so which is it, 10 percent over 5-6 years or long term historical facts. Of
huge concern to me is a person using historical facts to predict a future
that would only apply if the historic trends continued, yet refuses to
accept change. I assume the "projections show that in 2018, the top 20%
will have over 90% of the country's wealth." statement was not formulated
as of Tuesday evening, considering all of those "in the know" already were
picking out paint schemes for hillarys chambers.
do you see the flawed logic to your passive aggressive insult?
I understand your man had some hope and some change, and even though that
change was more of the same, hes a god, but you have to pick a timeline and
a dataset.
a prime example, i have a sight where 5ghz is toast, absolutely hosed.
well, that was before the 5.1 goodness became available. See, if I continue
operating under previous rules, and the historic data set, 5ghz is useless
here. But, if I accept change, actual change, where things are different, I
can operate in 5ghz and succeed. I can still call it 5ghz, hell I can call
it tickled goat hump with a side of rice, I can stop doing anything and
worry about what i call it (you know, a label) because we all know its a
UNIIism (see what i did there) It doesnt change the fact that there is a
potentially viable solution on the table. My only choice is whether I
arrogantly stick with the old data set and methodology and fail, or I get
over myself and give it a shot before I assume it will fail, because 5ghz
always failed
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:
> I don't think I can reason with an individual who's not willing to
> consider well documented numbers as historical facts. I think you're
> far more comfortable trying to simply blame a sitting President then
> looking at a long term cancer that has been eroding this country over
> the past 50 years, and that's a huge disappointment.
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:31 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > in 5 (well, 6) years, there is a 10% change, if there wasnt an abrupt
> > alteration in the last two election cycles that would mean that about 48
> > years ago the wealth was evenly distributed. now, I wasnt around then,
> but I
> > know in the sixties, there were some hippies with some similar rhetoric,
> > albeit alot more groovy tone.
> >
> > I would ask you the same question about said assrape, i didnt care for
> the
> > one that actually happenned, im not about to describe my opinion of one
> that
> > only exists in the future and in your head. Though out of curiousity,
> when
> > youre imagining me taking the throbbing member, do I have a top hat on?
> > Because seriously, if I ever get assraped, I would really prefer I have a
> > top hat on.
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would argue that he is past the age where he might cause harm. He's
> had
> >> several bypasses after all.
> >>
> >>
> >> bp
> >> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
> >>
> >> On 11/10/2016 4:29 PM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That is true, but he is still under the same roof if I leave my wife
> and
> >>> daughter there. :)
> >>>
> >>> Gilbert
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/10/2016 10:06 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> He was not running for president. And neither was Melania.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> bp
> >>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/10/2016 9:04 AM, Gilbert T. Gutierrez, Jr. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have more issues with Hilary's husband.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team
> as
> > part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
>
--
If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your team as
part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team.
