US Postal not seeing value to sponsorship... why?

Tom Kunich

"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
news:87zn8re57t.fld@barrow.com...
>
> Of course, I see you are quoting from Ayn Rand in another
> article, so I don't imagine there is much point in discussing
> anything more complex than what could be understood by a child
> in the 6th or 7th grade.

Now see there Floyd? Even though we may disagree about some things we can
agree whole heartedly on others. :-)

Floyd L. Davidson

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote:
>
>The rest of your posting is just like this. In fact the divestiture of the
>phone company and the break up caused NOTHING of value to be offered to the
>public in return.

Tom, I didn't claim that divestiture was the cause. But it did
facilitate the adoption of new technology. Regardless, there is
little doubt that we would *not* have many of the advances in
technology if we had lacked the competition.

Why would the modem industry have ever bothered to develop v.34
and v.90 modems if it were still illegal for a customer to
connect such a device to a telephone line? The telephone
industry universally said there was no market, and would not
implement digital services for subscribers, even *with*
competition!

You see, divestiture did cause *significant* changes. I won't
detail them again, as you can now go back an re-read my last
post with an open mind and you'll understand what I'm talking
about.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Floyd L. Davidson

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@barrow.com> wrote in message
>news:87zn8re57t.fld@barrow.com...
>>
>> Of course, I see you are quoting from Ayn Rand in another
>> article, so I don't imagine there is much point in discussing
>> anything more complex than what could be understood by a child
>> in the 6th or 7th grade.
>
>Now see there Floyd? Even though we may disagree about some things we can
>agree whole heartedly on others. :-)

You and I can have an intelligent coversation.

Anyone who quotes Ayn Rand doesn't have that option...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com

Wissler's Mother

In article <zRhlc.19168$Ik.1406246@attbi_s53>,
"Shayne Wissler" <thalesNOSPAM000@yahoo.com> wrote:

> But again, you're just flustered and intimidated by Ayn Rand and haven't
> followed the example.


Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I've tried so very hard to get young Shayne to
refrain from this kind of behavior. But after he heard that nice Mr.
Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand, I just can't get him to stop thinking
about her. "But Shayne," I say, "most people don't think much of Miss
Rand's philosophy." But he just won't be persuaded. Such a shame. I hope he
hasn't troubled you nice people too much.

Wissler's Mother

Tom Paterson

>From: Wissler's Mother

>"But Shayne," I say, "most people don't think much of Miss
>Rand's philosophy." But he just won't be persuaded. Such a shame. I hope he
>hasn't troubled you nice people too much.

No trouble. We're trying to help, too.

Tom Paterson

>From: "Shayne Wissler"

>The idea is that you are flustered.

Geeze, maybe I should hook up that webcam after all.

>(clearly, it is not a failure to think to recognize a good idea
>that someone else came up with).

Wanna try again with that one? Ayn Rand, good ideas? Disagree, generally.

>Your ignorance and lack of logic does not >warrant your arrogant attitude
here.

Ho ho ho.

>You presume that because someone drives on government-funded roads
>then that somehow makes up for the fact that the government uses extortion
>to get the funds.

Stating the obvious, it's kind of funny to see someone (that would be you) who
has taken advantage of the "system" screaming to take it all down. My entry
into this "discussion" was asking the question, "how can the gov't get money
out of people without the threat of force?" You proposed removing legal
protections unless paid for by special fees. This isn't extortion? You accuse
me of being ignorant and illogical? It is to laugh.

>But again, you're just flustered and intimidated by Ayn Rand and haven't
>followed the example.

I'm chuckling again. What does "follow the example" mean, exactly? You lost me
there.

>You call that [dork] an insult?

I wouldn't call it a compliment, Shayne.

>You even had time to think about that one before
>pressing "Send", and that's the best you could come up with?

No, I just kind of tossed that one off <g>. But I did think it fit quite well
into the childish context of Ayn Rand's novels, at least the one I read and the
other one I started back there in ninth grade. Actually, I think I did finish
both, I had a lot of time to read back then and I always want to see how things
come out. Very obvious she was over her head trying to put any kind of
believable story together. When it got silly, I put it down (can't remember
which one, honestly) until curiousity brought me back to eat the lima beans, so
to speak, until the meal was concluded. Dessert was lacking IMS.

It was illuminating to read, the last time we waded through this mud puddle,
Rand's claim that she didn't construct her characters to fit her pedant's
ideological agenda. Again, to the contrary, this was something obvious to a 9th
grader. Well, a lot of people were afraid in the 50's and 60's, it served the
"powers that were" very well. "Orwellian", one might say. Say, did you ever
notice, Shayne, how people willingly went and bought the equipment the gov't
needs to keep tabs on the civilian population, including the aforementioned
webcams? I'll agree, much more efficient and voluntary than funding mandatory
installations with tax money. Ah, that Orwell-- now there was someone who knew
how to write a book! --TP

Shayne Wissler

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040503095055.27424.00000347@mb-m24.aol.com...

> >(clearly, it is not a failure to think to recognize a good idea
> >that someone else came up with).
>
> Wanna try again with that one? Ayn Rand, good ideas? Disagree, generally.

You don't say?

> >You presume that because someone drives on government-funded roads
> >then that somehow makes up for the fact that the government uses
extortion
> >to get the funds.
>
> Stating the obvious, it's kind of funny to see someone (that would be you)
who
> has taken advantage of the "system" screaming to take it all down.

I never said "let's take it all down". And again, you are ignoring your
non-sequitor: just because I drive on the roads and pay my taxes it doesn't
make me a hypocrite. You want to lay all the guilt on the victims, and then
when they protest you call them hypocrites.

> My entry
> into this "discussion" was asking the question, "how can the gov't get
money
> out of people without the threat of force?" You proposed removing legal
> protections unless paid for by special fees.

I didn't state it that generally and in fact I don't approve of this.

> This isn't extortion? You accuse
> me of being ignorant and illogical? It is to laugh.

Your definition of extortion proves that you're an ignoramous. Extortion
means taking something from someone under threat of violence. It doesn't
mean refusing to give someone something unless they do something.

> >But again, you're just flustered and intimidated by Ayn Rand and haven't
> >followed the example.
>
> I'm chuckling again. What does "follow the example" mean, exactly? You
lost me
> there.

I think I lost you on my first sentence.

> >You call that [dork] an insult?
>
> I wouldn't call it a compliment, Shayne.

Well I just feel so awful being called a dork.

> >You even had time to think about that one before
> >pressing "Send", and that's the best you could come up with?
>
> No, I just kind of tossed that one off <g>.

And when that didn't work you cowardly hid behind "Wissler's Mother" and
tossed off some more childish remarks.

> Ah, that Orwell-- now there was someone who knew
> how to write a book! --TP

As expected--you like the lowbrow stuff. Well we each have to stick with
what we can understand.


Shayne Wissler

Tom Paterson

>From: "Shayne Wissler"

>> Wanna try again with that one? Ayn Rand, good ideas? Disagree, generally.
>
>You don't say?

I did say. Repeatedly. Repeated for emphasis.

>And again, you are ignoring your
>non-sequitor: just because I drive on the roads and pay my taxes it doesn't
>make me a hypocrite. You want to lay all the guilt on the victims, and then
>when they protest you call them >hypocrites.

The system has served you pretty well so far, is what I'm saying (obviously).
You complain about footing the bill for others, but you have used what's
availble for yourself, and you sure didn't pay for all of it. Now you want to
change the rules. That's what I'm saying.

(me):

>You proposed removing legal
>> protections unless paid for by special fees.

(SW):
>I didn't state it that generally and in fact I don't approve of this.

I'm not gonna waste my time searching/citing. "Pay fees to be protected by the
system or lose the protection". Oh yes you did.

>Your definition of extortion proves that >you're an ignoramous.

ahem. Going on...

>Extortion
>means taking something from someone under threat of violence. It doesn't
>mean refusing to give someone >something unless they do something.

Well I'm not so much an ignoramus that I don't go to the dictionary and look up
words pretty frequently. (BTW, this is a practice that you desperately need to
pick up on, Shayne.) Extortion only sometimes includes violence. Go look it up.


What was that name you were calling me? Ignoram*ous*? It's actually spelled
ignoramus, meaning an "extremely ignorant person". Like one who doesn't know
anything about Greek/Latin roots of English words and suffixes? For instance?
("-ous", "a suffix forming adjectives", not nouns.)

>I think I lost you on my first sentence.

Ha. I think Ayn Rand is a girl dork, that's all. You've got a lot invested with
ol' Aynnie, doncha, Shayne?

>you cowardly hid behind "Wissler's Mother" and
>tossed off some more childish remarks.

Nope, not me. Didn't even read the headers before calling me a coward, did you?
(That didn't make you look too bright, Shayne.) No, it was someone else trying
to help. Apologizing for you, even. Me, I'm just sitting at my keyboard typing,
which takes no real courage at all.

(I opined):

>> Ah, that Orwell-- now there was someone who knew
>> how to write a book!

(SW replied):

>As expected--you like the lowbrow stuff. Well we each have to stick with
>what we can understand.

Guffaw. Sorry, but Ayn Rand trumps Orwell? Orwell (besides the esteem held for
his novels) as a highly regarded essayist, is a "lowbrow"?

Both authors, reacting to events of approximately the same time period, wrote
novels. One produced works of satire and prescience, the other wrote
overstuffed repetitive dreck. IMHO, of course. --TP

Shayne Wissler

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040503231637.22258.00000655@mb-m01.aol.com...

> >And again, you are ignoring your
> >non-sequitor: just because I drive on the roads and pay my taxes it
doesn't
> >make me a hypocrite. You want to lay all the guilt on the victims, and
then
> >when they protest you call them >hypocrites.
>
> The system has served you pretty well so far, is what I'm saying
(obviously).
> You complain about footing the bill for others, but you have used what's
> availble for yourself, and you sure didn't pay for all of it. Now you want
to
> change the rules. That's what I'm saying.

You are just blabbering and failing to address your non-sequitor. I half
think that you don't comprehend the non-sequitor, and I half think that you
do but know that you have absolutely no way of addressing it and so you are
only pretending to be a moron. Not that it makes that much difference either
way.

> (SW):
> >I didn't state it that generally and in fact I don't approve of this.
>
> I'm not gonna waste my time searching/citing. "Pay fees to be protected by
the
> system or lose the protection". Oh yes you did.

"The protection" didn't mean "whatever Tom means by protection", it meant
specifically what I indicated in the preceding sentences, which was quite
narrow not the sweeping vague woozy idea of "protection" you have in mind.

Your integrity amounts to zero when it comes to reading what others write,
you love slipping and sliding around what is actually meant, constructing
your own meaning from someone else's words. No wonder you hate Ayn Rand's
exceptionally precise writing, I'm sure it feels like quite the
straight-jacket to you when you read it.


Shayne Wissler

gwhite

Matt Cahill wrote:

> You could make this argument about any function that government
> provides.

DUMBASS:

Um, *no* you can't. To begin, Google things like "free rider, market
failure, externality, public good."

Arbitrarily start here:

http://www.iit.edu/~peters/03%20f%2...%20Failure2.htm



"My way is to begin at the beginning." -- Don Juan

Tom Paterson

>From: "Shayne Wissler"

>You are just blabbering

Nope.

> I half
>think that you don't comprehend the non-sequitor, (snip)

Hell, Shayne, I not only comprehend "doesn't follow", but I *know how to spell
it*, too! With a _u_, not an _o_!!! The "o" spelling isn't even an alternate,
by the way.

Nice ear for the language, Shayne.

Hey, I'd even loan you my dictionary, but I'm using it. $20 for a little
credibility-- think it over!

Where were we... oh:

>I half think that you
>do but know that you have absolutely no way of addressing it and so you are
>only pretending to be a moron. Not that it >makes that much difference either
way.

No matter how many insulting names you call me, I will never hop on the Rand
bandwagon, Shayne. Yuck. And all those teachers who put those nasty stupid red
marks all over your papers-- you know, those "Sp -1" deals: were they morons,
too?

(earlier, paraphrasing):

>"Pay fees to be protected by
>the
>> system or lose the protection". Oh yes >>you did.

(SW replies):

>"The protection" didn't mean "whatever Tom means by protection", it meant
>specifically what I indicated in the preceding sentences, which was quite
>narrow not the sweeping vague woozy >idea of "protection" you have in mind.

You need to go back and read what you wrote, Shayne. Protection (enforcement of
contracts) dependent on paying a special fee. No fee, no protection. Stop
blathering, please.

>Your integrity amounts to zero when it >comes to reading what others write,

I don't agree with you and I don't like Ayn Rand's writings or believe in her
"philosophy" (to give that mess a title). No problems with my "reading
integrity", whatever that is.

>you love slipping and sliding around what is actually meant, constructing
>your own meaning from someone else's words. No wonder you hate Ayn Rand's
>exceptionally precise writing, I'm sure it feels like quite the
>straight-jacket to you when you read it.

If you want to defend what you wrote, go dig it back up, hose it off, and quote
it. I dislike Rand's writing because she chose to produce hammering diatribes
instead of real novels. She couldn't draw a character with a bright light soft
pencil and tracing paper. Frankly, she insults the form. I offered the Orwell
comparison to you for a reason. Did you ever read "1984"? That's a real book.
--TP

Sam

"Tom Paterson" <dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20040502150558.09674.00000490@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >From: "Shayne Wissler"
>
> >> How do you get money out of people without the threat of force?
> >
> >Clearly one can--businessmen do it all the time. You don't buy a bike
> >because there's a gun pointed to your head. You do it because someone
> >creative has appealed to your >self-interest.
>
> I'm talking about a third of your income being taken. Buying a bike is not
> related.
>
> >In the case of the government, it is quite possible to appeal to
> >self-interest. To borrow an example from >Ayn Rand:
>
> Oh shit, now I remember, you're the Rand guy. She's an idiot.
>
>
>
> > Note all of the massive
> >financial transactions that are backed by the government. From simple
checks
> >at the grocery store to multi-billion dollar transactions, none would be
> >possible without the civil courts. The risk of non-payment would be too
> >great.
>
> "RISK"? Because you'd get sued, go to jail (cops with guns). Not to
mention the
> hefty "bad check" charges. Force is used ("gun to the head" rhetoric
beloved by
> right wingers who don't want to pay their taxes).

In the case of a bad check, someone is harmed (the merchant) so there
is a role for government.






>
> Tell us how the "government" (US, State, Local, whatever) can make people
pay
> their taxes without the threat of jail (cops with guns). Get to the point
and
> leave Ayn Rand the hell out of the discussion, PLEASE. Thanks!

I have no problem with a reasonable tax scheme but there are other
ways like a retail sales tax. Some of us just think that government has
gotten too big and too involved.

>
>
> >The government could offer a deal: pay a percentage of each
> >transaction to the government as insurance, and if you do you have the
right
> >to access the courts in the case of fraud/dispute. If you don't you're on
> >your own.
>
> We're not supposed to be able to buy and sell our rights in this country.
It's
> a basic protection I for one don't want to give up. Further, what would
that
> percentage skyrocket to, Shayne? Then you'd have a whole lot of people
getting
> screwed every day without even the hope of going to court for redress.
Stinky
> idea.
>
> >The massively bloated government we have today could never be funded
without
> >pointing guns to people's heads. But remove the fat and it would be quite
> >possible to have a moral government.
>
> Don't try to get around me by changing the conditions. The question was
asked
> in the real, here and now world. Moral government? Ho ho ho. Dreamer.
Beyond
> dreamer.
>
> >an immoral
> >government sets a bad example thereby helping to create even more
> >criminals).
>
> The government is composed of criminals, Shayne. Unless you think there's
> nothing wrong with peddling influence (cash in, favorable legislation
out).
> --TP

gwhite

dustoyevsky@aol.comnospam (Tom Paterson) wrote:

> Moral government? Ho ho ho. Dreamer. Beyond
> dreamer.

Thanks for making my point. I can always count on you. What more
reason do you need to cut it off at the knees?

> Unless you think there's
> nothing wrong with peddling influence
> (cash in, favorable legislation out).

I appreciate it again. Cut the gov down to size.

Tom Paterson

>From: gwhite@ti.com (gwhite)

>
>I appreciate it again. Cut the gov down to size.
>

Long as you leave the USPS standing, fine.

Um, define "size". Thanks. --TP