Amazing! Scottie, can you hear it?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The NYTimes ran a story today about Gov. Moosekill's political acumen -- or
lack thereof -- and her thin skin.

"Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides ‘Cruel’"
<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08palin.html?hp>

Palin complains that she was misunderstood because her words were taken out
of context. She didn't deny being confused about the meaning of country vs.
continent, however. Palin also says a comment she made about NAFTA was
misinterpreted. She also used the phrase "not fair" several times.

Palin thus claims that her own statements have been misinterpreted, that
she uses certain words to mean certain nonstandard things, and that
everybody picks on her. Sound familiar, Scottie? ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 7, 11:22*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> The NYTimes ran a story today about Gov. Moosekill's political acumen -- or
> lack thereof -- and her thin skin.
>
> "Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides ‘Cruel’"
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08palin.html?hp>
>
> Palin complains that she was misunderstood because her words were taken out
> of context. She didn't deny being confused about the meaning of country vs.
> continent, however. Palin also says a comment she made about NAFTA was
> misinterpreted. She also used the phrase "not fair" several times.
>
> Palin thus claims that her own statements have been misinterpreted, that
> she uses certain words to mean certain nonstandard things, and that
> everybody picks on her. Sound familiar, Scottie? ;-)

There's another similarity. 2pid once claimed that he had experience
serving the US because he had once worked for a defense contractor.

No, really. I'm serious.

I wonder if 2pid would claim foriegn policy experience based on his
proximity to Mexico.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you a
fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I usually
do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect on what
you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's a matter
of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not 'facts'),
or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal expression part
of your, uh, 'brain'.)

Me:
> > Palin thus claims that her own statements have been misinterpreted, that
> > she uses certain words to mean certain nonstandard things, and that
> > everybody picks on her. Sound familiar, Scottie? ;-)

You:
> Actually, I think she nailed it when she called the anymous[sic] weasels cowards.

This is dumb because -- and I'm being generous by explaining this -- you
haven't explained why you feel they are "cowards". (As a reminder, humans
use the word "coward" to denote somebody who's governed by fear.)

> Now what sane candidate is gonna hire campaign aides who will destroy
> any future political career trying to cover their slimy asses over a loss?

This is stupid because the "aides" who have "slimy asses" were working for
McCain. You approve of everything he says and does, and yet you **** on his
"aides". It doesn't make sense to us human beings.

> After this meldown a long list of McCain aides are etching their names
> on the blacklist from working on future national campaigns.

This is stupid because blacklists aren't etched. It's apparent you don't
understand the etymology of the term "blacklist". When you abuse well-known
words by using them incorrectly, you seem stupid.

It's also stupid because you seem to be defending the idiot Palin, but then
you admit she had a "meltdown". You may be surprised to learn that among
humans, describing somebody's behavior as a meltdown is pejorative.

> those petty twerps back to the Mayors circuit. And where's McCain on
> this? Cowering in the shadows crying that he looks like shhhs little dick?

This is stupid because the reporter told us exactly how and when McCain
handled the bickering.

> Palin has stood up and faced the cameras. I haven't seen a campaign
> aide yet with her balls.

This is stupid because it's quite rare for a campaign "aide" to be
interviewed on camera. The media don't really care about what "aides" have
to say. They interview the candidates mostly, and also senior strategists
and campaign managers, but very seldom do they need to interview "aides".

> The attacks on Palin are the worst example
> of politics of personal destruction in this race.

This is stupid because the criticisms are founded in fact, not spite, and
also because they come from members of her party who tried to make her seem
potentially Presidential.


I'm sure you'll have difficulty understanding what I've said in my post. I
predict that, rather than reflecting on my words and trying to integrate my
thoughts into your skewed view of the election, you'll become more incensed
and attempt more personal insults. Your ranting level will intensify.
You'll snip most of my post in your reply. You'll toss gratuitous trolls at
Shushie and Jenn. In short, despite my genuine effort to improve your
'thinking', you'll have a full-on Scottiedown.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Nov 7, 9:22*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > The NYTimes ran a story today about Gov. Moosekill's political acumen -- or
> > lack thereof -- and her thin skin.
> >
> > "Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides ŒCruel¹"
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08palin.html?hp>
> >
> > Palin complains that she was misunderstood because her words were taken out
> > of context. She didn't deny being confused about the meaning of country vs.
> > continent, however. Palin also says a comment she made about NAFTA was
> > misinterpreted. She also used the phrase "not fair" several times.
> >
> > Palin thus claims that her own statements have been misinterpreted, that
> > she uses certain words to mean certain nonstandard things, and that
> > everybody picks on her. Sound familiar, Scottie? ;-)
>
> Actually, I think she nailed it when she called the anymous weasels
> cowards.
>
> Now what sane candidate is gonna hire campaign aides who will destroy
> any future political career trying to cover their slimy asses over a
> loss?
>
> After this meldown a long list of McCain aides are etching their names
> on the blacklist from working on future national campaigns. Send
> those petty twerps back to the Mayors circuit. And where's McCain on
> this? Cowering in the shadows crying that he looks like shhhs little
> dick?
>
> Palin has stood up and faced the cameras. I haven't seen a campaign
> aide yet with her balls. The attacks on Palin are the worst example
> of politics of personal destruction in this race. I can tell you love
> it.
>
> ScottW

My theory is that it is Romney people who are doing it.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> Actually, I think she nailed it when she called the anymous weasels
> cowards.

Agree on the sentiment, not the specifics.

> Now what sane candidate is gonna hire campaign aides who will destroy
> any future political career trying to cover their slimy asses over a
> loss?

I dunno. Mark Penn keeps getting hired.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article
> > >,
> > ScottW > wrote:
> >
> >> Actually, I think she nailed it when she called the anymous weasels
> >> cowards.
> >
> > Agree on the sentiment, not the specifics.
>
> Sentiment is all that remains from the McCain campaign.

The campaign's over, yes.

> >> Now what sane candidate is gonna hire campaign aides who will destroy
> >> any future political career trying to cover their slimy asses over a
> >> loss?
> >
> > I dunno. Mark Penn keeps getting hired.
>
> I don't recall him back stabbing.

There's a reference in the Atlantic's "The Hillary Clinton Memos."

> He just had too
> many pots in the fire to prevent conflicts of interest
> and policy.
> It's gotten a bit odd that a campaign strategist now has to
> be shown to support the policies as devoutly as
> the candidate. Especially as these guys often spend
> 3 out of every 4 years as lobbyists.

On the other hand, one might want potential employers to think the
failed campaign isn't one's fault.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Noi, 16:24, MiNe 109 > wrote:


>
> On the other hand, one might want potential employers to think the
> failed campaign isn't one's fault.
>


LOL!!!!
It's not like he's an ex AIG or Fannie Mae executive.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 8, 9:58*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:22*pm, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > The NYTimes ran a story today about Gov. Moosekill's political acumen -- or
> > lack thereof -- and her thin skin.
>
> > "Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides ‘Cruel’"
> > <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/08/us/politics/08palin.html?hp>
>
> > Palin complains that she was misunderstood because her words were taken out
> > of context. She didn't deny being confused about the meaning of country vs.
> > continent, however. Palin also says a comment she made about NAFTA was
> > misinterpreted. She also used the phrase "not fair" several times.
>
> > Palin thus claims that her own statements have been misinterpreted, that
> > she uses certain words to mean certain nonstandard things, and that
> > everybody picks on her. Sound familiar, Scottie? ;-)
>
> * Actually, I think she nailed it when she called the anymous weasels
> cowards.
>
> *Now what sane candidate is gonna hire campaign aides who will destroy
> any future political career trying to cover their slimy asses over a
> loss?
>
> After this meldown a long list of McCain aides are etching their names
> on the blacklist from working on future national campaigns. *Send
> those petty twerps back to the Mayors circuit. * And where's McCain on
> this? *Cowering in the shadows crying that he looks like shhhs little
> dick?

Mine's bigger than yours is, 2pid. We don't even have to measure: we
can tell from your posts that you suffer from "small man's syndrome".

LoL.

> Palin has stood up and faced the cameras. *I haven't seen a campaign
> aide yet with her balls. * The attacks on Palin are the worst example
> of politics of personal destruction in this race. *I can tell you love
> it.

It's the further self-destruction of your beloved republicans.

Don't worry, they'll mend themselves an a decade or two and be back.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 8, 10:19�am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 9:46�am, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you a
> > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I usually
> > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect on what
> > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's a matter
> > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not 'facts'),
> > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal expression part
> > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
>
> Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> by replying....but **** him. � That guy's as useless and unproductive
> to society as Oprah.

I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are 276
Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree. There's also the Angel Network
($51 million to charity causes), the 250 young black men she's put
through college, her work in South Africa with children with AIDS and
many more philanthropic pursuits.

Again, tell us what you've done to be useful and productive to
society.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> Again, tell us what you've done to be useful and productive to
> society.

Apparently, Scottie "think's" that attacking talk-show hosts is a
worthwhile contribution. Scottie "think's" they are almost at the bottom of
the social order, above only the loathsome "liberal's".

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you a
> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I usually
> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect on
> > > what
> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's a
> > > matter
> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not 'facts'),
> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal expression part
> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >
> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and unproductive
> > to society as Oprah.
>
> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are 276
> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?

She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> > create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
>
> She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.

Thats irrellavent. Scottie choose's the service's that get pay'd for.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Noi, 21:12, Jenn > wrote:

> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Where did Oprah get the money to do that? *Does she
> > create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
>
> She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.-

Most men like them younger and thinner.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Yapper is as obtuse as ever.

> >> > Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> > create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >>
> >> She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >
> > Thats irrellavent. Scottie choose's the service's that get pay'd for.
>
> True, except for services my taxes pay for.

Not only do you not care how stupid you appear, but you also embrace
mockery and derision of which you are the object.

I guess the snout-rubbed-in-mess conditioning is finally taking hold.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jenn said:
> >
> >> > Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> > create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >>
> >> She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >
> > Thats irrellavent. Scottie choose's the service's that get pay'd for.
>
> True,

Actually, not true at all.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you a
> >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I
> >> > > usually
> >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect on
> >> > > what
> >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's a
> >> > > matter
> >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> >> > > 'facts'),
> >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal expression
> >> > > part
> >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >> >
> >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and unproductive
> >> > to society as Oprah.
> >>
> >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are 276
> >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >
> > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
>
> Her real service is advertising.
>
> ScottW

No, her service is providing a product that people are willing to pay to
become advertising parters with.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Noi, 22:36, Jenn > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> > >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you a
> > >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I
> > >> > > usually
> > >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> > >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect on
> > >> > > what
> > >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's a
> > >> > > matter
> > >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> > >> > > 'facts'),
> > >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal expression
> > >> > > part
> > >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
>
> > >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> > >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> > >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and unproductive
> > >> > to society as Oprah.
>
> > >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> > >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? *I think there are 276
> > >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? *Does she
> > >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
>
> > > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
>
> > *Her real service is advertising.
>
> > ScottW
>
> No, her service is providing a product that people are willing to pay to
> become advertising parters with.-

The Jerry Springer Show, which ranked as the worst TV show of all-
time,
would later use its ranking as somewhat of a source of pride,
pointing it out often in advertisements for the show.

wiki

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 8 Noi, 22:36, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> > > ..
> > > >>.
> > > >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> > > >> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing
> > > >> > > you a
> > > >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I
> > > >> > > usually
> > > >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> > > >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to
> > > >> > > reflect on
> > > >> > > what
> > > >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's
> > > >> > > a
> > > >> > > matter
> > > >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> > > >> > > 'facts'),
> > > >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> > > >> > > expression
> > > >> > > part
> > > >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >
> > > >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> > > >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> > > >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and
> > > >> > unproductive
> > > >> > to society as Oprah.
> >
> > > >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> > > >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? *I think there are 276
> > > >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? *Does she
> > > >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >
> > > > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >
> > > *Her real service is advertising.
> >
> > > ScottW
> >
> > No, her service is providing a product that people are willing to pay to
> > become advertising parters with.-
>
> The Jerry Springer Show, which ranked as the worst TV show of all-
> time,
> would later use its ranking as somewhat of a source of pride,
> pointing it out often in advertisements for the show.
>
> wiki

Your point?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 8, 8:09*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:m6bch4176nljsrsojjkfmfougp7cag8e9h@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Vinylanach said:
>
> >> Again, tell us what you've done to be useful and productive to
> >> society.
>
> > Apparently, Scottie "think's" that attacking talk-show hosts is a
> > worthwhile contribution. Scottie "think's" they are almost at the bottom of
> > the social order, above only the loathsome "liberal's".
>
> You really could be doing something productive instead
> of watching Oprah.

And what have *you* done, 2pid?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> > > Apparently, Scottie "think's" that attacking talk-show hosts is a
> > > worthwhile contribution. Scottie "think's" they are almost at the bottom of
> > > the social order, above only the loathsome "liberal's".
> >
> > You really could be doing something productive instead
> > of watching Oprah.
>
> And what have *you* done, 2pid?

Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
it's the road to fame and riches.

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Noi, 22:57, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Noi, 22:36, Jenn > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> > > > ..
> > > > >>.
> > > > >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> > > > >> > wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing
> > > > >> > > you a
> > > > >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I
> > > > >> > > usually
> > > > >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> > > > >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to
> > > > >> > > reflect on
> > > > >> > > what
> > > > >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's
> > > > >> > > a
> > > > >> > > matter
> > > > >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> > > > >> > > 'facts'),
> > > > >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> > > > >> > > expression
> > > > >> > > part
> > > > >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
>
> > > > >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> > > > >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> > > > >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and
> > > > >> > unproductive
> > > > >> > to society as Oprah.
>
> > > > >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> > > > >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? *I think there are 276
> > > > >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> > > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? *Does she
> > > > >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
>
> > > > > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
>
> > > > *Her real service is advertising.
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > No, her service is providing a product that people are willing to pay to
> > > become advertising parters with.-
>
> > *The Jerry Springer Show, which ranked as the worst TV show of all-
> > time,
> > would later use its ranking as somewhat of a source of pride,
> > pointing it out often in advertisements for the show.
>
> > wiki
>
> Your point?-

people 'buy' all sorts of garbage.
it doesn't mean it is useful stuff

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 00:00, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > Apparently, Scottie "think's" that attacking talk-show hosts is a
> > > > worthwhile contribution. Scottie "think's" they are almost at the bottom of
> > > > the social order, above only the loathsome "liberal's".
>
> > > You really could be doing something productive instead
> > > of watching Oprah.
>
> > And what have *you* done, 2pid?
>
> Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
> it's the road to fame and riches.

I thought the ****meister wanted it all for himself.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > And what have *you* done, 2pid?
> >
> > Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
> > it's the road to fame and riches.
>
> I thought the ****meister wanted it all for himself.

Um.... Try again.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 8 Noi, 22:57, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 8 Noi, 22:36, Jenn > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> >
> > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "Jenn" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > >>om..
> > > > > >>.
> > > > > >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> > > > > >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> > > > > >> > wrote:
> >
> > > > > >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm
> > > > > >> > > tossing
> > > > > >> > > you a
> > > > > >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity
> > > > > >> > > like I
> > > > > >> > > usually
> > > > > >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of
> > > > > >> > > your
> > > > > >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to
> > > > > >> > > reflect on
> > > > > >> > > what
> > > > > >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually
> > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > > >> > > a
> > > > > >> > > matter
> > > > > >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts
> > > > > >> > > (not
> > > > > >> > > 'facts'),
> > > > > >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> > > > > >> > > expression
> > > > > >> > > part
> > > > > >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >
> > > > > >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> > > > > >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal
> > > > > >> > responsibility
> > > > > >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and
> > > > > >> > unproductive
> > > > > >> > to society as Oprah.
> >
> > > > > >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> > > > > >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? *I think there are
> > > > > >> 276
> > > > > >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> > > > > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > > > >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? *Does she
> > > > > >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >
> > > > > > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >
> > > > > *Her real service is advertising.
> >
> > > > > ScottW
> >
> > > > No, her service is providing a product that people are willing to pay
> > > > to
> > > > become advertising parters with.-
> >
> > > *The Jerry Springer Show, which ranked as the worst TV show of all-
> > > time,
> > > would later use its ranking as somewhat of a source of pride,
> > > pointing it out often in advertisements for the show.
> >
> > > wiki
> >
> > Your point?-
>
> people 'buy' all sorts of garbage.
> it doesn't mean it is useful stuff

It's called the "free market". Hardly a "parasite on the economy".

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > people 'buy' all sorts of garbage.
> > it doesn't mean it is useful stuff
>
> It's called the "free market". Hardly a "parasite on the economy".

It's not useful to Scottie, is it? Case close'd.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 8, 11:15*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 9 Noi, 00:00, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > Shhhh! said:
>
> > > > > Apparently, Scottie "think's" that attacking talk-show hosts is a
> > > > > worthwhile contribution. Scottie "think's" they are almost at the bottom of
> > > > > the social order, above only the loathsome "liberal's".
>
> > > > You really could be doing something productive instead
> > > > of watching Oprah.
>
> > > And what have *you* done, 2pid?
>
> > Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
> > it's the road to fame and riches.
>
> I thought the ****meister wanted it all for himself.

I see that when I challenge you on your backward views concerning gay
marriage you get mad. Your buddy 2pid is one of the angriest
individuals I've ever seen as well.

Why is that?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 8, 11:20*pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > And what have *you* done, 2pid?
>
> > > Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
> > > it's the road to fame and riches.
>
> > I thought the ****meister wanted it all for himself.
>
> Um.... Try again.

Clyde *is* trying. He's not as good as 2pid is at deflecting and not
answering questions, but he *is* trying.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 03:31, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:20*pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > And what have *you* done, 2pid?
>
> > > > Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
> > > > it's the road to fame and riches.
>
> > > I thought the ****meister wanted it all for himself.
>
> > Um.... Try again.
>
> Clyde *is* trying. He's not as good as 2pid is at deflecting and not
> answering questions, but he *is* trying.

I didn't answer a question George didn't ask me.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >> > > The Jerry Springer Show, which ranked as the worst TV show of all-
> >> > > time,
> >> > > would later use its ranking as somewhat of a source of pride,
> >> > > pointing it out often in advertisements for the show.
> >> >
> >> > > wiki
> >> >
> >> > Your point?-
> >>
> >> people 'buy' all sorts of garbage.
> >> it doesn't mean it is useful stuff
> >
> > It's called the "free market". Hardly a "parasite on the economy".
>
> Her show involves no creation of wealth. Her income is siphoned from
> producers.
>
> ScottW

How is that different from what you do for a living?

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >> >> ..
> >> >> .
> >> >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you
> >> >> > > a
> >> >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I
> >> >> > > usually
> >> >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> >> >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect
> >> >> > > on
> >> >> > > what
> >> >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's
> >> >> > > a
> >> >> > > matter
> >> >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> >> >> > > 'facts'),
> >> >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> >> >> > > expression
> >> >> > > part
> >> >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> >> >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> >> >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and unproductive
> >> >> > to society as Oprah.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> >> >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are 276
> >> >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >> >
> >> > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >>
> >> Her real service is advertising.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > No, her service is providing a product
> > that people are willing to pay to
> > become advertising parters with.
>
> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> anyone else. Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> and see what it does.

If all television were PPV, she would presumably have about the same
market share as she does now.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >> >> ..
> >> >> .
> >> >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you
> >> >> > > a
> >> >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I
> >> >> > > usually
> >> >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> >> >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect
> >> >> > > on
> >> >> > > what
> >> >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's
> >> >> > > a
> >> >> > > matter
> >> >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> >> >> > > 'facts'),
> >> >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> >> >> > > expression
> >> >> > > part
> >> >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> >> >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> >> >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and unproductive
> >> >> > to society as Oprah.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> >> >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are 276
> >> >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >> >
> >> > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >>
> >> Her real service is advertising.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > No, her service is providing a product
> > that people are willing to pay to
> > become advertising parters with.
>
> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> anyone else. Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> and see what it does.

Seems kind of selective. Most shows are broadcast free, so why single
out Oprah? Advertisers, networks etc are the market.

Of course, she owns a production company and co-owns a network.

Okay, now I've read your other posts in this thread. I guess we can add
entertainment and advertising economics to the list of things you think
you understand but don't. Key word: content.

And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> m..
> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing
> >> >> >> > > you
> >> >> >> > > a
> >> >> >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like
> >> >> >> > > I
> >> >> >> > > usually
> >> >> >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of
> >> >> >> > > your
> >> >> >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to
> >> >> >> > > reflect
> >> >> >> > > on
> >> >> >> > > what
> >> >> >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually
> >> >> >> > > it's
> >> >> >> > > a
> >> >> >> > > matter
> >> >> >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> >> >> >> > > 'facts'),
> >> >> >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> >> >> >> > > expression
> >> >> >> > > part
> >> >> >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> >> >> >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> >> >> >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and
> >> >> >> > unproductive
> >> >> >> > to society as Oprah.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> >> >> >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are
> >> >> >> 276
> >> >> >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> >> >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >> >>
> >> >> Her real service is advertising.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > No, her service is providing a product
> >> > that people are willing to pay to
> >> > become advertising parters with.
> >>
> >> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> >> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> >> anyone else. Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> >> and see what it does.
> >
> > Seems kind of selective. Most shows are broadcast free, so why single
> > out Oprah? Advertisers, networks etc are the market.
>
> She just came up as the example.

Then why single her out? Why not say what you really mean and decry the
current system of content production and distribution.

> > Of course, she owns a production company and co-owns a network.
> >
> > Okay, now I've read your other posts in this thread. I guess we can add
> > entertainment and advertising economics to the list of things you think
> > you understand but don't. Key word: content.
>
> Easily with no subtantive argument as usual.

I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for yourself.

> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> from there.

Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith

I like it!

> > And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.
>
> Nope. She's help market their product which is an
> exchange, not creation.

Something is there that wasn't before. Okay, I did the Adam Smith, now
you go do "intellectual property."

Stephen

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> m..
> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing
> >> >> >> > > you
> >> >> >> > > a
> >> >> >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like
> >> >> >> > > I
> >> >> >> > > usually
> >> >> >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of
> >> >> >> > > your
> >> >> >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to
> >> >> >> > > reflect
> >> >> >> > > on
> >> >> >> > > what
> >> >> >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually
> >> >> >> > > it's
> >> >> >> > > a
> >> >> >> > > matter
> >> >> >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not
> >> >> >> > > 'facts'),
> >> >> >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> >> >> >> > > expression
> >> >> >> > > part
> >> >> >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> >> >> >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> >> >> >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and
> >> >> >> > unproductive
> >> >> >> > to society as Oprah.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> >> >> >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are
> >> >> >> 276
> >> >> >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> >> >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >> >>
> >> >> Her real service is advertising.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > No, her service is providing a product
> >> > that people are willing to pay to
> >> > become advertising parters with.
> >>
> >> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> >> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> >> anyone else. Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> >> and see what it does.
> >
> > Seems kind of selective. Most shows are broadcast free, so why single
> > out Oprah? Advertisers, networks etc are the market.
>
> She just came up as the example.
>
> >
> > Of course, she owns a production company and co-owns a network.
> >
> > Okay, now I've read your other posts in this thread. I guess we can add
> > entertainment and advertising economics to the list of things you think
> > you understand but don't. Key word: content.
>
> Easily with no subtantive argument as usual.
> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> from there.
> >
> > And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.
>
> Nope. She's help market their product which is an
> exchange, not creation.
>
> ScottW

So is everyone in the entertainment business a "parasite on the economy"?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said to Witless:

> Okay, now I've read your other posts in this thread. I guess we can add
> entertainment and advertising economics to the list of things you think
> you understand but don't.

You ivory tower types. All ya want is knowing stuff. Scottie may not know
much but he makes twice as much money as anybody else.

> And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.

How does that benefit Scottie? Answer: It doesn't. Are you gonna tell the
truth about Oprah or not?

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

Me:
> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for yourself.
>
> Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> of the add revenue.

Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
and a magazine.

What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with anything?

> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> >> from there.
> >
> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
> >
> > I like it!
>
> The beneficiaries always do.

The rich have the consolation of being rich.

> >> > And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.
> >>
> >> Nope. She's help market their product which is an
> >> exchange, not creation.
> >
> > Something is there that wasn't before.
>
> Oprah didn't create it.

She created content for her show in the act of discussing books.

> > Okay, I did the Adam Smith, now
> > you go do "intellectual property."
>
> IP is a product. It just lacks form and mass.
> It certainly has value.

Therefore, creating IP can create value.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > Me:
> >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for yourself.
> >>
> >> Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> >> of the add revenue.
> >
> > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > and a magazine.
> >
> > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with anything?
> >
> >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> >> >> from there.
> >> >
> >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
> >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
> >> >
> >> > I like it!
> >>
> >> The beneficiaries always do.
> >
> > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
>
> Not for long when the peasants rule.

That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.

Stephen

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> .co
> >> >> >> >> m..
> >> >> >> >> .
> >> >> >> >> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius >
> >> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm
> >> >> >> >> > > tossing
> >> >> >> >> > > you
> >> >> >> >> > > a
> >> >> >> >> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity
> >> >> >> >> > > like
> >> >> >> >> > > I
> >> >> >> >> > > usually
> >> >> >> >> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of
> >> >> >> >> > > your
> >> >> >> >> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to
> >> >> >> >> > > reflect
> >> >> >> >> > > on
> >> >> >> >> > > what
> >> >> >> >> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually
> >> >> >> >> > > it's
> >> >> >> >> > > a
> >> >> >> >> > > matter
> >> >> >> >> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts
> >> >> >> >> > > (not
> >> >> >> >> > > 'facts'),
> >> >> >> >> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal
> >> >> >> >> > > expression
> >> >> >> >> > > part
> >> >> >> >> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to
> >> >> >> >> > society
> >> >> >> >> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal
> >> >> >> >> > responsibility
> >> >> >> >> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and
> >> >> >> >> > unproductive
> >> >> >> >> > to society as Oprah.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> >> >> >> >> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? I think there are
> >> >> >> >> 276
> >> >> >> >> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> >> >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> >> >> >> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? Does she
> >> >> >> >> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > She provides a service for which people are willing to pay.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Her real service is advertising.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ScottW
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No, her service is providing a product
> >> >> > that people are willing to pay to
> >> >> > become advertising parters with.
> >> >>
> >> >> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> >> >> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> >> >> anyone else. Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> >> >> and see what it does.
> >> >
> >> > Seems kind of selective. Most shows are broadcast free, so why single
> >> > out Oprah? Advertisers, networks etc are the market.
> >>
> >> She just came up as the example.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Of course, she owns a production company and co-owns a network.
> >> >
> >> > Okay, now I've read your other posts in this thread. I guess we can add
> >> > entertainment and advertising economics to the list of things you think
> >> > you understand but don't. Key word: content.
> >>
> >> Easily with no subtantive argument as usual.
> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> >> from there.
> >> >
> >> > And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.
> >>
> >> Nope. She's help market their product which is an
> >> exchange, not creation.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > So is everyone in the entertainment business a "parasite on the economy"?
>
> Do you have some kind of prejudice against parasites? You can't live without
> them.
>
> Anyway, DVD makers might have an argument. Film makers for theaters
> definitely
> create no lasting wealth.
>
> ScottW

And therefore film makers are parasites on the economy?

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 16:34, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > Me:
> > >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for yourself.
>
> > >> *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > >> of the add revenue.
>
> > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > and a magazine.
>
> > > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with anything?
>
> > >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> > >> >> from there.
>
> > >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
> > >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
>
> > >> > I like it!
>
> > >> *The beneficiaries always do.
>
> > > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
>
> > *Not for long when the peasants rule.
>
> That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
>
> Stephen-

I'm proud of your being
a self made man, you flip your own
burgers, bus your own table and mop
the public restroom floor after each time you ****.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 9 Noi, 16:34, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Me:
> > > >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for
> > > >> > yourself.
> >
> > > >> *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > >> of the add revenue.
> >
> > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > > and a magazine.
> >
> > > > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with
> > > > anything?
> >
> > > >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> > > >> >> from there.
> >
> > > >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
> > > >> > contribute
> > > >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > > >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
> >
> > > >> > I like it!
> >
> > > >> *The beneficiaries always do.
> >
> > > > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
> >
> > > *Not for long when the peasants rule.
> >
> > That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
> >
> I'm proud of your being
> a self made man, you flip your own
> burgers, bus your own table and mop
> the public restroom floor after each time you ****.

I mean 'middle-class' in the contemporary sense, but I mean real
peasants.

Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
floor-moppers to have a living wage.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
> floor-moppers to have a living wage.

If you try to tax Scottie to pay for it, he'll secede and move to Alaska.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 9, 3:56�pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> �Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Noi, 16:34, MiNe 109 � > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > �"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Me:
> > > > >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for
> > > > >> > yourself.
>
> > > > >> �Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > > >> of the add revenue.
>
> > > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > > > and a magazine.
>
> > > > > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with
> > > > > anything?
>
> > > > >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> > > > >> >> from there.
>
> > > > >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
> > > > >> > contribute
> > > > >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > > > >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
>
> > > > >> > I like it!
>
> > > > >> �The beneficiaries always do.
>
> > > > > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
>
> > > > �Not for long when the peasants rule.
>
> > > That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
>
> > I'm proud of your being
> > a self made man, you flip your own
> > burgers, bus your own table and mop
> > the public restroom floor after each time you ****.
>
> I mean 'middle-class' in the contemporary sense, but I mean real
> peasants.
>
> Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
> floor-moppers to have a living wage.

They finally opened a Five Guys in my neck of the woods. Those burger-
flippers should be paid handsomely. They should all be driving
Mercedes.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> They finally opened a Five Guys in my neck of the woods. Those burger-
> flippers should be paid handsomely. They should all be driving
> Mercedes.

Did you see the footage of Jesse Jackson at Obama's acceptance speech?
I guess he no longer wants to cut Barack's nuts off. Not that surgeons are
underpaid, especially in California.

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article >,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Easily with no subtantive argument as usual.
> >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> >> >> from there.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope. She's help market their product which is an
> >> >> exchange, not creation.
> >> >>
> >> >> ScottW
> >> >
> >> > So is everyone in the entertainment business a "parasite on the
> >> > economy"?
> >>
> >> Do you have some kind of prejudice against parasites? You can't live
> >> without
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Anyway, DVD makers might have an argument. Film makers for theaters
> >> definitely
> >> create no lasting wealth.
> >>
> >> ScottW
> >
> > And therefore film makers are parasites on the economy?
>
> Pretty much. That would make music teachers parasites of parasites.
> You should lose that parasite prejudice thing.
>
> ScottW

You have a very low opinion of the people who make the art that you
presumably listen to through your audio system. Odd, that.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 18:56, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9 Noi, 16:34, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article >,
>
> > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > Me:
> > > > >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for
> > > > >> > yourself.
>
> > > > >> *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > > >> of the add revenue.
>
> > > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > > > and a magazine.
>
> > > > > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with
> > > > > anything?
>
> > > > >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> > > > >> >> from there.
>
> > > > >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
> > > > >> > contribute
> > > > >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > > > >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
>
> > > > >> > I like it!
>
> > > > >> *The beneficiaries always do.
>
> > > > > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
>
> > > > *Not for long when the peasants rule.
>
> > > That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
>
> > I'm proud of your being
> > a self made man, you flip your own
> > burgers, bus your own table and mop
> > the public restroom floor after each time you ****.
>
> I mean 'middle-class' in the contemporary sense, but I mean real
> peasants.
>
> Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
> floor-moppers to have a living wage.
>
> Stephen-

Due to these new economic policies
I will be investing in a new chain restaurant
called Flip yer Own Damn Burger

It will have a full service grill with an $8.99 burger
and a flip your own grill with the same burger for $5.99
But if there were only some way to get the burgers flipped in Mumbai.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 20:06, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Nov 9, 3:56 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 9 Noi, 16:34, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
>
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Me:
> > > > > >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for
> > > > > >> > yourself.
>
> > > > > >> Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > > >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > > > >> of the add revenue.
>
> > > > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > > > > and a magazine.
>
> > > > > > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with
> > > > > > anything?
>
> > > > > >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> > > > > >> >> from there.
>
> > > > > >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
> > > > > >> > contribute
> > > > > >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > > > > >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
>
> > > > > >> > I like it!
>
> > > > > >> The beneficiaries always do.
>
> > > > > > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
>
> > > > > Not for long when the peasants rule.
>
> > > > That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
>
> > > I'm proud of your being
> > > a self made man, you flip your own
> > > burgers, bus your own table and mop
> > > the public restroom floor after each time you ****.
>
> > I mean 'middle-class' in the contemporary sense, but I mean real
> > peasants.
>
> > Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
> > floor-moppers to have a living wage.
>
> They finally opened a Five Guys in my neck of the woods. *Those burger-
> flippers should be paid handsomely. *They should all be driving
> Mercedes.
>
> Boon-

A pretty good burger, but
How could a place like that have such lousy greasy fries.

History
1986: The first Five Guys location opens in Arlington, VA.
1986 - 2001: Five Guys open's five locations around the DC metro-area
and perfect their business of making burgers… and starts to build a
cult-like following.
2002: Five Guys decides DC metro-area residents shouldn't be the only
ones to experience their burgers and start to franchise in Virginia
and Maryland.
2003: Five Guys sells out of franchise territory within 18 months and
starts to open the rest of the country for franchise rights.
2003 - Present: Five Guys expands to over 300 locations in over 25
states.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 9, 8:47*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 9 Noi, 03:31, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 11:20*pm, George M. Middius >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > And what have *you* done, 2pid?
>
> > > > > Scottie is trying to master the "debating trade". Arnii has assured him
> > > > > it's the road to fame and riches.
>
> > > > I thought the ****meister wanted it all for himself.
>
> > > Um.... Try again.
>
> > Clyde *is* trying. He's not as good as 2pid is at deflecting and not
> > answering questions, but he *is* trying.
>
> I didn't answer a question George didn't ask me.

Tha sounds very worthwhile. Carry on.

BTW, how is "legal union" different from "separate but equal"? That's
another one you've deked.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 20:10, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> > Me:
> >> >> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for yourself.
>
> >> >> *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> >> >> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> >> >> of the add revenue.
>
> >> > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> >> > and a magazine.
>
> >> > What does the ratio of dvd-sales-to-ad-revenue have to do with anything?
>
> >> >> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> >> >> >> from there.
>
> >> >> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
> >> >> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> >> >> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
>
> >> >> > I like it!
>
> >> >> *The beneficiaries always do.
>
> >> > The rich have the consolation of being rich.
>
> >> *Not for long when the peasants rule.
>
> > That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
>
> I completely agree. *Illegal immigration is f'ing up the whole balance
> and creating a large uneducated low income group.
>
> ScottW-

Somebody has to replace the upwardly mobile
African Americans.

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 20:15, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Vinylanach said:
>
> > They finally opened a Five Guys in my neck of the woods. *Those burger-
> > flippers should be paid handsomely. *They should all be driving
> > Mercedes.
>
> Did you see the footage of Jesse Jackson at Obama's acceptance speech?
> I guess he no longer wants to cut Barack's nuts off. Not that surgeons are
> underpaid, especially in California.

I thought he was crying because it wasn't "Him"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 9, 2:16*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > I thought you would explore idea of 'content' and learn for yourself.
>
> *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> of the add revenue.

"Ad" is short for "advertising", 2pid. "Add" is a mathmatical
function. LoL.

A popsicle is a product, 2pid. Its usefulness is extremely short-
lived. Ditto a book of matches, a tube of toothpaste and any number of
other products which were created from other materials.

You, dear 2pid, are a ninny.

> >> Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> >> from there.
>
> > Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute
> > to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but
> > something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith
>
> > I like it!
>
> *The beneficiaries always do.

Then why did you ask Stephen to look up Adam Smith? Which quote should
we consider to the exclusion of all others?

LoL. What a moron.

> >> > And she's "created wealth" for plenty of authors.
>
> >> *Nope. She's help market their product which is an
> >> exchange, not creation.
>
> > Something is there that wasn't before.
>
> Oprah didn't create it.

Her book reviews and recommendations create demand, 2pid, as does her
show which is why advertisers pay to advertise on it.

Creating demand has a value, especially to those trying to market a
product. You might consider "add" rates (LoL!) for the Super Bowl vs.
your local morning program.

> > Okay, I did the Adam Smith, now
> > you go do "intellectual property."
>
> IP is a product. It just lacks form and mass.
> It certainly has value.

I'm glad you agree that the tax rate on the wealthy should be higher.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 9, 7:18*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in messagenews:kn2fh45n2a509c6svce6b11mjuhrll46ep@4ax .com...

> > Vinylanach said:
>
> >> They finally opened a Five Guys in my neck of the woods. *Those burger-
> >> flippers should be paid handsomely. *They should all be driving
> >> Mercedes.
>
> > Did you see the footage of Jesse Jackson at Obama's acceptance speech?
> > I guess he no longer wants to cut Barack's nuts off. Not that surgeons are
> > underpaid, especially in California.
>
> Are you sure? *Those might have been tears of envy.

I'm sure he was happy some people died, just like you.are.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 9, 7:10*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message

> > That's the great thing about creating a viable middle-class: no peasants.
>
> I completely agree. *Illegal immigration is f'ing up the whole balance
> and creating a large uneducated low income group.

To replace what, 2pid?

And quit swearing. it makes you look like a hypocrite when we all know
you have far too much 'integrity' for that.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > I'm proud of your being
> > > a self made man, you flip your own
> > > burgers, bus your own table and mop
> > > the public restroom floor after each time you ****.
> >
> > I mean 'middle-class' in the contemporary sense, but I mean real
> > peasants.
> >
> > Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
> > floor-moppers to have a living wage.
>
> Due to these new economic policies
> I will be investing in a new chain restaurant
> called Flip yer Own Damn Burger
>
> It will have a full service grill with an $8.99 burger
> and a flip your own grill with the same burger for $5.99
> But if there were only some way to get the burgers flipped in Mumbai.

UR Cooks closed.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 9 Noi, 22:45, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > I'm proud of your being
> > > > a self made man, you flip your own
> > > > burgers, bus your own table and mop
> > > > the public restroom floor after each time you ****.
>
> > > I mean 'middle-class' in the contemporary sense, but I mean real
> > > peasants.
>
> > > Of course, I'm for economic policies that enable burger-flippers and
> > > floor-moppers to have a living wage.
>
> > Due to these new economic policies
> > I will be investing in a new chain restaurant
> > called Flip yer Own Damn Burger
>
> > It will have a full service grill with an $8.99 burger
> > and a flip your own grill with the same burger for $5.99
> > But if there were only some way to get the burgers flipped in Mumbai.
>
> UR Cooks closed.
>
>
thanks, but we will find another location.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 9, 7:49*pm, Jenn > wrote:

> *"ScottW" > wrote:

> > Pretty much. That would make music teachers parasites of parasites.
> > You should lose that parasite prejudice thing.

> You have a very low opinion of the people who make the art that you
> presumably listen to through your audio system. *Odd, that.

Have you ever noticed that people who are always very angry aren't
necessarily the most rational? They'll also make the wildest
justifications, like making cell phones is Important and Productive,
while having a media empire with millions looking up to you, reading
your magazine or watching your show is somehow "parasitic".

2pid's anger consumes him from the inside and muddles his 'thinking'.

[Arny Krueger]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message


> Have you ever noticed that people who are always very
> angry aren't necessarily the most rational?

Indict yourself, if you will.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 10, 6:37*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
>
> > Have you ever noticed that people who are always very
> > angry aren't necessarily the most rational?
>
> Indict yourself, if you will.

I don't get angry, GOIA, but thanks for your concern.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 5:50�am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 6:37�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> > "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> > wrote in
>
> > > Have you ever noticed that people who are always very
> > > angry aren't necessarily the most rational?
>
> > Indict yourself, if you will.
>
> I don't get angry, GOIA, but thanks for your concern.

That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the misguided belief
that he somehow makes us angry or upset. He has no idea that the vast
majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the sheer scope of
his mental dysfunction. His ignorance and lack of self-awareness, of
course, makes it even more entertaining.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message


> That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the
> misguided belief
> that he somehow makes us angry or upset.

"The only thing?"

LOL!

> He has no idea that the vast
> majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.

Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
until the Middiot drove them away.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the misguided belief
> that he somehow makes us angry or upset. He has no idea that the vast
> majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the sheer scope of
> his mental dysfunction. His ignorance and lack of self-awareness, of
> course, makes it even more entertaining.

Thnak's Booon for, asking Arnii Booney for a big fat IKYABWAI Bonne.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 7:03�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the
> > misguided belief
> > that he somehow makes us angry or upset.
>
> "The only thing?"
>
> LOL!

Yes, I forgot about your mental illness that keeps you here to absorb
all of the punishment.

>
> > He has no idea that the vast
> > majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> > sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
>
> Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
> until the Middiot drove them away.

Prove it.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message

> On Nov 10, 7:03?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>> That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the
>>> misguided belief
>>> that he somehow makes us angry or upset.

>> "The only thing?"
>>
>> LOL!

> Yes, I forgot about your mental illness that keeps you
> here to absorb all of the punishment.

What mental illness?

Boon, you mean the one that makes you repeatedly humiliate yourself in
public by exposing your lack of manhood and general idiocy?

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 7:39�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 7:03?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the
> >>> misguided belief
> >>> that he somehow makes us angry or upset.
> >> "The only thing?"
>
> >> LOL!
> > Yes, I forgot about your mental illness that keeps you
> > here to absorb all of the punishment.
>
> What mental illness?
>
> Boon, you mean the one that makes you repeatedly humiliate yourself in
> public by exposing your lack of manhood and general idiocy?

Weak IKYABWAI. You lose. Again.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> > > He has no idea that the vast
> > > majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> > > sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
> >
> > Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
> > until [my supreme master] drove them away.
>
> Prove it.

Can you say "belief in things not seen"?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The second joke inside of a week by the Krooborg! Hallelujah!

> >>> That's the only thing that keeps Arny going...the
> >>> misguided belief that he somehow makes us angry or upset.

> >> "The only thing?"

> > Yes, I forgot about your mental illness that keeps you
> > here to absorb all of the punishment.

> What mental illness?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one, Arnii. Or at least not bad for a head case like you.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Noi, 10:39, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


>
> What mental illness?
>

lack o:
SELF-AWARENESS

What is Self-Awareness?
Self-awareness is a conscious, understanding of oneself, one's
environment and one's Creator.

Why do you need to be aware of yourself?
By understanding:
Who you are?
Your temperament
Your personality
You would be able to orientate yourself when dealing with people and
the environment

How to know if you lack self-awareness?
If you lack self-awareness, you would not be able to:
Explain your actions and behaviors
Reason out your temper
Understand your personality
Make necessary adjustment when dealing with others
Show concern for the environment

What if you do not do anything about it?
By not doing anything about your self-awareness, you will:
Be confused in your role as an adolescent
Have a conflict in your attitude and behavior
Be less emphatic and less caring
Not be able to express yourself clearly
Be reckless in your actions

What can you do if you lack it?
You need to:
Learn all that you can about yourself
Ask your friends for honest feedback
Learn from others - examples : family members, neighbors and peers
Explore and understand your emotional needs
Increase your listening skills, empathy and caring for yourself and
others
Strive to excel in everything you do


Where can you get help?
You should seek advice from your:
Parents
Trusted family members
School counselors
Religious teachers
OR
Seek professional advice from:
Psychologists
Psychiatrists

http://www.myhealth.gov.my/myhealth/eng/remaja_content.jsp?lang=remaja&storymaster=0&storyid=1129883206431&substoryid=1130488130306

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 8:17�am, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Vinylanach said:
>
> > > > He has no idea that the vast
> > > > majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> > > > sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
>
> > > Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
> > > until [my supreme master] drove them away.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Can you say "belief in things not seen"?

Bill Maher has said that religion is a delusional psychosis. I tend
to agree.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> > > > > He has no idea that the vast
> > > > > majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> > > > > sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
> >
> > > > Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
> > > > until [my supreme master] drove them away.
> >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > Can you say "belief in things not seen"?
>
> Bill Maher has said that religion is a delusional psychosis. I tend
> to agree.

As do I.

OTOH, we do have the seeming half-miracle of Arnii Kroo**** spelling "100s"
without the gratuitous apostrophe. The day the Beast learns to use words
rather than numerals in written English, we can declare a full miracle --
the Krooborg will have been de-assimilated.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 4:34�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> Vinylanach said:
>
> > > > > > He has no idea that the vast
> > > > > > majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> > > > > > sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
>
> > > > > Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
> > > > > until [my supreme master] drove them away.
>
> > > > Prove it.
>
> > > Can you say "belief in things not seen"?
>
> > Bill Maher has said that religion is a delusional psychosis. �I tend
> > to agree.
>
> As do I.
>
> OTOH, we do have the seeming half-miracle of Arnii Kroo**** spelling "100s"
> without the gratuitous apostrophe. The day the Beast learns to use words
> rather than numerals in written English, we can declare a full miracle --
> the Krooborg will have been de-assimilated.

Let's call it a half-miracle until he can write the word "hundreds."

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 4:49�pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Nov 10, 4:34 pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Vinylanach said:
>
> > > > > > > He has no idea that the vast
> > > > > > > majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> > > > > > > sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
>
> > > > > > Well, that's all of about six people, down from the 100s that posted here
> > > > > > until [my supreme master] drove them away.
>
> > > > > Prove it.
>
> > > > Can you say "belief in things not seen"?
>
> > > Bill Maher has said that religion is a delusional psychosis. I tend
> > > to agree.
>
> > As do I.
>
> > OTOH, we do have the seeming half-miracle of Arnii Kroo**** spelling "100s"
> > without the gratuitous apostrophe. The day the Beast learns to use words
> > rather than numerals in written English, we can declare a full miracle --
> > the Krooborg will have been de-assimilated.
>
> Let's call it a half-miracle until he can write the word "hundreds."

Sorry to basically repeat what you said. How about "Agreed." I'm in
the middle of a big project and my eyes are bleary.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> > > OTOH, we do have the seeming half-miracle of Arnii Kroo**** spelling "100s"
> > > without the gratuitous apostrophe. The day the Beast learns to use words
> > > rather than numerals in written English, we can declare a full miracle --
> > > the Krooborg will have been de-assimilated.
> >
> > Let's call it a half-miracle until he can write the word "hundreds."
>
> Sorry to basically repeat what you said. How about "Agreed."

I was just scratching my head about your first reply when the second one
popped up.

> I'm in the middle of a big project and my eyes are bleary.

If your project has anything to do with the classification of feces, you
could probably license the Krooborg's existing research at a very good
price.

<joke -- no scolding response required>

[Arny Krueger]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message

> On Nov 10, 8:17?am, George M. Middius
> > wrote:
>> Vinylanach said:
>>
>>>>> He has no idea that the vast
>>>>> majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
>>>>> sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
>>
>>>> Well, that's all of about six people, down from the
>>>> 100s that posted here until [my supreme master] drove
>>>> them away.
>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Can you say "belief in things not seen"?
>
> Bill Maher has said that religion is a delusional
> psychosis. I tend to agree.

It takes a real mental giant to use a comedian as his source for a life's
philosophy.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 Noi, 20:37, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:


> It takes a real mental giant to use a comedian as his source for a life's
> philosophy.-

Arny follows the precepts of a real philosopher who said:

"If you come to a turd in the road, take it"

"It ain;t over till you wipe you ass with a $1,000 check"

" I knew I was going to be run over by the wrong bus, so I left early"

"You can observe a lot by just watching with your eyes gouged"

"I made a wrong mistake"

and Arny's absolute favorite one,

"I really didn't say everything I said"

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article >,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
> > Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > of the add revenue.
>
> Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> and a magazine.

It is an excellent magazine, by any standard. And as a magazine
is a physical "product" that can be purchased, that means that
Stereophile also passes ScottW's "value" test :-)

> > Perhaps you should look into the works of Adam Smith and go
> > from there.
>
> Okay. Mmmm: "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
> contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their
> revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith

It is also conveniently forgotten by many who pretend to
believe in Adam Smith that his advocacy of a free market
depended on equally free access to all information.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[taxi]

On Nov 9, 12:37*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> >> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> >> anyone else. *Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> >> and see what it does.
>

But those advertisers are willing to pay her $385 million a year so
while she may not be of value to everyone, she's EXTREMELY valuable to
the people who matter. Put a PPV sporting event on regular TV, five
days a week, year after year, and see how quick they lose their
appeal.


> > If all television were PPV, she would presumably have about the same
> > market share as she does now.
>
> I doubt that. If all TV were PPV would the low-end unemployed
> daytime viewers still view?
> But the employed PPV sporting events watchers still would
> and I doubt that's a big Oprah demographic.
>

Oprah's audience is relatively rich actually. Her main audience is
suburban soccer moms who are home during the day and come from
households wealth enough to survive on only one income. Quite an
accomplishment in this economy. But the larger point is, the employed
PPV sporting event watchers are not willing or able to pay enough for
that service as Oprah's adverstisers are willing to pay her, so
according to the free market, Oprah has more value than the greatest
athletes in the world combined.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 11, 7:36*am, taxi > wrote:
> On Nov 9, 12:37*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > In article >,
> > > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> > >> Products have value. Oprah provides value
> > >> to advertisers. Her show isn't worth little to
> > >> anyone else. *Put Oprah on advertiser free PPV
> > >> and see what it does.
>
> But those advertisers are willing to pay her $385 million a year so
> while she may not be of value to everyone, she's EXTREMELY valuable to
> the people who matter. *Put a PPV sporting event on regular TV, five
> days a week, year after year, and see how quick they lose their
> appeal.
>
> > > If all television were PPV, she would presumably have about the same
> > > market share as she does now.
>
> > I doubt that. If all TV were PPV would the low-end unemployed
> > daytime viewers still view?
> > But the employed PPV sporting events watchers still would
> > and I doubt that's a big Oprah demographic.
>
> Oprah's audience is relatively rich actually. *Her main audience is
> suburban soccer moms who are home during the day and come from
> households wealth enough to survive on only one income. Quite an
> accomplishment in this economy. *But the larger point is, the employed
> PPV sporting event watchers are not willing or able to pay enough for
> that service as Oprah's adverstisers are willing to pay her, so
> according to the free market, Oprah has more value than the greatest
> athletes in the world combined.

You're arguing with an imbecile, you know. 2pid is RAO's resident
buffoon.

[taxi]

On Nov 8, 9:08*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> On Nov 8, 10:19?am, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 9:46?am, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > Scottie, I'm feeling generous and patient today, so I'm tossing you a
> > > fillip. Instead of sneering and cackling at your stupidity like I usually
> > > do, today I'm going to set down pointers to specific bits of your
> > > stupidity. It's my hope that you'll take the opportunity to reflect on what
> > > you said and why somebody else might find it stupid. (Usually it's a matter
> > > of poor 'thinking' on your part, or ignoring salient facts (not 'facts'),
> > > or letting your negative emotions take hold of the verbal expression part
> > > of your, uh, 'brain'.)
>
> > Sorry George, but this is diminishing my contribution to society
> > and Dr. Phil say's I would be avoiding my personal responsibility
> > by replying....but **** him. ? That guy's as useless and unproductive
> > to society as Oprah.
>
> I think Dr. Phil's a douchebag as well, but you really think that
> Oprah hasn't had a positive effect on society? *I think there are 276
> Pontiac G6 owners who might disagree.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Where did Oprah get the money to do that? *Does she
> create wealth or is she just another parasite on the economy?
>

I think Oprah's had the MOST positive effect on our society. While it
was Phil Donahue who pioneered the tabloid talk show genre, it was
Oprah who popularized, revolutionized & turned it into a giant
industry. According to the book FREAKS TALK BACK by Yale sociologist
Joshua Gamson, it was the tabloid talk show craze that provided
decades of much needed high impact media visibility for gays,
transexuals & transgender people, & did more to make them mainstream
than any other development of the 20th century.

Then in the mid 1990s Oprah completely reinvented herself by starting
a book club which did more to make literature accessible to the masses
than anything since the invention of the printing press.

Also, in the 1990s, Oprah began using her show to promote secular
church-free inclusive spirituality and did more to cause the decline
of dogmatic organized religion than just about anyone.

If that wasn't impressive enough, it's estimated that Oprah extremely
early endorsement of Barack Obama was worth over a million votes in
the razor close Democratic nomination race against Hillary Clinton:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/so-much-for-one-person-one-vote/

That makes Oprah the one woman to single-handedly put a black man in
the white house; one of the most significant achievements of the civil
rights movement. And not just any black man, but a black man whose
middle name is Hussein, and thus a major a step towards reducing
Islamophobia.

[Vinylanach]

On Nov 10, 5:37�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Vinylanach" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 10, 8:17?am, George M. Middius
> > > wrote:
> >> Vinylanach said:
>
> >>>>> He has no idea that the vast
> >>>>> majority of regulars are entertained and amused at the
> >>>>> sheer scope of his mental dysfunction.
>
> >>>> Well, that's all of about six people, down from the
> >>>> 100s that posted here until [my supreme master] drove
> >>>> them away.
>
> >>> Prove it.
>
> >> Can you say "belief in things not seen"?
>
> > Bill Maher has said that religion is a delusional
> > psychosis. �I tend to agree.
>
> It takes a real mental giant to use a comedian as his source for a life's
> philosophy.

It takes a real imbecile to confuse the messenger with the message.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 11, 11:49*am, ScottW > wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:03*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > In article >,
> > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > > of the add revenue.
>
> > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > and a magazine.
>
> > It is an excellent magazine, by any standard. And as a magazine
> > is a physical "product" that can be purchased, that means that
> > Stereophile also passes ScottW's "value" test :-)
>
> *No enduring value. *I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
> the landfills within 60 days. *The rag isn't worth
> more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
> spread through the economy.

So only durable goods matter, eh, 2pid?

Cars and washing machines. What else? ;-)

LoL. What a moron.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Nov 11, 5:03*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > > of the add revenue.
> >
> > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > and a magazine.
> >
> > It is an excellent magazine, by any standard. And as a magazine
> > is a physical "product" that can be purchased, that means that
> > Stereophile also passes ScottW's "value" test :-)
>
> No enduring value. I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
> the landfills within 60 days. The rag isn't worth
> more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
> spread through the economy.

Once the cash is banked, that's the lasting value.

Have you heard the one about fish and fishing?

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

John Atkinson said:

> > "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
> > contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their
> > revenue, but something more than in that proportion." --Adam Smith

> It is also conveniently forgotten by many who pretend to
> believe in Adam Smith that his advocacy of a free market
> depended on equally free access to all information.

Laissez-faire economics and Keynesian interventionist economics are the ebb
and flow of the socio-economic tides. (That was mine.) I found this nugget
in an encyclopedia (not Wiki, a real one):

"However, despite its impact on government policies, the criticisms of
laissez-faire theorizing are powerful, not least because actual markets
bear so little relation to the theorists' idealized models of rational,
atomized individuals making choices in the market. In the real world,
markets are beset by so-called imperfections: there are often monopolies of
supply, imperfect information, few purchasers, external constraints, and so
forth. Moreover, individuals' preferences are shaped and limited by culture
and social norms, so reducing choice. The idea of efficient, let alone
equitable, allocation via the market is something of a chimera: it
functions far more effectively as myth than reality."

Also noteworthy is that every economic law and regulation enacted in this
country since the 1890s came about as the result of dishonest or predatory
practices in an unfettered marketplace.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> > So only durable goods matter, eh, 2pid?
>
> Creation of wealth has to be durable to some extent.

The word 'durable' doesn't mean the same thing in those two sentences.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Nov 11, 11:17*am, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 5:03*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > > > short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a
> > > > > > fraction
> > > > > > of the add revenue.
> >
> > > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > > > and a magazine.
> >
> > > > It is an excellent magazine, by any standard. And as a magazine
> > > > is a physical "product" that can be purchased, that means that
> > > > Stereophile also passes ScottW's "value" test :-)
> >
> > > *No enduring value. *I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
> > > the landfills within 60 days. *The rag isn't worth
> > > more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
> > > spread through the economy.
> >
> > Once the cash is banked, that's the lasting value.
>
> Atkinson gets cash. His subscriber is left with nothing.
> It's a transfer of wealth, no creation.

I guess you took the fish over the fishing lesson.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 11, 1:39*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Nov 11, 11:06*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > On Nov 11, 11:49*am, ScottW > wrote:

> > > *No enduring value. *I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
> > > the landfills within 60 days. *The rag isn't worth
> > > more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
> > > spread through the economy.
>
> > So only durable goods matter, eh, 2pid?
>
> * *Creation of wealth has to be durable to some extent.

Creation of wealth is separate from the vehicle that creates it, 2pid.
Your big consumer products conglomerates won't like hearing that they
don't create wealth. In fact, they'' like it so little that I'm afraid
to tell them. You'll have to do it. Here's hor to contact Proctor and
Gambler, 2pid. Let them down easy though. Then you can move on to the
other biggies. LoL.

http://www.pg.com/getintouch/index.shtml

And Rupert Murdoch will be very sad that he's broke now.

> Atkinson gets his subscribers money.

I suspect the publisher, not the editor, gets it, but you 'obviously'
know more about these things than I do. LoL.

> *What do the subcribers get of value? *Nothing.

Have you asked them? That's a silly assertion. One might even call it
'absurd'. LoL.

> *It's a straight transfer, no creation.

How little you understand. Wealth is created all over the place, from
the paper and ink industry, to the writers and layout people, to the
advertising agencies, to the stores that make a profit selling it, the
publisher and employees and on down the line.

What a ninny. LoL.

> *Simple concept, but still well over your head apparently.

Well, I never claimed to understand your bogus and immature 'logic'.
It is fun to tear apart though. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot yapped:

> > Once the cash is banked, that's the lasting value.
>
> Atkinson gets cash. His subscriber is left with nothing.
> It's a transfer of wealth, no creation.

I wonder if this bit of yapping might conflict with this other bit from a
couple days ago:

> We also create [intellectual property,] which in some
> views is the ultimate creation of wealth. Value is created
> from nothing but labor.

I'm sure there's a distinction that's utterly clear to those who dwell in
Witlessville, but we here in human society don't see it.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

The Idiot yapped:

> > Once the cash is banked, that's the lasting value.
>
> Atkinson gets cash. His subscriber is left with nothing.
> It's a transfer of wealth, no creation.

I wonder if this bit of yapping might conflict with this other bit from a
couple days ago:

> We also create [intellectual property,] which in some
> views is the ultimate creation of wealth. Value is created
> from nothing but labor.

I'm sure there's a distinction that's utterly clear to those who dwell in
Witlessville, but we here in human society don't see it.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Noi, 12:49, ScottW > wrote:
\
>
> *No enduring value. *I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
> the landfills within 60 days. *The rag isn't worth
> more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
> spread through the economy.
>
> ScottW

Nothing lasts forever, in 2005 I reluctantly discarded my early 90's
issues.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Noi, 14:40, ScottW > wrote:
> On Nov 11, 11:17*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *ScottW > wrote:
> > > On Nov 11, 5:03*am, John Atkinson > wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 4:20 pm, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > *"ScottW" > wrote:
> > > > > > *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
> > > > > > short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
> > > > > > of the add revenue.
>
> > > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
> > > > > and a magazine.
>
> > > > It is an excellent magazine, by any standard. And as a magazine
> > > > is a physical "product" that can be purchased, that means that
> > > > Stereophile also passes ScottW's "value" test :-)
>
> > > *No enduring value. *I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
> > > the landfills within 60 days. *The rag isn't worth
> > > more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
> > > spread through the economy.
>
> > Once the cash is banked, that's the lasting value.
>
> * Atkinson gets cash. His subscriber is left with nothing.
> It's a transfer of wealth, no creation.
>
> ScottW-

think about the steak you bought from your butcher.
After you ate it, there was nothing left.
a transfer of wealth, no creation.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> your butcher.

You mean Dr. Mengele?

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Noi, 19:09, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > your butcher.
>
> You mean Dr. Mengele?

well, he was selling genetically altered Bratziwurst.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Noi, 19:44, "ScottW" > wrote:

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Almost true, except to the rancher who created the cattle
> starting from none and the land the ranch probably has
> more value than the just bare land.
> Once the rancher is just producing the same number of
> cows every year as those consumed the circle is
> stable and no new wealth in created.
>
> ScottW-

the rancher didn't create the cattle, the cattle's sire and sow
created it. the ranch is hardly worth more than the land value,
just a couple of utility buildings, maybe a barn and some fencing.
Stereophile pays rent, occupying office space, creating a demand
for office construction, creating wealth for a landlord.
Some magazines own offices and printing facilities worth
far more than the real estate value of a cattle ranch.

Scott, you are confusing wealth with capital, really, you are talking
about capital,
not wealth. A ranch produces wealth, but not very much capital, same
with a magazine, same with a television show.
Both the creation of capital and the creation of wealth are good
things.
Wealth enables the demand for products and services to be realized.
Wealth also provides
the means for new capital investment.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 11, 7:06*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> Scott, you are confusing

Confused is more accurate.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Nov 11, 8:06*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 11 Noi, 19:44, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> Almost true, except to the rancher who created the cattle
> >> starting from none and the land the ranch probably has
> >> more value than the just bare land.
> >> Once the rancher is just producing the same number of
> >> cows every year as those consumed the circle is
> >> stable and no new wealth in created.

> > the rancher didn't create the cattle, the cattle's sire and sow
> > created it. the ranch is hardly worth more than the land value,
>
> *Depends. Just not having an endangered species
> to allow open grazing can raise the value of the land.

So if you kill off the endangered species as a landowner, you create
wealth.

Brilliant thesis, 2pid!

> > just a couple of utility buildings, maybe a barn and some fencing.
>
> Access roads and power can be pretty significant.
> 400 feet of gas line to my house is worth 40K
> according to SDG&E. *What's a mile of
> electrical?

That isn't "wealth creation" though, 2pid.

> > Stereophile pays rent, occupying office space, creating a demand
> > for office construction, creating wealth for a landlord.
>
> *Straight transfer. *The folks who built the building created wealth.
> Sterophiles occupancy contributes very slightly to the rental rates
> in the area. *Probably immeasurable.

The rent creates wealth for the landlord, 2pid. That's why there are
people who invest their capital in owning buildings, 2pid. They create
wealth for the owner. Duh.

> > Some magazines own offices and printing facilities worth
> > far more than the real estate value of a cattle ranch.
>
> *The bought them from the producer. Simple transfer.
> The producer created wealth, not stereophile.

Dumber than dirt.

> > Scott, you are confusing wealth with capital, really, you are talking
> > about capital,
> > not wealth.
>
> *Argue with the economists about semantics, I'm not interested.

Of course not, 2pid. You've wrapped your wee 'brain' around an idea
and there's no letting go! LoL.

> Call it capital if you insist. Creation is the key.

Loaning money creates wealth, 2pid.

> Transfer is not creation. No one's yet argued that Oprah's
> show built from nothing has value, but it's endurance
> is certainly limited. What is the Oprah show worth
> without Oprah?

Your simplistic view of Adam Smith's economics is laughable. According
to you, about the only "producers" are farmers and building contrators
and companies that make machines. Cell phone companies don't count
because everybody gets a new one every year or so, so there is no
lasting value. Cars only last a few years too, so even they don't
count.

In your scenario, a painter or a writer qualifies as one who creates
"something from nothing". Picasso or Faulkner created wealth. They
produced. The value of what they produced is enduring. But what is
Picasso without Picasso?

You're an idiot, but you're the absolute best idiot that you can be.
You do your parents proud.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Noi, 21:06, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 11 Noi, 19:44, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> Almost true, except to the rancher who created the cattle
> >> starting from none and the land the ranch probably has
> >> more value than the just bare land.
> >> Once the rancher is just producing the same number of
> >> cows every year as those consumed the circle is
> >> stable and no new wealth in created.
>
> >> ScottW-
>
> > the rancher didn't create the cattle, the cattle's sire and sow
> > created it. the ranch is hardly worth more than the land value,
>
> *Depends. Just not having an endangered species
> to allow open grazing can raise the value of the land.
>

that possibility is less than infintesimal.
In areas where ranches are common, ranching or other
ag use would likely be the highest and best use of the land.
and for wnatt you say, in addition, there would have to be some
constraint that forces the land to be used for open grazing.




> > just a couple of utility buildings, maybe a barn and some fencing.
>
> Access roads and power can be pretty significant.
> 400 feet of gas line to my house is worth 40K
> according to SDG&E. *What's a mile of
> electrical?
>

it is owned by the electric company, not the owner, it
does not add value, it is within an electric company easement


> > Stereophile pays rent, occupying office space, creating a demand
> > for office construction, creating wealth for a landlord.
>
> *Straight transfer. *The folks who built the building created wealth.
> Sterophiles occupancy contributes very slightly to the rental rates
> in the area. *Probably immeasurable.
>

without the deamnd for space created by tenants, there would be no
buildings there,
and no value. without stereo phile and other teneants, no wealth.



> > Some magazines own offices and printing facilities worth
> > far more than the real estate value of a cattle ranch.
>
> *The bought them from the producer. Simple transfer.
> The producer created wealth, not stereophile.
>
>

you don't understand, the DEMAND creates the activity
that creates wealth, without demand, there would be no development.
When you contract with a builer to buy a house and pay him to build it
for you, it is you that is creating the value of the property.


>
> > Scott, you are confusing wealth with capital, really, you are talking
> > about capital,
> > not wealth.
>
> *Argue with the economists about semantics, I'm not interested.
> Call it capital if you insist. Creation is the key.
> Transfer is not creation. No one's yet argued that Oprah's
> show built from nothing has value, but it's endurance
> is certainly limited. What is the Oprah show worth
> without Oprah?
>

It produces income. that income stream can be capitalized into
a value. Investors can buy or sell that income stream for whatever
capitalized value it has at any given time.

[Signal[_2_]]

ScottW > wrote:

>> > > > > *Oprah doesn't create the book content. Her show value is extremely
>> > > > > short lived and can't be transferred beyond the DVD rights, a fraction
>> > > > > of the add revenue.
>>
>> > > > Shows! She makes tv shows. And she (and her staff) create books, too,
>> > > > and a magazine.
>>
>> > > It is an excellent magazine, by any standard. And as a magazine
>> > > is a physical "product" that can be purchased, that means that
>> > > Stereophile also passes ScottW's "value" test :-)
>>
>> > *No enduring value. *I suspect 90% of S'philes end up in
>> > the landfills within 60 days. *The rag isn't worth
>> > more than the paper it's printed on long enough to be
>> > spread through the economy.
>>
>> So only durable goods matter, eh, 2pid?
>
> Creation of wealth has to be durable to some extent.
>Atkinson gets his subscribers money.
> What do the subcribers get of value? Nothing.

Wrong, they get information and they get entertainment.

Knowledge and experience : both durable.





--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t