On 09/25/2012 04:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:31 PM, George SimPleton wrote:
..
**** off, crybaby.

You stupid ignoramus. You were wrong. You are always wrong. You don't
know a thing about math. You are an imbecile. You suck. You have a
****ty education. You are worthless. There, that's how a pussy like you
does it.

Hawke

When desperate, he also sets a followup header to another group, in
hopes of escape.

On 9/25/2012 4:29 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
George Plimpton whined:

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

You came in dead last, Plimpy. Wilkins and Don overlooked something, but
eventually accepted fact. You just whine about it, still. You whine a
lot.


He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.

On 9/25/2012 4:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:31 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/23/2012 3:45 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 1:26 PM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 9:00 am, "Jim Wilkins" wrote:

And here's dcaster's
"The air resistance goes up by the cube of the speed.
So to go 100 mph requires 8 times as much power"
John B.

Actually air resistance increases with the square of the speed. Power
rises as the cube of speed because the engine has to overcome air
resistance over a proportionally greater distance per second.

Correct. I should have said the power to over come air
resistance..................

Dan




Oh, so you made a mistake. Let's treat you like you do me.

**** off, crybaby.


You stupid ignoramus. You were wrong.

No.

On Sep 25, 7:27*pm, Hawke wrote:




Dan makes two big mistakes all the time besides this one. He thinks he
never makes mistakes and only others do, and he thinks he is way smarter
than he really is.

Actually I know I make mistakes. I try to avoid doing that ,but it
happens. And I have a good idea of how intelligent I am. I know
people who are more intelligent, but I know even more who are less
intelligent.


His making an error on this problem is a perfect
example of it. He also likes to say if you make a mistake then you
aren't to be believed after that. So since Dan bungled it here we should
expect he's always wrong from now on. That's his logic at least.


Not a good paraphrase of my logic. You should altways think about
what people say and not accept what they say without thinking. And
if someone makes a lot of mistakes you should look at where they got
their ideas.


Dan
Hawke

On 9/25/2012 5:37 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
Plimpton:

None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason why people
should have to pay higher and higher rates of tax on additional
increments of income.

Sure there is.

No, there is not.

Yeah there is.

No, there is not.

I

No, there is not.

Plimpton wonders:
On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

You came in dead last, Plimpy.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

Stupid faggot lied:

Prof. Geo. Plimpton elaborated:
Hawke-Ptooey, aka Silver Spoon Smithers, wrote:

He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

Good.

I agree. I know of no moral justification. Taxes
should be about funding government, not social
justice.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/25/2012 5:37 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
Plimpton:

None whatever. There is absolutely no valid moral reason
why people should have to pay higher and higher rates of
tax on additional increments of income.

Sure there is.

No, there is not.

Yeah there is.

No, there is not.

I

No, there is not.

Rabbit season.

Duck season.

RABBIT SEASON FIRE!

nuff said


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

On 09/25/2012 09:35 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I agree.

Anyone else?


Plimpton wonders:
On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:

You came in dead last, Plimpy.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

On 9/25/2012 10:11 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/25/2012 09:35 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I agree. I know of no moral justification. Taxes
should be about funding government, not social
justice.

Anyone else?

Everyone else.

On 9/25/2012 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Sep 25, 7:27 pm, Hawke wrote:




Dan makes two big mistakes all the time besides this one. He thinks he
never makes mistakes and only others do, and he thinks he is way smarter
than he really is.

Actually I know I make mistakes. I try to avoid doing that ,but it
happens. And I have a good idea of how intelligent I am. I know
people who are more intelligent, but I know even more who are less
intelligent.

I could honestly say the same thing.



His making an error on this problem is a perfect
example of it. He also likes to say if you make a mistake then you
aren't to be believed after that. So since Dan bungled it here we should
expect he's always wrong from now on. That's his logic at least.


Not a good paraphrase of my logic. You should altways think about
what people say and not accept what they say without thinking. And
if someone makes a lot of mistakes you should look at where they got
their ideas.


If you are partisan to the degree you are you mischaracterize those you
disagree with as making a lot more mistakes than they really do. At
least that's what you do to me. I respond to a lot of people's posts. I
don't have the time to devote to every response so that they are letter
perfect. I make a mistake every so often. But you make it sound like I'm
wrong about everything all the time. That is bull****, and you do it
because you want to discredit me not because I'm really wrong very much.
I get that. But the reality is you don't find very many errors from me
and most of them are so trivial it's a joke to even bring them up. I
would suggest that you worry more about expressing what you think and
less about whether other people make minor errors or not.


Hawke

On 9/25/2012 5:45 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/25/2012 04:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:31 PM, George SimPleton wrote:
.
**** off, crybaby.

You stupid ignoramus. You were wrong. You are always wrong. You don't
know a thing about math. You are an imbecile. You suck. You have a
****ty education. You are worthless. There, that's how a pussy like you
does it.

Hawke

When desperate, he also sets a followup header to another group, in
hopes of escape.

That's because he's got no backbone. He berates the **** out of everyone
over every dinky think but the minute you show him to be wrong about
something he runs off like a first class pussy while making excuses as
he goes.

Hawke

On 9/25/2012 7:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:29 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
George Plimpton whined:

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

You came in dead last, Plimpy. Wilkins and Don overlooked something, but
eventually accepted fact. You just whine about it, still. You whine a
lot.


He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.


We all know that you think that. Nobody but you really believes that
though.


Hawke

On 9/25/2012 9:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Stupid faggot lied:

Prof. Geo. Plimpton elaborated:
Hawke-Ptooey, aka Silver Spoon Smithers, wrote:

He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

Good.


Yeah, we like hearing the guy who says he's never wrong admit that he
was wrong. I don't know about anyone else but I haven't heard that
admission yet. Are you still too much of a pussy to admit you made a
mistake?

Hawke

On 9/26/2012 1:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/25/2012 7:55 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/25/2012 4:29 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 6:12 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
George Plimpton whined:

You don't. You don't know your ass from your face.

You came in dead last, Plimpy. Wilkins and Don overlooked something,
but
eventually accepted fact. You just whine about it, still. You whine a
lot.


He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.


We all know that you think that.

So do you: that's why you wrote it.

On 9/26/2012 1:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Stupid faggot lied:

Prof. Geo. Plimpton elaborated:
Hawke-Ptooey, aka Silver Spoon Smithers, wrote:

He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

Good.


Yeah,

Yeah.

On Sep 26, 4:12*pm, Hawke wrote:


.. But you make it sound like I'm
wrong about everything all the time.

Hawke

Not all the time and not about everything. But I tend to only respond
to things that I think are wrong.


Dan

On 09/26/2012 01:15 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/25/2012 5:45 PM, Silly Rabbit wrote:
On 09/25/2012 04:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2012 8:31 PM, George SimPleton wrote:
.
**** off, crybaby.

You stupid ignoramus. You were wrong. You are always wrong. You don't
know a thing about math. You are an imbecile. You suck. You have a
****ty education. You are worthless. There, that's how a pussy like you
does it.

Hawke

When desperate, he also sets a followup header to another group, in
hopes of escape.

That's because he's got no backbone. He berates the **** out of everyone
over every dinky think but the minute you show him to be wrong about
something he runs off like a first class pussy while making excuses as
he goes.

The plimp is quite a dinky man. His manner and language tell me that
"Small-Man Syndrome" has probably been a crippling element of his daily
life. He gets a chance here to play a role that he's barred from in the
real world. When he's unmasked, it's like right back to his real world
again. Must be devastating! :^)

On 9/26/2012 1:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/26/2012 1:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Stupid faggot lied:

Prof. Geo. Plimpton elaborated:
Hawke-Ptooey, aka Silver Spoon Smithers, wrote:

He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

Good.


Yeah,

Yeah.


What you don't get is we're joking when we call you smart.


Hawke

On 9/27/2012 10:29 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/26/2012 1:36 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 9/26/2012 1:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 9/25/2012 9:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
Stupid faggot lied:

Prof. Geo. Plimpton elaborated:
Hawke-Ptooey, aka Silver Spoon Smithers, wrote:

He's smarter than everybody else too.

You know that.

Affirmative. We all know it.

Good.


Yeah,

Yeah.


What you don't get is we're joking when we call you smart.

What *you* get is that you're only trying to joke.

You're a stupid ****wit. You don't know anything.

On Oct 2, 3:20*pm, Hawke wrote:
On 10/1/2012 6:02 PM, wrote:



Hawke


Whatever.

Dan

On Oct 3, 3:20*pm, Hawke wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history. Why you would think
it would only take three years to have a robust recovery after the
terrible recession we just had is hard to understand. The last time
things were this bad was in the 1930s and it took over 13 years to get a
robust recovery. Thinking anyone would turn around our economic mess in
little more than three years really takes a Pollyanna. No one who
understands economics would think that.

Hawke

If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.


Cheers

On 10/3/2012 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:20 pm, Hawke wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history. Why you would think
it would only take three years to have a robust recovery after the
terrible recession we just had is hard to understand. The last time
things were this bad was in the 1930s and it took over 13 years to get a
robust recovery. Thinking anyone would turn around our economic mess in
little more than three years really takes a Pollyanna. No one who
understands economics would think that.

Hawke

If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.

Exactly. I already told him that, but because he's a) stupid and b) too
wedded to ideologically driven dogma, he'll never understand.

George Plimpton wrote:

On 10/3/2012 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:20 pm, Hawke wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history. Why you would think
it would only take three years to have a robust recovery after the
terrible recession we just had is hard to understand. The last time
things were this bad was in the 1930s and it took over 13 years to get a
robust recovery. Thinking anyone would turn around our economic mess in
little more than three years really takes a Pollyanna. No one who
understands economics would think that.

Hawke

If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.

Exactly. I already told him that, but because he's a) stupid and b) too
wedded to ideologically driven dogma, he'll never understand.

Here is my prediction: Romney will get elected and
four years from now you and Dan will be making the
same sort of lame and dumb excuses about why the economy
has not yet recovered and why unemployment is still
high.

On Oct 3, 6:57*pm, jim wrote:

Here is my prediction: Romney will get elected and
four years from now you and Dan will be making the
same sort of lame and dumb excuses about why the economy
has not yet recovered and why unemployment is still
high.

I do not make predictions, but I hope you are right about Romney being
elected president.

Dan

" wrote:

On Oct 3, 6:57 pm, jim wrote:

Here is my prediction: Romney will get elected and
four years from now you and Dan will be making the
same sort of lame and dumb excuses about why the economy
has not yet recovered and why unemployment is still
high.

I do not make predictions, but I hope you are right about Romney being
elected president.


He will be elected, but the only difference will be
the people casting blame and the people making excuses
will once again switch roles.

On 10/3/2012 1:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history.

You have no grasp of either.

You're wrong as usual.


Why *wouldn't* the recovery be strong? And where in the hell do you get
the idea that this is the "worst" recession in our history, and
according to what criteria? GDP declined 5.1%; it was down 12.7% in the
recession of 1945 and down 18.2% in Roosevelt's recession of 1937. The
most recent recession - which has been *OVER* for more than three years
- was one of the longest, but not by much: a year and six months, vs. a
year and four months for both the 1973-75 and early 1980s recessions.
National unemployment hit 10%, vs. 10.8% in the early 1980s (which was
necessary to choke off Jimmy Carter's runaway inflation.)

Take it up with the experts, bonehead.


But forget about all that - why *wouldn't* the recovery be strong? The
strength of the recovery, in fact, is usually *greater* when the
recession is deeper.

Yeah, way back when recessions were just due to over production and
there was no global trade.


You don't know what the **** you're talking about on any of this. You've
never studied business cycles. You don't know your flabby doughy ass
from your acne-scarred face.



I get the idea this is the worst recession since the great depression
from places like this. It's very easy to find. Here's a report from 2009
saying it's the worst recession since the depression.

Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The first 12 months of the U.S. recession saw
the economy shrink more than twice as much as previously estimated,
reflecting even bigger declines in consumer spending and housing,
revised figures showed.
The world’s largest economy contracted 1.9 percent from the fourth
quarter of 2007 to the last three months of 2008, compared with the
0.8 percent drop previously on the books, the Commerce Department said
yesterday in Washington. Gross domestic product has shrunk 3.9 percent
in the past year, the report said, indicating the worst slump since the
Great Depression.

Now tell me how it is I'm wrong.

Hawke

On 10/3/2012 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:20 pm, Hawke wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history. Why you would think
it would only take three years to have a robust recovery after the
terrible recession we just had is hard to understand. The last time
things were this bad was in the 1930s and it took over 13 years to get a
robust recovery. Thinking anyone would turn around our economic mess in
little more than three years really takes a Pollyanna. No one who
understands economics would think that.

Hawke

If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.



But that was before we had a global economy wasn't it?

Hawke

On 10/3/2012 2:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/3/2012 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:20 pm, Hawke wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history. Why you would think
it would only take three years to have a robust recovery after the
terrible recession we just had is hard to understand. The last time
things were this bad was in the 1930s and it took over 13 years to get a
robust recovery. Thinking anyone would turn around our economic mess in
little more than three years really takes a Pollyanna. No one who
understands economics would think that.

Hawke

If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.

Exactly. I already told him that, but because he's a) stupid and b) too
wedded to ideologically driven dogma, he'll never understand.

Yeah, the good old V shaped recession. Oh for the good old days when
that is how a recession used to be. Too bad the world changed a long
time ago and those aren't the norm anymore.

Hawke

On 10/4/2012 12:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 10/3/2012 1:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history.

You have no grasp of either.

You're wrong as usual.

I am right as always. You don't know economics at all, and next to
nothing about history.


Why *wouldn't* the recovery be strong? And where in the hell do you get
the idea that this is the "worst" recession in our history, and
according to what criteria? GDP declined 5.1%; it was down 12.7% in the
recession of 1945 and down 18.2% in Roosevelt's recession of 1937. The
most recent recession - which has been *OVER* for more than three years
- was one of the longest, but not by much: a year and six months, vs. a
year and four months for both the 1973-75 and early 1980s recessions.
National unemployment hit 10%, vs. 10.8% in the early 1980s (which was
necessary to choke off Jimmy Carter's runaway inflation.)

Take it up with the experts

No "expert" said anything to the contrary of what I said.


But forget about all that - why *wouldn't* the recovery be strong? The
strength of the recovery, in fact, is usually *greater* when the
recession is deeper.

Yeah, way back when recessions were just due to over production and
there was no global trade.

You're such an idiot. Recessions aren't *caused* by "over production",
you ****wit - overproduction is a *result*, or symptom.


You don't know what the **** you're talking about on any of this. You've
never studied business cycles. You don't know your flabby doughy ass
from your acne-scarred face.



I get the idea this is the worst recession since the great depression
from places like this. It's very easy to find.

It may very well be, but your belief that because it's bad, the recovery
will be slow, is simply wrong.

On 10/4/2012 12:42 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 10/3/2012 2:33 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 10/3/2012 2:05 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 3:20 pm, Hawke wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history. Why you would think
it would only take three years to have a robust recovery after the
terrible recession we just had is hard to understand. The last time
things were this bad was in the 1930s and it took over 13 years to
get a
robust recovery. Thinking anyone would turn around our economic mess in
little more than three years really takes a Pollyanna. No one who
understands economics would think that.

Hawke

If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.

Exactly. I already told him that, but because he's a) stupid and b) too
wedded to ideologically driven dogma, he'll never understand.

Yeah, the good old V shaped recession. Oh for the good old days when
that is how a recession used to be. Too bad the world changed a long
time ago and those aren't the norm anymore.

How many recessions haven't looked like that, Silver Spoon Smithers, and
why haven't they?

On 10/3/2012 6:38 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:57 pm, jim wrote:

Here is my prediction: Romney will get elected and
four years from now you and Dan will be making the
same sort of lame and dumb excuses about why the economy
has not yet recovered and why unemployment is still
high.

I do not make predictions, but I hope you are right about Romney being
elected president.

Dan



You were happy when Bush was elected too.

Hawke

On 10/4/2012 1:10 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 10/3/2012 6:38 PM, wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:57 pm, jim wrote:

Here is my prediction: Romney will get elected and
four years from now you and Dan will be making the
same sort of lame and dumb excuses about why the economy
has not yet recovered and why unemployment is still
high.

I do not make predictions, but I hope you are right about Romney being
elected president.

Dan



You were happy when Bush was elected too.

I was happy that Gore *wasn't* elected.

On Oct 4, 4:10*pm, Hawke wrote:

You were happy when Bush was elected too.

Hawke

Do not try to put words in my mouth.

Dan

On Oct 4, 3:29*pm, Hawke wrote:


If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after *deeper recessions.

But that was before we had a global economy wasn't it?

Hawke

Are you trying to say that the recession was bad because we have a
global economy, and it was not Bush's fault?

Dan

On 10/4/2012 1:47 PM, wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:10 pm, Hawke wrote:

You were happy when Bush was elected too.

Hawke

Do not try to put words in my mouth.

Dan



We both know you were.

Hawke

On 10/4/2012 1:50 PM, wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:29 pm, Hawke wrote:


If you knew much about economics, you would know that the recoveries
are usually stronger after deeper recessions.

But that was before we had a global economy wasn't it?

Hawke

Are you trying to say that the recession was bad because we have a
global economy, and it was not Bush's fault?

Dan



No Dan, what I was saying was that we have a global economy now. Back in
the old days we dominated the world's economy. So when we had a
recession it was about what was happening in our country. Those
conditions have changed. So a recession of the magnitude we just had and
in a global economy is not going to react like our recessions used to
when we were the dominate economy in the world. A V shaped recovery was
pretty normal in the past. That's not going to be the case in the future.

Hawke

On Oct 5, 3:35*pm, Hawke wrote:

Do not try to put words in my mouth.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

We both know you were.

Hawke

You are a scumbag that tries to put words in people's mouths. That is
the lowest form of lying. You are not smart enough to know what I
think and too stupid to speak for me.

Now explain why you say you own property that the county says belongs
to your parents.


Dan

On Oct 5, 4:04*pm, Hawke wrote:


So where is all the evidence as you IQ score? *Multiple degrees. *And
experiences with people.

Cheers

What would use use? How much money someone has?

Hawke

For the IQ score, I would use the actual IQ score. For multiple
degrees , I would use the actual degrees along with what school
granted them. For experiences with people, that is tougher. Maybe
projects that you were in charge of and how many people were in your
group. You know the sort of thing one includes in resumes.

Cheers