> GG wrote:
> The problem with banging the bigot drum so cavalierly is that:
>
See, here's a good example:
http://wwtdd.com/post.phtml?pk=3084
Are they REALLY racist? I doubt it. But, if so, don't you think we'd
all be better served by explaining the problem here rather than
pointing at them a
> Dana wrote:
> you're missing my point and I suspect deliberately. I don't have time for
> this.
>
The problem with banging the bigot drum so cavalierly is that:
1.) You dilute the term and disarm the term.
2.) You indulge your own close-mindedness and thus victimize yourself.
3.) You close d
you're missing my point and I suspect deliberately. I don't have time for this.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] > trash
On 10/31/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > ya and so we need a black guy?
>
> We need someone who's really good at dancing; isn't that what I just
> said? Why do
> Dana wrote:
> ya and so we need a black guy?
We need someone who's really good at dancing; isn't that what I just
said? Why do you keep throwing in "black guy"?
~|
Check out the new features and enhancements in the
latest prod
ya and so we need a black guy? Come *on.* We need someone who's good
at dancing! I keep expecting you to shout April Fool's, man. Tell me
you don't really think like this ;)
On 10/31/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > Diversity is great. I love diversity. But you make it
> Dana wrote:
> Diversity is great. I love diversity. But you make it sound like you
> need to add a black guy if you want someone that can dance. It's not
> that simple.
>
Well if our team is being judged on dancing, we're gonna want someone
who's REALLY good at it and hope I sprain an ankle.
~~
my team is just fine thank you but that isn't because the guy from
Massachussetts works harder than the Native American.
Diversity is great. I love diversity. But you make it sound like you
need to add a black guy if you want someone that can dance. It's not
that simple.
On 10/30/07, Gruss Go
I see why you voted for Kerry, you want us to fail. You've been
praying for years that we lose the war, that the economy crashes and
now you're wishing we fade into the sunset. It's a good thing you're
always wrong.
On 10/31/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Great points all, and I'm no
** Private ** wrote:
> Someone wrote a book that I'm too lazy to look up
Do you live near the equator?
> but basically it
> pointed out that your probability of poverty was directly proportional
> to your distance from the equator.
I would say that at best you could get a normalized covariance
> RoMunn wrote:
> industrializing world expand, their economies become new markets in their
> own right. The pie gets bigger.
>
Great points all, and I'm not suggesting that the US will die more
that it will lose leadership: economically, morally, and culturally.
I tossed out the UK; they're cert
On 10/30/07, Gruss wrote:
>
>
> Huh. Well maybe it is dumb, but it seems to me that wealth is created
> and gained by those most hungry for it - and that's ALWAYS at the
> expense of others.
Economics, contrary to what Marx and other communist economic thinkers
believed, is not a zero sum game.
> Simon wrote:
> When you didn't
> stay quiet after your "people near the equator are more likely to be
> poor" comment (which is absurd in and of itself)
Just to be clear, that's not my comment, it's an economics theory by
an author whose book I read a few years ago.
The reason I brought it up w
> Simon wrote:
> "3rd World workers, seeing the relative wealth they lack and the path to
> get it (free trade!), get hungry and try to grab the brass ring"? I'm
> sorry Gruss - but that really is just plain dumb. When you're from the
> third world, pretty much everything else IS a brass ring...
Though not popular I have got to admit that some of what you say is
actually fairly interesting to think about, Gus.
Of course, I also find watching and reading speeches given by Hitler
very interesting and educational, but I'm no fan of his.
Not that I'm comparing you to Hitler, of course.
To y
Your lack of knowledge of world affairs and economy is astounding.
What you continue to post is such sophistry as to be ill fitting of a
decent response.
On 10/30/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So let me try this one on you - tell me what you think:
>
> What if this 19th century "wea
interesting.
On 10/30/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So let me try this one on you - tell me what you think:
>
> What if this 19th century "wealth effect" was happening today except
> in the 1st World countries?
>
> Remember the concept: due to abundance of basic needs items (food)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Vivec [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 8:31 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Sun Belt Work Ethic
>
> The presumption is so ludicrous as to not be worth the effort.
Oh - you're just mad because you liv
So let me try this one on you - tell me what you think:
What if this 19th century "wealth effect" was happening today except
in the 1st World countries?
Remember the concept: due to abundance of basic needs items (food)
there is less incentive to develop advanced methods of production
(which is b
Like Gel said, it's a goofy-ass argument.
On 10/30/07, Gruss wrote:
>
> > Vivec wrote:
> > The presumption is so ludicrous as to not be worth the effort.
> >
>
> Why? Seems no more ludicrous than saying that, say, the 19th century
> Indians are better buffalo hunters than 19th century Norwegian
> Vivec wrote:
> The presumption is so ludicrous as to not be worth the effort.
>
Why? Seems no more ludicrous than saying that, say, the 19th century
Indians are better buffalo hunters than 19th century Norwegians.
Why is it that any suggestion of differentiation amongst the world's
is immediat
The presumption is so ludicrous as to not be worth the effort.
It would be complimentary to you if your absurd and disingenuous
statements could be thought to come from an utter ignorance of
history.
For at the worst , coupled with your inane rantings in the previous
thread, it can be seen as pur
> WillBo wrote:
> Bullshit alarm again.
>
Well, should be pretty simple to disprove in possibly 2 ways:
1.) Is it true that a human's probability of living in poverty is
directly proportional to their distance from the equator?
2.) Is that coincidence a reasonable observation?
~
> Any thoughts of whether that's true or is it bogus science?
Sounds suspiciously like anecdotal clap-trap of the "brown-people are
all too lazy for their own good" variety.
Bullshit alarm again.
On 10/30/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone wrote a book that I'm too lazy to look
it sounds like an over-simplification.
On 10/30/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone wrote a book that I'm too lazy to look up, but basically it
> pointed out that your probability of poverty was directly proportional
> to your distance from the equator.
>
> His reasoning was that p
Someone wrote a book that I'm too lazy to look up, but basically it
pointed out that your probability of poverty was directly proportional
to your distance from the equator.
His reasoning was that people from cold climates had to work harder
and plan more to get food due to winters whereas tropica
25 matches
Mail list logo
