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

jim wrote:

[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.

I generally read only the threads that have subjects that interest me, and I delete the threads that do not, regardless of WHO has posted to those threads. If someone for whom I may not care happens to have posted to one of the threads that I choose to read, I read them. So, I make my decision NOT on personalities and persons, but on the topic under discussion. I may even answer them, and sometimes I do.

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

I don't suggest that; I don't. I suggest reading topics that interest you. In that way, you can manage your threads, keep your browser clear and deal with only the topics in which you have interest.

I have a lot more to do then be the servant of those I would never
engage in conversation.

That's what George Z.Bush has said. Personally, I think that is merely a rationalization.

But, you and Ev can sit up on high horses if
you wish.

Both of us are merely agreeing about kill filing. I've stated why I feel people kill file; Evelyn has not, and doesn't have to. If you think we're operating on a higher plane, which I suspect you do, from your choice of words, then perhaps you might consider what you do.

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.

Obviously, we all have interests other than Usenet.

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.

Well, I appreciate your comments, and I trust you read what I have to say NOT for who I am, but because I've contributed to a thread in which you have interest. The fact that you sometimes find what I have to say worthwhile is very gratifying, and most certainly, appreciated.

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.

I never said that, although I can see that assumption can be made. What I said is that I don't kill file anyone. But until you asked, I never mentioned that I don't read every thread. I delete a substantial number of threads, but when I do so, I delete ALL the posts, without regard to who said what. In the threads I choose to read, I read all the threads. I find that I get a better perspective of views that way, even if I don't care for the individual personally.
Seems more objective to me.
.