Sad News

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

In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

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.

In article ,
says...

"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.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:56:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

Calling out that someone is using Clintonian
wordplay to claim they didn't say what they said doesn't
make me some republican.

It does prove you can't read, though. g
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

"Joe" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

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.

Nor does it MAKE you a dumbass. However, it DOES make that diagnostic
feature eminently clear.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang

Joe wrote:

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.

Is that because you didn't think of anyone else or
because you chose to throw a dart at Clinton in
particular ? We have a president now who has
sent thousands of people to their deaths on the
pretense that he is dealing with 9/11 by invading
Iraq. I guess that that is a trivial "wordplay," not
to be confused by real "wordplay."

In article .com,
says...

Joe wrote:

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.

Is that because you didn't think of anyone else or
because you chose to throw a dart at Clinton in
particular ? We have a president now who has
sent thousands of people to their deaths on the
pretense that he is dealing with 9/11 by invading
Iraq. I guess that that is a trivial "wordplay," not
to be confused by real "wordplay."

I think that Clinton and Bush both suck. Bush is not known
for being good with words, so he didn't seem the appropriate
example. People are way too bipolar. Ripping into one
asshole doesn't mean I support the other asshole.

I'm sorry if you liked Clinton.

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:56:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

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.


If something looks like political doodoo, then we're apt to take it as
political doodoo.

Saying 'doublespeak' or some politically neutral word would have kept
you from stepping in that particular error.

I don't see that anywhere in this thread that you quoted that you
answered as to what the supposed bogus claim was. Which tends to pop
right into the political method of ignoring the question. And that
could easily be attributed to a lot of modern politicians. However,
it's been going on as far as records have been kept, so it's better if
I avoid names.

I seem to vaguely remember that you claimed Opie said something that
my reading didn't support as a reasonable way to take his post. But
if you tend to do that a lot here, various nasty people will take you
to task for it.

--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

In article ,
lid says...
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 22:56:01 -0700, Joe wrote:

In article ,
says...

"Charlie Choc" wrote in message

Where's the bogus claim?
--
Charlie...

I forgot to mention that I voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, I
guess?

Op

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.


If something looks like political doodoo, then we're apt to take it as
political doodoo.

Saying 'doublespeak' or some politically neutral word would have kept
you from stepping in that particular error.

I don't see that anywhere in this thread that you quoted that you
answered as to what the supposed bogus claim was. Which tends to pop
right into the political method of ignoring the question. And that
could easily be attributed to a lot of modern politicians. However,
it's been going on as far as records have been kept, so it's better if
I avoid names.

I seem to vaguely remember that you claimed Opie said something that
my reading didn't support as a reasonable way to take his post. But
if you tend to do that a lot here, various nasty people will take you
to task for it.

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.

"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