Re: Lessons

[Guest guest]

Here are R. Wallace's poker manuals:

1. Poker: A Guaranteed Income for Life

http://www.neo-tech.com/poker/

2. Neocheating: The Rising Menace

http://www.neo-tech.com/neocheating/

> [snip of much goofiness]

> >And it is all like this. Much as I eschew labelling, sometimes it

is

> >helpful, so I'll do it. You're a nut, aren't you.

>

> The guy who invented this particular brand of insanity,

> Wallace, began his writing career with a book about

> how to win at poker. I read his poker book once upon

> a time.

>

>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0911752226/qid=980478178/sr=1-

29/ref=sc_b_4/107-6045183-5458943

>

> It was quite sound statistically, but even that book

> was a little strange in places (talking about hypnotizing

> the other players by swirling your finger around in the

> pot, for instance).

>

> You can still see his origins as a flaky card sharper in

> the way the ranting refers to bad people as " neocheaters. "

> Cheating at poker would be a sign of a bad player,

> after all.

>

> Interestingly, he seems to have written a book which

> is pro-neocheating:

>

>

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0911752293/qid=980478178/sr=1-

26/ref=sc_b_1/107-6045183-5458943

>

> That must have been during some kind of transition phase from

> slightly-flaky poker theorist to full-blown loon and/or fraud.

>

> I got some junk mail once from these guys which said they

> wouldn't sell you their products unless you signed a statement

> that you were neither a politician nor a priest. Apparently

> those professions are both filled with neocheaters. Whatever

> neocheaters are.

>

> I think this stuff is related to the " Speed Seduction " junk too,

> which is some kind of lame how-to-get-laid scam. Those guys

> also talk about zonpower and neocheating. They created

> their own alt.* newsgroup at one point, four or five years ago.

> I never saw anyone do anything but mock the idea, but they

> went ahead anyway.

>

> These guys have been around quite a while, and they're really

> a hoot. In a weird way I feel almost like I know them, since I've

> encountered the stuff in so many different guises over the years.

>

> Go zonpower! :-)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Hunter-

>

> Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it.

> I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation

for why you're here.

To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That

is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use

self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life.

> Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not

making much sense

> and that " become invisible " site of yours is the stuff Unabomber

Manifestos are made of.

http://www.neo-tech.com is R. Wallace's site, not mine.

Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto

advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The

Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against

anyone for any reason.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

>

>

>

> Nate

[Guest guest]

> Hunter-

>

> Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it.

> I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation

for why you're here.

To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That

is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use

self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life.

> Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not

making much sense

> and that " become invisible " site of yours is the stuff Unabomber

Manifestos are made of.

http://www.neo-tech.com is R. Wallace's site, not mine.

Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto

advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The

Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against

anyone for any reason.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

>

>

>

> Nate

[Guest guest]

> Hunter-

>

> Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it.

> I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation

for why you're here.

To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That

is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use

self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life.

> Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not

making much sense

> and that " become invisible " site of yours is the stuff Unabomber

Manifestos are made of.

http://www.neo-tech.com is R. Wallace's site, not mine.

Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto

advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The

Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against

anyone for any reason.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net

>

>

>

> Nate

[Guest guest]

> > You have your right to think what you want. I will add that if

her

> > views prevail, we will all be living in a world where unbridled

> > business delivers escalating values at falling prices to everyone

as

> > is happening in the unregulated computer industry.

>

> You mean like IBM and Microsoft do with their bullboy business

> practices?????

IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM, Microsoft,

business, and capitalism.

[Guest guest]

> > You have your right to think what you want. I will add that if

her

> > views prevail, we will all be living in a world where unbridled

> > business delivers escalating values at falling prices to everyone

as

> > is happening in the unregulated computer industry.

>

> You mean like IBM and Microsoft do with their bullboy business

> practices?????

IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM, Microsoft,

business, and capitalism.

[Guest guest]

> > You have your right to think what you want. I will add that if

her

> > views prevail, we will all be living in a world where unbridled

> > business delivers escalating values at falling prices to everyone

as

> > is happening in the unregulated computer industry.

>

> You mean like IBM and Microsoft do with their bullboy business

> practices?????

IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM, Microsoft,

business, and capitalism.

[Guest guest]

> > You have your right to think what you want. I will add that if

her

> > views prevail, we will all be living in a world where unbridled

> > business delivers escalating values at falling prices to everyone

as

> > is happening in the unregulated computer industry.

>

> You mean like IBM and Microsoft do with their bullboy business

> practices?????

IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM, Microsoft,

business, and capitalism.

[Guest guest]

> > Whatever it is you're selling, I'm not buying it. > I will not read any of your posts until you provide an explanation for why you're here. To show people the best approach to handle drug & alcohol use. That is to dump those mind/body toxins, develop one's mind & body, and use self-discipline to live a happy, healthy, and successful life.

That and becoming invisible, right? Nate

> Ordinarily it would be out of line to request this, but you're not making much sense > and that "become invisible" site of yours is the stuff Unabomber Manifestos are made of.http://www.neo-tech.com is R. Wallace's site, not mine.Remember to differentiate when you think: the Unabomber Manifesto advocates the initiation of physical force against others. The Zonpower Manifesto prohibits the initiation of physical force against anyone for any reason.

Remember to read what I write, jackass. That's not what I said, which I think is evident to everybody but you. I was referring to that type of rambling and aimless writing, gratuitously lined with $10 words, and only understandable to the individual hacking away at the keyboard. Nate

[Guest guest]

Damn things coming in now with a generic email address for all emails making

it impossible to sift through posts.

I swear their making it real easy to say good bye to this shit.

> Re: Lessons

>

>

[Guest guest]

? who?

[Guest guest]

> IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

> hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM,

>Microsoft, business, and capitalism.

I really shouldnt waste my time on a moron like you, but I rely to say

that I did not smear business or captialism per se. I smeared

total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like

the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit their

monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get the

best value at the least cost. That you can only discuss these issues

with banalities like this (and your Hitler comment) shows that you are

indeed a typical Randist.

[Guest guest]

> IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

> hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM,

>Microsoft, business, and capitalism.

I really shouldnt waste my time on a moron like you, but I rely to say

that I did not smear business or captialism per se. I smeared

total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like

the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit their

monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get the

best value at the least cost. That you can only discuss these issues

with banalities like this (and your Hitler comment) shows that you are

indeed a typical Randist.

[Guest guest]

> IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the computer

> hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM,

>Microsoft, business, and capitalism.

I really shouldnt waste my time on a moron like you, but I rely to say

that I did not smear business or captialism per se. I smeared

total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like

the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit their

monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get the

best value at the least cost. That you can only discuss these issues

with banalities like this (and your Hitler comment) shows that you are

indeed a typical Randist.

[Guest guest]

nice reply pete. i love watching people defend poor microsoft,

" innovator " LOL. what im loving now is microsoft is reportedly

already copying apples new OS X GUI, and it hasnt even been

released to cutomers yet.

other companies also provide those services this guy qoutes,

but if it was for microsoft unfairly using its monoply state to

destroy any potential compeitors, we , the consumers who

microsoft is suppoedly serving, would have had more options at

better price. poor microsoft, indeed.

>

> > IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the

computer

> > hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM,

> >Microsoft, business, and capitalism.

>

> I really shouldnt waste my time on a moron like you, but I rely to

say

> that I did not smear business or captialism per se. I smeared

> total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate

giants like

> the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered

exploit their

> monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer

does NOT get the

> best value at the least cost. That you can only discuss these

issues

> with banalities like this (and your Hitler comment) shows that

you are

> indeed a typical Randist.

[Guest guest]

nice reply pete. i love watching people defend poor microsoft,

" innovator " LOL. what im loving now is microsoft is reportedly

already copying apples new OS X GUI, and it hasnt even been

released to cutomers yet.

other companies also provide those services this guy qoutes,

but if it was for microsoft unfairly using its monoply state to

destroy any potential compeitors, we , the consumers who

microsoft is suppoedly serving, would have had more options at

better price. poor microsoft, indeed.

>

> > IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the

computer

> > hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM,

> >Microsoft, business, and capitalism.

>

> I really shouldnt waste my time on a moron like you, but I rely to

say

> that I did not smear business or captialism per se. I smeared

> total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate

giants like

> the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered

exploit their

> monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer

does NOT get the

> best value at the least cost. That you can only discuss these

issues

> with banalities like this (and your Hitler comment) shows that

you are

> indeed a typical Randist.

[Guest guest]

nice reply pete. i love watching people defend poor microsoft,

" innovator " LOL. what im loving now is microsoft is reportedly

already copying apples new OS X GUI, and it hasnt even been

released to cutomers yet.

other companies also provide those services this guy qoutes,

but if it was for microsoft unfairly using its monoply state to

destroy any potential compeitors, we , the consumers who

microsoft is suppoedly serving, would have had more options at

better price. poor microsoft, indeed.

>

> > IBM, Microsoft, and similar companies provide you with the

computer

> > hardware, software, and connections you need to smear IBM,

> >Microsoft, business, and capitalism.

>

> I really shouldnt waste my time on a moron like you, but I rely to

say

> that I did not smear business or captialism per se. I smeared

> total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate

giants like

> the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered

exploit their

> monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer

does NOT get the

> best value at the least cost. That you can only discuss these

issues

> with banalities like this (and your Hitler comment) shows that

you are

> indeed a typical Randist.

[Guest guest]

> I smeared

> total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like

> the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

their

> monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get

the

> best value at the least cost.

So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of

business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

automobile.

Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000

and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does not

belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of

regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

consumers.

Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer

for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how to

entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of

arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause prices

to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone.

But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only cause

prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

living for everyone.

Hunter

http://www.localgroup.net/public

[Guest guest]

for those who dislike laissez faire capitalism I tell them to look at recent

Hong Kong - which is the closest example of laissez-faire capitalism to have

existed (accept for Atlantis, of course) - Hong Kong was like America but

better, because the economy was a free economy and businesses were

unhindered by the assinine advancements of politicos. Whatever drawbacks of

capitalism this Pete Watts character extolled are actually caused by the

bureaucrats he brown noses, not the " overly free and unregulated " companies

he attributes the problems to. If business were truly free in the USA as he

suggests it has been, the US economy and businesses would flourish much more

wildly, like recent times in Hong Kong. But the fact is the public sectopr

has created innumerable headaches for the private sector and therefore the

US private sector has only grown a fraction of its potential. But Pete

wants to keep his head in the sand and keep living like a Europeaner in the

dark ages. Go ahead Pete. Tell me how wonderful big brother is. Tell me

how all of the monopolistic companies you hate have not used political power

to administer their monopolistic power whatsoever... that all government

involvement creates an even playing field. bullshit right.

Re: Lessons

>

>

> > I smeared

> > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants like

> > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

> their

> > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get

> the

> > best value at the least cost.

>

> So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of

> business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

> Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

> causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

> leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

> automobile.

>

> Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000

> and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

> car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does not

> belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of

> regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

> consumers.

>

> Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer

> for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

> computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

> Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how to

> entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of

> arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

>

> Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause prices

> to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone.

> But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only cause

> prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

> living for everyone.

>

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net/public

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I should stick a label on my monitor:

" Do not feed the Morons " .

Indicating that a person is a fool is no pleasure when they are so

great a fool that they are incapable of realizing it, no matter how

clear the demonstration. If you're not going to get it from your own

demonstrations you arent going to get it from mine.

I will waste no more time on you

>

> > I smeared

> > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants

like

> > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

> their

> > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get

> the

> > best value at the least cost.

>

> So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of

> business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

> Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

> causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

> leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

> automobile.

>

> Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000

> and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

> car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does

not

> belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of

> regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

> consumers.

>

> Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer

> for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

> computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

> Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how

to

> entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of

> arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

>

> Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause

prices

> to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone.

> But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only

cause

> prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

> living for everyone.

>

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net/public

[Guest guest]

I should stick a label on my monitor:

" Do not feed the Morons " .

Indicating that a person is a fool is no pleasure when they are so

great a fool that they are incapable of realizing it, no matter how

clear the demonstration. If you're not going to get it from your own

demonstrations you arent going to get it from mine.

I will waste no more time on you

>

> > I smeared

> > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants

like

> > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

> their

> > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT get

> the

> > best value at the least cost.

>

> So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects of

> business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

> Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

> causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

> leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

> automobile.

>

> Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was $30,000

> and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

> car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does

not

> belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora of

> regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

> consumers.

>

> Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a computer

> for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

> computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

> Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how

to

> entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens of

> arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

>

> Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause

prices

> to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for everyone.

> But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only

cause

> prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

> living for everyone.

>

> Hunter

> http://www.localgroup.net/public

[Guest guest]

Who said anything about " brown nosing " bureaucrats?

At least Ive got the balls to post publicly using my real name.

I abused that Neuro-Tic guy because he obviously cant string a logical

thought together. you (hopefully) can and I certainly can, and this

kind of abuse wasnt necessary - we could talked about this civilly, as

it is you can fuck off.

> >

> > > I smeared

> > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants

like

> > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

> > their

> > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT

get

> > the

> > > best value at the least cost.

> >

> > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects

of

> > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

> > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

> > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

> > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

> > automobile.

> >

> > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was

$30,000

> > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

> > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does

not

> > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora

of

> > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

> > consumers.

> >

> > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a

computer

> > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

> > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

> > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how

to

> > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens

of

> > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

> >

> > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause

prices

> > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for

everyone.

> > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only

cause

> > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

> > living for everyone.

> >

> > Hunter

> > http://www.localgroup.net/public

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Who said anything about " brown nosing " bureaucrats?

At least Ive got the balls to post publicly using my real name.

I abused that Neuro-Tic guy because he obviously cant string a logical

thought together. you (hopefully) can and I certainly can, and this

kind of abuse wasnt necessary - we could talked about this civilly, as

it is you can fuck off.

> >

> > > I smeared

> > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants

like

> > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

> > their

> > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT

get

> > the

> > > best value at the least cost.

> >

> > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects

of

> > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

> > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

> > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

> > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

> > automobile.

> >

> > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was

$30,000

> > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

> > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does

not

> > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora

of

> > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

> > consumers.

> >

> > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a

computer

> > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

> > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

> > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how

to

> > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens

of

> > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

> >

> > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause

prices

> > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for

everyone.

> > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only

cause

> > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

> > living for everyone.

> >

> > Hunter

> > http://www.localgroup.net/public

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

geez

Re: Lessons

> Who said anything about " brown nosing " bureaucrats?

>

> At least Ive got the balls to post publicly using my real name.

>

> I abused that Neuro-Tic guy because he obviously cant string a logical

> thought together. you (hopefully) can and I certainly can, and this

> kind of abuse wasnt necessary - we could talked about this civilly, as

> it is you can fuck off.

>

>

> > >

> > > > I smeared

> > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants

> like

> > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered exploit

> > > their

> > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT

> get

> > > the

> > > > best value at the least cost.

> > >

> > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain aspects

> of

> > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have today.

> > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency, and

> > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher thus

> > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home and

> > > automobile.

> > >

> > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was

> $30,000

> > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000 and

> > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it does

> not

> > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora

> of

> > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices for

> > > consumers.

> > >

> > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a

> computer

> > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the super

> > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in price?

> > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out how

> to

> > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens

> of

> > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

> > >

> > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause

> prices

> > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for

> everyone.

> > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only

> cause

> > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard of

> > > living for everyone.

> > >

> > > Hunter

> > > http://www.localgroup.net/public

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Obviously anonymous coward you have no more brains than the Neo-Tech

maniac does.

Do you REALLY think any of you jerks is ever going to be persuaded by

anything that I might say? The Lord Almighty and Einstein could

expalin it to you in babytalk and you still wouldnt get it. Of course

youre not, so what is the point of trying you dumbfuck?

I discussed Ayn Rand civilly, at length, with " Pupship " a long time

back, and we agreed to disagree. I was the first to abuse Dave but he

is an obvious nut. You came out with that " brown-nosing " stuff

without provocation, because I believe in DEMOCRACY and a decent

sociey where the vulnerable are guaranteed help.

Tell me, which tastes better, Rand's ass or Bill Gates'?

Now, as these flame wars do NOT achieve anything, do yout

counter-abuse thing and I will NOT answer it.

> > >

> > > > I smeared

> > > > total LAISSEZ-FAIRE capitalism, that produces corporate giants

> > like

> > > > the aforementined compaies which it is widely considered

exploit

> > > their

> > > > monopolies in a manner which ensure that the consumer does NOT

get

> > > the

> > > > best value at the least cost.

> > >

> > > So you consider that some gun-backed controls are good for the

> > > economy? Maybe have gun-toting bureaucrats impede certain

aspects of

> > > business? That is a mixed economy, and that is what we have

today.

> > > Such an economy impedes businesses, reducing their efficiency,

and

> > > causing the prices of goods and services to climb ever higher

thus

> > > leaving the poor unable to afford even basic items like a home

and

> > > automobile.

> > >

> > > Look at the facts: in 1970 the cost of an average house was

$30,000

> > > and car was $3,000. Today, the equivalent house costs $130,000

and

> > > car costs $30,000. Why the dramatic increase in price? Because

> > > government got itself entangled into the economy -- where it

does

> > not

> > > belong -- and reduced the efficiency of business with a plethora

of

> > > regulations and subjective laws. Cost of materials, labor, and

> > > production steadily rose, which resulted in exorbitant prices

for

> > > consumers.

> > >

> > > Now look at the unregulated computer industry: in 1970 a super

> > > computer cost $300,000 dollars and up. Today, you can buy a

computer

> > > for $3,000 or less...and it has a greater capacity then the

super

> > > computers of the early 1970s. Why the dramatic decrease in

price?

> > > Because inept politicians and bureaucrats could not figure out

how

> > to

> > > entangle the newly burgeoning computer industry with the burdens

of

> > > arbitrary regulations and subjective laws.

> > >

> > > Your mixed economy with government intervention can only cause

> > prices

> > > to skyrocket, thereby reducing the standard of living for

everyone.

> > > But laissez-faire capitalism with its free competition can only

> > cause

> > > prices to fall toward the free, thereby increasing the standard

of

> > > living for everyone.

> > >

> > > Hunter

> > > http://www.localgroup.net/public

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >