Debate

[lreed2]

I agree that Bush's joke about owning a timber company was quite
ridiculous and intentionally meant to mislead voters. I do not ,
however see that Kerry's estimation of the under funding of "No Child
Left Behind" was meant to mislead anyone. Whether or not it is to be
considered a "matter of opinion", when a president vows that schools
will leave "no child" behind, then that president is responsible for
providing 100% of the funding for that purpose. It has never been the
case that special education has been fully funded under IDEA, nor is
it fully funded under "No Child Left Behind". The "No Child Left
Behind" act was an unprecedented contradiction to the the United
States Constitution. I believe that the federal government stepping
to mandate public education (which falls under the jurisdiction of the
individual states) and then denying the funds necessary for compliance
is reprehensible. I believe Kerry's remarks were substantiated in this
case.

[Michael McKelvy]

"lreed2" > wrote in message
om...
>I agree that Bush's joke about owning a timber company was quite
> ridiculous and intentionally meant to mislead voters. I do not ,
> however see that Kerry's estimation of the under funding of "No Child
> Left Behind" was meant to mislead anyone.

Bush has no way to fund anything, he can only ask Congress for the money.


Whether or not it is to be
> considered a "matter of opinion", when a president vows that schools
> will leave "no child" behind, then that president is responsible for
> providing 100% of the funding for that purpose. It has never been the
> case that special education has been fully funded under IDEA, nor is
> it fully funded under "No Child Left Behind". The "No Child Left
> Behind" act was an unprecedented contradiction to the the United
> States Constitution. I believe that the federal government stepping
> to mandate public education (which falls under the jurisdiction of the
> individual states) and then denying the funds necessary for compliance
> is reprehensible. I believe Kerry's remarks were substantiated in this
> case.

The Federal Government has no business involving itself it education at any
level.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>>
> There are private institutions that award scholarships to students they
> deem worthy. State colleges and universities are loaded up with people
> who never complete their education and wouldn't be there if it weren't
> artificially cheap. There is no reason to believe that private learning
> institutions couldn't fill the need and do so competitively, and in so
> doing produce better quality graduates.
>

and 95% fewer of them

[dave weil]

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:57:38 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> wrote:

>There are private institutions that award scholarships to students they deem
>worthy. State colleges and universities are loaded up with people who never
>complete their education and wouldn't be there if it weren't artificially
>cheap. There is no reason to believe that private learning institutions
>couldn't fill the need and do so competitively, and in so doing produce
>better quality graduates.

And you think that we have trouble NOW.

Gives the idea of "underclass" a whole new meaning...

[Lionel]

dave weil wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:57:38 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>There are private institutions that award scholarships to students they deem
>>worthy. State colleges and universities are loaded up with people who never
>>complete their education and wouldn't be there if it weren't artificially
>>cheap. There is no reason to believe that private learning institutions
>>couldn't fill the need and do so competitively, and in so doing produce
>>better quality graduates.
>
>
> And you think that we have trouble NOW.
>
> Gives the idea of "underclass" a whole new meaning...

Are you speaking of the "untouchables" ?

[Clyde Slick]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 05:57:38 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
> > wrote:
>
>>There are private institutions that award scholarships to students they
>>deem
>>worthy. State colleges and universities are loaded up with people who
>>never
>>complete their education and wouldn't be there if it weren't artificially
>>cheap. There is no reason to believe that private learning institutions
>>couldn't fill the need and do so competitively, and in so doing produce
>>better quality graduates.
>
> And you think that we have trouble NOW.
>
> Gives the idea of "underclass" a whole new meaning...

Not only that, it would drag our nation down as a whole.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>>
> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>

No, you missed the point.
you used incredibly stupid arguments.
I have disagreed with Wheeler, Scott W, Weil and Middius,
and have not insulted them, because I respect
their intelligence and regognize that they
don't frequently have their respective heads
buried in the sands of dogma.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>
> Mangling metaphors will probably win you rhetorical points against the
> Bug Eater.
>
>

you didn't like that?
it was especially meant to amuse you.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>>
>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>
>
> No, you missed the point.
> you used incredibly stupid arguments.

In your opinion, I'm not alone in my opinion, not that it's important. The
over-riding principle is that use of force is wrong unless force is being
used against you.

> I have disagreed with Wheeler, Scott W, Weil and Middius,
> and have not insulted them, because I respect
> their intelligence and regognize that they
> don't frequently have their respective heads
> buried in the sands of dogma.
It's not dogma, it's just not your belief. Can you write the above about
Middius, Weil, and Wheeler with a straight face?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>>>
>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>
>
>I respect
> their intelligence and regognize that they
> don't frequently have their respective heads
> buried in the sands of dogma.
Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>>>But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>
>>
>>I respect
>>their intelligence and regognize that they
>>don't frequently have their respective heads
>>buried in the sands of dogma.
>
> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?

LOL... fisticuffs on the right-wing !

I agree with you McKelvy all this mess is Middius' fault.
All your problems come from the gay marriage. I read somewhere that
Saddam Hussein is a gay, Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri, Arafat, Frenchs, etc,
all gays...
Sackman also is a gay, a repressed one but a gay anyway. He is more
interested in gravitating around Middius' ass than in a real political
engagement.
His argument against gay marriage ? LOL, don't make me laugh with this,
they are his last coquetry, his ultimate underwear, even not a panty
barely a string. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>

>
>> I have disagreed with Wheeler, Scott W, Weil and Middius,
>> and have not insulted them, because I respect
>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>> buried in the sands of dogma.
> It's not dogma, it's just not your belief. Can you write the above about
> Middius, Weil, and Wheeler with a straight face?
>

yes

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>
>>
>>I respect
>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>> buried in the sands of dogma.
> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>

I never said gays couldn't marry.
But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
union between a man and a woman,
It's based upon a well defined social institution
that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
start a new institution for equivalent same sex
unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
same sex unions should be legally recognized
and accepted.

Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I respect
>>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>>
>
> I never said gays couldn't marry.
> But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
> union between a man and a woman,
> It's based upon a well defined social institution
> that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
> start a new institution for equivalent same sex
> unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
> same sex unions should be legally recognized
> and accepted.
>
> Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.
No, they are based on giving everybody the same rights. There's no logical
reason why same sex marriage should be disallowed.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>
>>
>>> I have disagreed with Wheeler, Scott W, Weil and Middius,
>>> and have not insulted them, because I respect
>>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>> It's not dogma, it's just not your belief. Can you write the above about
>> Middius, Weil, and Wheeler with a straight face?
>>
>
> yes
Sheesh!

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I respect
>>>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>>>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>>>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>>> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>>>
>>
>> I never said gays couldn't marry.
>> But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
>> union between a man and a woman,
>> It's based upon a well defined social institution
>> that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
>> start a new institution for equivalent same sex
>> unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
>> same sex unions should be legally recognized
>> and accepted.
>>
>> Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.
> No, they are based on giving everybody the same rights. There's no
> logical reason why same sex marriage should be disallowed.
>

Everybody has the same rights.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> nk.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I respect
>>>>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>>>>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>>>>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>>>> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said gays couldn't marry.
>>> But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
>>> union between a man and a woman,
>>> It's based upon a well defined social institution
>>> that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
>>> start a new institution for equivalent same sex
>>> unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
>>> same sex unions should be legally recognized
>>> and accepted.
>>>
>>> Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.
>> No, they are based on giving everybody the same rights. There's no
>> logical reason why same sex marriage should be disallowed.
>>
>
> Everybody has the same rights.
>
Not if they can't marry whom they choose.

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>>
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I respect
>>>>>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>>>>>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>>>>>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>>>>> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I never said gays couldn't marry.
>>>> But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
>>>> union between a man and a woman,
>>>> It's based upon a well defined social institution
>>>> that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
>>>> start a new institution for equivalent same sex
>>>> unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
>>>> same sex unions should be legally recognized
>>>> and accepted.
>>>>
>>>> Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.
>>> No, they are based on giving everybody the same rights. There's no
>>> logical reason why same sex marriage should be disallowed.
>>>
>>
>> Everybody has the same rights.
>>
> Not if they can't marry whom they choose.
>

you can have your daddy

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>
>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>>But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I respect
>>>>>their intelligence and regognize that they
>>>>>don't frequently have their respective heads
>>>>>buried in the sands of dogma.
>>>>
>>>>Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I never said gays couldn't marry.
>>>But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
>>>union between a man and a woman,
>>>It's based upon a well defined social institution
>>>that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
>>>start a new institution for equivalent same sex
>>>unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
>>>same sex unions should be legally recognized
>>>and accepted.
>>>
>>>Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.
>>
>>No, they are based on giving everybody the same rights. There's no
>>logical reason why same sex marriage should be disallowed.
>>
>
>
> Everybody has the same rights.

"Rock around Middius' ass"

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>> ink.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> nk.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But of course, I dared disagree with you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I respect
>>>>>>> their intelligence and regognize that they
>>>>>>> don't frequently have their respective heads
>>>>>>> buried in the sands of dogma.
>>>>>> Like your arguments against Gay Marriage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I never said gays couldn't marry.
>>>>> But, if you want to talk about marraiage being a
>>>>> union between a man and a woman,
>>>>> It's based upon a well defined social institution
>>>>> that has lasted thousands of years. If you want to
>>>>> start a new institution for equivalent same sex
>>>>> unions, that's fine. I think it should be done, and that
>>>>> same sex unions should be legally recognized
>>>>> and accepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same sex marriages are based upon more than dogma.
>>>> No, they are based on giving everybody the same rights. There's no
>>>> logical reason why same sex marriage should be disallowed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Everybody has the same rights.
>>>
>> Not if they can't marry whom they choose.
>>
>
> you can have your daddy
More stunning reasoning. :-(

[Sander deWaal]

(N) said:

>Even if Bush wins, I suspect it'll be another squeaker, and after
>having all the opportunities to lead as a president, he'll have
>himself to blame if it's a squeaker or a defeat.

Another 4 years of Bush in the office.......how will they cope with
the huge deficit? Can't blame *that* on Clinton then :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> (N) said:
>
>>Even if Bush wins, I suspect it'll be another squeaker, and after
>>having all the opportunities to lead as a president, he'll have
>>himself to blame if it's a squeaker or a defeat.
>
> Another 4 years of Bush in the office.......how will they cope with
> the huge deficit? Can't blame *that* on Clinton then :-)
>
> --
It's not a huge deficit when looked at the way deficits have been looked at
in the past, as a % of the GDP which is about 4% currently. It was much
higher in WWII at 45% of GDP.

A bit of judicious spending cuts could solve it fairly easily and
painlessly.

[Sander deWaal]

"Michael McKelvy" > said:

>> There are pros and cons to both tax raising and tax cutting.

>I'm not talking about tax cuts at all, just stop some the ridiculous things
>the government subsidizes.

That I can agree with. There's plenty of government spending happening
overhere as well.
One fine example: we have got a minister of environment who was
offered, for free, a Toyota Prius hybrid car for the duration of his
office. He turned the offer down and ordered a big Mercedes.

>> IMO both could work well to get the US economy back on track, be it
>> that people that are already rich will benefit most from it.
>> Those jobs will go to Asia, not the USA.

>It ain't neccessarily so.

Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
Asian countries) I fear the worst.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
> division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
> other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
> Asian countries) I fear the worst.

If you fear the worst, the worst will happen.

Poland and East-European countries belongs now to European Community, so
that means that these jobs will generate consumption in European market.
Long time ago Keynes has demonstrated that...
Don't worry, be happy. ;-)

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>If you fear the worst, the worst will happen.

I'm already hiding in my closet ;-)

>Poland and East-European countries belongs now to European Community, so
>that means that these jobs will generate consumption in European market.
>Long time ago Keynes has demonstrated that...
>Don't worry, be happy. ;-)

I don't worry, I just accepted a good job offer.
But how about those employees who have bills to pay, mortgages etc?
If you're an auto worker, and Opel is the one and only employer
around, how does one get another job?

This will put a great strain on social security, again.

I know I'm being naive, but in my opinion, companies have a certain
social obligation as well.
If that means I can't get a new car, DVD, plasma screen or cappuccino
machine every 2 years, so be it.

( Hah! Me and new cars............never!!!!!) ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Clyde Slick]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...

> Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
> division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
> other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
> Asian countries) I fear the worst.
>

And the worst is ?....poorer countries improving their economies
at the expense of richer ones? That is incongruous with the
left's always bemoaning the industrialized counties
taking advantage of the poorer and third world countries. So when
the free market starts resolving that problem, then they complain
about that.

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>> Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
>> division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
>> other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
>> Asian countries) I fear the worst.

>And the worst is ?....poorer countries improving their economies
>at the expense of richer ones? That is incongruous with the
>left's always bemoaning the industrialized counties
>taking advantage of the poorer and third world countries. So when
>the free market starts resolving that problem, then they complain
>about that.

Well, then I'm not a leftie, I guess.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Lionel > said:
>
>>If you fear the worst, the worst will happen.
>
> I'm already hiding in my closet ;-)
>
>>Poland and East-European countries belongs now to European Community, so
>>that means that these jobs will generate consumption in European market.
>>Long time ago Keynes has demonstrated that...
>>Don't worry, be happy. ;-)
>
> I don't worry, I just accepted a good job offer.

I'm not surprised, congratulation.

> But how about those employees who have bills to pay, mortgages etc?
> If you're an auto worker, and Opel is the one and only employer
> around, how does one get another job?

Ok Sander, I will never say that it's a good thing, nor that it's easy to
accept for all the guys who will be lay off.
Here in Saint Etienne area my parents were living of mines and steel
industry. I let you imagine what's happened in the 70s and 80s. We still
have here one of the highest ratio of unemployment for France.

I just want to point out that now Poland and East-European countries belong
to European community, they are economical partners not competitors. This
is the challenge *we have accepted*. It's not anymore time to change the
rules now.


> This will put a great strain on social security, again.
>
> I know I'm being naive, but in my opinion, companies have a certain
> social obligation as well.

Sure this is why it is now much more important than ever to have very strong
and powerful trade unions.

> If that means I can't get a new car, DVD, plasma screen or cappuccino
> machine every 2 years, so be it.
>
> ( Hah! Me and new cars............never!!!!!) ;-)

I just hope that USD rate will be keep till I'll purchase my Fostex drivers
to Madisound. ;-)

[Michael McKelvy]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > said:
>
>>> There are pros and cons to both tax raising and tax cutting.
>
>>I'm not talking about tax cuts at all, just stop some the ridiculous
>>things
>>the government subsidizes.
>
> That I can agree with. There's plenty of government spending happening
> overhere as well.
> One fine example: we have got a minister of environment who was
> offered, for free, a Toyota Prius hybrid car for the duration of his
> office. He turned the offer down and ordered a big Mercedes.
>
>>> IMO both could work well to get the US economy back on track, be it
>>> that people that are already rich will benefit most from it.
>>> Those jobs will go to Asia, not the USA.
>
>>It ain't neccessarily so.
>
> Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
> division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
> other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
> Asian countries) I fear the worst.
>
> --
That's the way it works in business, always looking for cheaper labor and
higher productivity. Hell, the Japanese outsourced to Korea, who outsourced
to Thailand and so on and so on. Eventually it will even out.
Nothing like Freedom and it's logical consequence, Capitalism to lift
everybody in the boat.

People here complain about outsourcing when in fact we have more countries
sending work here than we send out. It may mean that there are less
manufacturing jobs where one could get by on a High School education, but it
will result in some other area where the pay is even higher if you are
qualified, and lots of them. The thing is the days when you could count on
working for one company til you retire are pretty much gone and people need
to face up to it and get themselves the education necessary to be
competitive.

There will of course always be a need for people who can fix things.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Sander deWaal wrote:
>
>> Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
>> division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
>> other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
>> Asian countries) I fear the worst.
>
> If you fear the worst, the worst will happen.
>
You mean if we don't fear you, you won't happen?

Phew!

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
>>>division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
>>>other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
>>>Asian countries) I fear the worst.
>>
>>If you fear the worst, the worst will happen.
>>
>
> You mean if we don't fear you, you won't happen?

Becoming *your* worst is a part of my plan... :-)

[Clyde Slick]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> There will of course always be a need for people who can fix things.


My advice is to become a cop. We will never run out of criminals.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Sander deWaal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Judging from what's happening here (12.000 jobs gone at Opel- a
>>>>division of General Motors in Germany- in favor of jobs in Poland and
>>>>other East-European countries, 3.000 jobs gone at Philips in favor of
>>>>Asian countries) I fear the worst.
>>>
>>>If you fear the worst, the worst will happen.
>>>
>>
>> You mean if we don't fear you, you won't happen?
>
> Becoming *your* worst is a part of my plan... :-)

Your my like a slightly annoying gnat.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>>
>> There will of course always be a need for people who can fix things.
>
>
> My advice is to become a cop. We will never run out of criminals.
It takes a special temperament that not enough people have.

One of the major symptoms of ****ed up priorities in the Los Angeles area is
the number of cops. New York City for example has about 36,000 cops for
about 10 million people IIRC, while Los Angeles with a similar population
but vastly more area , has only around 8000!

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> I understand and I will add that this is your main problem.
> You should expect a little less from others and request a little bit more
> from you, lazy idiot.

I am steadily learning to expect less from you

[Sander deWaal]

"Michael McKelvy" > said:

>There will of course always be a need for people who can fix things.

That's my luck indeed :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I understand and I will add that this is your main problem.
>> You should expect a little less from others and request a little bit more
>> from you, lazy idiot.
>
> I am steadily learning to expect less from you
Is that possible?