--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00010 Date: 01/11/98 From: TOM ENRIGHT Time: 07:57am \/To: ROBERT PLETT (Read 0 times) Subj: Gates vs Reno 01/ -=> On 01-09-98 18:41 Robert Plett said to Tom Enright <=- TE>What about Microsoft's little policy of *requiring* vendors to TE>buy Internet Explorer in order to be *allowed* to purchase TE>Windows 95? RP> Was that truly the situation, or was it rather that Win95 was simply RP> unavailable without it? Microsoft *decided* than Win95 would not be available without the vendor *purchasing* IE in addition to *purchasing* Win95. This was the OEM vendors who bundle the OS with assembled systems. If Microsoft had simply bundled IE in with the OS for one price, there would be no problem. That *is* what they do with the retail versions sold for upgrade from Win 3.x or the stand-alone version. It's the OEM vendors that Microsoft was screwing, not the end-users. This isn't just outfits like Dell, Compac or Gateway; it includes all the small stores who assemble computers on-site for sale. They use the same (OEM) version of Win 95 that Dell and Compac uses. RP> Is it not the case that components of IE are an integral part of the RP> platform itself, meaning that while it *can* be removed, some of it RP> necessarily will always remain? This is contradictory; if IE were an intrinsic part of the OS, it could not be removed. It can not only be removed, it does not need to be installed in the first place. The Win95 version that I got is the 3.5 inch diskette version, which has two sets of disks. A thirteen disk set for Win95 and another seven disk set, separately numbered and with it's own install, for IE 3.02. The CD Rom version has everything on one CD. Windows 98, whenever it is released (possibly in time for the millennium), is supposed to bind IE into the OS so that it *is* intregal. Microsoft simply got greedy with the OEMs and was caught; it's no different than with the tobacco extortion deal. Lord knows I don't like Janet Reno, but in this instance she has a point (besides the one on top of her head). T.E. - San Diego Ilks (Sgt. at Arms) ... Microsoft: Where quality is job 1.1C (beta) ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] --- GEcho 1.20/Pro * Origin: Guilde of High Sorcery (619)575-8249 San Diego, CA (1:202/1100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00011 Date: 01/11/98 From: TOM ENRIGHT Time: 07:57am \/To: MARK LOGSDON (Read 0 times) Subj: Gates vs Reno 01/ -=> On 01-10-98 09:31 Mark Logsdon said to Tom Enright <=- TE> What about Microsoft's little policy of *requiring* vendors to TE> buy Internet Explorer in order to be *allowed* to purchase TE> Windows 95? That, to me, is an unfair trade practice. If Gates ML> Is it fair for the New York Times to force me to purchase the ML> classified ads and the lifestyle section when all I really want to ML> read is the sports section? The nerve of the Times to *require* me ML> to buy the entire newspaper in order to be *allowed* to purchase the ML> sports page. Is that an unfair trade practice? No, it's the free ML> market. I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. This would be a valid argument *only* if you were charged separately for each section and *then* not given a choice about how many or which sections you wanted. You are paying one price for the whole paper as a package. The OEM vendors are paying for *two* separate items and not being given a choice in the matter. If they don't pay for IE, they cannot buy Win95. If Microsoft wanted to simply bundle IE in on the deal (even with a slight price increase) there would not be a problem. Note that this *only* applies to the OEM version, not the retail versions. In the retail versions IE *is* bundled in for no additional charge. T.E. - San Diego Ilks (Sgt. at Arms) ... Windows95, written entirely by blondes. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] --- GEcho 1.20/Pro * Origin: Guilde of High Sorcery (619)575-8249 San Diego, CA (1:202/1100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00012 Date: 01/10/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:13pm \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: LAM LEE DH> KK> Right after the '94 Republican victories, Mr Gingrich put forward DH> KK> a proposal, written apparently by the religious right, though I can't DH> KK> recall its formal name. This proposal would have forcibly taken away DH> As I remember, Newt simply suggested that orphanages might be a viable DH> alternative to the existing welfare programs, I don't believe that he DH> ever suggested that the Feds would be allowed to forcibly remove the DH> children from their mothers home. I f you claim otherwise, I would DH> appreciate some supporting material. I'll research it. [...] DH> KK> Now if I generalize from your above example, and from mine, DH> KK> I would say that DH> KK> 1) We all secretly think the imposition of Federal power is DH> KK> really cool when it advances our own value system, or that DH> KK> of the people who finance our election; DH> KK> 2) When the opposition (Those Who Are Wrong) do exactly the DH> KK> same thing, we scream bloody murder and call it unethical, DH> KK> immoral, or unconstitutional. DH> Keith, all to often this is true. At least we agree on that. To summarize my impression of the Dem/Repub question, I've prepared the following chart which shows, as far as I can tell, the differences and similarities between the two parties: FIGURE 1: Differences and Similarities Between Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the Executive Branch DIFFERENCES SIMILARITIES ______________________________________________ | DEMOCRATS | Screw the rich Screw the | middle class | REPUBLICANS | Screw the poor Screw the | middle class As you can see from the 'similarities' column, there really is bipartisan agreement on some things. * SLMR 2.1a * Atoms are not things. -- Heisenberg --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00013 Date: 01/10/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:13pm \/To: ROY J. TELLASON (Read 0 times) Subj: Religious costs. RJT> KK> Interestingly, one way the creationists have been trying to get RJT> KK> creationism taught in science classes is by arguing that RJT> KK> 'scientism' and 'humanism' are religions and therefore on a par RJT> KK> with creationism. If you are planning on using the above RJT> KK> dictionary definition as an authority, you might want to note RJT> KK> that according to it, nothing in science or humanism is RJT> KK> religion. RJT>This reminds me of a discussion in another echo in another net where this gu RJT>tried to insist that atheism was "a religious belief"...! I've talked to a couple of people on other echoes who I would call 'devout atheists' but that's just because people tend to take up causes and fall in love with belief systems. But if it doesn't require God in it, it's not religion. * SLMR 2.1a * USER ERROR. REPLACE USER. PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE. --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00014 Date: 01/10/98 From: KEITH KNAPP Time: 10:13pm \/To: ROBERT PLETT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Religious costs. RP>KK>Brian, this issue is not about the Ten Commandments, or your RP>KK>right to believe or disbelieve in them. It's about the fact that RP>KK>if the Ten Commandments are intentionally and prominently displayed RP>KK>in a government building, that implies that the government is RP>KK>favoring an establishment of religion. RP>Not an establishment, Keith, simply a recognition of this nation's RP>Judeo/Christian heritage. Such a display is NOT the making of any law, The US was and is populated mainly by Christians. That does not mean that our federal government is or should be officially Christian. RP> "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of RP> almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and RP> humbly to implore His protection and favor." RP> - George Washington, Thanksgiving Proclamation, Oct. 3, 1789 RP>In the "Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States" decision of 1892, RP>the Supreme Court said: RP> "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and RP> must embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is RP> impossible for it to be otherwise. In this sense, to this extent our RP> civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." It's not hard to find quotes from the founding fathers and others stating these things. Jefferson and other deists had other opinions, though I don't have those quotes anymore. RP>That opinion was backed by one of the most extensive research efforts RP>ever undertaken on the question and was further backed by 87 precedents RP>that it cited. The massive proofs they accumulated, both official and RP>what it called "unofficial declarations" led the Court to further state: RP> "These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of RP> unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this RP> is a Christian nation." Note the word 'unofficial.' I do not recall any passage in the Constitution stating that Christianity is the official religion of this country. One would think that given the importance of religion in everyone's lives, such a declaration would have been entered as plainly as possible. Yet the only instruction the legislative branch is given on this point is not to use federal power to favor any establishment of religion. RP>The Supreme Court itself has the Ten Commandments displayed, and RP>Congress has the office of Chaplain, established at the very beginning RP>of this nation's history under the Constitution. The buildings and RP>monuments in Washington D.C. have this nation's original reliance on the RP>God of the Bible written on them in stone, and as I've noted many times RP>before in this forum, the Constitution itself closes by declaring the RP>founders' belief in Christ as Lord. One of the first Congress' earliest RP>acts was to import 20,000 Bibles (the Handbook of The Patriots) at the RP>government's expense, and those legislators included many of the very RP>same men who were involved in drafting and ratifying the Bill of Rights. Christianity was a basic part of the milieu of the time, certainly. I also notice they didn't make it official. RP>Your statements and position, Keith, are in complete ignorance of both RP>the Constitution and history, and most certainly are directly opposed to RP>the position, intent, and thinking of this nation's founders, which RP>included not simply the men who drafted the Constitution, but the state RP>legislatures who ratified it and insisted on the inclusion of the Bill RP>of Rights. RP>It should be noted that some of those states which supported the First RP>Amendment also supported and established state religions, or had already RP>established state religions when they ratified the Constitution and the RP>Bill of Rights. They wanted the First Amendment in order to assure that RP>the Federal government could not override their state religious RP>establishments. It should also be noted that if the authority of General Washington had not been used to create and support the US Constitution, the states could well have devolved into thirteen squabbling nations, all vulnerable to the military power of Britain. That shows two things: 1) Sectarian fractiousness could have been a serious threat to the Union; 2) The basic concepts of American liberty are not inherently religious. You, a Quaker, a Zen Buddhist, a Puritan, and even space cadets like me can all agree with the amazingly radical idea (embodied in the Constitution) that the authority of our government comes from ourselves. And therein we find the conflict: what if you are a Quaker in a state where Puritanism is the official state religion? In that case, your American liberties can be taken away by someone else's religion. They would be utterly dismayed to know that the Supreme RP>Court in this century has ignored them and totally trampled on the RP>Amendment that was their safeguard. They would be even more dismayed by RP>the utter ignorance and plain wrong-headedness of the Keith Knapps of RP>today with respect to both the historical and intended role of RP>Christianity in this nation and its history. Show me the line in the Constitution that makes Christianity the official religion of the US. RP>When the founders expressed concern about religious establishments by RP>the federal government, it was particular Christian sects, or what today RP>we call denominations that concerned them - they didn't want a federally RP>mandated Christian denomination. To them, impartiality between other RP>faiths, and/or a lack of belief in God, and Christianity, was out of the RP>question - Christianity was the faith of the nation, and they based our RP>laws on that premise and that foundation, and not just assumed, but RP>intended that would always be so. They did _not_ base our laws on it. They specifically stated that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Christianity was very much the context of those times. If they had wanted it made into law, they would have said so. * SLMR 2.1a * . Give your money to God -- and here's OUR address.... --- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta * Origin: * Binary illusions BBS * Albuquerque, NM * 505.897.8282 * (1:301/45) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00015 Date: 01/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 11:56am \/To: TOM GOODMAN (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Armed And Dangerous TG> Hmmm. Muskets were muzzle loaders as I recall. The ones that TG> were rifled were beech loaders. Nope. Rifled barrels were around a long time before breech loading tech- nology was available. Folks were using the .45's and .50's to "bark" squirrels long before the Civil War era. This is a practice wherein a portion of limb directly beneath the squirrel is shot, thus killing the squirrel by transferred shock without destroying the meat. Takes more'n a mite of accuracy. TG> I've a friend near Oak Ridge that has TG> an authentic, operational Springfield. According to him, it wasn't a TG> very good rifle and couldn't achieve the velocity your speaking of. I can manage very close to 2000 fps with a .50 cal. muzzle loader with a .490 patched round ball and 100 grains of ffg black powder. 'Course, the larger and heavier Minnie balls in use during the Civil War time were slower, maxing out at around 1400 fps. There were, however, many round balls fired in anger. TG> At TG> 100 yards, he couldn't hit a man sized target 8 0f 10 shots. It had a TG> great bayonet though. I think I have what your hinting. TG> Goliath died of shock! Right? ;-) But. Even as a 14 year old, I could TG> break a shiplap siding board on a house at a hundred yards. Must have made the neighbors happy. Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... I didn't make a mistake. The computer misunderstood my request. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00016 Date: 01/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 11:56am \/To: ROBERT PLETT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: 1/2] Smoking Costs JB>She isn't strong enoug to blaze a path with morality and ethical JB>action, so no one else is in that position, either? She had the JB>chance to be a shining light and gave it up.. RP> for and building experience in. Are we to assume you consider RP> yourself such a "shining light"? More like a "shining wit". Nope. Didn't type that one *quite* right, I don't think. Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... If you were married to Hilliary, wouldn't you cheat, too? ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00017 Date: 01/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 11:56am \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: 1/2] Smoking Costs s DH> Is there a problem? Our country survived quite well for many years DH> without government interference in the health care industry. I DH> sometimes believe that if we got the government out of the equation, DH> and let the market rule, the cost of health care would come down DH> dramatically! David, when I was born, the doctor's bill set my Dad back thirty-eight bucks. Brothers two and three - one hundred forty eight and three hundred, respectively. By the time my youngest brother got here, Dad like have to fainted at the six hundred dollar bill. Then came my sister at almost eight hundred, and then my youngest sister at four thousand. The doctor who delivered my daughter had about fifteen minutes with my wife and little girl before handing me a six thousand dollar bill. The one who delivered my son netted eight thousand for less than twenty minutes work. (It should be noted that for my two, this was just the delivery fee, and did not count the money we paid all during the pregnancies for pre-natal care.) All normal deliveries, none with complications. Notice that I came along right before the government got into the business of health care full tilt. And right before the lawyers got complete free reign for the rape of the system. Now some might contend you get what you pay for, and there may be some truth to that. At least in my case. HOWEVER, babies still pretty much get here today by the same production system as they did thirty-eight years ago, and inflation hasn't been *that* bad. Nope, indeedy. And yep, indeedy, you're correct. Government interference has been a major variable in the equation. Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... Vegetables are what food eats... - Alf ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00018 Date: 01/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 11:56am \/To: DAVID HARTUNG (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: JUSTIN VS. TOM JEFFER -=> Quoting Justin Baustert to David Hartung <=- JB> Does the 10th Amendment not reserve powers not given to the federal JB> government to the states? DH> Then why does so much of your deal require Congressional action? JB> How should I know? It's not my deal... DH> Perhaps I am wrong, but did you not indicate that you were a part of DH> the process which produced the tobacco settlement? Naw, David. When the little worm said "we" he didn't *really* mean "we" as in "him" combined with "them". 'Course not. Just like he never mentioned their fortunate "finding of a way around the Constitution". Which either makes him a liar, or a Larry Lawrence wannabe. Like I said, strictly bush league crawfish material. Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... "A little butter, a little garlic, Bambi was delectable." T. Nugent ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F1G00019 Date: 01/11/98 From: LARRY GAULT Time: 11:56am \/To: JUSTIN BAUSTERT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: JUSTIN VS. TOM JEFFER JB> How should I know? It's not my deal... DH> Perhaps I am wrong, but did you not indicate that you were a part of DH> the process which produced the tobacco settlement? JB> I don't believe so. Oh no? Just what does the word "we" mean to you, little weasle? Go back and read your infamous first post yet again, you little Larry Lawrence jerkweed. Direct to you from the keyboard of Larry Gault... ... Gun control is the ability to put two bullets in one hole.-Ted Nugent ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] -*- SF-Quick/BW 1.00r [#48] --- Alexi/Mail 2.02b (#10000) * Origin: COLUMBIA SPITFIRE * Dallas, Texas * (214-275-5040) (1:124/3271)