>Robert Goodman wrote Travis Pahl as follows... >> You completely mischarcterize the situation. They want X amount of >> spending rather than 1.1 times X. However, given a choice between 1.1 >> times X and 0.1 times X, they'll take 1.1 times X.
>I for one really wish that you wouldn't do stuff like this, but >we've been through this drill before. Human actions, reactions, >and social science isn't a matter of mathematical extrapolations >or possibilities. No wonder some people might be confused, as I >certain am, in reading this jiberish. I wonder how Travis got >sucked into even answering something like this in the first >place. >Kindest regards, >Frank I tried putting it in words, but he didn't seem to get it, so I put it in numbers. Some of us are more comfortable that way; obviously Frank isn't, sorry. How's this: The general voting sentiment could be for A LITTLE LESS spending (than otherwise), but given a choice between MORE spending and a DRASTIC cut, they'll take the increase, because MORE is closer to A LITTLE LESS than is MUCH MUCH LESS. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert in the Bronx _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
