there's something I'd like to know: has Linux something to do with Socialism?

[ieBrazil]

Has it?

Yes? Then I say: G-O-O-D! C-O-O-L!

I mean, its color is red and white (leftist parties around the world has these ones as their flags... simble of struggle)

Also Linux is bit by bit undermine the great Microsoft, a pure capitalistic company...

Linux looks for helping everyone ~ not only those ones who has money pay for the job.

Linux as a collectively constructed thing... and is not individualistic, in the sense that is is 'open to others' etc.

So, has it something to do, historically speakng, to any socialist thought?

Anyway, I liked that.




ieBrazil

[LaRoza]

Linux as a collectively constructed thing... and is not individualistic, in the sense that is is 'open to others' etc.

No, it is the result of individual work.


So, has it something to do, historically speakng, to any socialist thought?

No, it has to do with software.

It can be proven that Linux (or all open source developent) is socialistic or laissez-faire, depending on the political pushings of the perceiving. Not even worth debating ;)

Linus uses open source development for Linux because it is the best way to development, not for idealogical reasons.

[niteshifter]

Why, yes it does. It can be used to run software that models socialism, making it easy to see why the concept of socialism* is inherently flawed.


* random fill of the blank. Feel free to insert any -ism there. Yes, I know this is the recurring-beat-to-death-discussion forum - it's a slow day here ;)

[cardinals_fan]

Linux is Socialist. That's why Red Hat makes millions in profit every year...

[mb_webguy]

I mean, its color is red and white (leftist parties around the world has these ones as their flags... simble of struggle)

Linux has a color? It has a mascot, but Tux is black and white...

Also Linux is bit by bit undermine the great Microsoft, a pure capitalistic company...

It could be argued that Microsoft is not purely capitalist, because it is a corporate entity recognized by the government. In a pure laissez-faire capitalist economy, there would be no corporations, since a corporation is a legal entity, not an economic one.

Linux looks for helping everyone ~ not only those ones who has money pay for the job.

That's not socialism. That's altruism.

Linux as a collectively constructed thing... and is not individualistic, in the sense that is is 'open to others' etc.

It is individualistic, in that every bit of work on it is done by individuals of their own initiative. Each individual who contributes to Linux does so by choice, and yet can benefit from the efforts of others even if he does not choose to do so. In a socialist environment, the individuals who have the ability to contribute do so whether they want to or not (e.g. by paying taxes). If an individual in a socialist environment chooses not to contribute to the community (i.e. by immigrating to another country), he can no longer benefit from the efforts of others in the socialist environment.

Why, yes it does. It can be used to run software that models socialism, making it easy to see why the concept of socialism* is inherently flawed.

* random fill of the blank. Feel free to insert any -ism there. Yes, I know this is the recurring-beat-to-death-discussion forum - it's a slow day here ;)

:lolflag:

It can be proven that Linux (or all open source developent) is socialistic or laissez-faire, depending on the political pushings of the perceiving. Not even worth debating ;)

Everything's worth debating. Debating causes us to re-evaluate our beliefs -- sometimes with the result of changing those beliefs, and sometimes with the result of reinforcing them. Without debate, everyone would believe whatever they were taught to believe, simply because those who taught them were themselves taught to believe it, and the world would never change.

You might as well say that software isn't worth refactoring. And anyone who's ever taken a look at some of Windows' code knows that that's not true. ;)

[karellen]

No, it is the result of individual work.


No, it has to do with software.

It can be proven that Linux (or all open source developent) is socialistic or laissez-faire, depending on the political pushings of the perceiving. Not even worth debating ;)

Linus uses open source development for Linux because it is the best way to development, not for idealogical reasons.

I second this. I hate mixing up ideology with computer science, especially because I have a strong dislike of socialism and communism. whoever has lived in my part of Europe for the last 50 years knows what I'm talking about

[ieBrazil]

"I have a strong dislike of socialism and communism"

I'm not talking, asking about likes and dislikes. But am talking about facts. Anyhow, tnx.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Actually by being a competitive OS Linux is a better sense of capitalism then Windows is, after all some of the basis of capitalism is about taking an idea and making it something worthwhile to the consumer.
Linux does this pretty well I think, much better then windows in my opinion as at least linux encourages diversity.
And diversity is good for capitalism too.

[Infinite Indefinite]

Has it?

Yes? Then I say: G-O-O-D! C-O-O-L!

I mean, its color is red and white (leftist parties around the world has these ones as their flags... simble of struggle)

Also Linux is bit by bit undermine the great Microsoft, a pure capitalistic company...

Linux looks for helping everyone ~ not only those ones who has money pay for the job.

Linux as a collectively constructed thing... and is not individualistic, in the sense that is is 'open to others' etc.

So, has it something to do, historically speakng, to any socialist thought?

Anyway, I liked that.




ieBrazil
Depends on what you mean by socialism.

If you think of state socialism - i.e. Marx, Lenin, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, bureaucrats and central planning - then no, Linux is not related to it.

If you think of stateless socialism (anarchism) - i.e. Proudhon, Kropotkin, cooperatives and communities, mutual aid and individual initiative - then definitely, Linux is connected.

Indeed, Linux is one of the best examples of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.'

(Microsoft on the other hand, is capitalism incarnate.)

For further details, check out:

Anarchy and Source Code
http://www.imhorst.net/translations/anarchy-and-source-code/

[Another form of practical anarchism is p2p - but that's another story.]

[karellen]

"I have a strong dislike of socialism and communism"

I'm not talking, asking about likes and dislikes. But am talking about facts. Anyhow, tnx.

my antipathies regarding the aforementioned subject are based on (historical) facts, but that's a whole different matter and honestly a net forum is not the proper place to discuss such things, imho :)

[ieBrazil]

my antipathies regarding the aforementioned subject are based on (historical) facts, but that's a whole different matter and honestly a net forum is not the proper place to discuss such things, imho :)

Man, nice quotation form Wittgenstein down your posts... the limits... Wittgestein rocks!

Yap, your antipathies reagarding this issue are the results from a 'political experience', as any one can see. The case here is about a technological stuff in a different time.

Anyhow, as you said, this is ain't the right place to talk on it.

Have a great day/night!




ieBrazil

[karellen]

Man, nice quotation form Wittgenstein down your posts... the limits... Wittgestein rocks!

Yap, your antipathies reagarding this issue are the results from a 'political experience', as any one can see. The case here is about a technological stuff in a different time.

Anyhow, as you said, this is ain't the right place to talk on it.

Have a great day/night!




ieBrazil

thanks for understanding :). yes, I like Wittgenstein (among others, like Nietzsche and Russell).
best wishes

[LaRoza]

Everything's worth debating. Debating causes us to re-evaluate our beliefs -- sometimes with the result of changing those beliefs, and sometimes with the result of reinforcing them. Without debate, everyone would believe whatever they were taught to believe, simply because those who taught them were themselves taught to believe it, and the world would never change.


But it isn't even a valid debate.

Do you think LCD monitors are better than Obama's foreign policy?

I think the political system best describing my book collection is national socialism, do you wish to debate this?

[northern lights]

But it isn't even a valid debate.

Do you think LCD monitors are better than Obama's foreign policy?

I think the political system best describing my book collection is national socialism, do you wish to debate this?
+1

I can only second this. I read this thread for giggles. You cannot really take this seriously?!

[mb_webguy]

But it isn't even a valid debate.

Do you think LCD monitors are better than Obama's foreign policy?

I think the political system best describing my book collection is national socialism, do you wish to debate this?

Actually, I do think I like LCD monitors better than Obama's foreign policy (and I know I like them better than McCain's).

And unfortunately I'd have to know a bit more about your book collection before I could have an opinion about any appropriate political analogues. But it does sound like it would be an interesting discussion, in a "one hand clapping" sort of way...

:grin:

[billgoldberg]

Has it?

Yes? Then I say: G-O-O-D! C-O-O-L!

I mean, its color is red and white (leftist parties around the world has these ones as their flags... simble of struggle)

Also Linux is bit by bit undermine the great Microsoft, a pure capitalistic company...

Linux looks for helping everyone ~ not only those ones who has money pay for the job.

Linux as a collectively constructed thing... and is not individualistic, in the sense that is is 'open to others' etc.

So, has it something to do, historically speakng, to any socialist thought?

Anyway, I liked that.




ieBrazil

I don't know why people always has to label everything as something.

To answer your question, linux has nothing whatsover to do with that political movement.

[LaRoza]

Actually, I do think I like LCD monitors better than Obama's foreign policy (and I know I like them better than McCain's).

And unfortunately I'd have to know a bit more about your book collection before I could have an opinion about any appropriate political analogues. But it does sound like it would be an interesting discussion, in a "one hand clapping" sort of way...


Obama doesn't have a foreign policy (he is just a senator).

I mean, the way I collect them and organise them, not the contents of the books.

[ieBrazil]

No, it is the result of individual work.


No, it has to do with software.

It can be proven that Linux (or all open source developent) is socialistic or laissez-faire, depending on the political pushings of the perceiving. Not even worth debating ;)

Linus uses open source development for Linux because it is the best way to development, not for idealogical reasons.

Man, you must be kidding! I don't believe you take U-Ku-Edubuntu as individual work! That's a perfect example of a collectively constructed thing! I mean, Ubunto... as a final OS is the result of many, many, many! hands working together, in the sense that they pass their knowledge on with no charge, and in a collaboratively mode ... that is: no competitively...

That's the spirit! Of course, new add-ons etc. are made concretely by individuals, but not in an individualistic spirit, will... Got me?

Anyway, we just think differently .. it's not the case I am right and you're wrong, and vice-versa. We just are different persons! Right? And that's diversity is great.

Have a nice time and tnx for answering.


ieBrazil

[northern lights]

Man, you must be kidding! I don't believe you take U-Ku-Edubuntu as individual work! That's a perfect example of a collectively constructed thing! I mean, Ubunto... as a final OS is the result of many, many, many! hands working together, in the sense that they pass their knowledge on with no charge, and in a collaboratively mode ... that is: no competitively...

That's the spirit! Of course, new add-ons etc. are made concretely by individuals, but not in an individualistic spirit, will... Got me?

Granted, it appears that first off there certainly might have been some misinterpretations as to what individualistic/collective referred to.

However, your interpretation applies to any other OS also. Mac OS or Windows were also not written by a single developer or even a handful.
Windows XP (I think the same applies to Vista and will finally not be the case for Windows 7, but I'm not certain) was written by far more people than the already massive developing staff at Redmond at the time around its release date, since it contained code originally written for Windows 95 (it may even go back to DOS). Further, it still wouldn't be a complete operating system without code from second parties (hardware drivers for instance).
I'm sure we agree, that if we'd accept that software could be assigned political movements, that wouldn't make it socialistic.

Now imagine yourself having written an application. Suppose you wrote some simple chess game and Canonical chose not only to add it to their repositories, but also make it a default application.
Would that mean that it's all of a sudden any other person's work but yours? You'd certainly disagree.

Canonical currently employs some 130 people and was founded as a 60 people startup, I think. Not all of these employees are developers.
Behind all of the wide spread GNU/Linux distributions, there's a company (Novell/SUSE, RedHat/Fedora&RHE, Canonical/Ubuntu). So, like Windows and Mac OS, they are released by a corporate entity - an individual also, if you so will.

Nonetheless, I can see where your notion is coming from and the fact that this thread has been moved to "Recurring Discussions" a while back implies that it's been around before.
However, if you want to get political or at least make software a social/societal issue, it'd be more sensible to apply such traits to all of free software.

I believe you might be interested to read some of Richard Stallmann's takes on FOSS:
What Is Free Software? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Why Software Should Not Have Owners (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)


As an aside, I'd like to observe karellen's post stating that, being from Bucharest, he strongly dislikes Socialism. I have a few Romanian and Bulgarian friends at university and amongst 'em that's common opinion also, which I understand. While I don't dare to compare my understanding of the situation to the actual experience of growing up in the Warszaw Pact regions, I'd think there's another misunderstand/misinterpretation, namely, it is vital to clarify whether we're talking about pure ideology as in Marx & Engels works or about any of the types of systems ran by the USSR or run by China in the past or today.

In my humble opinion, Communism (since Socialism was only meant as a stepping stone on the way) is a wonderful idea. But just that. If history is any guide it does not work in a group larger than five people. No so-called "Socialist" nation so far has made the next step, while every "Socialist" nation is run by a ruling elite that is, contrary to the promoted ideology, far more well-off and far better educated.

P.S. I really hope you take a genuine interest in the topic and I didn't fall for a troll.

[cardinals_fan]

Do you think LCD monitors are better than Obama's foreign policy?

YES! My Samsung could totally handle aggression from Russia...

[klange]

Socialism is an socioeconomic system that happens to be most perfectly matched with the FOSS community in actuality. While payment can be required to obtain FOSS software, we see this isn't normally the case, simply everyone will build and develop what they can and the community as a whole will work to improve things for everyone.

Now, yes, there is some external stimulus that helps drive things, but that's because we're working in a single market - computer software. While the software floats freely and the community works to make it better, the requirements of life aren't met by the system, so we can't work purely as a social system or we'll all starve.

@northern lights's edit:
There has, as of now, never been a true implementation of socialism - or even communism for that matter.

[northern lights]

@northern lights's edit:
There has, as of now, never been a true implementation of socialism - or even communism for that matter.

My point. I concur(red).

[LaRoza]

YES! My Samsung could totally handle aggression from Russia...

I have a Samsung also. They are good monitors.

Man, you must be kidding! I don't believe you take U-Ku-Edubuntu as individual work! That's a perfect example of a collectively constructed thing! I mean, Ubunto... as a final OS is the result of many, many, many! hands working together, in the sense that they pass their knowledge on with no charge, and in a collaboratively mode ... that is: no competitively...

Yes, many, many hands you said. Not a collective. Individuals push for advancement. If you get a committee, you get XP. The same OS for 7 years and barely changed in the next release of Windows. If you have individuals you get Linux with its multitude of options.

They compete. They compete with each other. Debian is so popular because its installer was ahead of its time. Ubuntu is gain popularity over other distros because of its advantages. It is dynamic. It is competitive.


Anyway, we just think differently .. it's not the case I am right and you're wrong, and vice-versa. We just are different persons! Right? And that's diversity is great.


My project: https://launchpad.net/sysres (launchpad may be down for maintenance at the moment).

It has several developers listed. Yes, I started the project. I got it working well enough to interest two GUI devs in it who made the GUI's. That sparked interest in two other people for packaging and fixing up the code. It is all individual work. See those branches of code? Look at them. They are different. Only the best code gets into trunk (rather, only code I let get into it. I try to put the best in). There are five (actually, more, but you don't see them) branches of sysres. Only one gets released and is paid attention to.

[cardinals_fan]

I have a Samsung also. They are good monitors.
I also have a Samsung cell phone. Most of their products seem pretty decent.

[karellen]

I also have a Samsung cell phone. Most of their products seem pretty decent.

same here. I'm pretty satisfied by my U600 :D

[Peter Frank]

Publicly funded scientists (I'm referring to basic science rather than profitable applied science) publishes and shares their results in journals, in a world-wide collaboration. Would you also call that socialism?

IMHO, a socialism(ish) system usually doesn't work because equal sharing fails to motivate individuals who work hard and who have good ideas. But in basic science, curiosity for the unknown, a sense of discovery (and possibly recognition) keeps researcher motivated. Open source also works because the motivation is there-- Some people really enjoy programming and hacking computers.

[akiratheoni]

Man, you must be kidding! I don't believe you take U-Ku-Edubuntu as individual work! That's a perfect example of a collectively constructed thing! I mean, Ubunto... as a final OS is the result of many, many, many! hands working together, in the sense that they pass their knowledge on with no charge, and in a collaboratively mode ... that is: no competitively...


There IS competition. In fact, one could argue that FOSS competition is much better than say, Windows or Mac competing because price isn't an issue. That forces the competition to focus on quality work rather than just making the price extremely low.

If there wasn't competition in the FOSS world, then why do we have Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian, Slackware, Arch Linux, Mandriva, Fedora, etc? Of course several of them are catered to different audiences, but they're all still competing.

[BLTicklemonster]

Why, yes it does. It can be used to run software that models socialism, making it easy to see why the concept of socialism* is inherently flawed.


* random fill of the blank. Feel free to insert any -ism there. Yes, I know this is the recurring-beat-to-death-discussion forum - it's a slow day here ;)

lmao

[Ripfox]

If you think or even remotely believe that Linux has anything to do with socialism then it does. I also believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Arrrr.

[ieBrazil]

I have a Samsung also. They are good monitors.


Yes, many, many hands you said. Not a collective. Individuals push for advancement. If you get a committee, you get XP. The same OS for 7 years and barely changed in the next release of Windows. If you have individuals you get Linux with its multitude of options.

They compete. They compete with each other. Debian is so popular because its installer was ahead of its time. Ubuntu is gain popularity over other distros because of its advantages. It is dynamic. It is competitive.



My project: https://launchpad.net/sysres (launchpad may be down for maintenance at the moment).

It has several developers listed. Yes, I started the project. I got it working well enough to interest two GUI devs in it who made the GUI's. That sparked interest in two other people for packaging and fixing up the code. It is all individual work. See those branches of code? Look at them. They are different. Only the best code gets into trunk (rather, only code I let get into it. I try to put the best in). There are five (actually, more, but you don't see them) branches of sysres. Only one gets released and is paid attention to.

OK, if you you do see difference between a work done by many, many, many! hands and a work done collectivly, then you I suppose you're seeing things in a selective way, interpreting them as you wish ~ which one must consider as a non-interesting person to talk to. As Wittgenstein also said: "...we must remain in silence" or sth. Don't know in English. (Sobre o que não podemos falar, devemos calar", in my mother tongue.)

So here I am. In silence.

[karellen]

ieBrazil, I've reported you for unjustified rudeness. maybe you just had a bad day

[Keyper7]

Err... doesn't

Anyway, we just think differently .. it's not the case I am right and you're wrong, and vice-versa. We just are different persons! Right? And that's diversity is great.

directly contradicts

I suppose you're seeing things in a selective way, interpreting them as you wish ~ which one must consider as a non-interesting person to talk to.

?

[ieBrazil]

ieBrazil, I've reported you for unjustified rudeness. maybe you just had a bad day

Oh, thatś ok, Karellen. Sure, I deserved that.

I'm just wondering now if you or anybody else has reported Ripfox for his 'answer and collaboration' to the debate.

In other forums I participate, always atheists say that 'intelligent way out': the flying spaghetti monster. Where the heck did they get it from?

Anyhow, thanks for reporting me.



ieBrazil

[ieBrazil]

Err... doesn't



directly contradicts



?



Good point, bro. You just need to bring the two posts of him/her to which I refer in the cases. Quotation with no context is sophism, fallacy.

To recognizing human diversity is different than supporting and keep on talking to a limited etc. person. The conversation with a person like this ends when it starts.

Anyhow, tnx.




ieBrazil

[karellen]

Oh, thatś ok, Karellen. Sure, I deserved that.

I'm just wondering now if you or anybody else has reported Ripfox for his 'answer and collaboration' to the debate.

In other forums I participate, always atheists say that 'intelligent way out': the flying spaghetti monster. Where the heck did they get it from?

Anyhow, thanks for reporting me.



ieBrazil

hey, flying spaghetti monster is cool ;)
http://www.venganza.org/

[ieBrazil]

yap,your editing says what I was up to write here: what some countries has lived was not socialism (a path to communism, a stage), neither in practice nor in idea.

ok, tnx!!!




ieBrazil

[ieBrazil]

Granted, it appears that first off there certainly might have been some misinterpretations as to what individualistic/collective referred to.

However, your interpretation applies to any other OS also. Mac OS or Windows were also not written by a single developer or even a handful.
Windows XP (I think the same applies to Vista and will finally not be the case for Windows 7, but I'm not certain) was written by far more people than the already massive developing staff at Redmond at the time around its release date, since it contained code originally written for Windows 95 (it may even go back to DOS). Further, it still wouldn't be a complete operating system without code from second parties (hardware drivers for instance).
I'm sure we agree, that if we'd accept that software could be assigned political movements, that wouldn't make it socialistic.

Now imagine yourself having written an application. Suppose you wrote some simple chess game and Canonical chose not only to add it to their repositories, but also make it a default application.
Would that mean that it's all of a sudden any other person's work but yours? You'd certainly disagree.

Canonical currently employs some 130 people and was founded as a 60 people startup, I think. Not all of these employees are developers.
Behind all of the wide spread GNU/Linux distributions, there's a company (Novell/SUSE, RedHat/Fedora&RHE, Canonical/Ubuntu). So, like Windows and Mac OS, they are released by a corporate entity - an individual also, if you so will.

Nonetheless, I can see where your notion is coming from and the fact that this thread has been moved to "Recurring Discussions" a while back implies that it's been around before.
However, if you want to get political or at least make software a social/societal issue, it'd be more sensible to apply such traits to all of free software.

I believe you might be interested to read some of Richard Stallmann's takes on FOSS:
What Is Free Software? (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
Why Software Should Not Have Owners (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html)


As an aside, I'd like to observe karellen's post stating that, being from Bucharest, he strongly dislikes Socialism. I have a few Romanian and Bulgarian friends at university and amongst 'em that's common opinion also, which I understand. While I don't dare to compare my understanding of the situation to the actual experience of growing up in the Warszaw Pact regions, I'd think there's another misunderstand/misinterpretation, namely, it is vital to clarify whether we're talking about pure ideology as in Marx & Engels works or about any of the types of systems ran by the USSR or run by China in the past or today.

In my humble opinion, Communism (since Socialism was only meant as a stepping stone on the way) is a wonderful idea. But just that. If history is any guide it does not work in a group larger than five people. No so-called "Socialist" nation so far has made the next step, while every "Socialist" nation is run by a ruling elite that is, contrary to the promoted ideology, far more well-off and far better educated.

P.S. I really hope you take a genuine interest in the topic and I didn't fall for a troll.


yap,your editing says what I was up to write here: what some countries has lived was not socialism (a path to communism, a stage), neither in practice nor in idea.

ok, tnx!!!




ieBrazil

[ieBrazil]

hey, flying spaghetti monster is cool ;)
http://www.venganza.org/

Sure it's! but in a correct context, like in a dad/son relation, where the first tells stories to a open-eye-wide boy to fall asleep.

Hahahah hey, don't take as a TOO serious person! I do like jokes, smiling and everything... if I think deeply, in fact I'll see that I had a bad day... maybe in a uncousciousness form...

bye!

[Keyper7]

Good point, bro. You just need to bring the two posts of him/her to which I refer in the cases. Quotation with no context is sophism, fallacy.

No, in this case is "briefness". Not as pretty or "Look, ma, I'm literate!" as the words you use, but works anyway.

If I quoted you, I was aware of the context and questioning your points regardless of it.

To recognizing human diversity is different than supporting and keep on talking to a limited etc. person.

Except that I saw no facts defining LaRoza as limited. Just your opinion. To call people limited because you disagree with them is hardly "recognizing human diversity".

[ieBrazil]

No, in this case is "briefness". Not as pretty or "Look, ma, I'm literate!" as the words you use, but works anyway.

If I quoted you, I was aware of the context and questioning your points regardless of it.



Except that I saw no facts defining LaRoza as limited. Just your opinion. To call people limited because you disagree with them is hardly "recognizing human diversity".


Good.

But nope, I did not call anyone limited because I disagree with. Called, alright, due to other fact. From the fact that he thinks differently of mine, I called the case in case diversity... human stuff. We say this in Portuguese 'sinédoque'. Dont know in English.

Anyway, you're words here seem to be words from a selective point of view, which is not cool - form the viewpoint of any good and intelligent conversation. Again and in few words: I labeled him/her as limited due to his/her low level of intellegibility, which was made clear when he/she (LaRoza) expressed his ideas on 'what is a collective/individual' thing, supposing Linux/Ubuntu... are fruits of individuals (from which I disagree as anybody would do*). But to the level itself, not to the content he expressed, which was made at first hand.


*as anybody who knows what is a collective and what is a individual constructed thing.


ieBrazil

[lukjad007]

I'm too busy using it to look for hidden political messages in the code. :D

[northern lights]

I labeled him/her as limited due to his/her low level of intellegibility, which was made clear when he/she (LaRoza) expressed his ideas on 'what is a collective/individual' thing, supposing Linux/Ubuntu... are fruits of individuals (from which I disagree as anybody would do*). But to the level itself, not to the content he expressed, which was made at first hand.


*as anybody who knows what is a collective and what is a individual constructed thing.

I find it an outrageous claim to

A) be able to assess anybody's intellect on account of a few, if not one, forum post (Even if it had been many - it's a forum post...)

B) know what "anybody would do" in a given situation

and as outrageous to further thus misuse everybody not involved as a personal argument's artificial backup.

It appears you have either not thoroughly read most posts, chosen to ignore or misinterpret or simply not have understood them either due to language limitations or such in the field you claim LaRoza lacks capacity.

It's "she" on a side note.



I sense a troll alert.

Unsubscribing from this thread, Johannes

[lukjad007]

I sense a troll alert.

Unsubscribing from this thread, Johannes
Good idea. Bye.

[ieBrazil]

I find it an outrageous claim to

A) be able to assess anybody's intellect on account of a few, if not one, forum post (Even if it had been many - it's a forum post...)

B) know what "anybody would do" in a given situation

and as outrageous to further thus misuse everybody not involved as a personal argument's artificial backup.

It appears you have either not thoroughly read most posts, chosen to ignore or misinterpret or simply not have understood them either due to language limitations or such in the field you claim LaRoza lacks capacity.

It's "she" on a side note.



I sense a troll alert.

Unsubscribing from this thread, Johannes



For three reasons you are being anti-ethical:

- fleeing from a discussion with out even being involved.
- accusing me of being bias, when you say that I made statement on somebody's intellect level in general, when the case is that I said that IN AN SPECIFIC CASE. If you read my previous posts, you'll notice that I say "in the case".
- I did not make a misuse of everybody not involved in the discussion; what I did is to bring a commson knowledge, sense. Rhetoric question for us: is it artificial (or lack of significant content) here saying that a collective thing is, for example, Linux/Ubuntu OS? Nope. It should be given since it started.

Plus, accuse me of letting out other posts by my will, when the stuff on them are not directly related to this one, in special, in fact.

And yes, some things must be misinterpreted by me due to my English language limitation. No doubt about it. Unfortunatly it happens!

And just for your knowlege: La Roza as surname does not mean, necessarily, the person is feminine. O Brazilian male friend of mine, from Italian background, is named Luis d'La Roza. So, or you know by a different means LaRoza user, or you made a judgement based on your thinkings, which are not necessarily linked to reality.