Re: "analogue-only" label petition slow

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:26:09 +0100, "Bill Wright"
<insertmybusinessname@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"Bill Wright" <insertmybusinessname@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

"vince" <user4@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Life is more expensive for poor people. They don't buy wisely; they
don't research the market; they borrow money; they buy on impulse; they
buy in small quantities; they buy from ultra-local retailers. Fact of
life. Also: Poor people tend to be thick. Thick people don't get a good
deal. Sorry and all that but there it is.


I know a lot of graduates that are thick too! I think you are confusing
common sense for intelligence.
I think the whole concept of 'intelligence' is far too simple to express
the competence of the human mind. Measuring intelligence with IQ, for
instance, is like measuring overall health with a thermometer. I too know
graduates who don't seem to be able to converse sensibly, or wire a 13A
plugtop, and I also know of complete academic failures who have made
millions by their native cunning.

You probably only have common sense and not
much intelligence going by the number of off-topic posts and ramblings
you send in to the groups.
I don't think that you can expect to find a clear corellation between the
number of off-topic posts a person sends and their intelligence. If you
could though, I think the relationship might confound you. It might be
'more off topic = more intelligent'. I think the sending of off topic
posts ties in more with certain personaliy types than with any crude
measure of intelligence. I'm not sure what you mean by 'ramblings'. I
don't recall ever having rambed excessively. Could you elucidate?

You can still also get rich people that are thick or have no common
This is certainly true. That's why some tradesmen are able to take
advantage of such people, and don't they just! You can also get highly
intelligent people who are poor. But in the generality of life I think
you'll find that the poor are usually less intelligent than middle income
people or the rich. After all, no-one likes to be poor, and if
intelligence could be defined as 'the ability to manipulate one's
environment to one's own advantage' then clever people would be unlikely
to remain poor.

I feel sorry for people like you
That's very generous of you.

as you sound like you have a huge chip on
your shoulder.
'A chip on the shoulder' usually suggests that the person feels oppressed
or unfairly treated. How does that apply? I just can't see what you mean.
If you are trying to say that I am being disrespectful of the poor then
that wouldn't be a chip on my shoulder, it would be snobbishness or
whatever. I'm certainly not snobbish, and I do more to help the
disadvantaged than you'll ever know. I think you should perhaps clarify
your thought processes a little.

Your views are clearly outdated and without any foundation.
You stick to your semi-skilled job and let others do the more complicated
things in life that you probably wouldn't understand!
Don't you think you're being just a tiny bit patronising now?

I think you've missed my point. I was trying to say that thick people
generally get a rough deal, and the 'analogue only' label would be a cheap
and simple way of reducing this, if only a little. I'm certainly not in
favour of the nanny state, but this would be a harmless little thing that
would help some people.

I look forward to your reply.


Come on Vince! Cat got your tongue?


You didn't expect him to reply, did you?

Marky P.