Nova (PBS) Tuesday - EXCELLENT Program

Franz Heymann wrote:


Am I indeed right in thinking that you have just declared yourself to be a
fascist?

No. Just a misanthrope. I have no love for any form of collectivism. On
principle I prefer justice to mercy and being kind to the weak is the
greatest cruelty. It makes them soft. Any blow that does not kill,
strengthens.

Bob Kolker

Franz Heymann wrote:


Am I indeed right in thinking that you have just declared yourself to be a
fascist?

No. Just a misanthrope. I have no love for any form of collectivism. On
principle I prefer justice to mercy and being kind to the weak is the
greatest cruelty. It makes them soft. Any blow that does not kill,
strengthens.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"W. Snell" wrote in message
om...

The U.S. has the oldest, most stable government in the world.

Just thinking off the top of my head, when was the last revolution in
the UK
or Iceland?

It would have been more accurate to say the U.S. has the longest running
republic under the same written constitution.


AFAIC that's not a valid point for pride.

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"W. Snell" wrote in message
om...

The U.S. has the oldest, most stable government in the world.

Just thinking off the top of my head, when was the last revolution in
the UK
or Iceland?

It would have been more accurate to say the U.S. has the longest running
republic under the same written constitution.


AFAIC that's not a valid point for pride.

Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"W. Snell" wrote in message
om...

The U.S. has the oldest, most stable government in the world.

Just thinking off the top of my head, when was the last revolution in
the UK
or Iceland?

It would have been more accurate to say the U.S. has the longest running
republic under the same written constitution.


AFAIC that's not a valid point for pride.

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:mITKb.150177$VB2.579917@attbi_s51...


Sam Wormley wrote:


I've gotten taxpayer money (State of Iowa) on several occasions for
patents, Kolker.

That is State, not Federal. The U.S. Constitution defines the Federal
Government.

Are none of your taxes diverted to States?

Franz

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:mITKb.150177$VB2.579917@attbi_s51...


Sam Wormley wrote:


I've gotten taxpayer money (State of Iowa) on several occasions for
patents, Kolker.

That is State, not Federal. The U.S. Constitution defines the Federal
Government.

Are none of your taxes diverted to States?

Franz

"Robert J. Kolker" wrote in message
news:mITKb.150177$VB2.579917@attbi_s51...


Sam Wormley wrote:


I've gotten taxpayer money (State of Iowa) on several occasions for
patents, Kolker.

That is State, not Federal. The U.S. Constitution defines the Federal
Government.

Are none of your taxes diverted to States?

Franz

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:55:46 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:



wrote:


May I assume then that you, as a man of integrity, are hereby
declaring that you will never accept any benefit derived from such
activities, since you're unwilling to pay for such frivolity?

Only an amount equal to what was stolen from me plus the interest I
would have earned if I were allowed to keep my own money. There is
nothing immoral about recovering things stolen from you.

And you promise not to claim any further unpaid-for-by-you
benefit as a "windfall" as you do below?

Or will you insist on your right to buy in for a pittance once
the benefits are clear and the heavy lifting has been done by others
with more vision than you?

I am not oblidged for windfalls. If Mrs Jones accross the street bakes a
wonderful smelling apple pie, I am not oblidged to pay her for the
odorous treat that I got.

I doubt you had money "stolen" from you for the Mrs. Jones'
pie fixings.

So you are, in the end, willing to refuse to pay for
developments you will reap the benefit of, let others pay for them,
then call your eventual usage a "windfall".

Two words come to mind -- hypocrite and parasite.

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 13:55:46 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:



wrote:


May I assume then that you, as a man of integrity, are hereby
declaring that you will never accept any benefit derived from such
activities, since you're unwilling to pay for such frivolity?

Only an amount equal to what was stolen from me plus the interest I
would have earned if I were allowed to keep my own money. There is
nothing immoral about recovering things stolen from you.

And you promise not to claim any further unpaid-for-by-you
benefit as a "windfall" as you do below?

Or will you insist on your right to buy in for a pittance once
the benefits are clear and the heavy lifting has been done by others
with more vision than you?

I am not oblidged for windfalls. If Mrs Jones accross the street bakes a
wonderful smelling apple pie, I am not oblidged to pay her for the
odorous treat that I got.

I doubt you had money "stolen" from you for the Mrs. Jones'
pie fixings.

So you are, in the end, willing to refuse to pay for
developments you will reap the benefit of, let others pay for them,
then call your eventual usage a "windfall".

Two words come to mind -- hypocrite and parasite.