Re: [OT] Yahoo's Antispam proposal
David P James wrote:
On Mon 24 May 2004 08:50, Katipo wrote:
David P James wrote:
On Sun 23 May 2004 18:56, Katipo wrote:
David P James wrote:
No system is ever going to be completely accessible to the
destitute,
So let's make sure they stay where they belong?
Take that back - right now. Take it back. I neither said nor implied
any such thing.
No, in the terminologies you employ, you accept the situation and
thereby condone it.
You're insane. You're being rude and insulting. I accept that the
situation exists but that's a long from condoning it.
Attack the message, not the messenger. Anything else is an admission of
a failed line of argument.
Re read what you said,
"No system is ever going to be completely accessible to the
destitute,"
This is a statement of blas'e acceptance.
What I wrote was a statement of what I believe to be a
fact, not a desireable outcome.
It is a fact.
Something can be done about it.
All it takes is a change in mental attitude.
These people are not merely to be written off as 'Collateral Damage.'
They are one of the many costs not incorporated into economic theory.
And again you do it. You prove you understand nothing at all and can't
read what is written. To set things straight, they are not written off
and in fact those costs are incorporated into theory (believe it or not
- probably not in your case).
So what you are saying is that their situation is actually planned?
It's funny how people who have clearly
never taken any economics (or at least didn't pay attention) claim to
know what is contained in economic theory.
The way in which we think is reflected in the environment.
Take a look around.
Our entire spectrum of sociological values would appear to be somewhat
askew.
Please tell me which particular branch of our sciences, closely advising
our political decision makers, would be responsible for that?
<snip>
Very well, but would you care to enlighten us how providing free email
is going to help feed starving people in war torn countries in Africa,
like Somalia? That's what you've been arguing all along, so I'd love to
hear some details about it.
Please see other posts.
<snip>
All of it was *supposed* to be a commons. And at at least one stage,
it was. Dominant interests displaced the mechanism of the commons so
that the vast majority of the common administrators had no vote in
proceedings. Corporate greed, ably assisted by misinformed and
corrupt political entities, misappropriated the commons from the
majority of its rightful community owners, allowing only one factor
of the community to usurp the common ground. This is not a failure of
the commons, how can it be? The environment of the commons was not
permitted to operate, it answers more to the definition of grand
larceny on a national and international scale. All rationalised at
the time, by economics.
I should save this bit for posterity as an example of completely
blinkered thinking. This problem goes way back in time. The Mammoths
were driven to extinction this way, as were North American prairie
horses (until re-introduced by the Spanish) and no doubt other species
all over the globe. But hey, I guess it was corporate greed and
dominant interests that did them all in.
Corporate greed or dominant interests.
The concept of the fiscally based corporate entity didn't exist in the
time of the mammoth.
Horses didn't exist in North America before the European arrived either:-
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/naind/html/na_015700_horsesandind.htm
What would you suggest?
Magic?
Aliens?
Regards,
David.
Reply to: