Hawke wrote:

You're bull****ting. You can't accurately reproduce anyone's words. We
already saw that when you mangled St. Ralph's book club blabber and had
him saying that more people earn less than $10 per hour than there are
in the entire work force.

For a change, you're wrong. The workforce as of 2007 was just about 156
million. What Nader said was the 1/3 of all workers get paid Walmart
wages, that is 10 or 10.50 an hour or less. The point isn't whether I
remembered what Nader said exactly.

That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk

On 2/25/2012 12:34 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

You're bull****ting. You can't accurately reproduce anyone's words. We
already saw that when you mangled St. Ralph's book club blabber and had
him saying that more people earn less than $10 per hour than there are
in the entire work force.

For a change, you're wrong. The workforce as of 2007 was just about 156
million. What Nader said was the 1/3 of all workers get paid Walmart
wages, that is 10 or 10.50 an hour or less. The point isn't whether I
remembered what Nader said exactly.

That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk


Please remember that you are arguing with a person who thinks that
getting a poli sci BA from a mediocre school makes him an "educated person".

In short, rational arguments have no effect.

David

On 2/25/2012 10:34 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:

You're bull****ting. You can't accurately reproduce anyone's words. We
already saw that when you mangled St. Ralph's book club blabber and had
him saying that more people earn less than $10 per hour than there are
in the entire work force.

For a change, you're wrong. The workforce as of 2007 was just about 156
million. What Nader said was the 1/3 of all workers get paid Walmart
wages, that is 10 or 10.50 an hour or less. The point isn't whether I
remembered what Nader said exactly.

That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk

Oh **** you! I told everyone that I heard a presentation from Nader on
Book TV at least a couple of weeks ago and I thought he said 130 million
workers were getting Walmart wages. I only saw it once and wasn't taking
notes. It turned out he said it was 1/3 of the workforce gets that level
of pay. I wasn't citing anything just saying what I recalled from his
talk. So get off the high horse about something so petty. Why don't you
say something so I can call you a liar if you even misspell one word?
Because that's the level of pettiness you're stooping to. Does it matter
all that much if I didn't remember exactly what Nader said? The point
was we have a **** load of people getting horrible pay. Okay, the fact
is it's over 50 million people out of 150 million. Doesn't that prove
the point?

Hawke

On 2/25/2012 1:19 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 2/25/2012 12:34 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

You're bull****ting. You can't accurately reproduce anyone's words. We
already saw that when you mangled St. Ralph's book club blabber and had
him saying that more people earn less than $10 per hour than there are
in the entire work force.

For a change, you're wrong. The workforce as of 2007 was just about 156
million. What Nader said was the 1/3 of all workers get paid Walmart
wages, that is 10 or 10.50 an hour or less. The point isn't whether I
remembered what Nader said exactly.

That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk


Please remember that you are arguing with a person who thinks that
getting a poli sci BA from a mediocre school makes him an "educated
person".

In short, rational arguments have no effect.

David



How would you know? You've never tested that hypothesis because you have
never personally made a rational argument. Aside from criticizing others
and spreading poorly informed opinions you have nothing worthy to even
talk about. Please show us your credentials so we can be the judge of
your education. Put up or shut up, Nancy boy.

Hawke

Hawke wrote:


That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk

Oh **** you!

Such a highly refined ability to discuss.
They "learned ya that" in Chico did they.


Does it matter
all that much if I didn't remember exactly what Nader said? The point
was we have a **** load of people getting horrible pay. Okay, the fact
is it's over 50 million people out of 150 million.
It does when you make the claim in Ralph's name AND say that he HAS
the figures and sources to back it up.
If you had just said "Ralph Nader said we have a large percentage of
people being under paid" I doubt any one would have been discussing
it.

Doesn't that prove
the point?
No. But it is a much more reasonable basis for you thinking that it
does.



Hawke
jk

On 2/25/2012 8:35 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 2/25/2012 1:19 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Please remember that you are arguing with a person who thinks that
getting a poli sci BA from a mediocre school makes him an "educated
person".

In short, rational arguments have no effect.

David



How would you know? You've never tested that hypothesis because you have
never personally made a rational argument.

Ja, it's more fun to point out your irrationality.

Aside from criticizing others

Just you, actually. Are you admitting to bipolar tendencies?

and spreading poorly informed opinions you have nothing worthy to even
talk about. Please show us your credentials so we can be the judge of
your education. Put up or shut up, Nancy boy.

Hawwke-ptooey

I already asked you, what kind of proof do you expect me to present over
the Internet? What would be acceptable to a self important nitwit like you?

I know!

I could claim to have a useless humanities pseudo science degree from a
mediocre state college, you expect us to be impressed by that.

David

On Feb 25, 9:19*pm, Hawke wrote:

Oh **** you! I told everyone that I heard a presentation from Nader on
Book TV at least a couple of weeks ago and I thought he said 130 million
workers were getting Walmart wages. I only saw it once and wasn't taking
notes. It turned out he said it was 1/3 of the workforce gets that level
of pay. I wasn't citing anything just saying what I recalled from his
talk. So get off the high horse about something so petty. Why don't you
say something so I can call you a liar if you even misspell one word?
Because that's the level of pettiness you're stooping to. Does it matter
all that much if I didn't remember exactly what Nader said? The point
was we have a **** load of people getting horrible pay. Okay, the fact
is it's over 50 million people out of 150 million. Doesn't that prove
the point?

Hawke

It does not matter if you say many people get low pay. When you put
false numbers on it . it is just lying.

I believe I looked at the BLS and found that there were not 150
million workers. So you are lying again. Do not use numbers unless
they are correct. Anything else is lying.

Dan

On 2/25/2012 10:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 2/25/2012 8:35 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 2/25/2012 1:19 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Please remember that you are arguing with a person who thinks that
getting a poli sci BA from a mediocre school makes him an "educated
person".

In short, rational arguments have no effect.

David



How would you know? You've never tested that hypothesis because you have
never personally made a rational argument.

Ja, it's more fun to point out your irrationality.

Aside from criticizing others

Just you, actually. Are you admitting to bipolar tendencies?

and spreading poorly informed opinions you have nothing worthy to even
talk about. Please show us your credentials so we can be the judge of
your education. Put up or shut up, Nancy boy.

Hawwke-ptooey

I already asked you, what kind of proof do you expect me to present over
the Internet? What would be acceptable to a self important nitwit like you?

I know!

I could claim to have a useless humanities pseudo science degree from a
mediocre state college, you expect us to be impressed by that.

David


You would have to present the facts, and that would be something truly
worth my ridiculing. Because we both know that in reality you aren't
very impressive, and that is saying it kindly. Nobody with anything
worth respect would act like you do. It's as simple as that. Someone
with an impressive background would have simply said. I'm a lawyer, a
doctor, I have a Ph.D, or a Master's, or something to that effect. You
seem unable to simply show us what an impressive fellow you are. Maybe
you ain't so damn hot as you act.

Hawke

On 2/28/2012 5:15 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/25/2012 10:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 2/25/2012 8:35 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 2/25/2012 1:19 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Please remember that you are arguing with a person who thinks that
getting a poli sci BA from a mediocre school makes him an "educated
person".

In short, rational arguments have no effect.

David



How would you know? You've never tested that hypothesis because you have
never personally made a rational argument.

Ja, it's more fun to point out your irrationality.

Aside from criticizing others

Just you, actually. Are you admitting to bipolar tendencies?

and spreading poorly informed opinions you have nothing worthy to even
talk about. Please show us your credentials so we can be the judge of
your education. Put up or shut up, Nancy boy.

Hawwke-ptooey

I already asked you, what kind of proof do you expect me to present over
the Internet? What would be acceptable to a self important nitwit like
you?

I know!

I could claim to have a useless humanities pseudo science degree from a
mediocre state college, you expect us to be impressed by that.

David


You would have to present the facts, and that would be something truly
worth my ridiculing. Because we both know that in reality you aren't
very impressive, and that is saying it kindly. Nobody with anything
worth respect would act like you do. It's as simple as that. Someone
with an impressive background would have simply said. I'm a lawyer, a
doctor, I have a Ph.D, or a Master's, or something to that effect. You
seem unable to simply show us what an impressive fellow you are. Maybe
you ain't so damn hot as you act.

The possession of a degree doesn't mean nearly what you think it does.

On 2/25/2012 10:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 2/25/2012 8:35 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 2/25/2012 1:19 PM, David R. Birch wrote:

Please remember that you are arguing with a person who thinks that
getting a poli sci BA from a mediocre school makes him an "educated
person".

In short, rational arguments have no effect.

David



How would you know? You've never tested that hypothesis because you have
never personally made a rational argument.

Ja, it's more fun to point out your irrationality.

That might be fun for someone of limited mental capacity but no one with
real brains would do that. But you tell us every time you write
something that you are nothing but an empty shell. There's nothing in
there worth knowing. A hollow man. With no sense of humor either.



Aside from criticizing others

Just you, actually. Are you admitting to bipolar tendencies?

I've see some of your witty little sayings. Brilliant! A real Einstein I
tell you, a real Einstein.

and spreading poorly informed opinions you have nothing worthy to even
talk about. Please show us your credentials so we can be the judge of
your education. Put up or shut up, Nancy boy.

I see you came up with nothing to show you ability. Just like you always
do. Nothing but hot air.




I already asked you, what kind of proof do you expect me to present over
the Internet? What would be acceptable to a self important nitwit like you?

I know!

I could claim to have a useless humanities pseudo science degree from a
mediocre state college, you expect us to be impressed by that.


You could actually have something someone would be proud of but you
don't. You always have nothing but blather. A bigger blowhard I've yet
to encounter. You are in clear contention with Gummer. He says more but
you say dumber things with less words. Kind of hard to tell which of the
two of you is worse.



Hawke

On 2/25/2012 10:00 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk

Oh **** you!

Such a highly refined ability to discuss.
They "learned ya that" in Chico did they.

How many times do I have to say I didn't get my B.A. until I was fifty
years old. So I got through most of my life without a four year degree.
I did just fine too. I learned how to use profanity in a lot of
different places way before I was fifty. How about you. Learned your
first cuss word at fifty? Sorry to break the news but I was a fully
capable and fully functioning man before I ever got a college degree. I
didn't need it. I added it to my resume because I wanted it, period.



Does it matter
all that much if I didn't remember exactly what Nader said? The point
was we have a **** load of people getting horrible pay. Okay, the fact
is it's over 50 million people out of 150 million.


It does when you make the claim in Ralph's name AND say that he HAS
the figures and sources to back it up.

It isn't a claim when it's on BookTV right now for you to see if you
want to. All I did was relay what I saw, weeks after I saw it. I was
paraphrasing it anyway. But it isn't a claim if you can look at it
yourself any damn time you want.

If you had just said "Ralph Nader said we have a large percentage of
people being under paid" I doubt any one would have been discussing
it.

That's bull****. Plimpton took issue just because it was from Nader. He
already started to argue the minute he heard it was Nader.


Doesn't that prove
the point?

No. But it is a much more reasonable basis for you thinking that it
does.


I know that Nader has the facts in his book. He would not write
something as a fact without references. He always does. I told you what
he said. You have no reason to disbelieve it but you can find out the
facts for yourself. If the facts don't convince you we have at least 50
million people working for ten bucks and hour or less then nothing will.

Hawke

On Feb 28, 9:06*pm, Hawke wrote:

How many times do I have to say I didn't get my B.A. until I was fifty
years old. So I got through most of my life without a four year degree.
I did just fine too. I learned how to use profanity in a lot of
different places way before I was fifty. How about you. Learned your
first cuss word at fifty? Sorry to break the news but I was a fully
capable and fully functioning man before I ever got a college degree. I
didn't need it. I added it to my resume because I wanted it, period.




Hawke

Funny, I learned not to use profanity when I was about eighteen.

Dan

On 2/28/2012 6:06 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 2/25/2012 10:00 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.

Quit whining.
jk

Oh **** you!

Such a highly refined ability to discuss.
They "learned ya that" in Chico did they.

How many times do I have to say I didn't get my B.A. until I was fifty
years old. So I got through most of my life without a four year degree.
I did just fine too. I learned how to use profanity in a lot of
different places way before I was fifty. How about you. Learned your
first cuss word at fifty? Sorry to break the news but I was a fully
capable and fully functioning man before I ever got a college degree.

Your manhood is very much in doubt.


I didn't need it. I added it to my resume because I wanted it, period.

That's obvious.


Does it matter
all that much if I didn't remember exactly what Nader said? The point
was we have a **** load of people getting horrible pay. Okay, the fact
is it's over 50 million people out of 150 million.


It does when you make the claim in Ralph's name AND say that he HAS
the figures and sources to back it up.

It isn't a claim when it's on BookTV right now for you to see if you
want to.

It's your claim. Either you got it wrong, or St. Ralph doesn't know a
****ing thing about the size of the labor force. Which is it?


If you had just said "Ralph Nader said we have a large percentage of
people being under paid" I doubt any one would have been discussing
it.

That's bull****. Plimpton took issue just because it was from Nader.

I took issue because what you reported that he said is impossible to be
true.


Doesn't that prove
the point?

No. But it is a much more reasonable basis for you thinking that it
does.


I know that Nader has the facts in his book.

You *DON'T* know that. You want to believe it. St. Ralph is an
ideological polemicist and extremist. He would lie with statistics just
as soon as he'd pick his nose.

Hawke wrote:

How would you know? You've never tested that hypothesis because you have
never personally made a rational argument.
Ja, it's more fun to point out your irrationality.
That might be fun for someone of limited mental capacity but no one with
real brains would do that.

So you admit your arguments are irrational. Nice to know.

But you tell us every time you write
something that you are nothing but an empty shell. There's nothing in
there worth knowing. A hollow man. With no sense of humor either.


You could actually have something someone would be proud of but you
don't. You always have nothing but blather. A bigger blowhard I've yet
to encounter.

I guess you have a beard then, or use an electric. It isn't easy to
shave without looking in the mirror otherwise.

jk

Hawke wrote:

On 2/25/2012 10:00 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:
That is EXACTLY the point. You claimed he said something that was
clearly Bull**** to George, and that Ralph was "infallible" [Not your
exact words] and he called you on it.
Quit whining.
jk
Oh **** you!
Such a highly refined ability to discuss.
They "learned ya that" in Chico did they.

How many times do I have to say I didn't get my B.A. until I was fifty
years old.
112.5
[Such a small number because it is irrelevant]
So I got through most of my life without a four year degree.
I did just fine too.
So what?
I learned how to use profanity in a lot of
different places way before I was fifty. How about you.
I was taught that it was the last resort of a small mind.
A small mind that can't come up with a reasoned and rational argument.
Learned your
first cuss word at fifty? Sorry to break the news but I was a fully
capable and fully functioning man before I ever got a college degree.
So whatever it was, happened at Chico then. I see.

I
didn't need it. I added it to my resume because I wanted it, period.
Apparently because you wanted "d resume" period.
Does it matter
all that much if I didn't remember exactly what Nader said? The point
was we have a **** load of people getting horrible pay. Okay, the fact
is it's over 50 million people out of 150 million.


It does when you make the claim in Ralph's name AND say that he HAS
the figures and sources to back it up.

It isn't a claim when it's on BookTV right now for you to see if you
want to. All I did was relay what I saw, weeks after I saw it. I was
paraphrasing it anyway. But it isn't a claim if you can look at it
yourself any damn time you want.
AND YOU GOT IT WRONG. You even said he had proof to back up the
numbers YOU claimed he said.


If you had just said "Ralph Nader said we have a large percentage of
people being under paid" I doubt any one would have been discussing
it.

That's bull****. Plimpton took issue just because it was from Nader. He
already started to argue the minute he heard it was Nader.
He might have, you don't know. If you hadn't "gingerbreaded" reality
by adding details that weren't there, the argument would have centered
around the truth and believability (or lack thereof) of his
assertions.
Doesn't that prove
the point?

No. But it is a much more reasonable basis for you thinking that it
does.


I know that Nader has the facts in his book. He would not write
something as a fact without references. He always does. I told you what
he said.
No you didn't, You made something up. (Or call it misrememberd,
whatever!)
You have no reason to disbelieve it but you can find out the
facts for yourself. If the facts don't convince you we have at least 50
million people working for ten bucks and hour or less then nothing will.


Ralph saying it doesn't make it a fact, any more than when you say it.
When Ralph says it I find it much more believable, that at least he
believes it. He can be wrong too, or he can be using disputable
numbers. Or he can interpret the numbers in the way that makes the
case he wants to. That IS what he does for a living after all, he is a
lawyer (as you pointed out).


Hawke
jk

Hawke wrote:

On 2/25/2012 10:02 PM, David R. Birch wrote:


I already asked you, what kind of proof do you expect me to present over
the Internet? What would be acceptable to a self important nitwit like you?

I know!

I could claim to have a useless humanities pseudo science degree from a
mediocre state college, you expect us to be impressed by that.

David


You would have to present the facts, and that would be something truly
worth my ridiculing. Because we both know that in reality you aren't
very impressive, and that is saying it kindly. Nobody with anything
worth respect would act like you do. It's as simple as that. Someone
with an impressive background would have simply said. I'm a lawyer, a
doctor, I have a Ph.D, or a Master's, or something to that effect.
Or perhaps it is as simple as him thinking that making an unverifiable
claim is as meaningless as yours is, or perhaps he doesn't think it is
particularly relevant.

There is an old adage, perhaps it even comes under the heading of
"everyone knows" so you ought to like it.
"Actions speak louder than words".

You want people to believe you have a degree? Do you want them to
believe that your degree means something? Then stop posting crap you
THINK you know as "facts" without at least minimally checking them
first.

You
seem unable to simply show us what an impressive fellow you are. Maybe
you ain't so damn hot as you act.
Hawke
jk