OT Oh noes! Union thuggery!

[MiNe 109]

Eric Boehlert says:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004

Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.

That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
talking about?

--

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> Eric Boehlert says:
>
> http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004
>
> Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
> hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
> a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
> over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
> and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
> somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
> Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
> of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
> right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.
>
> That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
> talking about?
>
> --
>

so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eric Boehlert says:
>
> >http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004
>
> > Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
> > hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
> > a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
> > over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
> > and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
> > somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
> > Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
> > of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
> > right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.
>
> > That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
> > talking about?
>
> > --
>
> so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!

You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
wing blogosphere is.

Duh.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Eric Boehlert says:
> >
> > >http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004
> >
> > > Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
> > > hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
> > > a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
> > > over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
> > > and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
> > > somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
> > > Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
> > > of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
> > > right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.
> >
> > > That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
> > > talking about?
> >
> > > --
> >
> > so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!
>
> You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
> about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
> wing blogosphere is.
>
> Duh.

Someone's opinion:

<http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/faking-victimhood-just-how-hurt-
was>

Right-wingers love to bring up cases of fake hate crimes and overblown
racial-profiling claims as proof that these phenomena don't really exist
to the extent that their victims claim. (See Ann Coulter for the most
recent example, but Michelle Malkin has made a minor cottage industry
out of this specious narrative.) But they sure do love it when a
minority conservative can make a reverse-the-charges accusation (usually
involving race) against liberals -- no matter how dubious the claims.

--

Hey! Like when Sackie accuses Democrats of being the real racists or
sexists.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 11:50, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > Eric Boehlert says:
>
> > >http://mediamatters.org/blog/200908080004
>
> > > Go watch the YouTube video. (Or, the "shocking video," as Power Line
> > > hypes it.) The first thing you notice when the camera starts rolling is
> > > a union member already sprawled out on the ground with somebody standing
> > > over him. No explanation of how he got there (pushed, shoved, punched?)
> > > and Ham couldn't care less. Then yes, Gladney is pulled to the ground by
> > > somebody wearing a union shirt. (At the :06 mark.) But instead of
> > > Gladney being beaten and punched, as his attorney describes, and instead
> > > of union "thugs" standing over him and threatening him, Gladney bounces
> > > right back on his feet in approximately two seconds and the scuffle ends.
>
> > > That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
> > > talking about?
>
> > > --
>
> > so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!
>
> You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
> about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
> wing blogosphere is.
>
> Duh.-

then Mine should be focusing on those issues, by focusing
on the level of severity of the beating, he makes the assumtin'that
there was a beeating, duh!

"At least" I will give you credit for being a whole lot samrter than
he is.

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 13:08, MiNe 109 > wrote:

>
> --
>
> Hey! Like when Sackie accuses Democrats of being the real racists or
> sexists.
>
> Stephen-


As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
car, against
those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.

Its those nasty unintended consequences again!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 6:42*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 11:50, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

> > wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 9:05*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 10 aug., 08:42, MiNe 109 * > wrote:

> > > > That was the savage "beating" the conservative blogosphere can't stop
> > > > talking about?
>
> > > > --
>
> > > so sorry that it wasn't savage enough for you!
>
> > You asume tha there was indeed a "beating" and you are as uncurious
> > about how the union member ended up on the ground first as the right-
> > wing blogosphere is.
>
> > Duh.-
>
> then Mine should be focusing on those issues, by focusing
> on the level of severity of the beating, he makes the assumtin'that
> there was a beeating, duh!
>
> "At least" I will give you credit for being a whole lot samrter than
> he is.

You missed the punctuation. He focused on the level of the "beating".
"Beating" questions whether one ever occured at all.

So we're both smarter than you are. Oh well, pack to the pivo for
you. :-(

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 10, 6:46*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 13:08, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
> > --
>
> > Hey! Like when Sackie accuses Democrats of being the real racists or
> > sexists.
>
> > Stephen-
>
> As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
> that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
> car, against
> those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
> Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
> used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
> the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.
>
> Its those nasty unintended *consequences again!

Do you have any data to back up your claim? I found this:

The volume of used cars sold through dealers rose 3.1% in February
compared with last year, the first year-over-year increase in 12
months, reports CNW Marketing Research. By contrast, new car sales
slid 41.4% in February from a year ago.

Wholesale used car prices have risen steadily since October, including
a 1.1% rise in February compared with January, says Tom Kontos, chief
economist for Adesa Analytical Services, though they remain lower than
in February 2008.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-16-used-car-sales_N.htm

And this:

Used car prices have risen about 5% on average in the last year, says
Tom Webb, economist for Manheim Consulting, a branch of a major used
car wholesale operation. Fewer new car sales have meant a drop in
recent-model trade-ins. Car rental companies also have reduced supply
by cutting their fleets. That's resulted in fewer castoffs for used
car lots.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-08-09-cars-cash-clunkers_N.htm

That nasty "corellation equals causation" thing...again!

[Clyde Slick]

On 10 aug., 20:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:

>
> > As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
> > that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
> > car, against
> > those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
> > Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
> > used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
> > the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.
>
> > Its those nasty unintended *consequences again!
>
> Do you have any data to back up your claim? I found this:
>

I have something you don't have, common sense.
If you crush 750,000 cars in regard to this program,
a good number of them will be otherwise viable cars.
they are crushed rather than exposed to the market for resale.
that is a lot of viable cars in the $2,000 TO $4,500 range
that can't be resold. the laws of supply and demand have not been
suspended.
This makes harder to locate a good cheap car, it raises
the price of them, and it hurts poor people.


The stats you offered are all meaningless.'They wer compiled before
clunker junker, and reltate to
ALL used car sales and within PREVIOUS periods.

And the data on used renatl car sales are at the high end'of the used
car market, while
the clunker junkers areat the low end.


> The volume of used cars sold through dealers rose 3.1% in February
> compared with last year, the first year-over-year increase in 12
> months, reports CNW Marketing Research. By contrast, new car sales
> slid 41.4% in February from a year ago.
>
> Wholesale used car prices have risen steadily since October, including
> a 1.1% rise in February compared with January, says Tom Kontos, chief
> economist for Adesa Analytical Services, though they remain lower than
> in February 2008.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-16-used-car-sales_N.htm
>
> And this:
>
> Used car prices have risen about 5% on average in the last year, says
> Tom Webb, economist for Manheim Consulting, a branch of a major used
> car wholesale operation. Fewer new car sales have meant a drop in
> recent-model trade-ins. Car rental companies also have reduced supply
> by cutting their fleets. That's resulted in fewer castoffs for used
> car lots.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-08-09-cars-cash-clunkers_N.htm
>

Totally irrelevant garbage, to the issue at hand.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 12:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 10 aug., 20:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
> > > that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
> > > car, against
> > > those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
> > > Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
> > > used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
> > > the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.
>
> > > Its those nasty unintended *consequences again!
>
> > Do you have any data to back up your claim? I found this:
>
> I have something you don't have, common sense.

Data usually usurps "common sense".

> If you crush 750,000 cars in regard to this program,
> a good number of them will be otherwise viable cars.
> they are crushed rather than exposed to the market for resale.
> that is a lot of viable cars in the $2,000 TO $4,500 range
> that can't be resold. the laws of supply and demand have not been
> suspended.
> This makes harder to locate a good cheap car, it raises
> the price of them, and it hurts poor people.

Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.

You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
works.

> The stats you offered are all meaningless.'They wer compiled before
> clunker junker, and reltate to
> ALL used car sales and within PREVIOUS periods.

Which showed increasing prices and lowered supply BEFORE the program.

As I said, correlation does not equal causation

> And the data on used renatl car sales are at the high end'of the used
> car market, while
> the clunker junkers areat the low end.

> > The volume of used cars sold through dealers rose 3.1% in February
> > compared with last year, the first year-over-year increase in 12
> > months, reports CNW Marketing Research. By contrast, new car sales
> > slid 41.4% in February from a year ago.
>
> > Wholesale used car prices have risen steadily since October, including
> > a 1.1% rise in February compared with January, says Tom Kontos, chief
> > economist for Adesa Analytical Services, though they remain lower than
> > in February 2008.
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-16-used-car-sales_N.htm
>
> > And this:
>
> > Used car prices have risen about 5% on average in the last year, says
> > Tom Webb, economist for Manheim Consulting, a branch of a major used
> > car wholesale operation. Fewer new car sales have meant a drop in
> > recent-model trade-ins. Car rental companies also have reduced supply
> > by cutting their fleets. That's resulted in fewer castoffs for used
> > car lots.
>
> >http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-08-09-cars-cash-clunkers_N.htm
>
> Totally irrelevant garbage, to the issue at hand.

Oh, the fact that demand for used cars had already been increasing and
a lower supply makes no difference? I thought you just mentioned it.
My bad. LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.
>
> You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> works.

He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 12:36, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:38*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 aug., 20:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
> > > > that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
> > > > car, against
> > > > those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
> > > > Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
> > > > used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
> > > > the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.
>
> > > > Its those nasty unintended *consequences again!
>
> > > Do you have any data to back up your claim? I found this:
>
> > I have something you don't have, common sense.
> > If you crush 750,000 cars in regard to this program,
> > a good number of them will be otherwise viable cars.
> > they are crushed rather than exposed to the market for resale.
> > that is a lot of viable cars in the $2,000 TO $4,500 range
> > that can't be resold. the laws of supply and demand have not been
> > suspended.
> > This makes harder to locate a good cheap car, it raises
> > the price of them, and it hurts poor people.
>
> > The stats you offered are all meaningless.'They wer compiled before
> > clunker junker, and reltate to
> > ALL used car sales and within PREVIOUS periods.
>
> > And the data on used renatl car sales are at the high end'of the used
> > car market, while
> > the clunker junkers areat the low end.
>
> It's also being debated on the ecological benefits.
> The C02 footprint required to make a new car is probably greater
> than the reduced C02 footprint between the clunker and the new car.
> It's sort of like the payback of a hybrid. *It took 400K miles on a
> new
> hybrid to recover the 10K price differential when I compared a Corolla
> to a Prius.
> Ecologically, the best thing might be to leave the clunkers on the
> road
> and reduce energy intensive new car manufacturing...especially until
> really low emission options become available in the next 3+ years.
>
on one hand,
especially if you figure that the life of a clunker is another 4
years.
You would only calculate the pollutiion difference for 4 years.

On the other hand, in 4 years it has to be replaced with something
else, anyway.
so its just a defferral.

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 13:58, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.
>
> > You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> > works.
>
> He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.
>

LOL!!!

SHHH! proferred the EXACT SAME hypothesis in his own citation!
the blurb about the dearth of former rental cars on the used market
has driven up used car prices (at least, in that price point).

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 14:37, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:58*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.
>
> > > You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> > > works.
>
> > He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.
>
> Says the willfully ignorant who won't follow a link.


I am not so sure that he can help it!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:58*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.
>
> > > You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> > > works.
>
> > He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.
>
> Says the willfully ignorant who won't follow a link.

Learn how to make it worthwhile then, dum-dum.

Three here have tried to teach you how, three have failed.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 11, 1:52*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 11 aug., 13:58, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.
>
> > > You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> > > works.
>
> > He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.
>
> LOL!!!
>
> SHHH! proferred the EXACT SAME hypothesis in his own citation!
> the blurb about the dearth of former rental cars on the used market
> has driven up used car prices (at least, in that price point).

LOL!!!!!

What Shhhh! did was to show you that what you're claiming as an
"unintended cosequence" of the clunker program can be ATTRIBUTED TO A
DIFFERENT CAUSATION!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!

And that you have no data to counter that!!!!!! And that I *did* have
data to back up my position!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:

> On Aug 11, 1:37*pm, ScottW2 > wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 10:58*am, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis.
> >
> > > > You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> > > > works.
> >
> > > He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.
> >
> > Says the willfully ignorant who won't follow a link.
>
> Learn how to make it worthwhile then, dum-dum.
>
> Three here have tried to teach you how, three have failed.

I didn't say anything about not following a link. Maybe it seemed to
Scottie that I did.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 11:57, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 12:38*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10 aug., 20:53, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > As when they are against poor people, like with clunker junker.
> > > > that is a giveaway program helping thoe rich enough to afford a new
> > > > car, against
> > > > those who are not well off enough to buy a new one.
> > > > Niow we have taken hundreds of thousands of viable but inexpensive
> > > > used vehicles off the market, making it harder and more expensive for
> > > > the lower classes to find a good used vehicle.
>
> > > > Its those nasty unintended *consequences again!
>
> > > Do you have any data to back up your claim? I found this:
>
> > I have something you don't have, common sense.
>
> Data usually usurps "common sense".
>


It just happened
effects will take time to measure


> > If you crush 750,000 cars in regard to this program,
> > a good number of them will be otherwise viable cars.
> > they are crushed rather than exposed to the market for resale.
> > that is a lot of viable cars in the $2,000 TO $4,500 range
> > that can't be resold. the laws of supply and demand have not been
> > suspended.
> > This makes harder to locate a good cheap car, it raises
> > the price of them, and it hurts poor people.
>
> N


It just happened.

Anyway, I will borrow your data about
]the death of used rental cars hitting the]
used market, and that it drove up proces of used cars.
samr thing when theswe cars are held off the market
in that paticulr range, prices will go up, and it will effect
adjoining ranges, as well
to some degree.


> You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> works.
>
> > The stats you offered are all meaningless.'They wer compiled before
> > clunker junker, and reltate to
> > ALL used car sales and within PREVIOUS periods.
>
> Which showed increasing prices and lowered supply BEFORE the program.
>
> As I said, correlation does not equal causation
>
>
>
> > And the data on used renatl car sales are at the high end'of the used
> > car market, while
> > the clunker junkers areat the low end.
> > > The volume of used cars sold through dealers rose 3.1% in February
> > > compared with last year, the first year-over-year increase in 12
> > > months, reports CNW Marketing Research. By contrast, new car sales
> > > slid 41.4% in February from a year ago.
>
> > > Wholesale used car prices have risen steadily since October, including
> > > a 1.1% rise in February compared with January, says Tom Kontos, chief
> > > economist for Adesa Analytical Services, though they remain lower than
> > > in February 2008.
>
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-03-16-used-car-sales_N.htm
>
> > > And this:
>
> > > Used car prices have risen about 5% on average in the last year, says
> > > Tom Webb, economist for Manheim Consulting, a branch of a major used
> > > car wholesale operation. Fewer new car sales have meant a drop in
> > > recent-model trade-ins. Car rental companies also have reduced supply
> > > by cutting their fleets. That's resulted in fewer castoffs for used
> > > car lots.
>
> > >http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-08-09-cars-cash-clunkers_N.htm
>
> > Totally irrelevant garbage, to the issue at hand.
>
> Oh, the fact that demand for used cars had already been increasing and
> a lower supply makes no difference? I thought you just mentioned it.
> My bad. LoL.


the law of suppluy and demand has been exhibited countless
times, day in, day out.
I can't help it if you
refuse to accept that
it is SO SIMPLE,
but you won't accept it
restricted supply = price increase

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 aug., 16:15, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Aug 11, 1:52*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 aug., 13:58, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote:
>
> > > > Now all we're missing is some valid data to confirm your hypothesis..
>
> > > > You don't get to claim a hypothesisis true without it. That's how it
> > > > works.
>
> > > He's adopted Scottie's "seems to me" standard.
>
> > LOL!!!
>
> > SHHH! proferred the EXACT SAME hypothesis in his own citation!
> > the blurb about the dearth of former rental cars on the used market
> > has driven up used car prices (at least, in that price point).
>
> LOL!!!!!
>
> What Shhhh! did was to show you that what you're claiming as an
> "unintended cosequence" of the clunker program can be ATTRIBUTED TO A
> DIFFERENT CAUSATION!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And that you have no data to counter that!!!!!! And that I *did* have
> data to back up my position!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the law of supply and demand, it works!!!!