[ale] ALE booth at LISA

[Geoffrey]

Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 16:28 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> 
>>Jim Popovitch wrote:
>>
>>>LOL.  This list needs some centralized protection. 
>>
>>Any particular reason you're being such an ass?
> 
> 
> Just how did you come to the conclusion that I was being an ass?

You're comment above was not in such a tone?

> Let me recap:
> 
> You expressed frustration in paying someone for something you are
> capable of doing yourself.(ref #1)  I then pointed out that I pay taxes
> for far in excess of the benefit to me directly.(ref #2)  Which was an
> attempt to get you to see that everyone doing it alone isn't always the
> best way.  You countered (in your own being-such-an-ass mode) that I
> made a ludicrous comparison, even though it wasn't a comparison.(ref #3)

If it was not a comparison, what was it?  It was an example made in 
reference to my statement.   One can not attempt to validate your 
statement without comparing the two.

> You tend to think that I must benefit from centralized protection (your
> term) in ways that aren't readily apparent.  I.E. I would face a larger
> chaos without a police force thereby incurring a greater individual
> cost.  Although I agree with your view on this it can be argued to no
> end since the world is ripe with both police AND violence, usually in
> the same places.

So you don't believe there would be more violence in the event there 
were no police?  They don't make a difference?

> My above comment, about the list needing centralized protection, was an
> effort to further trigger your mind into looking at the bigger picture
> at the LISA show.  Think about the way the ALE list works:  Individual
> subscribers are in total control of their involvement, their virus
> security, and even their desire, or not, to read posts accusing others
> of being asses.  Reducing the list to the lowest-common-denominator
> could bring 'centralized protection' but is that the best thing?

You're twisting the whole issue into something about centralized 
protection, when it fact the issue is paying a price for something that 
I don't think is reasonable, yet I don't have any other option.  I'd 
suggest that you site other economic comparisons that are similar.  I 
suspect that you will find they are few.

> Moving forward:
> 
> At LISA I'm sure you could provide your own lighting, carpet and
> heat/AC.  You admitted that paying for power was reasonable, but you
> also have the capability of providing your own power if you wanted to
> (generator).

No, you can not.  It is not permitted either.

> The reason it is important to look at the bigger picture
> at LISA is that while you MAY be perfectly capable of doing many things,
> others may NOT be, or may NOT care too.  The unions have leveraged the
> difference in peoples capabilities, their budgets, and their preferences
> and have forced a lowest-common-denominator on ALL.

What? That's ludicrous as well.  All unions are successful in doing is 
forcing an unrealistic wage for services.  In the long run, they do 
their members a disservice by inflating their incomes until such time as 
they find themselves without a job and finding their 'skills' lock them 
into a job that pays 25% of the prior.

> This is very
> similar to the way politicians bully everyone to collect taxes and
> distribute services. <-- you may have to pause and think a bit to make
> that connection, please feel free to admit if you can't.

You still have input into this issue, your vote.  I have no input into 
the cost of the Lisa services.

Again, your comparison is flawed.  Choose a better example.  So it would 
be reasonable to pay $400 per box to have them moved, because that's 
what the union decides is the right price?  I should have the right to 
decide whether I want to pay their price or not.  More than having to 
haul the stuff in without the benefit of dollies or other devices.

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey