Re: Richard Stallman Gets SJW'd
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:26:23AM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 9/17/19 9:56 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
RMS, founder and originator of the Free Software Foundation, did not have sufficient support for his simple and straightforward words about words used to conflate or mislead readers (or listeners) about Epstein or anyone else for that matter, and RMS has now resigned from the FSF.
Would you trust RMS to babysit your 8 year old daughter? I bet not. His biggest problem is that he has spouted off for way too many years without being hauled to task for what comes forth from his mouth. He's an idiot, plain and simple, for ignoring "convention" and separating himself from "polite society". No need for me to go into detail, it's all just a google away. Ric
Actually yes and without hesitation - I hosted RMS in Sydney some 20 years ago (spent a few days with him in total), and despite him being a little "conversationally confronting", including to me personally, he was principled, precise, and caring of other humans, all to a fault. He gets taken the wrong way sometimes and I get that - haven't we all? So I did a google for "rms stallman egregious" and came up with the below -- all I can see is talk of "precise", email, discussion, and -implications- therein. And some people got upset or felt confronted and ultimately hold that RMS "should be taken down" and that "it's good RMS lost his job at the FSF, who gives a rat's arse if he founded it". Neither robust, nor permitting of robust conversations, nor "intellectually honest", as far as I can tell! I believe it is NOT appropriate that we lynch anyone merely for differing points of view! This is freedom of speech at its absolute most basic. Either we hold to the principle, or we are sluts to safe spaces, cowering pathetically to the snowflakes of the world. No, thank you, but no. Really, no! That is not me. Here's to the right of not only RMS, but you, I and everyone else, to say and argue for and against, whatetever they bloody well choose to. This is the world -I- want to live in. https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/comments/d7v1kf/a_reflection_on_th...
While it is true we should not treat Minsky unfairly, it was not — and is not — a pressing concern, and by making it his concern, RMS signaled clearly that it was much more important to him than the question of the institution’s patterns of problematic coddling of bad behavior.
RMS did merely take part in a mailing list discussion, it's the media that blew it up. It's not like he stepped on a pedestal, creating big signals. It's about as public as talking to people in a coffee shop with a journalist eaves dropping in the background. It's a shame really, we can only have those slick politician like lizard tongue PR people in leading positions. The most important quality today is being dishonest and persuasive at the same time, getting away with it. That's how we got the corporate landscape today, that late stage capitalism where politics, media and industry are all alike, all keeping each other in position rather than in check, all infected with the disease of our times. It's disgusting, one ticket to the moon please... [And the 3rd comment, most poignant indeed:] I don't understand why society has accepted this concept of "you said a thing I don't like so you don't get to have a job anymore". Like what does one's personal opinions have to do with their job, as long as they're doing their job why does it matter. [And perhaps most telling - the "ba da bing, ba da BOOM":] Per Wikipedia, this guy [A KEY RECENT COMPLAINTANT ABOUT RMS] was fired by Stallman in 2001 for failing to perform any work or respond to emails. Did he last speak to Stallman 18 years ago? If not, when? I'd take this account with a huge grain of very salty salt! https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/cr2en6/i_generally_support_... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21055756 That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal mailing list. The guy has an important idea that he put most of his life into developing. In the process, he made programming much more inclusive than anyone could dream about in the days of proprietary operating system with compilers that sold for thousands of dollars. So even if having to deal with a difficult old man makes you feel a little less inclusive, it's not too crazy to give him some breaks. The kids who ran him out of town only know how to destroy, not how to create anything comparable to what he did. ... It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years. That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't. ...
Which things specifically, and in what way?
Saying that we shouldn't call sexual assault "sexual assault", and implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim. The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre perpetuates rape culture. It perpetuates the idea that women are worth less than men, and that it's okay for famous men in CS to rape girls. That emboldens other rapists and makes CS very unwelcoming for rape victims. Minsky should have known. Implying there's any way what he did was okay creates an unwelcoming environment for women, especially young women and girls at MIT. (Background and links from https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... ) ...
implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.
...what are the scare quotes for? Is "have sex with" not a definitional superset of "rape"? As far as I can tell, Stallman does not assert that Giuffre was not raped, only that Minsky would probably not have known. (As far as he knew, she could equally have been one year older and legally, voluntarily engaged in prostitution...?) You could argue that (and I think that if Minsky did indeed have sex with her, you would have a very good case) that Minsky was extremely naive and/or irresponsible to not suspect anything amiss in the setting, but sexual (or any other) assault, in the view of many people, requires intent to harm someone against their will. Here, it seems that the intent, and hence the primary guilt for the assault, most likely was squarely with Epstein and his associates: if a gun salesman takes you to his shooting range and tells you to fire a weapon at a target that he actually secretly tied a person to the back of, and you shoot that person dead, you are not on the hook for murder even if you should really have known that something is off and recall hearing muffled screams from somewhere at one point in hindsight.
The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre
Where did Stallman claim that? [NEVER GOT ANSWERED]
Heated mega discussion ongoing at LWN at the moment. Here's a fundamental: Richard Stallman and the GNU project https://lwn.net/Articles/801933/ Posted Oct 10, 2019 7:34 UTC (Thu) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778) "dkg":
Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior (and dismissal of other contributors when they disagree with him). Can you see why this is might be an indicator that a leadership role isn't the right role for him if we want a healthy, growing, vibrant community that will defend everyone's Freedoms?
"frostsnow":
His leadership role was created and earned by his dedication to the cause of Free Software. I am not convinced that any of these agitators are both able and willing to bear that burden.
OK "frostsnow" - I am fully on board with your position, and you missed a fundamental - miss the fundamental and your "give me convenience and bugger off with your freedom politics" opponents WILL walk all over you! NOTE: The ground was laid by your opponent with these words: "Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior"; these words epitomize the endemic disregard for freedom of speech in the world today, and the widespread "snowflake" demands to "consider the feelings of those who hear or might hear your words, and don't speak if they might get upset". This ground is absolutely abominable - on the surface it sounds nice and fluffy "consider the emotions of others", but inherent is the implicit DEMAND that the world cower to emotionally and/or psychologically weak, damaged or ill people who need emotional and/or psychological healing, counselling, etc, just to function in society. SUCH IS AN UNFAIR TACTIC - a tactic used by those who cannot properly defend their own position otherwise, a low blow against basic human rights - the right to freedom of communication, which implies the right to say things which other's may find offensive. Give up freedom for "safety or safe spaces", and you WILL eventually lose both! The strong (e.g. RMS) are asked to water down everything they say that might be "sexist" "racist" or in any other way "emotionally too challenging", so that "those who are weak and timid might find the safe space to contribute to our community". This demand, and the faux "consider the weak" so called "principle", is the sledge hammer used to suppress free expression, to suppress free speech, and to suppress views, positions and arguments which "differ from mine, but I cannot defend without unfair tactics". THIS IS AN ENDEMIC PROBLEM we see all throughout the mainstream media today. The strong and the principled are pummeled into submission under the excuse of "think of the weaklings" which is just the modern day variant of "think of the children" - a pathetic attempt, usually successful, to appeal to base or raw emotional instinctive reactions thus bypassing the critical and reasoning faculties of the human mind. "Discrimination" used to be an admired thing. Now discrimination is "evil" in the popular consciousness, and those who discriminate are evil patriarchy. And the true evil is that the vilification of "those who discriminate" is effectively to justify evil - in this "RMS case", the evil 'means' of "vilify RMS, humiliate him by causing his resignation from the FSF which HE FOUNDED, and effectively destroy his present career" is justified by the ends "we will finally have our utopian 'community' where everyone is welcomed, even emotionally crippled and psychologically ill humans - yay for community!" RMS implicitly asks all who cross his path to be robust enough to hear contra views, contra positions, to be willing to be challenged in their thinking, to be possibly offended in the hearing of something they did not expect to hear - words, not sticks and stones! Those who cannot challenge RMS' "freedom politics" (really, his principles so true, so fundamental that these principles cannot be successfully challenged), have stooped to using snowflake technology to belligerantly hammer Stallman and those like him into the ground, whilst feeling powerful with the mob of much of the main stream world behind them, heedless of the candles of truth and righteousness they snuff out with their egotistical will to destroy "freedom politics" in the name of "muh convenience and muh better software." If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything. Create your world, On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 05:38:16PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:26:23AM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 9/17/19 9:56 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
RMS, founder and originator of the Free Software Foundation, did not have sufficient support for his simple and straightforward words about words used to conflate or mislead readers (or listeners) about Epstein or anyone else for that matter, and RMS has now resigned from the FSF.
Would you trust RMS to babysit your 8 year old daughter? I bet not. His biggest problem is that he has spouted off for way too many years without being hauled to task for what comes forth from his mouth. He's an idiot, plain and simple, for ignoring "convention" and separating himself from "polite society". No need for me to go into detail, it's all just a google away. Ric
Actually yes and without hesitation - I hosted RMS in Sydney some 20 years ago (spent a few days with him in total), and despite him being a little "conversationally confronting", including to me personally, he was principled, precise, and caring of other humans, all to a fault.
He gets taken the wrong way sometimes and I get that - haven't we all?
So I did a google for "rms stallman egregious" and came up with the below -- all I can see is talk of "precise", email, discussion, and -implications- therein.
And some people got upset or felt confronted and ultimately hold that RMS "should be taken down" and that "it's good RMS lost his job at the FSF, who gives a rat's arse if he founded it".
Neither robust, nor permitting of robust conversations, nor "intellectually honest", as far as I can tell!
I believe it is NOT appropriate that we lynch anyone merely for differing points of view!
This is freedom of speech at its absolute most basic.
Either we hold to the principle, or we are sluts to safe spaces, cowering pathetically to the snowflakes of the world.
No, thank you, but no. Really, no! That is not me.
Here's to the right of not only RMS, but you, I and everyone else, to say and argue for and against, whatetever they bloody well choose to.
This is the world -I- want to live in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/comments/d7v1kf/a_reflection_on_th...
While it is true we should not treat Minsky unfairly, it was not — and is not — a pressing concern, and by making it his concern, RMS signaled clearly that it was much more important to him than the question of the institution’s patterns of problematic coddling of bad behavior.
RMS did merely take part in a mailing list discussion, it's the media that blew it up. It's not like he stepped on a pedestal, creating big signals. It's about as public as talking to people in a coffee shop with a journalist eaves dropping in the background.
It's a shame really, we can only have those slick politician like lizard tongue PR people in leading positions. The most important quality today is being dishonest and persuasive at the same time, getting away with it.
That's how we got the corporate landscape today, that late stage capitalism where politics, media and industry are all alike, all keeping each other in position rather than in check, all infected with the disease of our times. It's disgusting, one ticket to the moon please...
[And the 3rd comment, most poignant indeed:]
I don't understand why society has accepted this concept of "you said a thing I don't like so you don't get to have a job anymore". Like what does one's personal opinions have to do with their job, as long as they're doing their job why does it matter.
[And perhaps most telling - the "ba da bing, ba da BOOM":]
Per Wikipedia, this guy [A KEY RECENT COMPLAINTANT ABOUT RMS] was fired by Stallman in 2001 for failing to perform any work or respond to emails. Did he last speak to Stallman 18 years ago? If not, when? I'd take this account with a huge grain of very salty salt!
https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/cr2en6/i_generally_support_...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21055756
That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal mailing list. The guy has an important idea that he put most of his life into developing. In the process, he made programming much more inclusive than anyone could dream about in the days of proprietary operating system with compilers that sold for thousands of dollars. So even if having to deal with a difficult old man makes you feel a little less inclusive, it's not too crazy to give him some breaks. The kids who ran him out of town only know how to destroy, not how to create anything comparable to what he did.
... It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years.
That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.
...
Which things specifically, and in what way?
Saying that we shouldn't call sexual assault "sexual assault", and implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.
The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre perpetuates rape culture. It perpetuates the idea that women are worth less than men, and that it's okay for famous men in CS to rape girls. That emboldens other rapists and makes CS very unwelcoming for rape victims.
Minsky should have known. Implying there's any way what he did was okay creates an unwelcoming environment for women, especially young women and girls at MIT.
(Background and links from https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... )
...
implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.
...what are the scare quotes for? Is "have sex with" not a definitional superset of "rape"? As far as I can tell, Stallman does not assert that Giuffre was not raped, only that Minsky would probably not have known. (As far as he knew, she could equally have been one year older and legally, voluntarily engaged in prostitution...?) You could argue that (and I think that if Minsky did indeed have sex with her, you would have a very good case) that Minsky was extremely naive and/or irresponsible to not suspect anything amiss in the setting, but sexual (or any other) assault, in the view of many people, requires intent to harm someone against their will.
Here, it seems that the intent, and hence the primary guilt for the assault, most likely was squarely with Epstein and his associates: if a gun salesman takes you to his shooting range and tells you to fire a weapon at a target that he actually secretly tied a person to the back of, and you shoot that person dead, you are not on the hook for murder even if you should really have known that something is off and recall hearing muffled screams from somewhere at one point in hindsight.
The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre
Where did Stallman claim that? [NEVER GOT ANSWERED]
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:39:44 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
"dkg":
Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior
ppl who write that sort of thing are unhinged, witch-burning monkeys from the dark ages. Anybody who uses the word 'sexist' should be completely ignored, or spat upon. Or both.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:38:18AM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:39:44 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
"dkg":
Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior
ppl who write that sort of thing are unhinged, witch-burning monkeys from the dark ages. Anybody who uses the word 'sexist' should be completely ignored, or spat upon. Or both.
But it's apparently "horrifying, absolutely horrifying": Finance Conference Outraged After Billionaire Ken Fisher Shocks With Crude Sexual Remarks https://www.zerohedge.com/health/billionaire-ken-fisher-offends-financial-co... ... billionaire Ken Fisher - whose firm manages more than $100 billion (for now, at least) - shocked attendees when he compared gaining a client's trust to "trying to get into a girl's pants," ... Doubling down on his jarring remarks, Fisher also noted that executives who were "not comfortable talking about genitalia should not be in the financial industry." ... Fisher referenced dropping acid and likened his employees to cattle who needed to be branded. Alex Chalekian, founder of Lake Avenue Financial, posted a video on Twitter calling the remarks “absolutely horrifying.” Chalekian conceded that "the way the summit is set up, it’s meant to allow many of these icons in the industry to be comfortable, and talk among their peers" before continuing by saying "But I just had to open up and mention how disgusted I am." I'm truly disgusted. pic.twitter.com/SKb3dYLV5h — Alex Chalekian (@AlexChalekian) October 9, 2019 Sonya Dreizler, a consultant who attended most of the fireside chat, added: "Since this content is not about business issues, I’m choosing to break that code of privacy to confirm that the comments from the stage indeed were outrageous.” ... After reports of Fisher's comments made their rounds on Wednesday, Fisher followed up by telling Bloomberg: “I have given a lot of talks, a lot of times, in a lot of places and said stuff like this and never gotten that type of response. Mostly the audience understands what I am saying.” “I regret I accepted that speech invitation because it was kind of a pain in the neck,” he continued. "I wonder if anybody will be candid at one of these Tiburon events again.” ... when asked what he would have done differently in his life, he said he would “have more sex.”
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 09:25:53AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:38:18AM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:39:44 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
"dkg":
Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior
ppl who write that sort of thing are unhinged, witch-burning monkeys from the dark ages. Anybody who uses the word 'sexist' should be completely ignored, or spat upon. Or both.
But it's apparently "horrifying, absolutely horrifying":
Finance Conference Outraged After Billionaire Ken Fisher Shocks With Crude Sexual Remarks https://www.zerohedge.com/health/billionaire-ken-fisher-offends-financial-co...
... billionaire Ken Fisher - whose firm manages more than $100 billion (for now, at least) - shocked attendees when he compared gaining a client's trust to "trying to get into a girl's pants,"
... Doubling down on his jarring remarks, Fisher also noted that executives who were "not comfortable talking about genitalia should not be in the financial industry."
... Fisher referenced dropping acid and likened his employees to cattle who needed to be branded.
Alex Chalekian, founder of Lake Avenue Financial, posted a video on Twitter calling the remarks “absolutely horrifying.”
Chalekian conceded that "the way the summit is set up, it’s meant to allow many of these icons in the industry to be comfortable, and talk among their peers" before continuing by saying "But I just had to open up and mention how disgusted I am."
[NOTE: Knife in the back protocol in operation by Millenial beta males - pay to go to "fireside conference chat with billionaire wealth managers, hear their 'secrets' and learn how they think", sign the non-disclosure/ respect everyone's privacy contract, then turn around stab anyone you feelz like targetting in the back with a pathetic excuse "I just had to open up and mention how disgusted I am"]
I'm truly disgusted. pic.twitter.com/SKb3dYLV5h — Alex Chalekian (@AlexChalekian) October 9, 2019
[Beta male virtue signalling in dysfunctional inter sex comms environment - he has to be disgusted at himself for not defending true factual statements and for not standing up for someone not only expressing their masculinity, but expressing their own truth (regardless of how distasteful that truth is to the Twitterati) - so this Alex Chalekian, it's no wonder he's so disgusted with himself - he's not just selling out himself, not just selling out another actual man, but he's selling out on principles of decency and dignity - absolutely disgusting and pathetic millenial beta male behaviour - yes he should be disgusted with himself a pathetic excuse of "man".]
Sonya Dreizler, a consultant who attended most of the fireside chat, added: "Since this content is not about business issues, I’m choosing to break that code of privacy to confirm that the comments from the stage indeed were outrageous.”
[NOTE: Mutual beta signalling and morally vacuous excuse sharing. This is a clear example of the junction event which catalyzes the mob - which the beta signallers rely upon and assume. To millenial beta virtue signallers, The greatest #1 beta virtue signalling virtue is: "Who can be first to violate any trust, explicit or otherwise, and stab a good human in the back, especially any white male human nearby."]
... After reports of Fisher's comments made their rounds on Wednesday, Fisher followed up by telling Bloomberg: “I have given a lot of talks, a lot of times, in a lot of places and said stuff like this and never gotten that type of response. Mostly the audience understands what I am saying.”
“I regret I accepted that speech invitation because it was kind of a pain in the neck,” he continued. "I wonder if anybody will be candid at one of these Tiburon events again.”
... when asked what he would have done differently in his life, he said he would “have more sex.”
Create your world,
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:01:06PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:25:53 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
... billionaire Ken Fisher - whose firm manages more than $100 billion
should be beaten to death, shred into pieces and fed to the pigs.
Sounds reactionary. I don't know the guy, other than this recent snippet in the news. Is his crime "working within the current unethical financial system" - or "accumulating wealth more than $X" - or something else?
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:09:13 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:01:06PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:25:53 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
... billionaire Ken Fisher - whose firm manages more than $100 billion
should be beaten to death, shred into pieces and fed to the pigs.
Sounds reactionary. I don't know the guy, other than this recent snippet in the news.
Is his crime "working within the current unethical financial system" - or "accumulating wealth more than $X" - or something else?
by defintion his crime is stealing more than 1000 millions. That's the defintion of 'billionaire'. "working within the current unethical financial system" - what? I suggest you translate that to "robbing people blind". And by the way, "fisher" eh? sounds like a jakobo von moises-goldberg kind of surname...
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:35:21PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:09:13 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 08:01:06PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:25:53 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
... billionaire Ken Fisher - whose firm manages more than $100 billion
should be beaten to death, shred into pieces and fed to the pigs.
Sounds reactionary. I don't know the guy, other than this recent snippet in the news.
Is his crime "working within the current unethical financial system" - or "accumulating wealth more than $X" - or something else?
by defintion his crime is stealing more than 1000 millions. That's the defintion of 'billionaire'.
Stealing is a hefty accusation.
"working within the current unethical financial system" - what? I suggest you translate that to "robbing people blind". And by the way, "fisher" eh? sounds like a jakobo von moises-goldberg kind of surname...
Quite possibly. Those who presently rule, do so with unethical foundations. Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:52:07AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
... Those who presently rule, do so with unethical foundations.
Indeed.
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
Sure, if you allow making massive donations to charities, building out a national park system in Chile, and funding health research to qualify as "ethical." Rowling: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/j-k-rowling-drops-off-forbes-billionaires-... Chouinard: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/05/im-not-going-to-l... Feeney: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29238545 Chittilappilly: https://www.forbes.com/sites/naazneenkarmali/2019/01/24/why-a-former-billion... I didn't immediately find any American billionaires who gave it all away. Even the billionaires above seem to argue that money corrupts. Yet they manage to keep a moral compass, of some sort. Actually, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does quite a lot of good work, too. Wikipedia says they gave $28B, as of 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation - Greg
On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 18:02:10 -0700 Greg Newby <gbnewby@pglaf.org> wrote:
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
Sure, if you allow making massive donations to charities, building out a national park system in Chile, and funding health research to qualify as "ethical."
It doesn't matter if a criminal 'donates' a percentage of what he steals. He remains a thief. As a matter of fact those people 'donate' part of 'their' loot only because doing so helps their ability to commit crimes. It's good 'public relations', that's all.
I didn't immediately find any American billionaires who gave it all away. Even the billionaires above seem to argue that money corrupts. Yet they manage to keep a moral compass, of some sort.
a moral compass pointing to evil, yeah.
Actually, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does quite a lot of good work, too.
no it doesn't.
wikipedia says they gave $28B, as of 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
28 billions used to promote american imperialism.
- Greg
addendum : not only is microsoft a complete creation of the amerikan state thanks to state granted, so called 'intelectual property' monopoly. MS sell the garbage they 'produce' to governments worldwide. Which means their 'income' comes from taxation. And https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/us/politics/ai-microsoft-pentagon.html "Microsoft said on Friday that it would sell the military and intelligence agencies whatever advanced technologies they needed “to build a strong defense,” and in this 'context' the gates foundation is just another tool to expand the power of the biggest criminal organization on the planet - an organization composed of the american 'government' and the 'corporations' it creates. bottom line, the only good 'billionaires' are dead billionaires. Cue in Jim Bell's list.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 06:02:10PM -0700, Greg Newby wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 11:52:07AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
... Those who presently rule, do so with unethical foundations.
Indeed.
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
Sure, if you allow making massive donations to charities, building out a national park system in Chile, and funding health research to qualify as "ethical."
Rowling: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/j-k-rowling-drops-off-forbes-billionaires-...
Chouinard: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2017/12/05/im-not-going-to-l...
Feeney: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-29238545
Chittilappilly: https://www.forbes.com/sites/naazneenkarmali/2019/01/24/why-a-former-billion...
I didn't immediately find any American billionaires who gave it all away. Even the billionaires above seem to argue that money corrupts. Yet they manage to keep a moral compass, of some sort.
Actually, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation does quite a lot of good work, too. Wikipedia says they gave $28B, as of 2013: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
A lot / mostly to vaccinating brown children - two apropos articles below. Search for the "Georgian monoliths"... ----- Forwarded message from Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com> ----- From: Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 06:41:23 +1000 Subject: Highly toxic ingredients are deliberately formulated into mandatory vaccines so that you are forced to submit to being poisoned Highly toxic ingredients are deliberately formulated into mandatory vaccines so that you are forced to submit to being poisoned Thursday, October 10, 2019 by: Tracey Watson <https://www.naturalnews.com/author/traceyw> Mandatory vaccinations are a highly controversial subject. For years, medical propaganda has been conditioning us to believe that vaccines provide what is known as “herd immunity.” This propaganda teaches that if a significant proportion of the population is vaccinated against a disease then the whole community will be protected, including those who do not receive the vaccine. Based on this faulty premise, many states have passed laws making vaccinations mandatory – supposedly for the greater good of all. Many vaccine advocates go so far as to accuse those who refuse to be vaccinated of compromising the health of the entire community. However, decades after the first vaccines were created, history has proven that these toxic jabs do not confer a lifetime of immunity, which is why booster shots are now recommended for many vaccines. And the simple fact is that in addition to being ineffective, vaccines also carry serious risks and contain dangerous and ethically questionable ingredients. Yet, more and more states are passing laws making it mandatory for children to be vaccinated, even denying school entry to those who refuse to comply. It is therefore more important than ever to know exactly what vaccines are made of <https://thewashingtonstandard.com/you-wont-believe-whats-in-the-vaccines-being-discussed-for-mandatory-vaccinations/> and why we need to be extremely cautious about allowing healthcare workers to administer them to our children. *The science behind vaccines* There is a common misconception that being vaccinated simply entails being injected with a small amount of a disease so that the immune system can produce antibodies against it, thereby conferring lifelong immunity to the recipient. In reality, however, vaccines are manufactured using a host of ingredients that have serious side effects <https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-03-11-big-pharma-and-the-cdc-acknowledge-harmful-side-effects-of-vaccines.html>. In addition, many are made with fetal cells taken from aborted babies, which would shock and horrify many of the people who willingly allow their young children to be vaccinated. As reported by *Families 4 Vaccine Choice <https://families4vaccinechoice.home.blog/2019/06/04/vaccines-and-rna-what-is-it/> * (and confirmed by the CDC <https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf>), vaccines also contain serum derived from the blood of bovine fetuses, protein from human blood plasma, kidney epithelial cells extracted from African green monkeys, yeast DNA, yeast protein, Madin Darby canine kidney cells derived from an adult cocker spaniel, chicken fibroblasts, DNA taken from porcine circoviruses and other disgusting ingredients. Then, of course, there are the other controversial vaccine ingredients like mercury (thimerosal), formaldehyde and monosodium glutamate, which have all been linked to a host of adverse health effects. *Families 4 Vaccine Choice* explains how all of these vile ingredients are used to create vaccines: *Now we learn that with RNA … “DNA molecules from two different species are inserted into a host organism to produce new genetic combinations.” So that means they are splitting human DNA with the DNA of animals and aborted fetuses and then injecting it back into our bodies with the hopes that it will cause us to create the antigen needed to immunize us against a virus.* *Not all doctors support mandatory vaccinations* While the government and the mainstream media promote the idea that all healthcare professionals support vaccinations, nothing could be further from the truth. Natural health practitioners like naturopathic physicians and homeopaths have long warned against the negative effects of vaccines, and even many mainstream doctors are opposed to vaccinations, especially when they are forced on people. After all, it is a basic human right – as asserted by the *American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics* <https://www.naturalnews.com/048571_mandatory_vaccines_code_of_ethics_American_Medical_Association.html> – to choose whether or not to accept a risky medical procedure: *The patient should make his or her own determination about treatment… Informed consent is a basic policy in both ethics and law that physicians must honor, unless the patient is unconscious or otherwise incapable of consenting and harm from failure to treat is imminent.* ----- End forwarded message ----- ----- Forwarded message from Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com> ----- From: Gil May <gilmay97@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 06:58:37 +1000 Subject: WHO admits polio outbreak in the Philippines caused by polio vaccines…outbreak “caused by vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2” WHO admits polio outbreak in the Philippines caused by polio vaccines… outbreak “caused by vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2” Wednesday, October 09, 2019 by: Mike Adams <https://www.naturalnews.com/author/healthranger> The polio vaccine has caused an escalating outbreak of polio in the Philippines, according to the World Health Organization and UNICEF, which issued a joint statement admitting the vaccine is causing polio. “WHO and UNICEF said in a joint statement the polio outbreak in the Philippines is concerning because it is caused by vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2,” writes the Associated Press <https://apnews.com/d954ca949bf34124bc980d4e2f732b16>. “The weakened virus used in vaccines replicates for a short time in children’s intestines and is excreted in their feces.” Polio vaccines are often cited as a success story proving that vaccines work to eliminate infectious disease. In truth, *nearly all the cases of polio in the modern world are caused by polio vaccines* themselves. Stated plainly, more cases of polio are caused by polio vaccines than from wild polio. *Polio vaccines are creating “super polio” strains that threaten humanity* Oral polio vaccines are actually “spawning virulent strains” of polioviruses, reports Children’s Health Defense <https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/childrens-health/polio-vaccination-still-causing-polio-after-all-these-years/> : *The alarming surge in vaccine-derived polio cases presents vaccine planners with a “quandary” or “conundrum”—because “The very tool you are using for [polio] eradication is causing the problem.” …Vaccine researchers have long known that these OPV-derived viruses can themselves cause polio, particularly when they get “loose in the environment.”* The Associated Press story admits that it has been over 25 years since polio in the Philippines was contracted from a “wild strain.” Since 1993, *all the cases of polio in the Philippines have been caused by polio vaccines*. Via AP: * [T]he last known case from a wild strain of the virus in the * Philippines was in 1993…* *Associated Press admits vaccines kill children* The AP also admits that vaccines kill children: *The government’s immunization programs were marred in 2017 by a dengue fever vaccine made by French drugmaker Sanofi Pasteur which some Philippine officials linked to the deaths of at least three children. Duque and other Philippine health officials say they have worked to restore public trust in vaccines since then.* Even worse, as the AP admits, vaccines for dengue fever were actually found to *increase the risk of severe dengue infections*: *The government halted the dengue immunization drive after Sanofi said a study showed the vaccine may increase the risk of severe dengue infections. More than 830,000 children received the Dengvaxia vaccine under the campaign, which was launched in 2016 and halted in 2017. Sanofi officials said the Dengvaxia vaccine was safe and would reduce dengue infections if the vaccination drive continued.* *Vaccine “science” is a fraud* Modern vaccine “science” is a total fraud. Vaccines kill or maim millions of children around the world each year, yet any journalist who investigates the toxicity of vaccine ingredients or the science fraud behind vaccine propaganda is immediately banned from all major tech platforms, including Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest and even Vimeo. No facts about vaccines are allowed to be shared or discussed. The corrupt, criminally-operated vaccine industry controls the narrative across all tech giants — including Wikipedia — as well as Hollywood, universities and medical journals. The vaccine industry *murders children for profit*, then silences anyone who works to protect children from the scourge of dangerous immunizations carried out with toxic ingredients like aborted human fetal tissue, aluminum, mercury and chemical adjuvants. Watch this shocking video revealing the truth about aborted human fetal cells used in vaccines, totally admitted by the CDC and vaccine manufacturers: https://www.brighteon.com/034ebfcb-5bf8-4bcf-abf2-ee106a2eecba ----- End forwarded message -----
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:52:07 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote: .
Stealing is a hefty accusation.
dude. are you trying to troll me or what
"working within the current unethical financial system" - what? I suggest you translate that to "robbing people blind". And by the way, "fisher" eh? sounds like a jakobo von moises-goldberg kind of surname...
Quite possibly.
Those who presently rule, do so with unethical foundations.
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
no - there's no way for a single person to earn 'billions' in a free market. It's completely impossible to be filthy rich without being incredibly criminal.
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:21:48PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:52:07 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Stealing is a hefty accusation.
dude. are you trying to troll me or what
"working within the current unethical financial system" - what? I suggest you translate that to "robbing people blind". And by the way, "fisher" eh? sounds like a jakobo von moises-goldberg kind of surname...
Quite possibly.
Those who presently rule, do so with unethical foundations.
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
no - there's no way for a single person to earn 'billions' in a free market. It's completely impossible to be filthy rich without being incredibly criminal.
So which sort of "digital coins" systems, are ethical to roll out?
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:15:11 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
no - there's no way for a single person to earn 'billions' in a free market. It's completely impossible to be filthy rich without being incredibly criminal.
So which sort of "digital coins" systems, are ethical to roll out?
well, no system can fix the prvious/current criminal allocation of 'property rights'. Something like bitcoin can prevent further looting through inflation but it can't fix previous looting. And as seen, bitcoin has introduced its own skewed 'distribution of wealth'. Not to mention the fact that bitcoin has been successfully attacked by the american govt and its subsidiary 'coinbase'. So what sort of digital coin can fix all those problems? I obviously don't know =)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:35:20AM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:15:11 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
no - there's no way for a single person to earn 'billions' in a free market. It's completely impossible to be filthy rich without being incredibly criminal.
So which sort of "digital coins" systems, are ethical to roll out?
well, no system can fix the prvious/current criminal allocation of 'property rights'. Something like bitcoin can prevent further looting through inflation but it can't fix previous looting. And as seen, bitcoin has introduced its own skewed 'distribution of wealth'. Not to mention the fact that bitcoin has been successfully attacked by the american govt and its subsidiary 'coinbase'.
So what sort of digital coin can fix all those problems? I obviously don't know =)
Well that's the question isn't it... Humans seem prima facie inclined to engage in transactions of "currency" (e.g. fiats) or "money" (fiats, gold and silver coin, digital coin, etc). As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson, hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology, and indicate strongly the pyramidal distribution of wealth, status and mating opportunities. AKA "skewed distribution of wealth". So, I want to know what JuanCoin looks like - and I (really or 'in principle') don't care whether it has any of the following properties, except that they satisfy Juan :) - inflation/ deflation/ stagflation - phys backed/ pure fiat/ combo - central-/ pure-decentral-/ combo- mintage - use X or Y electrons per unit of JuanCoin minted - and any other axis of interest Until we lay out the parameters of acceptable, our pot shots at "every attempt thus far" may appear a little thin in reasoning - let's rectify that.
I very much doubt any money system can fix the economic and social environment within which its embedded. A more effective lever for change is to make unnecessary as many of the current economic underpinnings as possible. One likely approach is the development, to practicality and widespread application, of APM (Atomically Precise Manufacturing), i.e. nanotech. If APM can largely eliminate supply chains, especially non-local, and make communities (or even individuals) practically independent (i.e. off-ecconomic as well as off-grid) then the economic and social pyramid could greatly flatten and deny small numbers their privileged positions. On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, 7:12 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:35:20AM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:15:11 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Can there be such a thing as an "ethical billionaire"?
no - there's no way for a single person to earn 'billions' in a free market. It's completely impossible to be filthy rich without being incredibly criminal.
So which sort of "digital coins" systems, are ethical to roll out?
well, no system can fix the prvious/current criminal allocation of 'property rights'. Something like bitcoin can prevent further looting through inflation but it can't fix previous looting. And as seen, bitcoin has introduced its own skewed 'distribution of wealth'. Not to mention the fact that bitcoin has been successfully attacked by the american govt and its subsidiary 'coinbase'.
So what sort of digital coin can fix all those problems? I obviously don't know =)
Well that's the question isn't it...
Humans seem prima facie inclined to engage in transactions of "currency" (e.g. fiats) or "money" (fiats, gold and silver coin, digital coin, etc).
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson, hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology, and indicate strongly the pyramidal distribution of wealth, status and mating opportunities.
AKA "skewed distribution of wealth".
So, I want to know what JuanCoin looks like - and I (really or 'in principle') don't care whether it has any of the following properties, except that they satisfy Juan :)
- inflation/ deflation/ stagflation
- phys backed/ pure fiat/ combo
- central-/ pure-decentral-/ combo- mintage
- use X or Y electrons per unit of JuanCoin minted
- and any other axis of interest
Until we lay out the parameters of acceptable, our pot shots at "every attempt thus far" may appear a little thin in reasoning - let's rectify that.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 09:40:56 +0100 Steven Schear <schear.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
One likely approach is the development, to practicality and widespread application, of APM (Atomically Precise Manufacturing), i.e. nanotech. If APM can largely eliminate supply chains, especially non-local, and make communities (or even individuals) practically independent
you are not thinking what you say AT ALL are you? Or are you making that sort of completely misleading claim on purpose? Here's a shocking fact for you : the more sophisticated a technical system is, THE MORE CENTRALIZED it is. You are never going to get access to tools that are designed to CONTROL YOU.
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:11:52 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Well that's the question isn't it...
no the question was your retarded comments on that fisher scumbag, doubting the self-evident fact that he is a thief to the tune of BILLIONS of stolen 'dollars'.
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson,
ok - so you still are a shill for that piece of right wing shit. Ergo, you are the problem.
hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology,
yep, you are the very source of the problem. I'm getting tired of your constant flip floping. Go suck peterson's cock, trump's cock and putin's cock. And I already pointed out that gold coins are a lot better than any form of 'crypto currency'.
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 02:01:21PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 17:11:52 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Well that's the question isn't it...
no the question was your retarded comments on that fisher scumbag, doubting the self-evident fact that he is a thief to the tune of BILLIONS of stolen 'dollars'.
Admittedly it was a new question - what does JuanCoin look like. Looks like phys gold and silver ...
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson,
ok - so you still are a shill for that piece of right wing shit. Ergo, you are the problem.
Just because person X says something incorrect, does not mean that everything person X says must therefore be incorrect.
hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology,
yep, you are the very source of the problem. I'm getting tired of your constant flip floping. Go suck peterson's cock, trump's cock and putin's cock.
Hierarchies are compelling science. Actual science. Including math. You don't have to believe in hierarchies for hierarchies to exist. Yes that's a self evident trolling statement, but a fair troll on the face of it: Hierarchies -are- rather fundamental to our biology. You don't have to deal with it, nor accept it, nor dispute it, nor take or not take any position on that, for that fact to be true.
And I already pointed out that gold coins are a lot better than any form of 'crypto currency'.
Yes, gold and silver, acceptable coinage. Many would agree. I happen to agree. And gold and silver coin are perhaps the only reasonable foundation for any digital coin.
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:18:53 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson,
ok - so you still are a shill for that piece of right wing shit. Ergo, you are the problem.
Just because person X says something incorrect, does not mean that everything person X says must therefore be incorrect.
I didn't claim that's the case. I do claim that person X making some outrageous and blatantly false claims, and then ignoring counterarguments is proof that person X is not a legitimate intelectual actor. He is a fraud.
hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology,
yep, you are the very source of the problem. I'm getting tired of your constant flip floping. Go suck peterson's cock, trump's cock and putin's cock.
Hierarchies are compelling science.
yop don't know what 'science' means. Your statement makes as much sense as saying "the sky is a pink cake".
Actual science. Including math.
Yes, MATH! A = A ergo 'hierarchies' Dig yourself deeper? Nah, don't waste my time and yours.
And I already pointed out that gold coins are a lot better than any form of 'crypto currency'.
Yes, gold and silver, acceptable coinage. Many would agree. I happen to agree.
And gold and silver coin are perhaps the only reasonable foundation for any digital coin.
I wouldn't put too much 'faith' in such a system. The moment you exchange actual real physical coins for some digital IOU you have a problem. Though admitedly the problem may be mitigated in a libertarian culture. You know, the exact opposite culture of what we have now.
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 02:17:24PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 10:18:53 +1100 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson,
ok - so you still are a shill for that piece of right wing shit. Ergo, you are the problem.
Just because person X says something incorrect, does not mean that everything person X says must therefore be incorrect.
I didn't claim that's the case. I do claim that person X making some outrageous and blatantly false claims, and then ignoring counterarguments is proof that person X is not a legitimate intelectual actor. He is a fraud.
And all I said is "as we recently learned from X" - how is that shilling?
hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology,
yep, you are the very source of the problem. I'm getting tired of your constant flip floping. Go suck peterson's cock, trump's cock and putin's cock.
Hierarchies are compelling science.
yop don't know what 'science' means.
That's one of those problematic, dichomatic absolutes - you might have a problem with pareto distributions, but they exist; ignoring that is not useful.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying "the sky is a pink cake".
Actual science. Including math.
Yes, MATH! A = A ergo 'hierarchies'
Dig yourself deeper? Nah, don't waste my time and yours.
Certainly. Pareto distributions. We cannot avoid them. Except perhaps with some fascist dictatorship which immediately institutes the problematic hiearchy we're "trying to get rid of". "Hierarchies in action" - we can't avoid them.
And I already pointed out that gold coins are a lot better than any form of 'crypto currency'.
Yes, gold and silver, acceptable coinage. Many would agree. I happen to agree.
And gold and silver coin are perhaps the only reasonable foundation for any digital coin.
I wouldn't put too much 'faith' in such a system. The moment you exchange actual real physical coins for some digital IOU you have a problem. Though admitedly the problem may be mitigated in a libertarian culture. You know, the exact opposite culture of what we have now.
Ack.
Soo much complete bullshit from Zenaan as usual. See below for those others interested in knowledge. On 10/10/19 11:11 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Well that's the question isn't it...
Humans seem prima facie inclined to engage in transactions of "currency" (e.g. fiats) or "money" (fiats, gold and silver coin, digital coin, etc).
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson, hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology, and indicate strongly the pyramidal distribution of wealth, status and mating opportunities.
AKA "skewed distribution of wealth".
Off the top of my head: People have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and have lived in all sorts of different civilizations and social structures. The world is of much bigger scope than Zenaan permits; humans have much more range than benzo addict Jordan Peterson yelling about lobsters and hoping to hoard even more commodities/bananas. Indus Valley Civilization lacked military/security forces, very little wealth disparity, very little hierarchy, no priests, very peaceful. We have recently learned from benzo addict Jordan Peterson that he is an idiot. Here, think of this. Trade versus sharing. Obviously, especially older generations, will automatically hear "sharing" and think "Soviet Union" or "communism" but there are other real-life models for actual sharing. Imagine you are on a road trip with three friends. Four individuals in the vehicle. You all have a single bag of 100 kale chips. Communism is when one of these four becomes a dictator and says "each person gets exactly 25 kale chips because we're all [supposedly] equal, (though perhaps a few extra kale chips for me)" and anyone who disagrees is killed, etc. USian anarchists insisting on rebranding history to fuel their attempts at celebrity cstatus all this "State communism" because then they can agree with their constitutencies of rank-and-file idiots that "communism is a good thing", but most people know better about the failures of communism, etc. Trade (such as capitalism, yes not just crony capitalism, jim bell), is when you gesture to your ingroup friend in the car that you'd like to have some kale chips too and he says "$5 or GTFO." Suddenly you are an outgroup on this roadtrip. You don't belong anymore; you've been shunned. You have to provide dolla dolla bill up front to your former friends because you can no longer sit with them etc. Trade is when you go to the deli and say "Fuck you, I paid the five dollars, give me my goddamn reuben" and you get your sandwich without having to ponder, associate with, or help the dead factory farm animals, the workers cleaning the deli, the homeless person who hangs out in the deli, etc. It's just fuck you I paid give me my sandwich. Trade = outgrouping; sharing = ingrouping. Forget the communism crap, I had to clarify since "sharing" automatically triggers "communism" in people's impressionable brains, you know this world where we all go around murmuring "invisible hand" or "proletariat" because dead guys wrote those words down hundreds of years ago. So just normal sharing. Like little kids usually do. Sharing is what ingroups do. It's fluid custodianship of assets. In this roadtrip case, the assets are the 100 kale chips to be distributed/allocated during the course of the road trip. The road trippers share the kale chips according to respect, approval, logic, etc, because they are in-group folks. Maybe the driver needs a few extra because the driver is tired from focusing on the road. Maybe the one passenger with high blood pressure needs to not have so many salty chips, so the other 3 subtly and semi-automatically look out for this person, making sure this person doesn't have too many kale chips. This is all sort of natural and automatic and the situation is dynamically refreshed constantly. Maybe the car breaks down so everyone becomes more careful to save the kale chips. This sort of sharing is what ingroups do, not just road trips but also families, officeworkers in an office setting familiar to them, etc. We're all familiar with this. Imagine you are working in a computer firm office and suddenly one secretary demands the other secretary fork over $2 for the good pencil with the eraser left on it. No, obviously, these employees see each other as ingroup so they share the good pencil on an as-needed basis and refresh the situation according to life's contingencies. Maybe someone gets shunned or the dynamically refreshed situation changes, everyone decides to burn down their employer, leak all the documents, strike, or whatever. Trade is what outgroups do. I don't trust you, so I'm not gonna do X for you unless you do Y for me. And those most skilled at trading rise to the top of this, as lobster fanatic and benzo addict Jordan Peterson screams, but did you know for hundreds of thousands of years not all of life is based on trade? Over time in ideal circumstances trade might lead to the traders becoming ingroup with each other, ending the trade, and starting up sharing / fluid custodianship of assets. But in today's world the deli never changes because of overwhelming social control exerted by corporations, states, etc. You have to trade for the reuben, even though the deli worker behind the counter has come to know you from your regular stops and y'all share good tidings with each other, friendly comments on the rainy weather, etc. The sharing prosocial world and the trade antisocial world exist side by side every time you stop at the deli counter, two vibes or spheres uncomfortably overlapping. Trade means non-traders, such as very disabled individuals or infants or elderly, are forced to rely on shameful charity rather than being treated as integral parts of the ingroup. Today in the capitalist ideal, everyone is their own 'sole proprietor' of an outgroup of everyone else, 7.5 billion outgroups all competing, except for say families, or when people start forming ingroups, as they do in so many situations. You can tell trade is stupid for ingroups because it doesn't include automatically infants and elderly etc. Able-bodied white people with no kids please! Yeah, let's base all the rules on 30 year olds and just kick infants and elderly to the curb with shameful charity. Makes a lot of fucking sense as a lifelong, generations-long strategy /sarcasm. "Where there's justice, there's no need for charity." -- Wollstonecraft We need a global commons for public data so we can organize effectively to knowledgeably replace the social structures, not just cheering on corporate Twitter etc when the current ones continue to collapse (and then when our number's up screaming that we deserve more cryptocoin to float our own particular outgroup boat), and so there can be a literate population that can maintain individual autonomy (which means so much more than trade but also cooking skill, traveling skill, etc etc) through individual rights but also be informed in agreeing to social contracts etc because we're simultaneously very social creatures. Stuff you should read for more similar or similar-ish to the above: Peter Gelderloos: _Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation_ Heather Marsh: _Autonomy, Diversity, Society_ and _Binding Chaos_ and https://getgee.xyz Ursula K Le Guin: "The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction", _The Dispossessed_
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:26:38PM -0700, Douglas Lucas wrote:
Soo much complete bullshit from Zenaan as usual. See below for those others interested in knowledge.
On 10/10/19 11:11 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Well that's the question isn't it...
Humans seem prima facie inclined to engage in transactions of "currency" (e.g. fiats) or "money" (fiats, gold and silver coin, digital coin, etc).
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson, hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology, and indicate strongly the pyramidal distribution of wealth, status and mating opportunities.
AKA "skewed distribution of wealth".
Off the top of my head:
People have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and have lived in all sorts of different civilizations and social structures. The world is of much bigger scope than Zenaan permits; humans have much more range than benzo addict Jordan Peterson yelling about lobsters and hoping to hoard even more commodities/bananas.
Indus Valley Civilization lacked military/security forces, very little wealth disparity, very little hierarchy, no priests, very peaceful.
"very little hierarchy" Certainly not none. Choose any value, and you immediately, inherently create the following hiearchies: - the hiearchy of individuals capable of embodying and living that value to a greater/ lesser degree that other individuals - same for groups in relation to other groups "Who's the greater Buddhist" You can throw straw men around till the cows come home ("Zenaan does not permit a bigger scope in the world that the specific sentence he spoke...") and you can assert similar false limitations of thought and conversation upon anyone else you choose (Jordan Peterson in your above paragraph) but doing these things just demonstrates your position in the hierarchy of those capable of making an ass of themselves by using straw men arguments. Knock yourself out...
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:26:38PM -0700, Douglas Lucas wrote: ...
We need a global commons for public data so we can organize effectively to knowledgeably replace the social structures, not just cheering on corporate Twitter etc when the current ones continue to collapse (and then when our number's up screaming that we deserve more cryptocoin to float our own particular outgroup boat), and so there can be a literate population that can maintain individual autonomy (which means so much more than trade but also cooking skill, traveling skill, etc etc) through individual rights but also be informed in agreeing to social contracts etc because we're simultaneously very social creatures.
Stuff you should read for more similar or similar-ish to the above:
Peter Gelderloos: _Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation_
Heather Marsh: _Autonomy, Diversity, Society_ and _Binding Chaos_ and https://getgee.xyz
Ursula K Le Guin: "The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction", _The Dispossessed_
BTW, thanks for the reading list. Appreciated - especially with your effective/implicit commentary to hint at the content. Have a good one and create our world heh,
On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 04:26:38PM -0700, Douglas Lucas wrote:
Soo much complete bullshit from Zenaan as usual. See below for those others interested in knowledge.
On 10/10/19 11:11 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Humans seem prima facie inclined to engage in transactions of "currency" (e.g. fiats) or "money" (fiats, gold and silver coin, digital coin, etc).
As we recently learnted from Jordan Peterson, hierarchies are rather fundamental to our biology, and indicate strongly the pyramidal distribution of wealth, status and mating opportunities.
AKA "skewed distribution of wealth".
... Trade is what outgroups do. I don't trust you, so I'm not gonna do X for you unless you do Y for me. And those most skilled at trading rise to the top of this, as lobster fanatic and benzo addict Jordan Peterson screams, but did you know for hundreds of thousands of years not all of life is based on trade?
Did somebody say "all of life is based on trade"? Perhaps you read some other email than the one you thought you were replying to? Pareto distributions however: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution Originally applied to describing the distribution of wealth in a society, fitting the trend that a large portion of wealth is held by a small fraction of the population, the Pareto distribution has colloquially become known and referred to as the Pareto principle, or "80-20 rule", and is sometimes called the "Matthew principle". This rule states that, for example, 80% of the wealth of a society is held by 20% of its population. However, one should not conflate the Pareto distribution for the Pareto Principle as the former only produces this result for a particular power value, α {\displaystyle \alpha } \alpha (α = log45 ≈ 1.16). While α {\displaystyle \alpha } \alpha is variable, empirical observation has found the 80-20 distribution to fit a wide range of cases, including natural phenomena and human activities. pretty much all of biological life is characterised by pareto distributions. Those third sigma alpha lobsters are going to metaphorically bite you (us), to the extent at least that we ignore this part of our shared reality.
Over time in ideal circumstances trade might lead to the traders becoming ingroup with each other, ending the trade, and starting up sharing / fluid custodianship of assets. But in today's world the deli never changes because of overwhelming social control exerted by corporations, states, etc. You have to trade for the reuben, even though the deli worker behind the counter has come to know you from your regular stops and y'all share good tidings with each other, friendly comments on the rainy weather, etc. The sharing prosocial world and the trade antisocial world exist side by side every time you stop at the deli counter, two vibes or spheres uncomfortably overlapping.
Sometimes, and sadly, yes. However, many of us have a fine first hand example of at least the beginnings of "a sharing culture" in the guise of FLOSS. For some, significance, good feels, social status, and possibly even actual altruism, is sufficient to create in the software realm and give ones creations away.
Trade means non-traders, such as very disabled individuals or infants or elderly, are forced to rely on shameful charity rather than being treated as integral parts of the ingroup. Today in the capitalist ideal, everyone is their own 'sole proprietor' of an outgroup of everyone else, 7.5 billion outgroups all competing, except for say families, or when people start forming ingroups, as they do in so many situations. You can tell trade is stupid for ingroups because it doesn't include automatically infants and elderly etc. Able-bodied white people with no kids please! Yeah, let's base all the rules on 30 year olds and just kick infants and elderly to the curb with shameful charity. Makes a lot of fucking sense as a lifelong, generations-long strategy /sarcasm. "Where there's justice, there's no need for charity." -- Wollstonecraft
Our present world leaves a lot of humanity by the wayside, and many suffer for it - including able bodied childless individual (i-divide-u-all) "consumers" - there are more and more examples these days where this dynamic hits women in their early to mid 30s pretty hard - they realise that their attractive fertile years have been wasted on the cock carousel (muh individual freedom/ fun/ good life) and that such a narcissistic lifestyle is not exactly fulfilling - certainly not in later years - "freedom from" parents, grand children, a true support network which family provides. Some funny dating site ads pop up on daily stormer here and there, e.g. the 18 year old "wanna be model" looking for a fit handsome billionaire "who must be socialist", or the late-30s ex porn "star" (initially advertised as "professionally successful woman seeking to settle down") hoping for life long love and support for her and her child, now that her "best" years are behind her.
We need a global commons for public data so we can organize effectively to knowledgeably replace the social structures, not just cheering on corporate Twitter etc when the current ones continue to collapse (and then when our number's up screaming that we deserve more cryptocoin to float our own particular outgroup boat), and so there can be a literate population that can maintain individual autonomy (which means so much more than trade but also cooking skill, traveling skill, etc etc) through individual rights but also be informed in agreeing to social contracts etc because we're simultaneously very social creatures.
Stability or "structure" in relation to ones physical existence implies or needs/requires: - actual capacity to support one's own existence (food, water, medicine, shelter) - 'genuine' relationships in meat space, since the above is either a fair bit more work, or not enjoyable/ what's the point anyway - motivation to live, to actually stay alive, e.g. to care for parents, grandparents, children etc - to contribute to others in one's community or "in group" - freedom to do the above things pursuant to one's will
Stuff you should read for more similar or similar-ish to the above:
Peter Gelderloos: _Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation_
Heather Marsh: _Autonomy, Diversity, Society_ and _Binding Chaos_ and https://getgee.xyz
Ursula K Le Guin: "The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction", _The Dispossessed_
Let's create our world,
Also, Frank Chorodov: Why the State destroys Society, The Rise and Fall of Society. https://mises.org/library/rise-and-fall-society https://mises.org/profile/frank-chodorov On Sun, Oct 13, 2019, 12:27 AM Douglas Lucas <dal@riseup.net> wrote:
Stuff you should read for more similar or similar-ish to the above:
Peter Gelderloos: _Worshiping Power: An Anarchist View of Early State Formation_
Heather Marsh: _Autonomy, Diversity, Society_ and _Binding Chaos_ and https://getgee.xyz
Ursula K Le Guin: "The Carrier Bag Theory of Fiction", _The Dispossessed_
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:26:38 -0700 Douglas Lucas <dal@riseup.net> wrote:
We have recently learned from benzo addict Jordan Peterson that he is an idiot.
recently...? Maybe that was sarcasm I guess.
Communism is when one of these four becomes a dictator and says "each person gets exactly 25 kale chips because we're all [supposedly] equal, (though perhaps a few extra kale chips for me)" and anyone who disagrees is killed, etc. USian anarchists insisting on rebranding history to fuel their attempts at celebrity cstatus all this "State communism" because then they can agree with their constitutencies of rank-and-file idiots that "communism is a good thing", but most people know better about the failures of communism, etc.
there are no anarchists in the facsist cesspool known as teh US, but the distinction between state communism and 'voluntary' communism is a valid one at some level.
Trade (such as capitalism, yes not just crony capitalism, jim bell),
trade means that people exchange their property voluntary. The other option is known as theft. So called crony capitalism is heavily based on various form of theft.
is when you gesture to your ingroup friend in the car that you'd like to have some kale chips too and he says "$5 or GTFO." Suddenly you are an outgroup on this roadtrip. You don't belong anymore; you've been shunned. You have to provide dolla dolla bill up front to your former friends because you can no longer sit with them etc.
your little story is of course nonsense that assumes that the food is just magically there.
Trade = > outgrouping; sharing = ingrouping.
so jordan's stupidity is explained by benzo - what drug is responsible for your stupidity?
Forget the communism crap, I had to clarify since "sharing" automatically triggers "communism" in people's impressionable brains,
.....
In this roadtrip case, the assets are the 100 kale chips to be distributed/allocated during the course of the road trip.
yeah, and where did the 'assets' come from eh? Did some feminazi cunt god magically created them or something?
Trade is what outgroups do.
who the fuck gave you the right redefine the meaning of any word?
We need a global commons for public data
the fuck could that be? Something run by some 'sharing' version of the NSA I guess?
These instances of being forced to step down from corporations due to non-adjudicated claims need to be prevented in corporate bylaws which cannot be amended or removed without re-incorporation. This would provide needed backbone to board members. On Thu, Oct 10, 2019, 8:40 AM Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
Heated mega discussion ongoing at LWN at the moment.
Here's a fundamental:
Richard Stallman and the GNU project https://lwn.net/Articles/801933/ Posted Oct 10, 2019 7:34 UTC (Thu) by zenaan (subscriber, #3778)
"dkg":
Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior (and dismissal of other contributors when they disagree with him). Can you see why this is might be an indicator that a leadership role isn't the right role for him if we want a healthy, growing, vibrant community that will defend everyone's Freedoms?
"frostsnow":
His leadership role was created and earned by his dedication to the cause of Free Software. I am not convinced that any of these agitators are both able and willing to bear that burden.
OK "frostsnow" - I am fully on board with your position, and you missed a fundamental - miss the fundamental and your "give me convenience and bugger off with your freedom politics" opponents WILL walk all over you!
NOTE: The ground was laid by your opponent with these words: "Richard has persistently, willfully ignored the impact of his sexist behavior"; these words epitomize the endemic disregard for freedom of speech in the world today, and the widespread "snowflake" demands to "consider the feelings of those who hear or might hear your words, and don't speak if they might get upset".
This ground is absolutely abominable - on the surface it sounds nice and fluffy "consider the emotions of others", but inherent is the implicit DEMAND that the world cower to emotionally and/or psychologically weak, damaged or ill people who need emotional and/or psychological healing, counselling, etc, just to function in society.
SUCH IS AN UNFAIR TACTIC - a tactic used by those who cannot properly defend their own position otherwise, a low blow against basic human rights - the right to freedom of communication, which implies the right to say things which other's may find offensive.
Give up freedom for "safety or safe spaces", and you WILL eventually lose both!
The strong (e.g. RMS) are asked to water down everything they say that might be "sexist" "racist" or in any other way "emotionally too challenging", so that "those who are weak and timid might find the safe space to contribute to our community".
This demand, and the faux "consider the weak" so called "principle", is the sledge hammer used to suppress free expression, to suppress free speech, and to suppress views, positions and arguments which "differ from mine, but I cannot defend without unfair tactics".
THIS IS AN ENDEMIC PROBLEM we see all throughout the mainstream media today.
The strong and the principled are pummeled into submission under the excuse of "think of the weaklings" which is just the modern day variant of "think of the children" - a pathetic attempt, usually successful, to appeal to base or raw emotional instinctive reactions thus bypassing the critical and reasoning faculties of the human mind.
"Discrimination" used to be an admired thing. Now discrimination is "evil" in the popular consciousness, and those who discriminate are evil patriarchy.
And the true evil is that the vilification of "those who discriminate" is effectively to justify evil - in this "RMS case", the evil 'means' of "vilify RMS, humiliate him by causing his resignation from the FSF which HE FOUNDED, and effectively destroy his present career" is justified by the ends "we will finally have our utopian 'community' where everyone is welcomed, even emotionally crippled and psychologically ill humans - yay for community!"
RMS implicitly asks all who cross his path to be robust enough to hear contra views, contra positions, to be willing to be challenged in their thinking, to be possibly offended in the hearing of something they did not expect to hear - words, not sticks and stones!
Those who cannot challenge RMS' "freedom politics" (really, his principles so true, so fundamental that these principles cannot be successfully challenged), have stooped to using snowflake technology to belligerantly hammer Stallman and those like him into the ground, whilst feeling powerful with the mob of much of the main stream world behind them, heedless of the candles of truth and righteousness they snuff out with their egotistical will to destroy "freedom politics" in the name of "muh convenience and muh better software."
If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything.
Create your world,
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 05:38:16PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 11:26:23AM -0400, Ric Moore wrote:
On 9/17/19 9:56 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
RMS, founder and originator of the Free Software Foundation, did not have sufficient support for his simple and straightforward words about words used to conflate or mislead readers (or listeners) about Epstein or anyone else for that matter, and RMS has now resigned from the FSF.
Would you trust RMS to babysit your 8 year old daughter? I bet not. His biggest problem is that he has spouted off for way too many years without being hauled to task for what comes forth from his mouth. He's an idiot, plain and simple, for ignoring "convention" and separating himself from "polite society". No need for me to go into detail, it's all just a google away. Ric
Actually yes and without hesitation - I hosted RMS in Sydney some 20 years ago (spent a few days with him in total), and despite him being a little "conversationally confronting", including to me personally, he was principled, precise, and caring of other humans, all to a fault.
He gets taken the wrong way sometimes and I get that - haven't we all?
So I did a google for "rms stallman egregious" and came up with the below -- all I can see is talk of "precise", email, discussion, and -implications- therein.
And some people got upset or felt confronted and ultimately hold that RMS "should be taken down" and that "it's good RMS lost his job at the FSF, who gives a rat's arse if he founded it".
Neither robust, nor permitting of robust conversations, nor "intellectually honest", as far as I can tell!
I believe it is NOT appropriate that we lynch anyone merely for differing points of view!
This is freedom of speech at its absolute most basic.
Either we hold to the principle, or we are sluts to safe spaces, cowering pathetically to the snowflakes of the world.
No, thank you, but no. Really, no! That is not me.
Here's to the right of not only RMS, but you, I and everyone else, to say and argue for and against, whatetever they bloody well choose to.
This is the world -I- want to live in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StallmanWasRight/comments/d7v1kf/a_reflection_on_th...
While it is true we should not treat Minsky unfairly, it was not — and is not — a pressing concern, and by making it his concern, RMS signaled clearly that it was much more important to him than the question of the institution’s patterns of problematic coddling of bad behavior.
RMS did merely take part in a mailing list discussion, it's the media that blew it up. It's not like he stepped on a pedestal, creating big signals. It's about as public as talking to people in a coffee shop with a journalist eaves dropping in the background.
It's a shame really, we can only have those slick politician like lizard tongue PR people in leading positions. The most important quality today is being dishonest and persuasive at the same time, getting away with it.
That's how we got the corporate landscape today, that late stage capitalism where politics, media and industry are all alike, all keeping each other in position rather than in check, all infected with the disease of our times. It's disgusting, one ticket to the moon please...
[And the 3rd comment, most poignant indeed:]
I don't understand why society has accepted this concept of "you said a thing I don't like so you don't get to have a job anymore". Like what does one's personal opinions have to do with their job, as long as they're doing their job why does it matter.
[And perhaps most telling - the "ba da bing, ba da BOOM":]
Per Wikipedia, this guy [A KEY RECENT COMPLAINTANT ABOUT RMS] was fired by Stallman in 2001 for failing to perform any work or respond to emails. Did he last speak to Stallman 18 years ago? If not, when? I'd take this account with a huge grain of very salty salt!
https://www.reddit.com/r/badlinguistics/comments/cr2en6/i_generally_support_...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21055756
That's what makes me so furious at the morons who deplatformed RMS over some silly devil's advocate defense of Minsky on an internal mailing list. The guy has an important idea that he put most of his life into developing. In the process, he made programming much more inclusive than anyone could dream about in the days of proprietary operating system with compilers that sold for thousands of dollars. So even if having to deal with a difficult old man makes you feel a little less inclusive, it's not too crazy to give him some breaks. The kids who ran him out of town only know how to destroy, not how to create anything comparable to what he did.
... It wasn't just this incident. RMS alienated so many women from open source and free software over the last 30 years, and we've lost all of those potential contributions. He's been getting breaks for 30 years.
That he has also done some very good things isn't a good argument for continuing to tolerate his harmful behaviour after he's been asked to fix it for literally decades, and hasn't.
...
Which things specifically, and in what way?
Saying that we shouldn't call sexual assault "sexual assault", and implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.
The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre perpetuates rape culture. It perpetuates the idea that women are worth less than men, and that it's okay for famous men in CS to rape girls. That emboldens other rapists and makes CS very unwelcoming for rape victims.
Minsky should have known. Implying there's any way what he did was okay creates an unwelcoming environment for women, especially young women and girls at MIT.
(Background and links from https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-fec6ec21... )
...
implying that there's any way a rich, famous, 73-year-old man can "have sex with" (rape) a 17-year-old girl, whom he has extraordinary power over, and who, in in this case was his friend's trafficking victim.
...what are the scare quotes for? Is "have sex with" not a definitional superset of "rape"? As far as I can tell, Stallman does not assert that Giuffre was not raped, only that Minsky would probably not have known. (As far as he knew, she could equally have been one year older and legally, voluntarily engaged in prostitution...?) You could argue that (and I think that if Minsky did indeed have sex with her, you would have a very good case) that Minsky was extremely naive and/or irresponsible to not suspect anything amiss in the setting, but sexual (or any other) assault, in the view of many people, requires intent to harm someone against their will.
Here, it seems that the intent, and hence the primary guilt for the assault, most likely was squarely with Epstein and his associates: if a gun salesman takes you to his shooting range and tells you to fire a weapon at a target that he actually secretly tied a person to the back of, and you shoot that person dead, you are not on the hook for murder even if you should really have known that something is off and recall hearing muffled screams from somewhere at one point in hindsight.
The idea that Minsky's "honour" is in any way more important than harm in what happened to Giuffre
Where did Stallman claim that? [NEVER GOT ANSWERED]
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:13:31PM +0100, Steven Schear wrote:
These instances of being forced to step down from corporations due to non-adjudicated claims need to be prevented in corporate bylaws which cannot be amended or removed without re-incorporation.
This would provide needed backbone to board members.
Unfortunately RMS 'freely' made the decision - it's a resignation, not a dismissal or firing. When a bunch of humans you thought held the same fundamental principles (notwithstanding disagreements) all sign up to a "he must resign" petition - that can't be an easy or pleasant decision to make. One must engage in meat space, with other humans, to create anything lasting. Identifying humans who actually do share certain fundamental principles is perhaps a principled man's greatest challenge. Does this person truly uphold the right to freedom of communication, the right to hold a different belief? How do I really find out? And in the context of FSF - perhaps the only real test for those who otherwise found themselves on the board was "past and or ongoing contributions to GNU/Free Software"? In such a situation, you might have yourself a bunch of Linuses - humans who care mostly about convenience, better software, and less waste of resources. How can one expect much but disappointment from such humans when TSHTF? How can those who primarily value convenience, be relied upon for much of anything (other than 'convenience')?
participants (5)
-
Douglas Lucas -
Greg Newby -
Punk -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness