Sad News

"Joe" wrote in message
.net...

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.

Your ability to remember is no better than your ability to read or write!

I explained myself fully to *you* with out any name calling. I merely
sugested that you couldn't read.

Then you came back stating something incomprehensible and I tried to further
explain myself, and only then resorted tocallin' you, what you are, A MORON!

See Below to refresh your memory.

Op


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.





"Joe" wrote in message
.net...
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.

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".

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.

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.

"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

In article ,
lid says...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 10:07:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:13:09 -0700, Joe wrote:

Remember this started with your bogus claim of living
in a "high-tech mecca".

Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all of us"
live in a high tech Mecca.

Very Clintonian of you.

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?

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

"Joe" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
lid says...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 08:13:09 -0700, Joe wrote:

Remember this started with your bogus claim of living
in a "high-tech mecca".

Actually, he didn't claim any such thing. He said "knot(pun intended) all
of us"
live in a high tech Mecca.

Very Clintonian of you.

Very narrow minded of you!

Op