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


"jim" <jim10293@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:5k5nf4pnf0asc20lng3oc81fknbmplvlhb@xxxxxxxxxx
[Default] On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:28:30 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein
<arl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Evelyn wrote:


"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nGCKk.560$Kf6.73@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.


Evelyn, this may bring on a *** storm, but I'm going to say it
anyway. 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. It would appear that he somehow
never learned the old saw about catching more flies with honey than
with vinegar.

His deprecating style just about completely turns me off and, as a
result, I often abandon the search for his perspective on stuff (and I
don't deny that he is well informed on much of what he discusses)
because I almost gag on the way he expresses himself. And, mind you,
that's when he's directing his venom at somebody other than me. 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.

In the early days of usenet, I subscribed to a newsgroup in which one
participant who, as it happened, was a college prof, developed a
well-earned reputation of not only assessing and evaluating things
clearly and lucidly, but of being a source of enlightenment even on
complex matters. I don't remember that he ever insulted anyone and,
au contraire, he was unfailingly polite to everyone who chose to
engage him in discussion. Alan's bright enough to fill that kind of
role in this NG, but I don't know if he has it in him.

Now, having said that, I'm going to retreat to my storm cellar and
pull the door shut behind me before his pile of *** lands on my head.
TTYL.
(^v^)))

George Z.




If it helps any, I agree with you 100% about his style of communicating,
and I have said so myself in more than one posting. But I don't
killfile him because he often shows great knowledge. For that he is
worth reading. I contemplated killfiling him, but I really don't
killfile anyone, I ignore them if they get too feisty in some post or
other.

I have always maintained that kill filing shows more about the kill
filer than the killfilee. I also don't kill file anyone for that
reason. IMHO, I believe kill filing is akin to throwing a childish
temper tantrum. On the adult level, it's akin to not having to deal
with something that you feel is unpleasant, that being one's being shown
to be an intellectual lightweight. George calls that intellectual
arrogance. I call it calling a spade a spade.

In any event, I share your views on kill filing, and I suspect several
others here do as well. Anyone who can't take the heat of a discussion
with me and kill files me because of it, is, in paraphrasing your words
'their loss.'

Be honest. Do you read every word of every post? There are over a
hundred posts since this morning posted and I DO filter a slew of
folks. I suspect there were probably up to two hundred posts
including those I just never saw.

To suggest someone is somehow obligated to read the ramblings of every
poster in a chatroom is silly.

I have a lot more to do then be the servant of those I would never
engage in conversation. But, you and Ev can sit up on high horses if
you wish. I have a great wife, books to read, friends to visit, games
of mahjong to play, interesting places to go, and I pick those writes
from here I find interesting.

You should be happy you are among those I do read! You made the grade
of offering interesting perspective, facts I may not acquire
elsewhere, or have other qualities I am looking for when I visit here.

Saying someone is obligated to read everyone here is like saying
someone must eat everything on a menu in a restaurant. Bet you pick
things you like and there are items on menu that never cross your
table no matter how many times you visit.


That is true. I certainly just don't have the time to read all the posts here. I do have a real life too. This may be a fun diversion to drop in sometimes and read and post a bit, it is very time consuming.

--
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn

(Our) enemies are not man. They are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and discrimination, which lie within the heart of man." -- Thich Nhat Hanh

.