DOS ain't dead

Since I didn't have a change to reply in the locked thread, I follow RR's suggestion to create a new one:

Lucho:
> So what was once open source may no longer be, and what source is open and
> what not is now decided by a committee of lawyers, specialists in the
> so-called "intellectual property".

That is totally incorrect. They just apply _their_ mark, that the submitted content follows _their_ requirements.

The people that take that as a cardinal truth (like you do above) promote that mark to an universal definition.

Lucho:
> "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" - Dick the Butcher,
> Henry VI, William Shakespeare (http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html)

Actually we are all Golgafrinchans, remember?

Krushaw:
> In the burgeoise society the LAW is always interpretable.

Well of course. Stronger, I really wonder why it wouldn't be the case in a non bourgeoise society. In short, the Law must always be interpreted, and it has been so in history forever.

The means to interpret just varies, a Judge, a Jury, a Tyrant, a tribe-elder or, in the more extreme (but not rare!) cases by a duel, sheer luck (presented as an opportunity for divine intervention) or default guilt. (Inquisition)

> > So

By "so" in this context I meant "so, what gives?" or "so, that was the case!", mening that it turns out to be different than what I previously thought (sorry, if you understand Russian or Bulgarian I can say it better but my English is not so good.)

> > what was once open source may no longer be, and what source is open and
> > what not is now decided by a committee of lawyers, specialists in the
> > so-called "intellectual property".
>
> That is totally incorrect. They just apply _their_ mark, that the
> submitted content follows _their_ requirements.
>
> The people that take that as a cardinal truth (like you do above) promote
> that mark to an universal definition.

You're totally correct in the above assertions, except that you think that I expressed my views. No, I was trying to assimilate what some other users tried to say. But I didn't find the best words to express myself in an alien language (yes, that's the word we use for foreign languages). I'm glad that we both agree that the view that a source is open not when it's open but when it complies to the Open Source Definition is wrong.

> Actually we are all Golgafrinchans, remember?

Or at least so the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says

> Krushaw:
> > In the burgeoise society the LAW is always interpretable.
>
> Well of course. Stronger, I really wonder why it wouldn't be the case in a
> non bourgeoise society. In short, the Law must always be interpreted, and
> it has been so in history forever.

Sometimes my English is really bad. The word should have been "ambiguous" or "equivocal", not "interpretable". Anyway, interpreting the Law outside the Law Court could be interesting, but without practical value. Only there is its real meaning truly revealed.

> Anyway, interpreting the Law outside
> the Law Court could be interesting, but without practical value.

It happens everywhere. Consider technical standards. Engineers make proposals, and then committees of senior specialists make decisons. In university departments, professors may propose courses to be given, and what the study materials will be. Then a department head or senior committee will weigh the proposals and decide what happens next. Your daughters may argue over distribution of candy, so Mommy or Daddy (singly or in consultation) will have to step in and issue a ruling. What lawyers do is reperesent their clients. Judges or referees or juries then decide who has the best case. And so on.

> Only there is its real meaning truly revealed.

Real meaning is for philosophers, revelation is for theologians. The rest of us do the best we can and seek guidance and support when they are needed - and hope that the guides and helpers are honest.

> It happens everywhere. Consider technical standards. Engineers make
> proposals, and then committees of senior specialists make decisons. In
> university departments, professors may propose courses to be given, and
> what the study materials will be. Then a department head or senior
> committee will weigh the proposals and decide what happens next. Your
> daughters may argue over distribution of candy, so Mommy or Daddy (singly
> or in consultation) will have to step in and issue a ruling. What lawyers
> do is reperesent their clients. Judges or referees or juries then decide
> who has the best case. And so on.

The analogy between the law decision and various other decisional situations has its limits. The function of the law is to protect the interest of the ruling group in the society, to conserve the status quo imposed by that ruling group. When the ruling group is replaced or its interest has changed, the law is modified, but the lawyer remains the same, he has only to learn the new laws. The role of a lawyer is to help people dance better on the music which is the law, the rest shouldn't matter for him.

> Real meaning is for philosophers, revelation is for theologians. The rest
> of us do the best we can and seek guidance and support when they are
> needed - and hope that the guides and helpers are honest.

And the greater and more frequent the need, even artifically induced, the better for you. The greater the retaining fee for your indispensable counsels, even if it is unfounded, the better for you.

> > Anyway, interpreting the Law outside
> > the Law Court could be interesting, but without practical value.
>
> It happens everywhere. Consider technical standards. Engineers make
> proposals, and then committees of senior specialists make decisons.

Strictly speaking such standards are mere advise. And they are not binding until set in law.

> In university departments, professors may propose courses to be given, and
> what the study materials will be. Then a department head or senior
> committee will weigh the proposals and decide what happens next. Your
> daughters may argue over distribution of candy, so Mommy or Daddy (singly
> or in consultation) will have to step in and issue a ruling.

Actually parental power is quite powerful. At least the most absolute of all named till now (and that includes government, on a relative scale)

> > Only there is its real meaning truly revealed.
>
> Real meaning is for philosophers, revelation is for theologians.

True. To stay in the SF theme, I always remember the scene in Red Dwarf where one side of the cat people killed the other half, because of a discussion which color hat (blue or red) to wear to temple.

> The rest
> of us do the best we can and seek guidance and support when they are
> needed - and hope that the guides and helpers are honest.

That's a dangerous attitude IMHO. It reeks like being able to shift personal responsability onto others.

> > > Anyway, interpreting the Law outside
> > > the Law Court could be interesting, but without practical value.
> >
> > It happens everywhere. Consider technical standards. Engineers make
> > proposals, and then committees of senior specialists make decisons.
>
> Strictly speaking such standards are mere advise. And they are not binding
> until set in law.

True in some cases, but not all. Consider the computer industry - bus standards, OSes... very little is established by law, beyond electrical safety requirements.

> Actually parental power is quite powerful. At least the most absolute of
> all named till now (and that includes government, on a relative scale)

The nature of parental power colors all our attitudes toward authority, don't you think? I bet more anarchists adopt their views in reaction to their parents than to the state. And authoritarian-submissives are first beaten down and made helpless by their parents, not by any agents of state (except maybe schoolteachers).

> > The rest
> > of us do the best we can and seek guidance and support when they are
> > needed - and hope that the guides and helpers are honest.
>
> That's a dangerous attitude IMHO. It reeks like being able to shift
> personal responsability onto others.

Again, depends on the case. I do not by any means proclaim that we should trust the many corrupt fools in governments, but trust goes a long way in many professions, and other institutions of civil society. Did you never have a teacher, or older colleague, who gave you good guidance, and maybe inspired you to do the same when you moved up in years and experience (hoping that your juniors would be smart enough to trust you)?

> The analogy between the law decision and various other decisional
> situations has its limits.

Not as I framed it. But you introduce new parameters...

> The function of the law is to protect the
> interest of the ruling group in the society, to conserve the status quo
> imposed by that ruling group.

It depends on the "society". All law systems are conceived as protective of some kind of communal or social or political interest - law is older than states and alien ruling classes. Some old communal systems still exist, and serve their original purposes - Romania isn't the world.

> When the ruling group is replaced or its
> interest has changed, the law is modified, but the lawyer remains the
> same, he has only to learn the new laws.

It's called adjusting to reality. Do you want lawyers to be political reactionaries who oppose change so that they don't have to bother learning new things?

> The role of a lawyer is to help people dance better on the music which is
> the law, the rest shouldn't matter for him.

I don't see anything wrong with that. If I had a case in law, I would want a good lawyer to help me, as I would want a physician to tend to illness, or a cobbler to fix my shoes.

> > Real meaning is for philosophers, revelation is for theologians. The rest
> > of us do the best we can and seek guidance and support when they are
> > needed - and hope that the guides and helpers are honest.
>
> And the greater and more frequent the need, even artifically induced, the
> better for you. The greater the retaining fee for your indispensable
> counsels, even if it is unfounded, the better for you.

Better for me how?

> Krushaw:
> > In the burgeoise society the LAW is always interpretable.
>
> Well of course. Stronger, I really wonder why it wouldn't be the case in a
> non bourgeoise society.

It is the case in many types of societies, as you correctly point out:

> In short, the Law must always be interpreted, and
> it has been so in history forever.
>
> The means to interpret just varies, a Judge, a Jury, a Tyrant, a
> tribe-elder or, in the more extreme (but not rare!) cases by a duel, sheer
> luck (presented as an opportunity for divine intervention) or default
> guilt. (Inquisition)

> It depends on the "society". All law systems are conceived as protective
> of some kind of communal or social or political interest - law is older
> than states and alien ruling classes. Some old communal systems still
> exist, and serve their original purposes - Romania isn't the world.

Those are custom and tradition, not laws, unlike the laws which always express an objective reality, they are only the base for purely subjective decisions. Some communities still guide themselves after the custom, e. g. the Gypsies. In these situations their judges are also the rules so speaking, because they are the only profound knowers and interpreters of the custom. The custom is the cause or the explanation of the rules, not the rules themselves which represent what the judges think that should be normative. But these rules die with the judges. There are no laws outside a state.
Romania was ruled by "alien ruling classes" only for a very short period of time in her 146 years of history (she is born in 1862), and she doesn't have a legal system different than in other European countries, there is nothing original here from this point of view.

> It's called adjusting to reality. Do you want lawyers to be political
> reactionaries who oppose change so that they don't have to bother learning
> new things?

No, I don't want lawyers to be also the law givers, as it is happening now.

> I don't see anything wrong with that. If I had a case in law, I would want
> a good lawyer to help me, as I would want a physician to tend to illness,
> or a cobbler to fix my shoes.

The good physician prevents the ilness, not cure. The lawyers are interested that people appeal to their counsels as frequent as it's possible.

> Better for me how?

Are you not a lawyer?

> > It depends on the "society". All law systems are conceived as protective
> > of some kind of communal or social or political interest - law is older
> > than states and alien ruling classes. Some old communal systems still
> > exist, and serve their original purposes - Romania isn't the world.
>
> Those are custom and tradition, not laws, unlike the laws which always
> express an objective reality, they are only the base for purely subjective
> decisions.

Nonsense.

> Some communities still guide themselves after the custom, e. g.
> the Gypsies. In these situations their judges are also the rules so
> speaking, because they are the only profound knowers and interpreters of
> the custom. The custom is the cause or the explanation of the rules, not
> the rules themselves which represent what the judges think that should be
> normative. But these rules die with the judges. There are no laws outside
> a state.

Nonsense. Not a word is true.

> Romania was ruled by "alien ruling classes" only for a very short period
> of time in her 146 years of history (she is born in 1862), and she
> doesn't have a legal system different than in other European countries,
> there is nothing original here from this point of view.

You don't know the history of your own country. Amazing.

> > It's called adjusting to reality. Do you want lawyers to be political
> > reactionaries who oppose change so that they don't have to bother
> learning new things?
>
> No, I don't want lawyers to be also the law givers, as it is happening
> now.

Who should be the law givers? Party central committees, as in your good old days?

> > I don't see anything wrong with that. If I had a case in law, I would
> > want a good lawyer to help me, as I would want a physician to tend to
> illness, or a cobbler to fix my shoes.
>
> The good physician prevents the ilness, not cure.

In that case, don't go to one if you get ill. They must be fools if you do come down with something.

> The lawyers are interested that people appeal to their counsels as frequent as it's possible.

The same is true for senior engineers, priests, software tech support staff, generals... In other words, so what?

> > Better for me how?
>
> Are you not a lawyer?

Yes, I am not a lawyer. And I have never played one on television either.

> Nonsense.
> Nonsense. Not a word is true.
> You don't know the history of your own country. Amazing.

?!

> Who should be the law givers? Party central committees, as in your good
> old days?

There are enough good Doctors of Law who keep themselves out of the shit. Some poor thinking lawyers are the law givers now.
I hope you know the joke with the Shark and the lawyers.
I was never a communist party member and I was born when the Soviet occupation was already only a painful memory. The exagerated propaganda existed, but it was never took seriously. There were enough open-minded and freethinking people in the society. If you think that Romania was something like North Korea is presented now, i. e. a collection of brainwashed automaton, you are totally wrong. And if you read our laws from those times, you'll discover that they weren't as bad or oppresive as you probably imagine.
Better look how in all European societies the rulers are more and more stupid than those before. Which will be the end? The European culture and civilization is dying, and people are too narcotized (by various means) to care fore this.

> Yes, I am not a lawyer. And I have never played one on television either.

Then what you are?

Edit: I deleted my post, it was the expression of my anger determined by the continual denigration of my country by some unadvised people.

> Again, depends on the case. I do not by any means proclaim that we should
> trust the many corrupt fools in governments,

IMHO it is not wise to trust them outside of governments either

> > Nonsense.
> > Nonsense. Not a word is true.
> > You don't know the history of your own country. Amazing.
>
> ?!

You make abstract ideological statements that have little or no relevance to real social and political systems.

> > Who should be the law givers? Party central committees, as in your good
> > old days?
>
> There are enough good Doctors of Law who keep themselves out of the shit.
> Some poor thinking lawyers are the law givers now.

Oh, not the poor thinking lawyers, but the Doctors of Law. How is that better than rule by decree of kings and Parties?

> I hope you know the joke with the Shark and the lawyers.

It's well known.

> I was never a communist party member and I was born when the Soviet
> occupation was already only a painful memory.

Then why have you bothered to defend the system?

> The exagerated propaganda
> existed, but it was never took seriously. There were enough open-minded
> and freethinking people in the society.

You have defended imprisonment and harassment of those people.

> If you think that Romania was
> something like North Korea is presented now, i. e. a collection of
> brainwashed automaton, you are totally wrong.

Not like North Korea, but not because the Communists didn't want it.

> And if you read our laws
> from those times, you'll discover that they weren't as bad or oppresive as
> you probably imagine.

Maybe the official laws weren't - but they were for international show. Rule by decree, implemented by the police, was the reality.

> Better look how in all European societies the rulers are more and more
> stupid than those before. Which will be the end? The European culture and
> civilization is dying, and people are too narcotized (by various means) to
> care fore this.

Europe has survived worse than it has now.

> > Yes, I am not a lawyer. And I have never played one on television
> either.
>
> Then what you are?

Guess.

>
>
> Edit: I deleted my post, it was the expression of my anger determined by
> the continual denigration of my country by some unadvised people.

From you, that's hysterically funny. You denigrate everything, whether you understand it or not.

Stepan, nu hvatit iada!
Ty uzhe zasluzhil statx glavoj CRU!
My, strany socializma, postigli togo, o cem tvoi novye amerikanskie sonarodniki mogut tolxko mechtatx!
No podozdi esco nemonovko - Obama razreshit vam poezdki w Kubu, togda uze movno budet nakonec najti spasenie na Ostrov svobody!
Ne nado bylo bezatx iz SSSR, a gorditxsq, chto ty sovetskij celovek!!!

(K sovaleniu, etot forum ne pozwoliaet ispolxzovatx nikakuju druguju azbuku krome latinskoj

P.P. Nu tak kto voshel pervym v rezim ataki?!
================================================================================
Stepan, well, enough venom!
You've already deserved to become the head of the CIA!
We, the socialist countries, achieved what your new American compatriots can only dream of!
But wait a bit more - Obama will allow you trips to Cuba, then you could at last find salvation on the Island of Freedom!
You shouldn't have run out of the USSR, but be proud that you're a Soviet man!

(Unfortunately, this forum doesn't allow using any other alphabets but Latin

P.S. Well now who entered attack mode first?!

> Ne nado bylo bezatx iz SSSR, a gorditxsq, chto ty sovetskij celovek!!!

Ya ne sovetskii, ne byl sovetskii, ne khochu byt' sovetskii.

> (K sovaleniu, etot forum ne pozwoliaet ispolxzovatx nikakuju druguju
> azbuku krome latinskoj
>
> P.P. Nu tak kto voshel pervym v rezim ataki?!
> ================================================================================
> Stepan, well, enough venom!

Look who's talking.

> You've already deserved to become the head of the CIA!

Thank you.

> We, the socialist countries, achieved what your new American compatriots
> can only dream of!

It's true that some Americans want what your socialism had: Prisons for political dissidents, one supreme political party, forced labor, rule by decree rather than law, fake elections, censorship, closed cities...

> But wait a bit more - Obama will allow you trips to Cuba, then you could
> at last find salvation on the Island of Freedom!

Why don't you go to Cuba? Oh wait, never mind - Cuban "socialism" is now dead too.

> You shouldn't have run out of the USSR, but be proud that you're a Soviet
> man!

Tell the Ukrainians.

> P.S. Well now who entered attack mode first?!

Welcome to the war, Comrade!

> Edit: I deleted my post, it was the expression of my anger determined by
> the continual denigration of my country by some unadvised people.

BTW, nobody denigrated your country, only your claims about the greatness of its former political system.

> BTW, nobody denigrated your country, only your claims about the greatness
> of its former political system.

You are dominated by preconceptions and you are not interested in discussing a topic, only in generating emotional reactions. I didn't make claims about the greatness of any political system, but that the things go now in the wrong direction will be evident sooner or later. I only hope this to be not too late.

Because those disputes are sterile and both time and nerve-consuming I decided from now on to stay away from any non-DOS topic.

> You are dominated by preconceptions

In the matters at hand, no, I'm not. I don't mean that I don't have any preferences as to what system I wish to live under or not. But as to what exists, I am open to new evidence and methods of analysis. You, however, have shown none of that.

> and you are not interested in
> discussing a topic, only in generating emotional reactions.

I did not introduce the topics of lawyers and "bourgeois" vs. "socialist" systems. I have however, responded to some of your comments. If you are not prepared to deal with that except by losing your temper, that's your problem, not mine.

> Because those disputes are sterile and both time and nerve-consuming I
> decided from now on to stay away from any non-DOS topic.

Promises, promises. I predict you will find some other subject to get crazy about, and then complain that anyone who responds is being emotional and persecuting you.

> In the matters at hand, no, I'm not. I don't mean that I don't have any
> preferences as to what system I wish to live under or not. But as to what
> exists, I am open to new evidence and methods of analysis. You, however,
> have shown none of that.

Evidence for what? We can talk of evidence and methods of analysis only when people share the same principles. When they disagree regarding the principles there is no posibility for understanding. Even in these situation usually still exists some sort of reciprocal acceptance and tolerance, but for you anyone who has other principles than you is stupid or lacks your ample life experience. You can't abide the idea that someone can piss on your beloved burgeoise society, this is unbearable for you.

> I did not introduce the topics of lawyers and "bourgeois" vs. "socialist"
> systems. I have however, responded to some of your comments. If you are
> not prepared to deal with that except by losing your temper, that's your
> problem, not mine.

You are the one incapable to argue, not me. You always have to throw an affront. This is pure indignity. For such conduct you would have to pay for prejudices if brought to trial. Your chance is that no one really takes you seriously.

> ... but for you anyone who has other principles than you is stupid or lacks your ample life experience.

> You can't abide the idea that someone can piss on your beloved burgeoise society, this is unbearable for you.

> You are the one incapable to argue, not me.

> You always have to throw an affront. This is pure indignity. For such conduct you would have to pay for prejudices if brought to trial.

> Your chance is that no one really takes you seriously.

I'm reading your valuable contributions, claims and suggestions, my friend. And I also remember these things from you, posted recently:

> When people put too much passion in a discussion I deliberately impersonate
> the troll in order to relax the atmosphere.
> My intention is to amuse, not to offend, and I don't feel at all offended
> or personaly attacked by the replies. This is my way of joking.

... and I'm wondering ...

Perhaps you should try to see your posts from the point of view of an unbiased reader ... and then delete them ... quickly!

---
MS-DOS forever!

> > In the matters at hand, no, I'm not. I don't mean that I don't have any
> > preferences as to what system I wish to live under or not. But as to what
> > exists, I am open to new evidence and methods of analysis. You, however,
> > have shown none of that.

> Evidence for what?

Your claims.

> We can talk of evidence and methods of analysis only when people share the same principles.

If we share the principle that we should get the facts, whatever they are, yes. If you share that principle, then present facts, not insults and prejudices.

> but for you anyone who has other principles than you is stupid
> or lacks your ample life experience.

That has a grain of truth. I've seen shit that you have not.

> You can't abide the idea that someone can piss on your beloved burgeoise society, this is unbearable for you.

That's not true. Piss on bourgeois society all you want - I'm not in love with every aspect of it. But get the facts straight.

> > I did not introduce the topics of lawyers and "bourgeois" vs. "socialist"
> > systems. I have however, responded to some of your comments. If you are
> > not prepared to deal with that except by losing your temper, that's your
> > problem, not mine.

> You are the one incapable to argue, not me. You always have to throw an
> affront. This is pure indignity.

That's you. As we say, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.

> For such conduct you would have to pay for prejudices if brought to trial.

You hate freedom of speech for other people, don't you?

> Your chance is that no one really takes you seriously.

Do you think anyone takes you seriously?

> I'm reading your valuable contributions, claims and suggestions, my
> friend.

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad to know that my contribution is appreciated and my efforts are not in vain. I express my full confidence that reason will finally take the lead on this board.

> And I also remember these things from you, posted recently:
>
> > When people put too much passion in a discussion I deliberately
> impersonate
> > the troll in order to relax the atmosphere.
> > My intention is to amuse, not to offend, and I don't feel at all
> offended
> > or personaly attacked by the replies. This is my way of joking.
>
> ... and I'm wondering ...

We both have very poor English knowledge, so that our posts are easily subjected to misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I propose in the "Miscellaneous" category a "Learn English Language" thread, some timid tentatives have been already made in that direction.

> Perhaps you should try to see your posts from the point of view of an
> unbiased reader ... and then delete them ... quickly!

I don't believe that "unbiased" readers really exist and I delete my posts only when I consider them as being "too hard" replies. This doesn't mean I don't consider myself entitled to reply in that way. Take my attitude as a manifestation of my generosity and of my eagerness to forgive.

By the way, I have a question for you. Why do you always open multiple accounts in any forum you participate? The cause is called MPD or is called cowardice?

> By the way, I have a question for you. Why do you always open multiple
> accounts in any forum you participate? The cause is called MPD or is
> called cowardice?

I don't know. What I know, however, is that your "noise level" has increased significantly in recent times, since one of your comrades is back. I'm not sure, but if someone needs someone else back to show some courage, does such a behavior make this person a hero?

---
MS-DOS forever!

> > By the way, I have a question for you. Why do you always open multiple
> > accounts in any forum you participate? The cause is called MPD or is
> > called cowardice?
>
> I don't know.

I certainly don't know. But I do enjoy hearing from Angie.

> I don't know. What I know, however, is that your "noise level" has
> increased significantly in recent times, since one of your comrades is
> back. I'm not sure, but if someone needs someone else back to show some
> courage, does such a behavior make this person a hero?

I have to cover the noise provoked by some people like you who overreact at his presence and who understand the freedom of speech as freedom to calumniate and denigrate. This kind of individuals would have had to seriously pay in any reasonable society, only in the burgeoise society they are encouraged to manifest themselves because they provide the needed circus show. This is called the tabloid culture.
My conscience dictates me to defend my principles wherever and whenever they are attacked. I never kept my mouth shot, neither in the "socialist" regime nor in the burgeoise one. This is pure heroism.

"lucho >> We, the socialist countries, achieved what your new American compatriots can only dream of!"

Uh, yeah? What exactly?

> at his presence and who understand the freedom of speech as freedom to
> calumniate and denigrate. This kind of individuals would have had to

Don't confuse criticism with libel. Freedom of speech is certainly the freedom to criticize, and socialism is well deserving of it.

> seriously pay in any reasonable society, only in the burgeoise society

I like how you refer to us as a "bourgeoise" society. It's true, because our system is successful, it makes sense -- it works, it's real. Socialism is a terrible joke that many people unfortunately believe in.

> they are attacked. I never kept my mouth shot, neither in the "socialist"
> regime nor in the burgeoise one. This is pure heroism.

It's perhaps heroism in a society that restricts freedom of speech, but not here.

Socialism is just another type of political regime. It's no better than any other. And other regimes are not much better than socialism ither. At least in (ex) Yugoslavia. Why was it good? Social security was very good, unemployment was almost non-existent, peace ruled betwen nations on Balcans... Why was it bad? Secret police, secret laws (that you could broke without even knowing they exist), all the "good" thinks were paid for with borrowed money (that we will be returning for next couple of decades). When socialism broke down, the war broke out.
It was good if you didn't try to think with your own head to much. I am glad that those times are ower and I don't want them to come back. Ever.

Ps. This post is not ment as an answer to previous post, I just posted it here, because it was the last post at the time.

> It was good if you didn't try to think with your own head to much. I am
> glad that those times are ower and I don't want them to come back. Ever.

The so called socialism is dead, it is a question of past. Why to live in the past and don't confront instead the harsh realities of the burgeoise society?
What independent thinking there is now? Which is the spiritual progress, the thrash culture? Is the school better? Are the people instructed by the burgeoise society smarter? Are they more altruist? Are they more responsable? What information there is? Do you like the books written by the burgeois, full of superficiality and distortion of truth? Is not their media full of outrageous lies? It is better when all things have a price of money? It is better when social status depends on wealth? Do you appreciate the sharkish means by which immense wealth is accumulated? It is better when unscrupulous rat-like characters are the heroes of the day? Do you like how they evade the Law with the help of shit-eater lawyers? Do you like how all real values have been replaced by surrogates and simulacra? Do you like the puppetry show called politics?
This miserable burgeoise society encourages what's the lowest of the low in the human being.

> What independent thinking there is now? Which is the spiritual progress,
> the thrash culture? Is the school better? Are the people instructed by the
> burgeoise society smarter? Are they more altruist? Are they more
> responsable? What information there is? Do you like the books written by
> the burgeois, full of superficiality and distortion of truth? Is not their
> media full of outrageous lies? It is better when all things have a price of
> money? It is better when social status depends on wealth? Do you appreciate
> the sharkish means by which immense wealth is accumulated? It is better
> when unscrupulous rat-like characters are the heroes of the day? Do you
> like how they evade the Law with the help of shit-eater lawyers? Do you
> like how all real values have been replaced by surrogates and simulacra?
> Do you like the puppetry show called politics?
> This miserable burgeoise society encourages what's the lowest of the low
> in the human being.

You can read? Matjaz wrote: Socialism is just another type of political regime. It's no better than any other. And other regimes are not much better than socialism ither. So why do you want to discuss with him?

---
Forum admin

> The so called socialism is dead, it is a question of past. Why to live in
> the past and don't confront instead the harsh realities of the burgeoise
> society?

> What independent thinking there is now?

Are you not free to think now? Have you had forced brain surgery? Are you a prisoner, being tortured?

> Which is the spiritual progress,

We are free to to pursue religious and spiritual interests. Not so under your socialism.

> Is the school better?

Yes. No censorship, all the world's knowledge and information available.

> Are the people instructed by the burgeoise society smarter?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Life is complicated everywhere.

> Are they more altruist?

Maybe not more, but free to act on good impulses.

> Are they more responsable?

Possibly. A free society certainly provides a better test laboratory.

> What information there is?

All. See above. The problem is sorting it out, without the Party to tell us how.

> Do you like the books written by the burgeois, full of superficiality and distortion of truth?

You obviously don't read much.

> Is not their media full of outrageous lies?

So what? Was socialism different? If you say yes, you are either a liar or an idiot.

> It is better when all things have a price of money?

No. But complaining about it is an industry.

> It is better when social status depends on wealth? Do you appreciate
> the sharkish means by which immense wealth is accumulated?

Under socialism, the sharks went into the Parties to accumulate raw power. Under capitalism, we have to take an indirect route, first accumulating money, and then buying power. So what?

> It is better when unscrupulous rat-like characters are the heroes of the day?

No difference between capitalism and yesterday's actually-existing socialism.

> Do you like how they evade the Law with the help of shit-eater lawyers?

Do you like how they ruled by decree, evading the (fake) law with the power of Party positions, or by bribing Party officials?

> Do you like how all real values have been replaced by surrogates and simulacra?

No difference. Anyway, this has nothing to do with either capitalism or socialism - the complaint is as old as civilization.

> Do you like the puppetry show called politics?

That describes your socialism perfectly.

> This miserable burgeoise society encourages what's the lowest of the low
> in the human being.

And Romania was Heaven when Ceaucescu was God.

> The so called socialism is dead, it is a question of past. Why to live in
> the past and don't confront instead the harsh realities of the burgeoise
> society?

So there are some laws of economics that rule the world. That is not bad

> What independent thinking there is now? Which is the spiritual progress,
> the thrash culture? Is the school better?

Independent thinking? Now you can dissagree with your government, you can have a different view. Back then that was not a good idea.
People change slowly. Yes, the scool is better

> Are the people instructed by the
> burgeoise society smarter? Are they more altruist? Are they more
> responsable?

Were the books and media much different in socialism?

> What information there is? Do you like the books written by
> the burgeois, full of superficiality and distortion of truth? Is not their
> media full of outrageous lies?

That sounds to me like something we had back in the old days.

> It is better when all things have a price of
> money? It is better when social status depends on wealth? Do you appreciate
> the sharkish means by which immense wealth is accumulated? It is better
> when unscrupulous rat-like characters are the heroes of the day? Do you
> like how they evade the Law with the help of shit-eater lawyers? Do you
> like how all real values have been replaced by surrogates and simulacra?

That is the problem of people, not of the regime.

> Do you like the puppetry show called politics?
> This miserable burgeoise society encourages what's the lowest of the low
> in the human being.

Shit-eater lawyers? Oh come on, they are not that bad. Lawyers are cool

> Are you not free to think now? Have you had forced brain surgery? Are you
> a prisoner, being tortured?

People who lack spirit of enterprise have found the socialism good, because being a paternalist system it cared for them. But many important burgeois don't have independent thinking (i.e. they don't think with their own mind). They employ counselors to think for them and live their life in a continuous party.

> We are free to to pursue religious and spiritual interests. Not so under
> your socialism.

In Romania people WERE free to pursue whatever religious and spiritual interest they wanted as long as this wasn't in contradiction with their position (social role). In the burgeoise society instead it is possible to have a position in total contradiction with the spiritual interests pursued. This is tragicomical.

> No censorship, all the world's knowledge and information available.

There is censorship! Most people don't like too much to inquire. They are happy with what reach them. If you did refer to inquiring, in the socialist society in which I lived all those who wanted to be informed had available "all the world's knowledge and information".

> > Do you like the books written by the burgeois, full of superficiality
> and distortion of truth?
>
> You obviously don't read much.

Or perhaps you read only that kind of books.

> > It is better when all things have a price of money?
>
> No. But complaining about it is an industry.

And how you qualify supporting this?

> So what? Was socialism different? If you say yes, you are either a liar or
> an idiot.

> Under socialism, the sharks went into the Parties to accumulate raw power.
> Under capitalism, we have to take an indirect route, first accumulating
> money, and then buying power. So what?

> And Romania was Heaven when Ceaucescu was God.

I'm not a nostalgic of the "socialist" society. This doesn't mean that I must be a sycophant of the abhorrent burgeoise society, like you are.

> You can read? Matjaz wrote: Socialism is just another type of political
> regime. It's no better than any other. And other regimes are not much
> better than socialism ither. So why do you want to discuss with
> him?

You are right. But if I promised before that this will be the last non-DOS thread in which I will post, now I promise that this is my last post in the thread.

> > EDR-DOS is free but not Open Source and as far as I can tell
> It's exactly the opposite: it's open source but not "free software" in FSF terms

It is both free and open source ... just not qualifying for the "only correct" definition of "free" by FSF

> So EDR-DOS is in fact a DOS kernel only.

YES, but no big problem. I don't need "built-in" garbage like Quack-BASIC

rr wrote:

> No, thanks. I have valid MS-DOS licences here.
> Please understand that we don't talk about "leaked" programs or other illegal stuff in this forum.

Sorry but your "argument" doesn't work You can't seriously advertise a thingie that is not legally available to the public and at same time whine about piracy of it ... pirated MS-DOG downloads are very easy to find, partially with source

IMHO the future of DOS is NOT in MS-DOG (legal or illegal, with or without leaked sources), nor in NTVDM of XP/Vista (again with or without leaked sources) ... so the pirated leaked crap sources are not worth the bloat they cause

lucho wrote:

> THIS PROGRAM REQUIRES CLOSED WINDOWS AND OPEN GATES.
> GATES MUST BE OPENED BY A QUALIFIED SURGEON.

> But Micro$0ft deserve the worst punishment for the great
> damage that they've done to the world

Agree, but piracy is IMHO not the correct way. Just avoid using or even worse advertising their fine products

> The question is why they removed version 8.0 too?
> It was 100% theirs and included much improved versions of some utlities.
> It may be becase its FAT32 support didn't work "as advertised".

No piracy in 8.0 ? FAT32 just didn't work ?

---
This is a LOGITECH mouse driver, but some software expect here
the following string:*** This is Copyright 1983 Microsoft ***

> ... many important
> burgeois don't have independent thinking (i.e. they don't think with their
> own mind). They employ counselors to think for them and live their life in
> a continuous party.

Blah, blah, blah.

> > We are free to to pursue religious and spiritual interests. Not so under your socialism.

> In Romania people WERE free to pursue whatever religious and spiritual
> interest they wanted as long as this wasn't in contradiction with their
> position (social role).

And who decided if there was a contradiction?

> In the burgeoise society instead it is possible to
> have a position in total contradiction with the spiritual interests
> pursued. This is tragicomical.

Some people don't care. Some are confused. Some are hypocrites. Some are searching. Welcome to humanity.

> > No censorship, all the world's knowledge and information available.

> There is censorship! Most people don't like too much to inquire. They are
> happy with what reach them.

Lack of interest is not the same as censorship. It can be a form of freedom.

> If you did refer to inquiring, in the
> socialist society in which I lived all those who wanted to be informed had
> available "all the world's knowledge and information".

You lie.

> > > Do you like the books written by the burgeois, full of superficiality
> > and distortion of truth?

> > You obviously don't read much.

> Or perhaps you read only that kind of books.

That is so stupid, I can't believe even you said it.

> > > It is better when all things have a price of money?
> >
> > No. But complaining about it is an industry.
>
> And how you qualify supporting this?

Go to a bookstore or library in any "bourgeois" country.

> > And Romania was Heaven when Ceaucescu was God.
>
> I'm not a nostalgic of the "socialist" society.

Then what the hell are you babbling about?

> This doesn't mean that I must be a sycophant of the abhorrent burgeoise society, like you are.

I am neither a sycophant, nor, like you, an ignorant reactionary.

> Ya ne sovetskii, ne byl sovetskii, ne khochu byt' sovetskii.

Aaaa, znacit tebe po krajnej mere 100 let! Pozdravljaju! (Aaaah, so you're at least 100 years old! Congratulations!)

> It's true that some Americans want what your socialism had: Prisons for political dissidents,

Few dissidents, supported by the hostile USA, which by the way has more prison[er]s than any other country but perhaps China. The USA has disidents too, with mouths shut by the much more effective financial means.

> one supreme political party,

The USA has TWO supreme parties, almost equal in their policy. Not much difference.

> forced labor

The USA has forced unemployment.

> rule by decree rather than law

The USA has rule by corporations - a form of decree too.

> fake elections

Re: How the court "elected" G.W.Bush and the fake Democratic primary elections in Michigan and Florida...

> censorship

The USA has even more (and much more effective) media censorship than we had.

> closed cities...

A la guerre come a la guerre! (Cold war!)

No, by those dreams I mean the free education, including higher education, and free medical care for everyone. Also the unbelievable collectivism vs. the American individualism. Last not least - no fear of tomorrow and no credit slavery, own house (at least here in Bulgaria), and so on. Calm and much longer life! After the coup d'etat in 1989 and the restoration or capitalism, the standard of life here fell so sharply that it's unbelievable! (I can quote some numbers, if you want.)

> Why don't you go to Cuba?

My father had been there. For me, in our capitalist misery now, it's too far.

> Oh wait, never mind - Cuban "socialism" is now dead too.

No, it's not dead at all, and it'll outlive the US capitalism, a relict of the past since 1917! Come on, capitalism is long since much more obsolete than DOS is!

> Tell the Ukrainians.

Which Ukrainians? The Russian Ukrainians or the Polish Ukrainians? The western or the eastern [of Dnepr]? The Oranges or the Red? The Banderists [RUH] or the Communists? The US puppets like Yushchenko, the mafia or the ordinary people?

> Welcome to the war, Comrade!

You could be a comrade of mine but you choose the enemy's side. Your choice! Sorry!

> Perhaps you should try to see your posts from the point of view of an unbiased reader ... and then delete them ... quickly!

No, it was only in the "good" old days when one could delete his own posts, like you did in enormous quantities. No more! I'd also like to delete some posts of mine from these times, but it's no longer possible! As S. noted, everything must be held as evidence...

By the way, thanks to Robert for increasing the inactivity timeout after login. Now I can write a post a long time and it still doesn't throw me out.

> > We, the socialist countries, achieved what your new American compatriots can only dream of!"
>
> Uh, yeah? What exactly?

See my other post answering S. (here) - the paragraph starting with "No, by those dreams I mean...".

> I like how you refer to us as a "bourgeoise" society. It's true, because
> our system is successful, it makes sense -- it works, it's real.
> Socialism is a terrible joke that many people unfortunately believe in.

Nothing is far from the truth. Socialism succeeded, but it was betrayed from inside - read the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny to understand why and how. It's a scientific book.

Capitalism failed to provice a just society, is long since obsolete, and will be inevitably replaced by socialism (ours was just the beta version!). Some advanced countries like China (already the world's biggest economy!) do it now, with great success!

Everything that's happened was not so unexpected. The socialist planned economy is much more complex to control than the market chaos. Keeran and Kenny compare the planned and the "market" economy to an airplane and a raft, respectively. The raft always floats, but it's primitive. It's enough that the pilot in the airplane is a bad one and voila - it crashes!

> It's perhaps heroism in a society that restricts freedom of speech, but not here.

You too lack true freedom of speech. Nobody will give media exposure to someone or something "politically incorrect" (an euphemism for censorship).

It's interesting what Zinoviev told: In socialism, you can curse your own boss but not the state boss. In capitalism, you can curse the state boss but not your own boss.

P.S. Robert, I couldn't use the abbreviated form of linking to a forum post, even though I read your introductory post. Please explain once more how it's done.

> > It's true that some Americans want what your socialism had: Prisons for
> political dissidents,
>
> Few dissidents, supported by the hostile USA, which by the way has more
> prison[er]s than any other country but perhaps China. The USA has
> disidents too, with mouths shut by the much more effective financial
> means.

The U.S. puts criminals in prison. Many countries simply execute them, some without any form of trial. There are plenty of political dissidents throughout the U.S., and they are not jailed.

> The USA has TWO supreme parties, almost equal in their policy. Not much
> difference.

And the citizens of the country can vote whichever in they prefer. If one changes its policies to be more favorable to the most people, *that* party gets voted in. This is different than one party who's laws and policy have no relation to what the people want.

> The USA has forced unemployment.

That makes absolutely no sense. No, everyone can work if they so choose.

> The USA has rule by corporations - a form of decree too.

Utter nonsense.

> > fake elections
>
> Re: How the court "elected" G.W.Bush and the fake Democratic primary
> elections in Michigan and Florida...

It did not elect him, it ordered recounts because of how close the votes were; Bush led Gore in all 3 recounts. This would never happen in your socialist utopia where the party has at least 100% popularity.

> > censorship
>
> The USA has even more (and much more effective) media censorship than we
> had.

Wrong. Some corporations lean in a particular way for various reasons, however, this isn't the same as censorship. Otherwise, you would not know who 'Michael Moore' is - he would be buried somewhere with countless other people in an unmarked grave.

> No, by those dreams I mean the free education, including higher education,
> and free medical care for everyone. Also the unbelievable collectivism vs.
> the American individualism. Last not least - no fear of tomorrow and no
> credit slavery, own house (at least here in Bulgaria), and so on. Calm and
> much longer life! After the coup d'etat in 1989 and the restoration or
> capitalism, the standard of life here fell so sharply that it's
> unbelievable! (I can quote some numbers, if you want.)

You're not living in reality. You can't give everyone free education and free medical care. People get lazy, get addicted to drugs, get greedy.

How about you explain *WHY* there was a coup d'etat in 1989? The standard of life was in a freefall before capitalism, which is what is repairing your nation.

> No, it's not dead at all, and it'll outlive the US capitalism, a relict of
> the past since 1917! Come on, capitalism is long since much more obsolete
> than DOS is!

Even if capitalism dies - it doesn't matter, communism has proven to be a complete failure.

> Nothing is far from the truth. Socialism succeeded, but it was betrayed
> from inside - read the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and
> Thomas Kenny to understand why and how. It's a scientific book.

You have no concept of what is 'science', clearly.

Though you're right about betrayal. Socialism, by [human] nature, must be betrayed and destroyed from the inside if not from the outside, unless it's a city of robots.

> Capitalism failed to provice a just society, is long since obsolete, and
> will be inevitably replaced by socialism (ours was just the beta
> version!). Some advanced countries like China (already the world's biggest
> economy!) do it now, with great success!

So you're saying China provides a just society? You must be severely brain damaged. Did the party beat you on the head as a child?

> > It's perhaps heroism in a society that restricts freedom of speech, but
> not here.
>
> You too lack true freedom of speech. Nobody will give media exposure to
> someone or something "politically incorrect" (an euphemism for
> censorship).

You're an unending fountain of complete, ignorant nonsense.

Firstly, an english tutorial. "Politically incorrect" is slang, and has nothing to do with politics, but rather diplomacy/politeness. For example, it's politically incorrect to call an overweight person "fat", or someone who is not beautiful "ugly".

Secondly, a lesson on freedom of speech. You are none-the-less welcome to call that person "fat" or "ugly", however it is still rude. You are also perfectly welcome to criticize particular parties, companies, or people, provided you are not lying --- and it's not politically incorrect, and yes, people criticize political parties and standpoints in public media.

> By the way, thanks to Robert for increasing the inactivity timeout after
> login. Now I can write a post a long time and it still doesn't throw me
> out.

Thanks, but I didn't change anything. Maybe my web hoster did...

---
Forum admin

> P.S. Robert, I couldn't use the abbreviated form of linking to a forum
> post, even though I read your introductory post. Please explain once more
> how it's done.

What's the problem?

---
Forum admin

> Nothing is far from the truth. Socialism succeeded, but it was betrayed
> from inside - read the book "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and
> Thomas Kenny to understand why and how. It's a scientific book.

Scientific? It's a Stalinist ideological tract.

> Capitalism failed to provice a just society,

Capitalism is irrelevant here. Some capitalist and some other types of societies are just, some capitalist and some other types of societies are unjust.

> is long since obsolete, and will be inevitably replaced by socialism

Wake up. Capitalism is here and it's not going away. Furthermore, capitalism does not require injustice. There is plenty of room for improvement, but in many countries there is also the possibility to work for it. Not so in your so-called socialist paradises.

> (ours was just the beta version!)

A buggy alpha that crashed.

> Some advanced countries like China (already the world's biggest
> economy!)

The US economy is still the largest, by far.

> do it now, with great success!

China's socialism is dead - it's now thoroughly capitalist economically. Politically and socially, it is undergoing great changes, the results of which we cannot yet see. But it will certainly not go back to what you call socialism - nobody wants another crashing alpha. Or beta either.

> Everything that's happened was not so unexpected. The socialist planned
> economy is much more complex to control than the market chaos. Keeran and
> Kenny compare the planned and the "market" economy to an airplane and a
> raft, respectively. The raft always floats, but it's primitive. It's
> enough that the pilot in the airplane is a bad one and voila - it crashes!

And a strong wind or current overturns a raft with its simple structure, lacking in stabilizing mechanisms. That was your stupid socialism. But enough of simple-minded analogies.

> You too lack true freedom of speech. Nobody will give media exposure to
> someone or something "politically incorrect" (an euphemism for
> censorship).

Whereas under your socialism, everyone not only had freedom of speech, but was provided a platform by the state in its newspapers, television, etc.

> It's interesting what Zinoviev told: In socialism, you can curse your own
> boss but not the state boss.

Because if you cursed the state boss, he put you away.

> In capitalism, you can curse the state boss but not your own boss.

Curse your boss at work, and the worst that happens is you lose your job. So you look for another job, or start your own business.

> > Ya ne sovetskii, ne byl sovetskii, ne khochu byt' sovetskii.
>
> Aaaa, znacit tebe po krajnej mere 100 let! Pozdravljaju! (Aaaah, so you're
> at least 100 years old! Congratulations!)

Spasibo. Thank you.

> > It's true that some Americans want what your socialism had: Prisons for political dissidents,
>
> Few dissidents, supported by the hostile USA,

Bullshit.

> which by the way has more prison[er]s than any other country but perhaps China.

Unfortunately, that's true, mostly on account of unnecessarily harsh laws against drug possession. But that is changing now. We have learned a nasty lesson in the cost of stupidity in dealing with our drug problems.

> The USA has disidents too, with mouths shut by the much more effective financial means.

This is completely meaningless.

> > one supreme political party,
>
> The USA has TWO supreme parties, almost equal in their policy. Not much difference.

Two major parties, and a bunch of smaller ones. But be careful how you understand our parties. They are not ideological or homogeneous - each is a coalition of diverse interest groups and shifting alliances. In reality, this makes the parties both stable and flexible, adaptive to change without breaking.

> > forced labor
>
> The USA has forced unemployment.

No. It does not have mandatory employment, which is not the same thing. You socialism did, however, have forced unemployment - for political dissidents.

> > rule by decree rather than law
>
> The USA has rule by corporations - a form of decree too.

The giant corporations certainly have political influence. But they certainly do not rule absolutely. Even if some corporate chiefs wanted to, they could not - the corporations don't even all agree on policy.

> > fake elections
>
> Re: How the court "elected" G.W.Bush

A flaw in 2004, to be sure. But not a permanent feature.

> and the fake Democratic primary elections in Michigan and Florida...

You obviously don't understand what happened in those states.

> > censorship
>
> The USA has even more (and much more effective) media censorship than we had.

Neither more, nor more effective.

> > closed cities...
>
> A la guerre come a la guerre! (Cold war!)

That was not the reason, in the SU.

> No, by those dreams I mean the free education, including higher education, and free medical care for everyone.

Nothing was free. It was a bookkeeping trick. Rather than paying large salaries, and then charging for services, the state kept back its share of the surplus. Instead of paying in money right when it was earned, it paid later in (poor) services.

> Also the unbelievable collectivism vs. the American individualism.

A false dichotomy. Neither society had, or has, such complete polarization.

> Last not least - no fear of tomorrow

Unless you opened your mouth when the police were listening.

> and no credit slavery

No, only the slavery of poverty.

> own house (at least here in Bulgaria), and so on.

> Calm and much longer life!

You must have been drunk. And still be.

> After the coup d'etat in 1989 and the restoration or
> capitalism, the standard of life here fell so sharply that it's
> unbelievable! (I can quote some numbers, if you want.)

Both the coup and the collapse were effects of the state's incompetence and corruption.

> > Oh wait, never mind - Cuban "socialism" is now dead too.
>
> No, it's not dead at all, and it'll outlive the US capitalism,

You obviously don't read the news. Cuba is undergoing rapid change, and will soon reintegrate into the world system.

> a relict of the past since 1917! Come on, capitalism is long since much more obsolete than DOS is!

DOS has outlasted socialism, a relic of the past since 1989. Think about that.

> > Tell the Ukrainians.
>
> Which Ukrainians? The Russian Ukrainians or the Polish Ukrainians? The
> western or the eastern [of Dnepr]? The Oranges or the Red? The Banderists
> [RUH] or the Communists? The US puppets like Yushchenko, the mafia or the
> ordinary people?

So you know some of the varieties of Ukrainians. Good. Tell them all.

> > Welcome to the war, Comrade!
>
> You could be a comrade of mine but you choose the enemy's side. Your
> choice! Sorry!

In truth, I am neither your comrade nor your enemy. I do not share your politics or engage in any kind of war against your country. If you want to see an enemy of your country, look in a mirror.

And you started the war here. Don't launch a broad attack and then cry that a response is an attack on you. And don't bother telling more fairy tales, when so many in the world, including here in this forum, know what your socialism was really like.

> > P.S. Robert, I couldn't use the abbreviated form of linking to a forum
> > post, even though I read your introductory post. Please explain once
> > more how it's done.
>
> What's the problem?

I didn't get right the syntax of
This is a link to a post of this forum
but now I finally understood that the curly brackets must be replaced with angle brackets. (You had to replace the angle brackets with curly brackets in your "Welcome" message because the angle brackets would be interpreted and not seen.)

> If you want to see an enemy of your country, look in a mirror.

That's a plain personal insult. I can say the same about you, and it'd be true, but I don't. Do you know why? Because I can't be sure which your country is. You're a former Russian and current American, but after the situation in the USA becomes unbearable (it may even collapse) maybe you'll change your nation again?

"Ubi bene, ibi patria"!

> And you started the war here. Don't launch a broad attack and then cry
> that a response is an attack on you. And don't bother telling more fairy
> tales, when so many in the world, including here in this forum, know what
> your socialism was really like.

I don't do any of the above. But how could I feel otherwise than love socialism and hate capitalism, when after the restoration of capitalism in the 1990s, the salaries in Bulgaria rose less than 2 times, whereas the prices of the food rose 5 times in average, of public transport rose 13 times, life expectancy decreased by 5 years, population decreased by 20%, and so on, and so forth? How could I???

Your capitalism will self-destruct. And then welcome to Socialism, beta 2!

> > If you want to see an enemy of your country, look in a mirror.
>
> That's a plain personal insult.

Yes, it is. But is that becasue it's true, or because it's not true?

> I can say the same about you,

You have, and here you go again.

> and it'd be true,

It's not.

> but I don't. Do you know why? Because I can't be sure which your country is.

You haven't let that stop you before now.

> You're a former Russian

No.

> and current American.

That's obvious to everyone.

> but after the situation in the USA becomes unbearable

A subjective term. Do you know my living conditions?

> (it may even collapse)

Keep dreaming.

> maybe you'll change your nation again?

I didn't change anything. I wasn't consulted.

> "Ubi bene, ibi patria"!

Ooh, ooh, you can quote Latin, too. I'm impressed.

> > And you started the war here. Don't launch a broad attack and then cry
> > that a response is an attack on you. And don't bother telling more
> > fairy tales, when so many in the world, including here in this forum, know
> > what your socialism was really like.
>
> I don't do any of the above.

Read your messages.

> But how could I feel otherwise than love
> socialism and hate capitalism, when after the restoration of capitalism in
> the 1990s, the salaries in Bulgaria rose less than 2 times, whereas the
> prices of the food rose 5 times in average, of public transport rose 13
> times, life expectancy decreased by 5 years, population decreased by 20%,
> and so on, and so forth? How could I???

Proof of the inherent instability (and probable corruption) of your so-called socialism. A national economy doesn't collapse for no reason.

> Your capitalism will self-destruct. And then welcome to Socialism, beta 2!

Keep dreaming.

> "L'unico vero realista è il visionario." --Federico Fellini (1920-1993)

So, you think life is a movie. That explains everything.

> > What's the problem?
>
> I didn't get right the syntax of
> This is a link to a post of this forum
> but now I finally understood that the curly brackets must be replaced with
> angle brackets. (You had to replace the angle brackets with curly brackets
> in your "Welcome" message because the angle brackets would be interpreted
> and not seen.)

Quoting myself: "BBCode tags are enclosed in square braces `[' and `]' surrounding a keyword."
Nevertheless I updated msg #1 to be more precisely.

---
Forum admin