So, let's address this piece by piece...
"so which is it, 10 percent over 5-6 years or long term historical facts."
It's both. I showed references for the historical context that
included the more recent ones, and using that information you can make
a reasonable assumption, if the trend continues at it's existing rate,
that by 2020 we will end up there.
"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."
No, this was a statement based on the numbers made from 2012.
"do you see the flawed logic to your passive aggressive insult?"
No, I don't. I have 50 years of documentation that provides a damn
good reference.
"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."
I'm not sure what you are talking about here? I don't know who "my
man" is, I have no gods (I'm an Atheist, Agnostic at best/worst), and
I did 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"
... I have no idea what you are talking about here, or how this is in
any way relevant.
Again, political parties are assraping you with the barbwire and blood
covered bat Negan has on The Walking Dead. It's time we came together
as a nation and demanded real change - this means doing our own
research into the "news", and ignoring the preachings of those that
want to split us apart and keep us weak.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:11 PM, That One Guy /sarcasm
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
