Re: Here's how it's going to play out.

Rita wrote:

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:12:20 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Evelyn wrote:


"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:48fa7419$0$5629$607ed4bc@xxxxxxxxx


Sheila wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Sheila wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Sheila wrote:


Alan Lichtenstein wrote:


Thumper wrote:


On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:30:54 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <arl@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:



Sheila, you're grasping at straws to avoid having to confront your own ignorance and lack of understanding of the problem. What you post above is no more than wishful thinking that you cannot even describe as to WHERE and HOW these jobs will come from. And if you don't spend the money to develop these new technologies, which you won't under McCain, then there will be NO, repeat, NO new jobs created, because the money isn't going to be spent to create them. In fact, Sheila, given the $150 billion that Obama wants to spend, THAT is what will create the new jobs. So, Sheila, it is Obama's plan, NOT McCains' which will create the new jobs.







Alan, a lot more people would listen and you might be able to educate
them if you took a paragraph like the above and resisted your constant
impulse to begin it with a first sentence with the tone of the one
above. This is why so many of us have called you pompous and put you
in our kill files.
Thumper





Thumper, I appreciate what you say, however, as I've always said, if the shoe fits, then it must be worn. there are those who refuse to be educated, no matter how and what you may say. Sheila is such a person. Sheila is obviously all that I have accused her of, and possibly more, yet she resists with her limited intellectual powers the recognition of that ignorance, yet insists she's right. I have no other words to describe such a person then to call it like it is. Islander uses your approach, and it sometimes works to a degree( although Islander has been plonked by Jeff, for no good reason, IMHO ), so I do suppose that you have a good point. However, as I've said to Rita a number of times, ignorance and particularly the resistance to acknowledgment of that ignorance is very frustrating to me. My shortcoming, to be sure, yet that shortcoming doesn't detract from the fact that what I may say does have validity, at least in Sheila's case. You obviously recognize it, however, I do suppose you are far more open-minded and flexible than Sheila is on this matter. But I do respect what you say.






Alan, why do you refuse to be educated.




When my betters have something to tell me that I don't know, I listen. You, unfortunately, Sheila are not one of those people. In fact, you're an intellectual lightweight.

Who are you, with your


wrong-headed idea, to educate me.




I am someone who has given you both the facts and the explanation of those facts, all of which you had absolutely no clue about. That, Sheila, is called 'educating.'

Before you can educated others, you


need to educate yourself.




I have done a very good job, Sheila. If you could do better, you would have refuted what I had to say. But you couldn't, because you don't have a damn clue as to what this is all about, and what caused it. Your insights into this matter are so superficial and essentially reduced to sound bytes and slogans that you get with no understanding from conservative web sites and other sources. You have no clue as to the facts of the matter, the instruments involved and how they function, let alone attempting to offer an explanation of how their interactions produced the set of circumstances that we have now.

You just want to believe what the liberals


believe.




Actually, Sheila most of what I posted comes from the Wall Street Journal, as conservative( even bordering on libertarian ) as they come. Although the Journal doesn't say so in as many words as I did, they too cite lack of regulation as a primary cause to these circumstances. All I did is carry the reason for the lack of regulation to its logical conclusion, based on the history of who controlled congress and what was and was not done. You don't have to be a genius to figure that one out, Sheila. And you're certainly no genius. so even you could have figured that one out, if you had the facts and understood the nature of the problem, but you don't. So anything you say on this matter is based on ignorance.

Now, Sheila, you can take the OTHER foot out of your mouth.

And Sheila, I have some other advice for you: Quit while you're behind. By continuing, All you do is make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have.


Deny and attack. That's your philosophy.


As I said, your reading comprehension skills must be lacking. Because if they were better, you would know without a doubt that I provided detailed responses to YOUR simplistic repetition of the sound bytes and talking points that you get from the sundry reactionary web sites, without a clue as to what they mean.

You clearly do not understand the difference between simple denying( which is YOUR tactic ) and refuting, which is providing detailed explanations liberally sprinkled with factual data( what I have done ).

Sheila, come back when you grow up and have cured your ignorance. perhaps then we can have a discussion. right now it's one way, with all the factual information coming from ME to YOU.



PLONK! Right where you belong!


Ah, the sour grapes mechanism, used frequently by the minions of the great unwashed when they can't stand to face both their stupidity and ignorance.

Obviously this intellectually challenged individual can't take the heat in the kitchen.


Her loss.

Thank you for your support, Evelyn. As I've explained to Rita in response to another thread, I suffer fools badly. VERY badly, in fact. I don't deny it, and I don't apologize for it. I don't mind, if someone disagrees with me, so long as they can carry out a discussion on the same plane as I. If they can counter my arguments with well-documented evidence, and put together a good explanation in a logical manner, well that's a ball game. In politics as in economics, both of which are inexact, there is room for intelligent interpretation on both sides.

All I ask from anyone is that they recognize their potential shortcomings, and at least have the good sense to realize that they might in fact be in over their head. Nothing more. But when, in the face of that, an individual persists, as does Sheila, well, the response I gave her is earned.

George calls it deprecating, and he's right. And I intend it to be so because of the very reasons I suggest above; it's earned. If an individual adopts that tactic, I feel that it is my obligation to point that out. That generally brings conflict because NOBODY wants to be told, at best that they're ill informed and ignorant, or at worst, a fool. I understand that. And George is right when he implicitly asserts that people will 'turn me off.' That doesn't bother me, because if the criteria is other than substance, then discussion is meaningless. Besides, such action will be recognized for what it is, as have you with your very short, but astute comment, 'her loss.' George points to an earlier example of a college professor who chose a neutral tactic. He didn't have to go to the archives; right here, Islander, whom I respect( even though he's become more of an ideologue lately ) employs the same role. Maybe if my criteria was genteel treatment avoiding any shortcomings in logic or intellect on the part of my opponent. those variables need to be omitted given George's suggestions.

All I ask is that a person have the common sense to realize that they don't have either the knowledge or the abstract reasoning abilities and have the good sense when those are evident, not to simply remain obdurate in their contumacy, which I have qualified as 'ignorance.' I don't think that's too much to ask.

I've been on the short end of such discussions myself and I recognized my shortcomings, and I retreated, and even sometimes, changed my views. It's no big deal; it's called getting oneself 'educated.' And getting 'educated' comes from due consideration and objective analysis. Should I expect any less from anyone else, who thinks that they're 'intelligent?"

Anyway, I appreciate your comments. And I apologize for the lengthy reply.


Alan, you just don't get it. Your comments are not read and thus you
make no difference at all when you insist on insulting the people to
whom your "wisdom" is addressed. You might as well just talk to a
stone wall.

Rita, I DO get it. I know exactly WHY I do what I do, and I SAID so to you above. Now, if you want to agree with George that that is some kind of personality flaw, go right ahead. I have already replied to George that I won't take offense at his engaging in armchair psychology. After all, why should I? I do it as well, and it would be hypocritical for me to do otherwise. I periodically engage in personal slander with Sordo, and I must admit, that he's learned to give as good as he gets. However, neither he nor I have kill filed the other.

However, as far as people reading me, I disagree. My comments DO get read. Because as Evelyn, George and even you and Thumper have acknowledged, I DO get read. After all, haven't all of you read me now? While I might not be read directly, my message gets read anyway when some OTHER respondent in which my message is included IS read. The fact that a particular respondent may choose not to read me directly says more about that respondent than about me. I believe I've characterized that action as akin to throwing a Usenet temper tantrum. And I'll always be read, because there are people who recognize that I can be VERY insightful and thorough and will read me because they don't know which Alan will show up, and the possibility of a well thought out post is likely.

If releasing all your contempt makes you feel better, fine. But don't
think for a minute there is any other result of your postings.

Actually, Rita, there is. Evelyn and even George have admitted such. Which is why I get read. Because at the end of the day, those who are either open minded, or would possibly agree with my interpretation recognize that beyond the insults, there is real substance. You've said that also. Look in this very thread: Elaine has flattered me with her request. Obviously she reads me. As far as releasing contempt, is there any other word to express that contempt except by using the term 'stupidity?' And should that now be expressed when it is obviously true? I accept that you as well as others value 'discretion is the better part of valor, over 'the truth never hurts( or at least it shouldn't ),' and that's your right.

So, Rita, I'll always be read. Whether directly or indirectly. Because people DO recognize that I usually know what I'm talking about and a much more insightful than superficial level. YOU, and Evelyn and George and Thumper also wouldn't NOT have been wasting your time pointing out these things to me if all of you in concert didn't feel that I had something of value to contribute. And whether or not there is a reply from many particular individual is unimportant, because the message is still there in cyberspace for others to see, and they can evaluate the nature of the substance for themselves, even if they make no reply. the comparison stands as it creates perception. And that is all that matters anyway, doesn't it? The perception of the results of the substantive discussion. Is there anyone who can doubt that despite the vitriolic tone at its conclusion, that the results of this discussion were completely one-sided? And that is all that matters. My role as messenger is really unimportant.

Are you capable of writing a post in which you discuss this or that
policy and leave the personal insults out?

Absolutely. I've done it many times. But when stupidity and ignorance are all I get back, which is exactly what I got from Sheila, as I said above, I suffer fools badly. Because there is no other way to describe it. Perhaps you can let it roll off your back; I don't. I feel that there is no excuse for intellectual stupidity. George calls that intellectual arrogance. His choice. And maybe it is. But going beyond the vitriol, is the substantiate assertion wrong? In a prior post in this very thread, he implies that the substantiate assertion was NOT. Not going to that issue, specifically relating to the message, while choosing to deal with the messenger, which George effectively does, does ME a disservice.

Give it a try and see how it works out.

Again, I appreciate your post and your advice. When conditions warrant it, I certainly will.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Heres how its going to play out.
    ... Rita wrote: ... In fact, Sheila, given the $150 billion that Obama wants to spend, THAT is what will create the new jobs. ... Sheila is obviously all that I have accused her of, and possibly more, yet she resists with her limited intellectual powers the recognition of that ignorance, yet insists she's right. ... The population knows and understands that we're in bad shape, and they blame Bush and his Party, which IMHO is somewhat deserved, so they vote no so much FOR Obama, but against Bush. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Heres how its going to play out.
    ... George Z. Bush predicted you would, because he, as do I have your number as a true ideologue. ... What you are doing, Sheila is demonstrating that when I accused you of refusing to be confused by the facts, that I am 100% correct. ... But please, at least keep your ignorance to yourself, and have the good sense not to get into any discussions with anyone who can highlight your ignorance, as I have done here. ... I just find it incredible that she's so stupid that she has absolutely no clue that she's been made to look like a gold plated fool, and keeps coming back for more. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Heres how its going to play out.
    ... your own ignorance and lack of understanding of the problem. ... So, Sheila, it is Obama's plan, NOT McCains' ... no matter how and what you may say. ... shortcomings in logic or intellect on the part of my opponent. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Heres how its going to play out.
    ... So, Sheila, it is Obama's ... the recognition of that ignorance, ... Alan's biggest problem is that his intellectual arrogance appears in almost every sentence that he posts and he seems to be afraid that the reader might not notice it, so he makes sure that it doesn't play out that way by the overt insults he tosses around in just about every sentence he utters. ... I've stated why I feel people kill file; Evelyn has not, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Heres how its going to play out.
    ... So, Sheila, it is Obama's ... the recognition of that ignorance, ... It's a shame that a man with the obvious intellect that he possesses has such an inferiority complex that he feels obliged to constantly and unnecessarily defend himself during the course of his discourse. ... I have always maintained that kill filing shows more about the kill filer than the killfilee. ...
    (soc.retirement)