries is capitalism. I believe that it is unbridled capitalism which has made America the most powerful country in the world. That, and a strong military and smart leaders which allowed us to put military bases in other countries -- the ramifications of which elude most Americans' NASCAR and College Football-soaked brains. Bread and circuses, anyone?
America isn't about freedom, liberty or justice - it's about stock, shareholders and dividends.
I agree with you that America isn't particularly in love with freedom any more. Look at drug seizure laws (bye bye 4th amendment), forced self-incrimination on tax returns (bye bye 5th amendment), the FCC (bye bye 1st amendment), the list goes on and on. I know that individual property rights probably make you mad. They make a lot of people mad. "Why should someone else have so much when I need so much?" Such is the basis of Leftism. How do you measure need? (Answer: you can't. It's based in emotion.)
I think that's what pisses most people off.
I think what pisses most people off is that America is on top, and they don't like American culture. A culture that one dislikes does not deserve to be on top, right?
It would be like if Jesus came back and decided to be a slave trader.
Second point - generalities are often specifically wrong. Labeling all mormons as twisted, irrational sheep following the voices in their collective heads, and for that matter, labeling all Scientoligists in the same way, is a gross manipulation of the truth.
First, you attacked the use of generalities with a generality.
Second, I can't see how you would take offense to mormons being labeled as "irrational". You know as well as I do that the beliefs in heaven, hell, angels, gods, and demons are all irrational beliefs.
Third, "gross manipulation of the truth" is emotional, not factual, language. An assertion is comprised of segments that are either factual or they aren't. Your feelings on the issue (and mine, for that matter), while effective rhetorical devices, have nothing to do wtih reality.
They aren't actually 5250 emulators. Way back in the day, most of the THD techs accessed the IBM mainframe. Then, back in the 80s, when the company put HP-UX machines in all the stores, the IS department wrote a "5250-like" shell so that employees could access the HP box and not have to be retrained (in theory). Lots of this "Mainframe-like" software still exists in the company, and it is still some of the worst software I ever remember seeing. Compared to 5250 shells, it's less functional, slower, more buggy, less rational, and monochrome.
In this game, you play a cop whose job is to kill people who would dare sell or use something that you fully intend to use.
I think it's a sign of our times. We have heard government propaganda about "drugs" for decades, but, in the day of the Internet, facts about drugs are freely available. The government, not willing to admit that they were wrong (political suicide), has not abated their propaganda or their persecution of people who sell or use "drugs". Hence, we have people who believe that it is both acceptable to use drugs and acceptable that some people get punished and killed for doing it.
And this game caters to people who hold those beliefs.
And what if they got there by rigging the system and pulling the strings of their political puppets?
You answered my question with another question. My question was, "What if they got there by earning it?" This is the question you don't want to answer because you don't want to accept that some people are wealthy because they did earn it.
What's that have to do with me or anything I said?
You are making Leftist arguments, and I will attack them at the core: your bankrupt Leftist philosophy.
You can't possibly believe that 90% of the people in the wealthiest nation (by far) in the world are deadbeats and losers.
Of course I don't. I did write "Assuming what you say is correct" only three times. I do believe that most poor people are poor because of their poor choices in life. I.e., poor people are poor because they are deadbeats and losers, not because they are "less fortunate".
You need to go back and reread my argument on that one. These 9% control more than twice as much wealth than the bottom 90%.
And perhaps you need to go back and re-read my question. What if those 9% got that wealth because they earned it?
There's that straw man again.
You're not going to wiggle your way out of this one. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Don't make Leftist income redistribution arguments and not expect me to call you on it.
But you're neglecting the fact that what's underway right now is a vast transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.
I'm not neglecting it, I'm disputing it. Show me the evidence!
They use their political puppets to rig the deck in their favor.
Again, show me the evidence! You assume that the only way anyone gets rich is through nefarious means. "Straw man", my eye!
If the people at the top are getting wealthier then that means the people doing the labor are getting proportionately less reward for that labor.
Only if the total amount of wealth is static. That's the part you left out.
If the wealthy want to continue to be wealthy, they would be wise to invest in a stable and just society. Without that, wealth will have no value.
Glittering generalities like these have no meaning.
I agree with most of your words, but this needs to be corrected:
And there is a good reason that the prison population is rising, there are bunch of jerks in this country that need to be locked up that we haven't been locking up in the past.
This is false. Non-violent drug offenders do not need to be locked up, and they constitute an ever-rising percentage of prison population. I agree that predators should be locked up or executed. Incarcerating a person for smoking marijuana or using any drug (such as alcohol or sleeping pills) brings only negative consequences. It does not stop drug use, it does not stop drug abuse, it does not stop drug sales. Prisoners can get drugs in prisons.
I have never heard any rational defense for the War on Some Drugs.
The numbers I have indicate that the richest 1% control more than 47% of the wealth in this country.
This is a commonly-spouted Leftist statistic. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's true. So what if 1% owns 47% of the wealth? What if they got there by earning it? Leftist ideology holds axiomatically that one can only obtain more property than another through "greed" and "exploitation".
hat's more than the entire bottom 90% combined who control only 17%.
Again, assuming what you write is true, what if those 90% control only that little because they are varying degrees of deadbeats and losers?
What's more, the next nine percent of the wealthiest people control more than 35 percent of the wealth.
Same assumption. Perhaps these people are not as smart and hard-working as the people above them, so they are rewarded with a smaller piece of the pie.
So if the richest five percent are paying 40% of the taxes, they're getting off cheap.
Except that we're talking about an income tax, not a wealth tax. We already know that Leftists want to transfer stuff from those who have earned it to those who have not. Too bad we have those pesky property rights in the way, right?
If you want to be taken seriously, you should take it off.
My.sig has generated a lot of discussion. One of the biggest successes of the HIV/AIDS High Priests is to effectively silence any kind of discussion or criticism of their stance. How do you propose that I express my skepticism of the HIV==AIDS Hypothesis and be taken seriously? If my.sig is the wrong way to do it, then what is the right way? By measure of the awareness that I've raised by my.sig, I think my tactic has been highly effective.
My post was a joke, I meant for it to work out that i'd just do what you would do.
I assumed from you response that you were one of those working-for-someone-else types who resented my advice, and decided to respond sarcastically. I decided to respond in a positive manner, ignoring your sarcasm.
Your response shows that you have your sights set higher, and that's a good thing. May your choice to work in the free market eschewing force and fraud bring you success and happiness!
I didn't think your post here was spam; it was interesting, and had a point. The spam association came from your statement that you sell things over the internet.
Thanks for explaining it. It wasn't clear the first time around, and it was more suspicious since another poster had claimed that what I wrote was "spam".
As for "Any low-intelligence self-important choad can type that without having to read or think about anything.", stop being so defensive;
I think people need to hear more frequently that comments such as "get a life" and "this comment is spam" have no value. Anyone can write comments like those without having to put in one iota of thought. I have a very low tolerance for stupid comments when I intend to induce thoughtful discussion.
I'm not persecuting you, I'm joking about a comment.
You claim to be "just joking", and, in the same comment, write "Most people with the intelligence you claim I'm lacking would realize the difference", and "Cheer the f**k up". If you want to joke with me, then I ask that you improve the tenor of your posts to me. You're coming off as something much less than a jovial conversation partner.
I'm sorry that you read that I accused you of lacking intelligence, for I do not believe that in the slightest. Even the most intelligent people in the world can choose to communicate before thinking. I will try to be more clear next time.
You know, your words are so true and so right yet so hard to take seriously from one of the less than 3 individuals in the western world who believes the HIV virus does not cause AIDS.
Your words are hard to take seriously because they are false. There are far more than 3 people in the world who doubt the HIV==AIDS HYPOTHESIS. Money and ego, not science, drive AIDS.
You must understand that a person can say both good things and bad things. You, as an individual, would do well to take the good and reject the bad. You don't have to accept my skepticism on the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Just take the good stuff and forget all the other crap I write.
Sure, if you can run a bsuiness. I'm terribal at some of the things needed to run a buisness.
You are not my audience. My post is intended for people who are smart enough to be in business for themselves, but for reasons of fear and anxiety choose not to.
I think you need to get your life in focus. Money isn't everything.
And what made you think that I thought money was everything? What is money, anyway?
Another low-intelligence post. You have the option to try to respond intelligently at any time. I don't think you're going to be able to pull it off, though. Instead, you'll probably respond with more invective and condescending behavior. Or maybe you'll just tuck your tail between your legs and run.
And I don't think what you wrote was an attempt at humor.
Lemme get this straight; you sell things over the internet, and you post to/. ? I'm guessing that means you hate SCO as much as the rest of us.
As a gay man, I can say with a straight (!) face that SCO sucks.
So we have: spamming + hating SCO + having money =... You paid andy to write MyDoom, didn't you?
You're the second person who has accused me of "spamming" with my post. I correctly stated to that poster that the accusation of spam takes no intelligence of critical thinking skills to produce, and that statement applies to you as well. It's just as stupid as saying, "Get a life!" Any low-intelligence self-important choad can type that without having to read or think about anything.
But now I'm curious as to why my post is labeled "spam". Isn't "spam" a term to describe unsolicited advertisement through electronic mediums such as e-mail, USENET, and SMS? How does my post qualify?
Slashdot Mirror
I programmed at MS. Best job of my life. They treat you very well for one thing. There are no cubes, free drinks, and very little stress. You work with really smart people. There's usually a PM who designs your program, and a dedicated tester who finds bugs.
Microsoft has enough money to hire a huge, well-qualified internal support structure for engineers. That must have been nice!
Everything about that job was great, although I tired of programming after a while and decided to change careers.
What about Microsoft's use of force and fraud to make money? How did you handle that? (I would guess rationalization or denial.)
The best part, if you don't like the project you're working on you can easily transfer to another dept.
Behold, the awesome power of Win32 and MSOffice! I mean, honestly, outside of those two operations, Microsft is purely a charity organization for money-losing enterprises. It's just that Win32 and MSOffice are so insanely lucrative that they can support all those money-losing dogs and still have millions upon millions to spare.
How bad is it to be a MS programmer? I'm not doubting that it's bad or implying that it must be. I'm curious as to how bad it is compared to programming in other environemnts (Unix, Linux, AS/400, MVS, etc). I mean, I truly hate Microsoft for their force- and fraud-related activites, and lots of people joke about how bad it is to program using their technology. Can you give me the technical reasons why it sucks?
Having a man and a woman raise a child is always better than 2 men or 2 women or even 1 man or 1 woman. There are many single parent families in the US and although they may get by okay and the child doesn't seem to be affected too much the best way to raise a child is to have 1 woman and 1 man.
Single-parent families are bad for children because no parent is actually parenting the child for much of the day. Parenting ends up being done by day-care workers and school officials. Parents have a hard time enforcing limits on children when they're not around. We all know kids who didn't have any limits growing up. Not too pretty, is it? So I agree with you that singe-parent famlies are bad for kids. How does that make a two-parent, same-sex family bad for children?
It takes both to raise a child because each sex can provide a certain side of child rearing that is needed to raise a child the best way possible.
1. What precisely do children need to be raised the "best way possible"? Please qualify and quantify your answer.
2. What can a man give a child than a woman cannot give, and what can a woman give a child that a man can not give? Please, be specific.
Not to mention that 2 women are 2 men lowers the values set aside by society as a whole and although your mind says it is okay to live that way society as a whole does not want children thinking that it is okay.
"Society as a whole" does not agree on any one single issue. What you're actually talking about is the majority of society imposing its opinions on the minority. I believe that James Madison wrote about this. He called it "The Tyranny of the Majority," and much of the Constitution was written with this thought and how to thwart it in mind.
If it was okay then everyone would be like that but then again if everyone was like that the species would cease to exist. Makes sense doesn't it?
It does in a really stupid and redneck way. It seems that most guys really love fucking pussy as frequently as possible with as many different, anonymous, young partners as possible, so I think the dangers of depopulation through faggification are greatly overstated.
Same sex marriage is wrong.
And most of the conservatives' arguments on the issue boil down to this: "It's wrong because we say it is!" It's called argument by assertion. Once your opponents ask, "And why do you feel that way?" then the inherent fag-bashing bigotry rears its ugly head. Since you feel that way, why not just come out and say it? It's become trendy to buck "policital correctness," so why not go whole hog and just say that you don't like gay people? (Not counting the hot lipstick lesbians in your porn collection, of course.)
If we were meant to act that way and not be with the opposite sex the species would become extinct so maybe that would tell you something about whether it is in the best interest of a child, let alone the society/species as a whole.
If the main goal of our lives were to continue the species, then I can't see why marraige and its procreative-limiting features would be beneficial. The better idea would be to groom (read: force) women to be nothing more than baby-producing machines and then have a means of choosing the men who would have the best seed with which to impregnate them. The womb and its accursedly-long 9-month incubation cycle is the ultimate commodity in a world where the continuation of the species is the ultimate value.
By all means, write back. This really is fun for me.
Since I have a vested interest in this issue, I have done quite a bit of thinking about it.
;) I'll share that with the world at this moment:
Mostly, I feel annoyed that neither the pro-gay-marraige nor the anti-gay-marriage crowds will talk about what is issue is really about. And, since I'm so unbelievably intelligent
What gay people really want is for sexuality to be a non-issue. They want the "average joes" of the world to treat it like the non-issue, amoral concept that most everyone treats heterosexuality. (Keep in mind that "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality", like "black" and "white", are defined solely by our culture, and not by science or anything else.) The problem with this is that our culture will have to change dramatically for the "average joes" to treat homosexuality as the amoral, non-issue that it should be.
The pro-gay-marraige folks' thought about this is that they'll force culture to change through the courts. The anti-gay-marraige folks' thought about that is that they'll use force to keep that from happening. This issue is going to be decided with force, not with science or reason or facts. The anti-gay-marraige folks have decided that they've had enough, and now they are emboldened and are fighting back. If the constitutional amendment passes (and I think it will easily pass congress but will probably die in the states), then I can think of some gay activists that I would like to see die alone and afraid for their immense stupidity.
So what if the amendment fails, and gays are granted legal right to marry? Well, the result of this is that if two consenting adults have the right to marry, then why not three? Conservatives can see the writing on the wall, and I think their predictions on this issue are correct. If marraige is not "only one man and only one woman", then it can be any arrangement of consenting adults. I'm not putting a value judgement on this; in fact, I think any consenting adult should be granted the freedom to associate in any way with any other consenting adult provided that it does not deprive another of life, liberty, or property. What I am arguing is that this would change society in a way that lots and lots of straight, conservative people would not like it to change, and they're willing to fight to make sure it stays the way it is.
That said, I think all of the arguments that conservatives use against gay people suck. Let's run through them "right quick":
1. "Marraige is about raising children"
If this is true, then all infertile couples' marraiges are terminated. When a woman enters menopause, her marraige rights are terminated.
2. "Marraige is the foundation of society"
Not in America, it ain't. We Americans like convenience and individual freedoms. We choose to make and break relationships as they suit us, and that includes marraiges. Our society contines along and adapts. If marraige truly were "the foundation" of society, then I don't see how America could be where it is right now. I think the foundation of American society is capitalism, which, by the way, has no support in the Bible (for all your "Christian businessmen" out there).
3. "Studies show that children do better with one male parent and one female parent in a stable, committed relationship"
And what does "do better" mean? I would accept that it means that children in the gay families will "do worse," which means that there is harm done to the children. Okay, fine. What kind of harm, and how much harm? I'm asking you to qualify and quantify this alleged "harm." Conservatives consistently fail to produce this evidence.
Oh, and here's a little comment that I'd like to make to all the straight readers of this message, especially the conservative ones: failure rates of marraige, even among born-again Christians, are about 50%. 50% is an F. You straights have earned an F in marraige, even with mighty Jesus's help. You have failed. Your claims
It is, in fact, the people of the state of Georgia who have decided to distribute beer this way. Your beef is with the people of Georgia not with the institution of government.
Incorrect. Most of the people in Georgia do not even have an inkling of an idea about the liquor laws in Georgia. They span thousands of pages. The reason why they don't know that they are passed is because the laws don't affect non-business owners. It's "doesn't affect me!" syndrome again. My beef is with the legislators who passed these laws, not with "the people" who had no clue that these laws were passed. Should the government have the right to deprive me of arbitrary amounts of my property if someone else doesn't care if that happens? What about "the people" who didn't vote? Should my "beef" be with them? The perpetrator here is the legislators who passed the laws. I won't let them off easy like you will.
Governments allow us to do things collectively that are impossible for individuals to accomplish and unprofitable for corporations to invest in (transportation, fire and police protection, justice, etc.)
No, government doesn't allow us, government does. And what it does, it does poorly. Pick your favorite government program (Social Security, TSA, Medicare, welfare) and rate it A to F. I will grant you that government is generally very good and destroying and killing.
Furthermore, I'm not talking about fire and roads, am I? I am talking about the unnecessary meddling of government in business. Their increased taxes on "the rich" allow them to set up new vote-buying programs. The formula is simple: take money by force from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people who promise to vote for you. It's power through force rather than power through hard work and good decisions.
Government (ostensibly) is the process by which the people express their will for a workable society.
So what! That doesn't mean that government does a good job. People vote for whomever is giving them the money.
Most government is, however, currently broken due to neglect, misplaced animosity (you do realize you oppose your own power when you oppose government, right), and corporate meddling.
"Government would work if just...." Government fails because it is a monopoly (monopolies are bad, remember?) based on force. Since they don't have to compete to survive, they don't have to work hard. Sine providing government jobs is a form of welfare, growing the size of government is a way to secure political power. And since the government can legally destroy my business or me at a whim for no reason whatsoever (for example, the local cops can choose to shine their lights on every person who walks in or out of my restaurant), your claim that my opposition of government is a means of opposing my own power is not reasonable.
I notice that you didn't have anything to say about a person whose monopoly over a product is protected by the government. Are you okay with that, or is it just that that crime is so petty compared to the horrible blasphemy of my dissing of government in general? I maintain: Leftism is a religion, and its God is the State.
Many companies would desire to maintain a monopoly.
All companies would, because all people would like to have a job in which a) they can never be fired, b) they can change the price of their sold goods/services with impunity, c) customer opinion is irrelevent, and d) the wealth you make is limited merely by your sense of pity.
And we need the government to protect us from people like this, right? Well, guess again! The government supports people like this in many, many ways!
Case in point: I am in the process of opening a restaurant in Georgia. (This process has earned me a fresh, new hatred for all things government as they are rackets that "skim off the top" of the efforts of people who are believed to have money, and I dare anyone to point out to me the "government services" that these looting taxes are allegedly providing me.) If you want to buy Budweiser in Georgia (for resale, that is), then you will buy it from one distributor. Every institution in Georgia that sells Budweiser to consumers has bought that beer from one distributor. Just take a guess at what his margins are.
Oh, why can't we buy from another? Because the law forces us to buy Budweiser from one distributor. That's right, the law. The alleged arbiter of fairness and justice.
The reason that the law can exist in this state is because I live in a state that is replete with conservative Christians who believe (or pretend) that alcohol is "sinful" and thus those who trade in it deserve to be persecuted by the state.
Money can't be protected? Care to tell that to all the banks! And all the guys who write the laws specifically protecting money... Not the best argument I've ever heard starting a rebuttal, I must say :)
It's not the money that's being protected, but the bank's right to it. My argument stands and yours fails.
Again, you're proving your point. I'ts not about geographical closeness, but political and financial.
Policital and financial "closeness" (I'll co-opt your undefined term) are always directly affected by geography.
In those respects, the US is a member of the world and as such has an obligation to at least try to exist with everyone else.
It is trying and succeeding to exist with everyone else. You're actually talking about something other than "existing with everyone else" and not calling a spade a spade.
Before you start saying Islam is a violent religion, I must ask you - have you read the Koran? Obviously not from your reply.
Sura 4:34 encourages wife-beating. Sure, it's a Christian site, and I am certainly not Christian, but their analysis of the issue is good.
So, wife-beating and sexism in the Koran along with Jihad. Yes, Islam encourages violence.
Most other countries are well aware that, like people, they're equal.
History stands against your assertion. How do Russians feel about black and handicapped people? How do the English feel about other Europeans? How do the French feel about other cultures? How do the Japanese compare themselves to the gai-jin ("anyone who is not Japanese")?
In my experience, it's only the USA that thinks like this.
If you hate Americans from the get-go, then it's fitting that you would think of this. By the way, is Americans, not "the USA" who would "think like this".
I'm talking about true patriotism.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy.
Patriotism in the US is not what it is elsewhere in the world, not by a long shot.
And how exactly do you quantify and qualify the patriotism in the USA? You must have some method since it is "not by a long shot" similar to "elsewhere in the world".
Saying the US has unbridled capitalism isn't necessarily a good thing.
Incorrect. Capitalism is moral.
In the process, the needy are more needy than ever, and the gap between rich and poor is growing. If you care for your fellow man, you should be outraged at that.
What if the rich are geting richer because they earned it? Furthermore, there are not just two social classes in the USA. I know it's befitting to your philosophy to think of things in terms of "the rich" and "the poor" and pretend like there is no one in between, but it is not represenative of reality.
Also, saying the US has smart leaders (especially at this time) is pretty laughable.
Laughter is the first refuge of those with nothing intelligent to say.
The very act of putting US troops on foreign soil lead directly to 9/11.
So easy to say, so much harder to show.
Extortionate and immoral practices are common place in the American political world. Again, this boils down to the "We're American, so it's OK" mentality.
It's more like this: "We're American, and these are our interests." In the world of diplomacy, there are no friends, only interests. "Moral" and "immoral" in the realm of diplomacy are defined according to the interests that you support. Are you French? Then that which is in France's intersts is "moral".
Take a look at Iraq - woefull lack of training has meant they're killing themselves and innocents at a startling rate. Hardly the action of a strong military.
Emotional language with no hard facts. How does the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq compare with the occupation and
There are only 14 million Jews in the entire world, and less than 5 million Jews in Israel. The $5 billion donation from the U.S. government is about $1,000 for every Jewish Israeli man, woman, and child.
Thank you! Not enough people know this. It is apparently not in the US Government's interest to talk about this with their constitutents. "Aid" for Israel enjoys wide, bipartisan support in the U.S. Government. Why do the Democraps and Repugnicans agree so solidly on this issue when they fight like children on almost every other?
I believe that no violence is justified.
This is a stupid statement, and you can't possibly believe it. If someone tries to kill you, is your violent self-defense justified? Or should you just roll over and let violent predators have their way with you?
The present violence started when the U.S. government's CIA division secretly overthrew a democratically elected president of Iran, President Mossadegh, so that U.S. oil profits would be protected.
I can't remember who said it, but, "In diplomacy, there are no friends, only interests." It's hard to pin blame because all nations are, essentially, at some degree of war with one another.
America's commercially-powered government and responsibilities means its true nature isn't one of protection of people, but protection of money.
Money, in and of itself, cannot be "protected". What is being protected is individual property rights. Individual property rights impede wealth redistribution, and that is why they are hated by Leftists.
It all stems from that. America is insular because Americans want American money in America.
No, I think America is insular because it is surrounded by two politically insigificant neighbors and two oceans. The oceans have loaned to Americans much of their sense of self-reliance. I'm not talking about the American Government, I'm talking about Americans. People keep confusing the state with "the people" and it spawns all sorts of idiotic ideas (such as "The French hate Americans").
Al Qaida are after the US because the US put its troops in Saudi Arabia to launch planes into Iraq yet never took them out
That may be part of their motivation. Another part is that the US sends millions of dollars to Israel every year, and that is a thorn in the side of many Jew-hating Muslims. Another reason is that Jihad (which means "holy war" and meant that for centuries until recently when apologists have tried to redefine it as "struggle") is built into the religion itself.
It's all come to the point where you get Americans seemingly under the impression America is "better" than other countries, and that everything America does is, by very definition, "good".
This is part of almost every culture. It is not a wholly American phenomenon. I think what makes the Americans' cultural pride seem worse is the fact that America runs the world (for now).
The only thing America is better at than the rest of the world is impregnating incredibly baseless patriotism into its citizens, and gun crime.
I don't think that other nations need America to form their own patriotism, and I am interested in what you would consider to be "non-baseless" patriotism. Gun crime is part of American culture, but remember that America has more than one culture (just as France has more than one culture -- ask the Euskadi or Bretons), and some sub-cultures are more prone to gun crime than are others. To examine that question is not politically correct, so it doesn't get talked about much.
I think the one thing that America does better than other countries is capitalism. I believe that it is unbridled capitalism which has made America the most powerful country in the world. That, and a strong military and smart leaders which allowed us to put military bases in other countries -- the ramifications of which elude most Americans' NASCAR and College Football-soaked brains. Bread and circuses, anyone?
America isn't about freedom, liberty or justice - it's about stock, shareholders and dividends.
I agree with you that America isn't particularly in love with freedom any more. Look at drug seizure laws (bye bye 4th amendment), forced self-incrimination on tax returns (bye bye 5th amendment), the FCC (bye bye 1st amendment), the list goes on and on. I know that individual property rights probably make you mad. They make a lot of people mad. "Why should someone else have so much when I need so much?" Such is the basis of Leftism. How do you measure need? (Answer: you can't. It's based in emotion.)
I think that's what pisses most people off.
I think what pisses most people off is that America is on top, and they don't like American culture. A culture that one dislikes does not deserve to be on top, right?
It would be like if Jesus came back and decided to be a slave trader.
Argument by analogy.
Second point - generalities are often specifically wrong. Labeling all mormons as twisted, irrational sheep following the voices in their collective heads, and for that matter, labeling all Scientoligists in the same way, is a gross manipulation of the truth.
First, you attacked the use of generalities with a generality.
Second, I can't see how you would take offense to mormons being labeled as "irrational". You know as well as I do that the beliefs in heaven, hell, angels, gods, and demons are all irrational beliefs.
Third, "gross manipulation of the truth" is emotional, not factual, language. An assertion is comprised of segments that are either factual or they aren't. Your feelings on the issue (and mine, for that matter), while effective rhetorical devices, have nothing to do wtih reality.
As a former employee of The Home Depot:
and 5250 emulators
They aren't actually 5250 emulators. Way back in the day, most of the THD techs accessed the IBM mainframe. Then, back in the 80s, when the company put HP-UX machines in all the stores, the IS department wrote a "5250-like" shell so that employees could access the HP box and not have to be retrained (in theory). Lots of this "Mainframe-like" software still exists in the company, and it is still some of the worst software I ever remember seeing. Compared to 5250 shells, it's less functional, slower, more buggy, less rational, and monochrome.
In this game, you play a cop whose job is to kill people who would dare sell or use something that you fully intend to use.
I think it's a sign of our times. We have heard government propaganda about "drugs" for decades, but, in the day of the Internet, facts about drugs are freely available. The government, not willing to admit that they were wrong (political suicide), has not abated their propaganda or their persecution of people who sell or use "drugs". Hence, we have people who believe that it is both acceptable to use drugs and acceptable that some people get punished and killed for doing it.
And this game caters to people who hold those beliefs.
And what if they got there by rigging the system and pulling the strings of their political puppets?
You answered my question with another question. My question was, "What if they got there by earning it?" This is the question you don't want to answer because you don't want to accept that some people are wealthy because they did earn it.
What's that have to do with me or anything I said?
You are making Leftist arguments, and I will attack them at the core: your bankrupt Leftist philosophy.
You can't possibly believe that 90% of the people in the wealthiest nation (by far) in the world are deadbeats and losers.
Of course I don't. I did write "Assuming what you say is correct" only three times. I do believe that most poor people are poor because of their poor choices in life. I.e., poor people are poor because they are deadbeats and losers, not because they are "less fortunate".
You need to go back and reread my argument on that one. These 9% control more than twice as much wealth than the bottom 90%.
And perhaps you need to go back and re-read my question. What if those 9% got that wealth because they earned it?
There's that straw man again.
You're not going to wiggle your way out of this one. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Don't make Leftist income redistribution arguments and not expect me to call you on it.
But you're neglecting the fact that what's underway right now is a vast transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top.
I'm not neglecting it, I'm disputing it. Show me the evidence!
They use their political puppets to rig the deck in their favor.
Again, show me the evidence! You assume that the only way anyone gets rich is through nefarious means. "Straw man", my eye!
If the people at the top are getting wealthier then that means the people doing the labor are getting proportionately less reward for that labor.
Only if the total amount of wealth is static. That's the part you left out.
If the wealthy want to continue to be wealthy, they would be wise to invest in a stable and just society. Without that, wealth will have no value.
Glittering generalities like these have no meaning.
I agree with most of your words, but this needs to be corrected:
And there is a good reason that the prison population is rising, there are bunch of jerks in this country that need to be locked up that we haven't been locking up in the past.
This is false. Non-violent drug offenders do not need to be locked up, and they constitute an ever-rising percentage of prison population. I agree that predators should be locked up or executed. Incarcerating a person for smoking marijuana or using any drug (such as alcohol or sleeping pills) brings only negative consequences. It does not stop drug use, it does not stop drug abuse, it does not stop drug sales. Prisoners can get drugs in prisons.
I have never heard any rational defense for the War on Some Drugs.
The numbers I have indicate that the richest 1% control more than 47% of the wealth in this country.
This is a commonly-spouted Leftist statistic. For the sake of argument, I'll assume it's true. So what if 1% owns 47% of the wealth? What if they got there by earning it? Leftist ideology holds axiomatically that one can only obtain more property than another through "greed" and "exploitation".
hat's more than the entire bottom 90% combined who control only 17%.
Again, assuming what you write is true, what if those 90% control only that little because they are varying degrees of deadbeats and losers?
What's more, the next nine percent of the wealthiest people control more than 35 percent of the wealth.
Same assumption. Perhaps these people are not as smart and hard-working as the people above them, so they are rewarded with a smaller piece of the pie.
So if the richest five percent are paying 40% of the taxes, they're getting off cheap.
Except that we're talking about an income tax, not a wealth tax. We already know that Leftists want to transfer stuff from those who have earned it to those who have not. Too bad we have those pesky property rights in the way, right?
Your sig is that shirt.
.sig has generated a lot of discussion. One of the biggest successes of the HIV/AIDS High Priests is to effectively silence any kind of discussion or criticism of their stance. How do you propose that I express my skepticism of the HIV==AIDS Hypothesis and be taken seriously? If my .sig is the wrong way to do it, then what is the right way? By measure of the awareness that I've raised by my .sig, I think my tactic has been highly effective.
Argument by analogy.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should take it off.
My
My post was a joke, I meant for it to work out that i'd just do what you would do.
I assumed from you response that you were one of those working-for-someone-else types who resented my advice, and decided to respond sarcastically. I decided to respond in a positive manner, ignoring your sarcasm.
Your response shows that you have your sights set higher, and that's a good thing. May your choice to work in the free market eschewing force and fraud bring you success and happiness!
His advice is good.
Thank you!
His need to respond to every reply with a sharp "oh yeah?" comeback is immature.
See it how you want to.
Nine posts (so far) in this single thread? Exactly how busy IS the restaurant business?
How much do you know about me verses what you assumed?
Most people that fear being in business for themselves have good reason to do so.
/., a technical community. In my expirence most people who are good with technology are not good with business tasks.
There is never any good reason for fear.
You posted to
Your subjective experience is not represenative of reality.
I'm smart enough to run a buisness, I'm also smart enough to know that I wouldn't like it. (and I still was talked into it...)
You are cut out to work for someone else.
I notice you dodged my questions.
I didn't think your post here was spam; it was interesting, and had a point. The spam association came from your statement that you sell things over the internet.
Thanks for explaining it. It wasn't clear the first time around, and it was more suspicious since another poster had claimed that what I wrote was "spam".
As for "Any low-intelligence self-important choad can type that without having to read or think about anything.", stop being so defensive;
I think people need to hear more frequently that comments such as "get a life" and "this comment is spam" have no value. Anyone can write comments like those without having to put in one iota of thought. I have a very low tolerance for stupid comments when I intend to induce thoughtful discussion.
I'm not persecuting you, I'm joking about a comment.
You claim to be "just joking", and, in the same comment, write "Most people with the intelligence you claim I'm lacking would realize the difference", and "Cheer the f**k up". If you want to joke with me, then I ask that you improve the tenor of your posts to me. You're coming off as something much less than a jovial conversation partner.
I'm sorry that you read that I accused you of lacking intelligence, for I do not believe that in the slightest. Even the most intelligent people in the world can choose to communicate before thinking. I will try to be more clear next time.
You know, your words are so true and so right yet so hard to take seriously from one of the less than 3 individuals in the western world who believes the HIV virus does not cause AIDS.
Your words are hard to take seriously because they are false. There are far more than 3 people in the world who doubt the HIV==AIDS HYPOTHESIS. Money and ego, not science, drive AIDS.
You must understand that a person can say both good things and bad things. You, as an individual, would do well to take the good and reject the bad. You don't have to accept my skepticism on the HIV==AIDS hypothesis. Just take the good stuff and forget all the other crap I write.
Sure, if you can run a bsuiness. I'm terribal at some of the things needed to run a buisness.
You are not my audience. My post is intended for people who are smart enough to be in business for themselves, but for reasons of fear and anxiety choose not to.
I think you need to get your life in focus. Money isn't everything.
And what made you think that I thought money was everything? What is money, anyway?
You need to research hubris; particularly as it relates to Greek tragedy.
I'm making fun of the fact that journals, weblogs, and personal homepages all essentially say the same thing: "Look at me! Look at how great I am!"
(geocities? c'mon!)...
Impressing you is the least of my concerns. "C'mon", indeed!
No sense of humor either. It's sad, really.
Another low-intelligence post. You have the option to try to respond intelligently at any time. I don't think you're going to be able to pull it off, though. Instead, you'll probably respond with more invective and condescending behavior. Or maybe you'll just tuck your tail between your legs and run.
And I don't think what you wrote was an attempt at humor.
Lemme get this straight; you sell things over the internet, and you post to /. ? I'm guessing that means you hate SCO as much as the rest of us.
... You paid andy to write MyDoom, didn't you?
As a gay man, I can say with a straight (!) face that SCO sucks.
So we have: spamming + hating SCO + having money =
You're the second person who has accused me of "spamming" with my post. I correctly stated to that poster that the accusation of spam takes no intelligence of critical thinking skills to produce, and that statement applies to you as well. It's just as stupid as saying, "Get a life!" Any low-intelligence self-important choad can type that without having to read or think about anything.
But now I'm curious as to why my post is labeled "spam". Isn't "spam" a term to describe unsolicited advertisement through electronic mediums such as e-mail, USENET, and SMS? How does my post qualify?