From: Tchiowa on

The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Tchiowa
> >>They were no more socialist than the USSR was communist.
> >Well, since the USSR was definitely Communist.........
> "Communism embraced a revolutionary ideology in which the state
> would wither away after the overthrow of the capitalist system."
> "Communism - A social and political ideology advocating that
> authority and property be vested in the community, each member
> working for the common benefit according to capacity and
> receiving according to needs."
> but those naughty russkies didnt stick to the principles of
> communism.

Why not? Answer, because Socialism requires a powerful government. If
not then the people will throw it out because the people want to be
allowed to succeed. So the more Socialistic you get the more you end up
trending toward a dictatorial government.

But it was the Socialist economy that crumbled and cause the failure of
the government, not the other way around.

Socialism cannot succeed long term.

> >The Nazis nationalized many businesses. Socialist by definition.
> and supported the right in Spain rather than the socialists,
> "national socialism" is to socialism what the german democratic
> republic was to democracy.

Wrong. Socialism is an economic philosophy that can reside on either
side of the political spectrum.

> "The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World
> War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist
> government"

And a socialist economy.

> Next you will be telling us New Labour are socialists.

I don't know enough about their detailed beliefs.

I also notice that you decide to argue about whether or not the Nazis
were Socialist and ignore the other half dozen specific examples of the
destructiveness of Socialist governments.

I wonder why that is.

(No I don't. We both know why.)

BTW, it's my parents 50th wedding anniversary coming up so I'm going to
sin and fly myself and my wife half way around the world to celebrate
with them. So you'd better stay home and do the "sackcloth and ashes"
thing to keep the world in balance.

From: dgs on
Mxsmanic wrote:

> Mostly in computers.

This doesn't make sense. Aren't you capable of composing complete
From: Mxsmanic on
The Reid writes:

> professionals do it for money, amateurs do it for fun, thats one
> irrelevant definition, no doubt the one you would prefer. But in
> context its probably someone holding a qualification in a skill
> overseen by a professional body.

What is a "professional body"?

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on
Dave Frightens Me writes:

> What makes you think there's a threshhold?

If there were not, then "the money you can demand" would not be a
distinguishing criterion.

> Professionals can demand more than non-professionals.

So there must be a dividing line between what non-professionals can
demand and what professionals can demand. What is that dividing line?

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on
Martin writes:

> I note his website asks for money. Does this make him a beggar or a
> professional?

So does the Web site of Doctors without Borders. What does that make

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.