...Fuck off, troll. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) Thats not me you idiot. Like, *duh*, you clueless, list-making pisher. That was my point. I can see why you are hated on all the music usenet groups. A troll who impersonates Raja...that's gotta be a hard-luck gig. Fuck off. -- -S A wise man,...

... go. Raja, since when did you start posting from Tornvall net? Fuck off, troll. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748) Thats not me you idiot. Like, *duh*, you clueless, list-making pisher. That was my point. -- -S A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence. -- David Hume, "On Miracles" (1748)

Drew Adams пишет: (defun my-test () (interactive) (if (equal (y-or-n-p "Yes or no? ") t) (if (y-or-n-p "Yes or no? ") will do just fine. (foo) (message "hallo"))) Duh. (I didn't try to do more than answer his question.) Really, the right answer to the OP is to take a look at the manual "Emacs Lisp Introduction" (aka "An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp") in Info (`C-...

... do? Well if its an erroneous concept why haven't you cited some texts with the right definition, duh? I did. Did you read them? Snicker. So you don't undestand the concept of textbook? ... Do you have a point to make? Did you read them? Why does wiki refer to HC as labour, duh? Why id the first article mention Romer's labour, duh? Is he a ditch digger? Why does the 2nd article, the one you stole your idea about a limited ...

> (defun my-test () (interactive) (if (equal (y-or-n-p "Yes or no? ") t) (if (y-or-n-p "Yes or no? ") will do just fine. (foo) (message "hallo"))) Duh. (I didn't try to do more than answer his question.) Really, the right answer to the OP is to take a look at the manual "Emacs Lisp Introduction" (aka "An Introduction to Programming in Emacs Lisp") in Info (`C-h i').

...'t seem to grasp the point, can you? I.e., that labor does not explain or predict the market values of most goods, even though it is a necessary production factor for most of them? Ah, so the economists who wrote the text book are commies. That as good as you can do? Well if its an erroneous concept why haven't you cited some texts with the right definition, duh? I did. Did you read them? Or do you mean first-year textbooks?

... determinant of their market value. So what changes by changing the name of labour to human capital, duh? Already answered that one, remember? What changes is that "labor" is no longer perceived, erroneously, as a...you can do? Well if its an erroneous concept why haven't you cited some texts with the right definition, duh? Sorry, but you're just too desperate to admit when your wrong. Come back when you've read some basic...

... of most goods. What I've been saying is that the labor invested in those goods is not a reliable determinant of their market value. So what changes by changing the name of labour to human capital, duh? Already answered that one, remember? What changes is that "labor" is no longer perceived, erroneously, as a single, uniform, "undifferentiated," fundamental factor of production, as Marx and other lefties would lead you to ...

... of most goods. What I've been saying is that the labor invested in those goods is not a reliable determinant of their market value. So what changes by changing the name of labour to human capital, duh? Already answered that one, remember? What changes is that "labor" is no longer perceived, erroneously, as a single, uniform, "undifferentiated," fundamental factor of production, as Marx and other lefties would lead you to believe...

... your garden you flood the road which is dangerous to other road users. I think I will go away & think this over again or perhaps Doug can help. Francis The solution is so complex I am surprised you haven't thought of it. Get rid of the dratted path which is the cause of so many problems! Repeating yourself now, you mad old bastard? No, that second one was from Trollum. duh...! Mike P