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.