|
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
Where to begin? Let's start at the beginning, sort of.
Ken J. posted: ***"Yeah, the economy is really bad right now. Unemployment is high. The fed is even lowering interest rates to try to speed up the economy. ....oh wait, that's just a lefty's dream. - Ken"*** in response, I posted: ***"I guess it's all pretty relative. Where I live in Caldwell County, NC the unemployment rate is quite high! http://tinyurl.com/h8keu And so the economy here is REALLY BAD RIGHT NOW! As far as the Fed. interest rates, there is quite a bit of discussion as to whether Bernanke knows what the hell he is doing! Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--"*** My post was meant to rebut the sarcastic tenor of Ken J's post, which he attempted to convey that the economy is in great shape. Noting that things are not the same all across the country, I posted a link that shows the HIGH unemployment rate in Caldwell County, NC--where I live. Now I realize that the unemployment rate of a particular county is not the sole indicator of that county's economic health, but it certainly is a strong indicator of that county's economic health. Thus, I stated that "the economy here (Caldwell County, NC) is REALLY BAD RIGHT NOW!" We can forget about the third sentence in my post about the "Fed. interest rates." as this doesn't seem to be a bone of contention--YET! Okay, my comment: "--being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--" is related to Ken's remark about "a lefty's dream," and a further reference to the fact that things are *relative* economically speaking. In short--if a person doesn't live in an area of the country where there are lots of high paying jobs (a Mecca of hi-tech, for instance), the economy in the area in which that person lives isn't necessarily going to be perceived as doing all that well. On 7/8/2006 at 8:08 PM, Joe responds with: ***"There's always regional problems, but the state of North Carolina actually has a lower unemployment rate than the entire left-coast. North Carolina - 4.6 Washington - 5.1 Oregon - 5.6 California - 5.0 http://www.nemw.org/unemp.htm"*** To which I respond with this reply: ***"Sadly, unemployment rates aren't a true indicator of *REAL* unemployment. As has been stated before, many people who don't have jobs are dropped from the unemployment rolls, if they have gone thru the entire period of their unemployment payments and still not found suitable employment. Under-employment is another issue, as well. Just because someone came off the unemployment rolls, doesn't mean they found a job that pays what they once made. It is more likely that a furniture factory worker, who lost his job due to outsourcing, will find a job, in the retail sector which pays much less than his previous job paid In general, many more retail/service industry jobs are filled, by the formerly unemployed, than high paying/hi-tech jobs. What with outsourcing, under-employment and employment of foreign workers--hi-tech or otherwise, official statistic don't realistically indicate the health of the over-all economy, regionally or nationally, IMMHO. Op"*** So, up to this point everything has been pretty civil and merely a matter of folks expressing their opinions. Joe responds to my post with nonsensical accusations? ***"I didn't realize that unemployment worked differently between the left and right coasts. Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a "high-tech mecca"."*** First off, I wasn't sure exactly what Joe meant by the statement "I didn't realize that unemployment worked differently between the left and right coasts...," as I never implied that unemployment worked any differently in one region of the country as opposed to another region of the country? I can only surmise that Joe has difficulty comprehending what he reads? Secondly, Joe somehow comes to the conclusion that I stated that I live in a "high-tech mecca," and that the whole discussion started with this "bogus claim"--which it had not, as best I can recall? Charlie Choc posts, in an attempt to set Joe straight: ***"Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all of us" live in a high tech Mecca."*** To which Joe responds: ***"Very Clintonian of you."*** I'm not certain what Joe's reply to Charlie was supposed to accomplish, but by this time I'm beginning to suspect that Joe has been drinking mass quantities of alcohol for the last two days! Once again Charlie Choc attempts to assist Joe with his comprehension problems: ***"And very 'Bush' of you. g Here's what he posted: "Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--". Where's the bogus claim? -- Charlie..."*** Joe, mentally defeated and with nowhere to turn, chooses not to respond to Charlie! So, I respond to Charlie, thusly: ***"I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I guess? Op"*** Joe comes back at me with: ***"I don't see what difference that makes, but good for you. So did I. Calling out that someone is using Clintonian wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't make me some republican."*** Granted, my post to Charlie made no difference whatsoever to the discussion at hand--but that was the point of my post to Charlie. Joe's second statement in his response to me expressed his voting preference in the last election and made no sense to me beyond that--except to let me know that Joe was still hittin' the bottle pretty hard. Remember, Joe claimed on, 7/9/2006 at 11:13 AM that I had made "bogus claims." Me, being the civil and very patient person that I am, didn't respond until 7/9/2006 at 4:34 PM with a very thoughtful-- though not necessarily the definitive word on economics and unemployment--and comprehensive explanation of my *OPINION* on the subject at hand. ***"Let me get this straight: You can't read, but you want to question me on the very non-technical aspects of unemployment records keeping? I don't recall having said that unemployment stats are handled differently regionally, nor nationally, just that I *believe* that their is more to unemployment than the government's statistics suggest--no matter which corrupt party is in power. The stats have been figured the in same manner for quite some time, I believe. As I posted previously, I just don't think that the unemployment rolls, as they are calculated, are a realistic indicator of the true number of unemployed/under-employed people in the country. Since folks are taken off the unemployment rolls if they find a job, no matter what that job might be (I'll follow-up on this later under the term "under-employed"), or if their time on the unemployment roll runs out, before they find a job, these folks are assumed to not be unemployed, technically speaking of course. If a person is dropped from the unemployment roll, as their unemployment payments have ended--see only those folks that sign-up for unemployment payments are on the government's *official* roll of the unemployed--they are still unemployed just the same. And what about those folks that don't qualify for unemployment payments, (people who have been fired and didn't appeal to the unemployment compensation board of their state or appealed and lost that appeal, folks that didn't work during a certain specified time period that is required to receive unemployment checks and those folks that simply didn't think they would need to sign-up for unemployment compensation, for whatever reason) but are nevertheless unemployed? "UNDER-EMPLOYED" Now, should you become confused by my use of the term "under-employed," I'll explain a bit further. Let's say that you are a furniture factory worker, steelworker, autoworker, electrician or computer analyst... yet you can't find a comparable position in the city in which you live? Furthermore, you can't afford to move your family to a city that *might* actually have job openings in your particular field of endeavor. So you are left with taking a job waiting tables, working at Wally World as a greeter, or you are hired as a fry king at Mickey D's. It's very likely that your current wages aren't going to come close to those of your previous job, right? Expanding on this theme, let's suppose that nationally their are many thousands (likely in the tens of thousands, but very possibly in the hundreds of thousands) of people in this position. In this case, wages go down over a very large segment of society. Thus, buying power, for this segment of society is decreased. If there are a great many people in this "under-employed" position along with the unemployed, but not on the *official* unemployed rolls, the economy suffers even more so than is indicated by the *official* unemployment records would suggest--regardless of the political party in power! HTH Op"*** For those who have chosen to follow my ramblings, you will note that thus far I have yet to do any name callin'. I did mention Joe's inability to read, but that, I thought, was self-evident to most literate folks--well except for Ken J., of course. Joe responds to me, on 7/10/2006 at 1:58 AM, with what can only be described as delusional and an incoherent train of thought, if there was any thought process involved at all. ***"Don't know where you get that I can't read. It was a sarcastic statement. Unemployment statistics are not handled differently in different states."*** I know why I think that Joe can't read, but I have no idea which statement that Joe is referring to as "sarcastic," nor am I able to fathom why Joe continues to believe that I think "Unemployment statistics are [ ] handled differently in different states." Unable to control myself any longer, I respond to Joe on 7/10/2006 at 7:45 AM: ***"Well you claimed that I had made a "bogus claim" about livin' in a hi-tech Mecca, when in fact I had made no such claim? And then you state that I seem to think that unemployment stats are calculated differently in different regions of the country? Were you born a moron, or did you have to work real hard at becomin' one? Op"*** Finally, Joe, dodging Cyli's post, responds with a plaintive expression of ignorance of his own ignorance, by lying when he said that Ken J. had asked me to explain the statement that supposedly started this whole batch of nonsense, "--being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--" which Ken J. most certainly did not! Joe's feelings are apparently hurt because I called him a MORON! POOR JOEY! Responded, as follows: ***"I explained how I read his statement and the original target asked Opie to explain what he meant if it wasn't how it sounded. Opie's only response was to call me names. Rather than continue to speculate on what Opie actually meant I felt it was better to let him explain himself. Unless I missed it he hasn't responded yet."*** Having explained myself, 'till I am blue in the face, I can't for the life of me see that Joe might ever comprehend a thing that I have written here! Yet, it goes on? This is it, I promise. Well until Joey responds again, of course! Joey: 7/11/2006 at 9:47 AM ***"I've never seen anyone both top and bottom post at the same time. Listen dickhead, is that better? I don't generally like to call names, but it seems to be all you understand. The question was, what did you mean by? "Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi- tech--". I took it one way and instead of explaining yourself you called names. I pointed out that you still hadn't explained what you meant and you came back calling names again. Still not explaining what you really meant. I can only conclude that you really did mean what you said and you're embarrassed because it's not supported by the unemployment data. If you want to continue to call names that's fine by me, but hiding behind name calling is so grade school."*** No Joey, you never, actually, asked me a question, much less one related to my statement: "--being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--"." You can do as I have done, and check each and every word between us in this thread! Really, it's not impossible...okay, in your case it might be? It would have been most difficult for me to explain what I meant, about anything, because you NEVER asked a single question of me! Yes, I really did mean what said, you just didn't know what it was that I said--YOUR BAD! And I never claimed that anything I said would be supported by "unemployment data," as most of what I said was my own opinion, outside the realm of unemployment stats, or related to under-employment and the state of the economy. I tell ya what, you respond coherently to anything I say in the future and there will be no need to send you back to grade school! Love, Op It was you that started with the sarcasm and smart-assed remarks, so you'll have to deal with a bit of your own attitude. |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:02:00 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus"
wrote: Where to begin? Three words: Get a life! |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:24:57 -0700, wrote:
In article , says... hi-tech mecca "high-tech mecca," "high-tech mecca". Just out of curiosity, do y'all have to kneel on a mousepad and pray in the direction of this place, or just sorta wave a pocket protector in its general direction, or what? I have a few acquaintances in the high-tech sector, and I'd hate to offend them by farting in the wrong direction or something. And is there any way to politely inquire about your faith at cocktail parties and other gatherings. I mean, it's all well and good to walk up to someone and ask, "So, are you a Jew (or Catholic or Biblebeater or whatever)?," but I'm not sure of...um, er...is it "high-techies?" Which brings up another thing - what's the proper term for people of y'alls faith? High-techies? Techies? Hightechmeccies? Morons? TIA! R PS - can your people eat pork, drink, swear, **** (or dance) and other fun stuff or are y'all sorta like Sunday-morning Baptists, but with Microsoft certs and caffeine jitters? |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
ok, its a top post, get over it. What in the **** does this have to do
with fly fishing? Most of us are sick of the editorial page of our own respective newspapers so the finding of this discussion in our group of relaxation and fishing information is akin to finding a turd in the punchbowl ! take that **** elsewhere!! -cheeses- "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in message . .. Where to begin? Let's start at the beginning, sort of. Ken J. posted: ***"Yeah, the economy is really bad right now. Unemployment is high. The fed is even lowering interest rates to try to speed up the economy. ...oh wait, that's just a lefty's dream. - Ken"*** in response, I posted: ***"I guess it's all pretty relative. Where I live in Caldwell County, NC the unemployment rate is quite high! http://tinyurl.com/h8keu And so the economy here is REALLY BAD RIGHT NOW! As far as the Fed. interest rates, there is quite a bit of discussion as to whether Bernanke knows what the hell he is doing! Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--"*** My post was meant to rebut the sarcastic tenor of Ken J's post, which he attempted to convey that the economy is in great shape. Noting that things are not the same all across the country, I posted a link that shows the HIGH unemployment rate in Caldwell County, NC--where I live. Now I realize that the unemployment rate of a particular county is not the sole indicator of that county's economic health, but it certainly is a strong indicator of that county's economic health. Thus, I stated that "the economy here (Caldwell County, NC) is REALLY BAD RIGHT NOW!" We can forget about the third sentence in my post about the "Fed. interest rates." as this doesn't seem to be a bone of contention--YET! Okay, my comment: "--being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--" is related to Ken's remark about "a lefty's dream," and a further reference to the fact that things are *relative* economically speaking. In short--if a person doesn't live in an area of the country where there are lots of high paying jobs (a Mecca of hi-tech, for instance), the economy in the area in which that person lives isn't necessarily going to be perceived as doing all that well. On 7/8/2006 at 8:08 PM, Joe responds with: ***"There's always regional problems, but the state of North Carolina actually has a lower unemployment rate than the entire left-coast. North Carolina - 4.6 Washington - 5.1 Oregon - 5.6 California - 5.0 http://www.nemw.org/unemp.htm"*** To which I respond with this reply: ***"Sadly, unemployment rates aren't a true indicator of *REAL* unemployment. As has been stated before, many people who don't have jobs are dropped from the unemployment rolls, if they have gone thru the entire period of their unemployment payments and still not found suitable employment. Under-employment is another issue, as well. Just because someone came off the unemployment rolls, doesn't mean they found a job that pays what they once made. It is more likely that a furniture factory worker, who lost his job due to outsourcing, will find a job, in the retail sector which pays much less than his previous job paid In general, many more retail/service industry jobs are filled, by the formerly unemployed, than high paying/hi-tech jobs. What with outsourcing, under-employment and employment of foreign workers--hi-tech or otherwise, official statistic don't realistically indicate the health of the over-all economy, regionally or nationally, IMMHO. Op"*** So, up to this point everything has been pretty civil and merely a matter of folks expressing their opinions. Joe responds to my post with nonsensical accusations? ***"I didn't realize that unemployment worked differently between the left and right coasts. Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a "high-tech mecca"."*** First off, I wasn't sure exactly what Joe meant by the statement "I didn't realize that unemployment worked differently between the left and right coasts...," as I never implied that unemployment worked any differently in one region of the country as opposed to another region of the country? I can only surmise that Joe has difficulty comprehending what he reads? Secondly, Joe somehow comes to the conclusion that I stated that I live in a "high-tech mecca," and that the whole discussion started with this "bogus claim"--which it had not, as best I can recall? Charlie Choc posts, in an attempt to set Joe straight: ***"Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all of us" live in a high tech Mecca."*** To which Joe responds: ***"Very Clintonian of you."*** I'm not certain what Joe's reply to Charlie was supposed to accomplish, but by this time I'm beginning to suspect that Joe has been drinking mass quantities of alcohol for the last two days! Once again Charlie Choc attempts to assist Joe with his comprehension problems: ***"And very 'Bush' of you. g Here's what he posted: "Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--". Where's the bogus claim? -- Charlie..."*** Joe, mentally defeated and with nowhere to turn, chooses not to respond to Charlie! So, I respond to Charlie, thusly: ***"I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I guess? Op"*** Joe comes back at me with: ***"I don't see what difference that makes, but good for you. So did I. Calling out that someone is using Clintonian wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't make me some republican."*** Granted, my post to Charlie made no difference whatsoever to the discussion at hand--but that was the point of my post to Charlie. Joe's second statement in his response to me expressed his voting preference in the last election and made no sense to me beyond that--except to let me know that Joe was still hittin' the bottle pretty hard. Remember, Joe claimed on, 7/9/2006 at 11:13 AM that I had made "bogus claims." Me, being the civil and very patient person that I am, didn't respond until 7/9/2006 at 4:34 PM with a very thoughtful-- though not necessarily the definitive word on economics and unemployment--and comprehensive explanation of my *OPINION* on the subject at hand. ***"Let me get this straight: You can't read, but you want to question me on the very non-technical aspects of unemployment records keeping? I don't recall having said that unemployment stats are handled differently regionally, nor nationally, just that I *believe* that their is more to unemployment than the government's statistics suggest--no matter which corrupt party is in power. The stats have been figured the in same manner for quite some time, I believe. As I posted previously, I just don't think that the unemployment rolls, as they are calculated, are a realistic indicator of the true number of unemployed/under-employed people in the country. Since folks are taken off the unemployment rolls if they find a job, no matter what that job might be (I'll follow-up on this later under the term "under-employed"), or if their time on the unemployment roll runs out, before they find a job, these folks are assumed to not be unemployed, technically speaking of course. If a person is dropped from the unemployment roll, as their unemployment payments have ended--see only those folks that sign-up for unemployment payments are on the government's *official* roll of the unemployed--they are still unemployed just the same. And what about those folks that don't qualify for unemployment payments, (people who have been fired and didn't appeal to the unemployment compensation board of their state or appealed and lost that appeal, folks that didn't work during a certain specified time period that is required to receive unemployment checks and those folks that simply didn't think they would need to sign-up for unemployment compensation, for whatever reason) but are nevertheless unemployed? "UNDER-EMPLOYED" Now, should you become confused by my use of the term "under-employed," I'll explain a bit further. Let's say that you are a furniture factory worker, steelworker, autoworker, electrician or computer analyst... yet you can't find a comparable position in the city in which you live? Furthermore, you can't afford to move your family to a city that *might* actually have job openings in your particular field of endeavor. So you are left with taking a job waiting tables, working at Wally World as a greeter, or you are hired as a fry king at Mickey D's. It's very likely that your current wages aren't going to come close to those of your previous job, right? Expanding on this theme, let's suppose that nationally their are many thousands (likely in the tens of thousands, but very possibly in the hundreds of thousands) of people in this position. In this case, wages go down over a very large segment of society. Thus, buying power, for this segment of society is decreased. If there are a great many people in this "under-employed" position along with the unemployed, but not on the *official* unemployed rolls, the economy suffers even more so than is indicated by the *official* unemployment records would suggest--regardless of the political party in power! HTH Op"*** For those who have chosen to follow my ramblings, you will note that thus far I have yet to do any name callin'. I did mention Joe's inability to read, but that, I thought, was self-evident to most literate folks--well except for Ken J., of course. Joe responds to me, on 7/10/2006 at 1:58 AM, with what can only be described as delusional and an incoherent train of thought, if there was any thought process involved at all. ***"Don't know where you get that I can't read. It was a sarcastic statement. Unemployment statistics are not handled differently in different states."*** I know why I think that Joe can't read, but I have no idea which statement that Joe is referring to as "sarcastic," nor am I able to fathom why Joe continues to believe that I think "Unemployment statistics are [ ] handled differently in different states." Unable to control myself any longer, I respond to Joe on 7/10/2006 at 7:45 AM: ***"Well you claimed that I had made a "bogus claim" about livin' in a hi-tech Mecca, when in fact I had made no such claim? And then you state that I seem to think that unemployment stats are calculated differently in different regions of the country? Were you born a moron, or did you have to work real hard at becomin' one? Op"*** Finally, Joe, dodging Cyli's post, responds with a plaintive expression of ignorance of his own ignorance, by lying when he said that Ken J. had asked me to explain the statement that supposedly started this whole batch of nonsense, "--being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--" which Ken J. most certainly did not! Joe's feelings are apparently hurt because I called him a MORON! POOR JOEY! Responded, as follows: ***"I explained how I read his statement and the original target asked Opie to explain what he meant if it wasn't how it sounded. Opie's only response was to call me names. Rather than continue to speculate on what Opie actually meant I felt it was better to let him explain himself. Unless I missed it he hasn't responded yet."*** Having explained myself, 'till I am blue in the face, I can't for the life of me see that Joe might ever comprehend a thing that I have written here! Yet, it goes on? This is it, I promise. Well until Joey responds again, of course! Joey: 7/11/2006 at 9:47 AM ***"I've never seen anyone both top and bottom post at the same time. Listen dickhead, is that better? I don't generally like to call names, but it seems to be all you understand. The question was, what did you mean by? "Op --being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi- tech--". I took it one way and instead of explaining yourself you called names. I pointed out that you still hadn't explained what you meant and you came back calling names again. Still not explaining what you really meant. I can only conclude that you really did mean what you said and you're embarrassed because it's not supported by the unemployment data. If you want to continue to call names that's fine by me, but hiding behind name calling is so grade school."*** No Joey, you never, actually, asked me a question, much less one related to my statement: "--being right-handed, I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--"." You can do as I have done, and check each and every word between us in this thread! Really, it's not impossible...okay, in your case it might be? It would have been most difficult for me to explain what I meant, about anything, because you NEVER asked a single question of me! Yes, I really did mean what said, you just didn't know what it was that I said--YOUR BAD! And I never claimed that anything I said would be supported by "unemployment data," as most of what I said was my own opinion, outside the realm of unemployment stats, or related to under-employment and the state of the economy. I tell ya what, you respond coherently to anything I say in the future and there will be no need to send you back to grade school! Love, Op It was you that started with the sarcasm and smart-assed remarks, so you'll have to deal with a bit of your own attitude. |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
Reading this thread has been fun, but I'd really rather be camped out
at Beaver Creek listening to Willi, Warren, and RW argue : -) bruce h |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"bruiser" wrote in message ups.com... Reading this thread has been fun, but I'd really rather be camped out at Beaver Creek listening to Willi, Warren, and RW argue : -) bruce h i would far rather be camped out in the slide inn with renda mcrae speight, looking forward to a morning in the little slough just downstream, and an evening with the lady and a few seethroughs. however, there is no doubt that willi, warren, and rw rank clearly above any group of mormon cheerleaders i have ever disturbed. yfitons wayno |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
In article .com,
says... wrote: In article , says... Secondly, Joe somehow comes to the conclusion that I stated that I live in a "high-tech mecca," and that the whole discussion started with this "bogus claim"--which it had not, as best I can recall? Ah, there's the rub. No one said that *YOU* live in a "high-tech mecca". Looks like we've identified the reading comprehension problem.... .....and it is you. ;-) Flawlessly consistent dumbass. Wolfgang You defending your pupil? The Wolfgang School of Reading Comprehension's Valedictorian isn't doing your rep much good. - Ken |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 17:24:57 -0700, wrote:
(snipped) Ah, there's the rub. No one said that *YOU* live in a "high-tech mecca". Looks like we've identified the reading comprehension problem.... .....and it is you. ;-) - Ken As I recall it, Joe read it incorrectly and seemed to think that Opie had claimed that Opie lived in a high tech mecca. I"m not going to go look it up, though. Someone else can if they remember it differently. -- r.bc: vixen Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc.. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article , says... Actually I did ask (obviously not directly enough though): Generally, when someone asks a question that question is followed by a "?." Please repost your original question, so that I am able to recognize it as such. " I guess I took it the wrong way too. It read to me like Op was saying that since I lived in a hi-tech mecca that the unemployment picture was different here than in the rest of the country. - Ken " The above is not a question, but is generally considered to be a statement of one's opinion, I believe. Secondly, Joe somehow comes to the conclusion that I stated that I live in a "high-tech mecca," and that the whole discussion started with this "bogus claim"--which it had not, as best I can recall? Ah, there's the rub. No one said that *YOU* live in a "high-tech mecca". Joe posted: ***"I didn't realize that unemployment worked differently between the left and right coasts. Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a "high-tech mecca"."*** How exactly would you read, " Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a "high-tech mecca"," other than that he thought that I said that I lived in a "high-tech mecca?" Obviously, your reading skills are no better than Joey's! Looks like we've identified the reading comprehension problem.... .....and it is you. ;-) Are you really that stupid? (Note that the preceeding was in the form of a question.) Op - Ken |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article .com, You defending your pupil? The Wolfgang School of Reading Comprehension's Valedictorian isn't doing your rep much good. - Ken I prefer that my mentor be a thinking human, who is capable of comprehending the written language. Op --protégé to the literate-- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"bruiser" wrote in message ups.com... Reading this thread has been fun, but I'd really rather be camped out at Beaver Creek listening to Willi, Warren, and RW argue : -) bruce h Are you asking me why I'm not camped on Beaver Creek and listening to Willi, Warren and RW? :~^ ) Op |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... I didn't even realize that I was in any sort of mecca. Sure I work in high-tech, but there aren't exactly a lot of other high-tech companies around. What's really funny is the fact that you continue to change my original statement around to fit your twisted account of previous events in this thread. Geek-o-philes?....but Morons apparently works. - Ken Op |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article .com, says... wrote: In article , says... Secondly, Joe somehow comes to the conclusion that I stated that I live in a "high-tech mecca," and that the whole discussion started with this "bogus claim"--which it had not, as best I can recall? Ah, there's the rub. No one said that *YOU* live in a "high-tech mecca". Looks like we've identified the reading comprehension problem.... .....and it is you. ;-) Flawlessly consistent dumbass. Wolfgang You defending your pupil? The Wolfgang School of Reading Comprehension's Valedictorian isn't doing your rep much good. Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." I love it when you do this......EVERY time. :) Wolfgang a sobering thought: whatever state this cretin lives in probably allows him to have a driver's license. |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Maybe you lost your copy of WLGTRC, but there are several valid ways to read Joe's sentence, and in this poor medium of communication I wouldn't be too sure that you, I, or anyone but Joe knows what he meant. Perhaps he should have added a couple of words, but as it stands it does have multiple valid readings... Sure. Wolfgang who guesses he'll have wait till the movie comes out to discover the truth. |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article , says... "Jonathan Cook" wrote in message ... Wolfgang wrote: Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Maybe you lost your copy of WLGTRC, but there are several valid ways to read Joe's sentence, and in this poor medium of communication I wouldn't be too sure that you, I, or anyone but Joe knows what he meant. Perhaps he should have added a couple of words, but as it stands it does have multiple valid readings... Sure. Wolfgang who guesses he'll have wait till the movie comes out to discover the truth. You could always look at what the author said: "I never said that you live in a high-tech mecca. " Maybe it's too complex of a sentence. Perhaps WLGTRC Part II will cover simple sentence structure? Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." This is fun! :) Wolfgang |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
Opie wrote:
What's really funny is the fact that you continue to change my original statement around to fit your twisted account of previous events in this thread. Mark and Joe, Why would anyone who lives in a fly-fishing Mecca WANT to live in a high-tech Mecca? - JR |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"JR" wrote in message ... Opie wrote: What's really funny is the fact that you continue to change my original statement around to fit your twisted account of previous events in this thread. Mark and Joe, Why would anyone who lives in a fly-fishing Mecca WANT to live in a high-tech Mecca? - JR Are you asking a question, in the traditional sense? :~^ )~ I have been out fishin' quite a bit lately, posted several TRs and an account of my experience with Bear the Great Fishin' Buddy, and plan to go fishin' this comin' weekend with good'ol Bear. Op --who considers his area of the country a flyfishin' Mecca and considers hi-tech Meccas to be highly over-rated!-- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... Alright, I'll bite. What exactly did you mean, who lives in this mecca and where exactly is it? - Look a question mark. - Ken Yeah you got a question mark for sure, but what about the rest of the sentence structure? Okay, your original post is as follows: ***"Yeah, the economy is really bad right now. A sarcastic remark directed at the "lefty-dream[er]s." I gathered from the aforementioned statement that you believe that the economy is booming, according to gov. stats? I don't know this, but I suspect so. My sig. line was referring to the fact that the economy might be booming in regions of the country where hi-tech industry is located, but that it doesn't necessarily follow that the economy is booming in all regions of the country. Now Joey came back with some gov.stats that showed that NC had a lower unemployment rated than Cal. and some other states. I hadn't said a thing about the state of NC, but had specifically referenced CALDWELL COUNTY, NC. I can't for the life of me figure out how one can interpret, " --... I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech--"*** , as me saying that *I* live in the Mecca of hi-tech? Help me to understand! Op ***"Unemployment is high. The fed is even lowering interest rates to try to speed up the economy. ....oh wait, that's just a lefty's dream. - Ken"*** |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) I give up! Janik seems to have lost it, completely! Joe posts that I made "bogus claims" and Janik says that he read my post the same way as Joe, and now says that he never did? What kind of drugs they doin' out on the left coast these days? Op --never one to say EOT though.-- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) You still don't get it do you. Hint: Multiple people, including the author, have shown you that you are reading Joe's sentence wrong. Don't just cut-n-paste, actually read what is written. Especially given that the author said he wasn't referring to the location that Mark lives. Hint#2: The claim belongs to Mark, not the location of mecca. The boy just CAN NOT learn. - Ken How the hell else can "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'," be read! And by multiple people, do you mean you and Joey? Op --and when did Joey become an AUTHOR?!!!-- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
|
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
In article , says...
wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) You still don't get it do you. Hint: Multiple people, including the author, have shown you that you are reading Joe's sentence wrong. Don't just cut-n-paste, actually read what is written. Especially given that the author said he wasn't referring to the location that Mark lives. Hint#2: The claim belongs to Mark, not the location of mecca. The boy just CAN NOT learn. - Ken How the hell else can "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'," be read! And by multiple people, do you mean you and Joey? Op --and when did Joey become an AUTHOR?!!!-- I believe that Jon Cook tried to help you out as well. Maybe since you won't listen to what I say or what the author (we are all authors here) said, you'll listen to what Jon said (sorry Jon). " Maybe you lost your copy of WLGTRC, but there are several valid ways to read Joe's sentence, and in this poor medium of communication I wouldn't be too sure that you, I, or anyone but Joe knows what he meant. Perhaps he should have added a couple of words, but as it stands it does have multiple valid readings... Jon. " Re-read Hint#2 very slowly. The claim is yours, not the location. slowly Your claim....about my location. /slowly Given the surrounding context you should have been able to figure this out. It's admittedly ambiguous as a stand-alone sentence, but would you PLEASE learn how to read. - Ken |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
Opie typed:
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) I give up! Janik seems to have lost it, completely! Joe posts that I made "bogus claims" and Janik says that he read my post the same way as Joe, and now says that he never did? What kind of drugs they doin' out on the left coast these days? Op --never one to say EOT though. Would you consider saying EOT for some form of payment? ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
cheeses of nazareth wrote in message ... ok, its a top post, get over it. Only if you get over the fact that off-topic post will occur here, regardless of you considerations. What in the **** does this have to do with fly fishing? Nothing more than the inane post of yours. Most of us are sick of the editorial page of our own respective newspapers so the finding of this discussion in our group of relaxation and fishing information is akin to finding a turd in the punchbowl Bon Appetit! ! take that **** elsewhere!! when was the last time you posted something fishin' related to this NG, Limburger Boy? Op -cheeses- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:02:00 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote: Where to begin? Three words: Get a life! I don't have a million dollars to retire on, so what you propose will likely be an impossible challenge, but thanks for sharin'. Op --rw was right. you do try to stir up **** with each visit to ROFF!-- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) You still don't get it do you. Hint: Multiple people, including the author, have shown you that you are reading Joe's sentence wrong. Don't just cut-n-paste, actually read what is written. Especially given that the author said he wasn't referring to the location that Mark lives. Hint#2: The claim belongs to Mark, not the location of mecca. The boy just CAN NOT learn. One can't help but wonder......do you EVER get tired of doing this to yourself? :) There IS a solution, you know. Wolfgang an even more sobering thought: there isn't a state in the union.....there isn't a country in the world.....that would prohibit this thing from breeding and assuming the responsibility of raising children. |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
"Tim J." wrote in message ... Opie typed: "Wolfgang" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) I give up! Janik seems to have lost it, completely! Joe posts that I made "bogus claims" and Janik says that he read my post the same way as Joe, and now says that he never did? What kind of drugs they doin' out on the left coast these days? Op --never one to say EOT though. Would you consider saying EOT for some form of payment? ;-) -- TL, Tim I need a million bucks so that I can retire properly. You offerin' to take care of my short fall? Op |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... Re-read Hint#2 very slowly. The claim is yours, not the location. slowly Your claim....about my location. /slowly Given the surrounding context you should have been able to figure this out. It's admittedly ambiguous as a stand-alone sentence, but would you PLEASE learn how to read. - Ken Ken, YOU IGNORANT SLUT! There is no way on GOD's green Earth that "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." can be read any other way than that Joey was claiming that I said that I lived in a "high-tech mecca!" If ANYONE else in ROFFdom reads this any other way, PLEASE chime in, as I am willing to give up the ghost, if someone can possible show me how Janik comes up with his hair-brained interpretation! Love, Op --Is there an English major in the house, who knows how to break a sentence in to its appropriate parts?-- |
For Joe, Ken J. and all disinterested parties
wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... In article , says... wrote in message ... ...NO ONE THINKS THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU LIVE IN A HIGH-TECH MECCA.... Mark: "...I can see that you wouldn't understand that knot (obroff) all of us live in the Mecca of hi-tech." Joe: "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'." Hee, hee, hee. Wolfgang i sweartagod, i do NOT pay him to do this! :) You still don't get it do you. Hint: Multiple people, including the author, have shown you that you are reading Joe's sentence wrong. Don't just cut-n-paste, actually read what is written. Especially given that the author said he wasn't referring to the location that Mark lives. Hint#2: The claim belongs to Mark, not the location of mecca. The boy just CAN NOT learn. - Ken How the hell else can "Remember this started with your bogus claim of living in a 'high-tech mecca'," be read! And by multiple people, do you mean you and Joey? Op --and when did Joey become an AUTHOR?!!!-- I believe that Jon Cook tried to help you out as well. Maybe since you won't listen to what I say or what the author (we are all authors here) said, you'll listen to what Jon said (sorry Jon). " Maybe you lost your copy of WLGTRC, but there are several valid ways to read Joe's sentence, and in this poor medium of communication I wouldn't be too sure that you, I, or anyone but Joe knows what he meant. Perhaps he should have added a couple of words, but as it stands it does have multiple valid readings... Jon. " Re-read Hint#2 very slowly. The claim is yours, not the location. slowly Your claim....about my location. /slowly Given the surrounding context you should have been able to figure this out. It's admittedly ambiguous as a stand-alone sentence, but would you PLEASE learn how to read. Well, it has become increasingly clear that you and "Joe" and Jon don't have any idea of what "Joe" meant.......but Mark and I appear to have got it pretty well nailed. I can't promise that I can explain it in terms that even you might understand, but I certainly am willing to give it shot if you'd like. Whattya say? Wolfgang who, honestly, never tires of watching kennie twist in the breeze. um.....that's not as cold as it might seem.......evidently, he doesn't either. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter