bringing a little sunshine and joy into our lives

[hollywood_steve]

And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
examination of the "state of the nation."


http://****thesouth.com

[L David Matheny]

"hollywood_steve" > wrote in message om...
> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> examination of the "state of the nation."
>
> http://****thesouth.com
>
I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".

[L David Matheny]

"hollywood_steve" > wrote in message om...
> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> examination of the "state of the nation."
>
> http://****thesouth.com
>
I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".

[Bryson]

L David Matheny wrote:
> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message om...
>
>>And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>>examination of the "state of the nation."
>>
>>http://****thesouth.com
>>
>
> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,


Specifically?


> and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
>
>

What did it used to mean?

[Bryson]

L David Matheny wrote:
> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message om...
>
>>And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>>examination of the "state of the nation."
>>
>>http://****thesouth.com
>>
>
> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,


Specifically?


> and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
>
>

What did it used to mean?

[Drily Lit Raga]

"L David Matheny" > wrote in
:

> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
> om...
>> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>> examination of the "state of the nation."
>>
>> http://****thesouth.com
>>
> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of
> misinformation, and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore
> loser".
>
>

I liked it.

[Drily Lit Raga]

"L David Matheny" > wrote in
:

> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
> om...
>> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>> examination of the "state of the nation."
>>
>> http://****thesouth.com
>>
> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of
> misinformation, and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore
> loser".
>
>

I liked it.

[reddred]

"L David Matheny" > wrote in message
...
> it's full of misinformation,
> and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
>

Point to the 'misinformation.'

jb

[reddred]

"L David Matheny" > wrote in message
...
> it's full of misinformation,
> and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
>

Point to the 'misinformation.'

jb

[Bob Cain]

L David Matheny wrote:

> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
> and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".

This ain't sports.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

L David Matheny wrote:

> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
> and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".

This ain't sports.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Bryson" > wrote in message
link.net...
>L David Matheny wrote:
>> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>>>And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>>>examination of the "state of the nation."
>>>
>>>http://****thesouth.com
>>>
>>
>> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,

I agree about the misinformation. He's taken a bunch of stereotypes and
hypocrites (and to be sure there are PLENTY of them) and acting as if that's
what all the south is (or wants to be). FWIW most of us here in the south
are as fed up with how federal assistance is doled out (and most of the
other rants) as the rest of you are. In fact we are more aware of how it is
abused since we live in the middle of it.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Bryson" > wrote in message
link.net...
>L David Matheny wrote:
>> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>>>And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>>>examination of the "state of the nation."
>>>
>>>http://****thesouth.com
>>>
>>
>> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,

I agree about the misinformation. He's taken a bunch of stereotypes and
hypocrites (and to be sure there are PLENTY of them) and acting as if that's
what all the south is (or wants to be). FWIW most of us here in the south
are as fed up with how federal assistance is doled out (and most of the
other rants) as the rest of you are. In fact we are more aware of how it is
abused since we live in the middle of it.

[Nmm]

"reddred" > wrote in message >...
> "L David Matheny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > it's full of misinformation,
> > and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
> >
>
> Point to the 'misinformation.'
>
> jb


There is a good chart making the email rounds that shows how states
voted by their average IQs. No So Strange that the top section is all
Blue, then there are a few states that are tied at 100, and the
bottom states are all red.

[Nmm]

"reddred" > wrote in message >...
> "L David Matheny" > wrote in message
> ...
> > it's full of misinformation,
> > and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
> >
>
> Point to the 'misinformation.'
>
> jb


There is a good chart making the email rounds that shows how states
voted by their average IQs. No So Strange that the top section is all
Blue, then there are a few states that are tied at 100, and the
bottom states are all red.

[L David Matheny]

"Bryson" > wrote in message link.net...
> L David Matheny wrote:
> > "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message om...
> >
> >>And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> >>examination of the "state of the nation."
> >>
> >>http://****thesouth.com
> >>
> >
> > I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
>
> Specifically?
>
Where to begin .... For one thing (assuming that this is about the
2004 election) the "red states" (those that voted Republican) aren't
just limited to "the South"; they include most of the country except
for a few states on the coasts and around the Great Lakes. For
example, Ohio has been a state for a lot more than "almost a
hundred years" (since 1803). Our Founding Fathers included a
number of people such as Washington and Jefferson who were from
Virginia, which most people would agree isn't part of the Northeast.

An assault weapon, properly defined, 1) fires a rifle round of
intermediate power and 2) is capable of "selective fire" (i.e., can
be switched between semi-automatic and full-automatic). Ban or
no ban, U.S. citizens can't buy fully automatic weapons. Neither
assault rifles nor their semi-automatic-only civilian counterparts
will fit into a glove compartment even on a Hummer H1.

I don't have time to research the various economic claims, but
according to this report: http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr124.pdf
the states with the highest and lowest ratios of Federal spending
per tax dollar paid are pretty well spread around geographically.

"Well this gravy train is ****ing over. ... And no, you can't have
your ****ing convention in New York next time." That sounds
like an authoritative pronouncement from on high. I suppose it
could even be considered arrogant. But I do agree that all
States have their share of arrogance.

>
> > and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
> >
> What did it used to mean?
>
OK, I should have said it illuminates the meaning of the term
"sore loser" by providing a textbook example of bitterness and
carelessly reasoned, highly biased gnashing of teeth.

[L David Matheny]

"Bryson" > wrote in message link.net...
> L David Matheny wrote:
> > "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message om...
> >
> >>And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> >>examination of the "state of the nation."
> >>
> >>http://****thesouth.com
> >>
> >
> > I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
>
> Specifically?
>
Where to begin .... For one thing (assuming that this is about the
2004 election) the "red states" (those that voted Republican) aren't
just limited to "the South"; they include most of the country except
for a few states on the coasts and around the Great Lakes. For
example, Ohio has been a state for a lot more than "almost a
hundred years" (since 1803). Our Founding Fathers included a
number of people such as Washington and Jefferson who were from
Virginia, which most people would agree isn't part of the Northeast.

An assault weapon, properly defined, 1) fires a rifle round of
intermediate power and 2) is capable of "selective fire" (i.e., can
be switched between semi-automatic and full-automatic). Ban or
no ban, U.S. citizens can't buy fully automatic weapons. Neither
assault rifles nor their semi-automatic-only civilian counterparts
will fit into a glove compartment even on a Hummer H1.

I don't have time to research the various economic claims, but
according to this report: http://www.taxfoundation.org/sr124.pdf
the states with the highest and lowest ratios of Federal spending
per tax dollar paid are pretty well spread around geographically.

"Well this gravy train is ****ing over. ... And no, you can't have
your ****ing convention in New York next time." That sounds
like an authoritative pronouncement from on high. I suppose it
could even be considered arrogant. But I do agree that all
States have their share of arrogance.

>
> > and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
> >
> What did it used to mean?
>
OK, I should have said it illuminates the meaning of the term
"sore loser" by providing a textbook example of bitterness and
carelessly reasoned, highly biased gnashing of teeth.

[JL]

Amazing. So states being on the receiving end of federal tax money is bad.

How about me paying $20K in taxes and the fellows across the street get rent
control and welfare. I mean, isn't that the same? Either way you put it,
government redistribution of wealth means someone living off of someone. I'm
just surprised that it's ok for the author to rant about it when it's
between states, but I bet if I were to raise the same issue between
residents of say, NYC, I'd be deemed heartless and soulless and all the
guilt-reinforcing terms you can think of.

Other than that, it was funny...

JL


"hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
om...
> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> examination of the "state of the nation."
>
>
> http://****thesouth.com

[JL]

Amazing. So states being on the receiving end of federal tax money is bad.

How about me paying $20K in taxes and the fellows across the street get rent
control and welfare. I mean, isn't that the same? Either way you put it,
government redistribution of wealth means someone living off of someone. I'm
just surprised that it's ok for the author to rant about it when it's
between states, but I bet if I were to raise the same issue between
residents of say, NYC, I'd be deemed heartless and soulless and all the
guilt-reinforcing terms you can think of.

Other than that, it was funny...

JL


"hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
om...
> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> examination of the "state of the nation."
>
>
> http://****thesouth.com

[U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles]

On 15 Nov 2004 07:35:17 -0800, Nmm > wrote:
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "L David Matheny" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > it's full of misinformation,
>> > and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
>> >
>>
>> Point to the 'misinformation.'
>>
>> jb
>
>
> There is a good chart making the email rounds that shows how states
> voted by their average IQs. No So Strange that the top section is all
> Blue, then there are a few states that are tied at 100, and the
> bottom states are all red.

Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.

cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

[U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles]

On 15 Nov 2004 07:35:17 -0800, Nmm > wrote:
> "reddred" > wrote in message
> >...
>> "L David Matheny" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > it's full of misinformation,
>> > and it certainly gives new meaning to the term "sore loser".
>> >
>>
>> Point to the 'misinformation.'
>>
>> jb
>
>
> There is a good chart making the email rounds that shows how states
> voted by their average IQs. No So Strange that the top section is all
> Blue, then there are a few states that are tied at 100, and the
> bottom states are all red.

Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.

cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

[Logan Shaw]

hollywood_steve wrote:

> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> examination of the "state of the nation."

> http://****thesouth.com

Hmm, I read that, and it seems to amount to basically the
standard "us people over here are morally superior to you
people over there" thing. Which is funny because he rants
about people from the south thinking of themselves as morally
superior. (But I guess it's only bad if you do it in the
name of religion, whereas if you do it in the name of the
north being superior to the south, then it's OK.)

If I were a liberal[1], I'd be disappointed to hear this
guy identifying himself as a liberal too. I thought part
of the whole point of being a liberal involved trying to
respect and understand people who are different than you.

- Logan

[1] Well actually, I sort of am. But I'm also sort of a
conservative. But mostly neither because I'm a moderate.

[Logan Shaw]

hollywood_steve wrote:

> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
> examination of the "state of the nation."

> http://****thesouth.com

Hmm, I read that, and it seems to amount to basically the
standard "us people over here are morally superior to you
people over there" thing. Which is funny because he rants
about people from the south thinking of themselves as morally
superior. (But I guess it's only bad if you do it in the
name of religion, whereas if you do it in the name of the
north being superior to the south, then it's OK.)

If I were a liberal[1], I'd be disappointed to hear this
guy identifying himself as a liberal too. I thought part
of the whole point of being a liberal involved trying to
respect and understand people who are different than you.

- Logan

[1] Well actually, I sort of am. But I'm also sort of a
conservative. But mostly neither because I'm a moderate.

[hollywood_steve]

> Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
> Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
> a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
> eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.

If you had ever experienced the thrill of passing through Mississippi,
even if only for a few hours while driving at maximum speed, you might
well believe the chart to be correct.




>
> cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

[hollywood_steve]

> Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
> Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
> a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
> eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.

If you had ever experienced the thrill of passing through Mississippi,
even if only for a few hours while driving at maximum speed, you might
well believe the chart to be correct.




>
> cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in message
news:Nh5md.4512$wY2.206@trndny05...
>
> Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
> Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
> a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
> eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.
>
> cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

What scares me is how readily willing some people are to believe it. I truly
think they feel superior and would "eliminate" those they deemed "inferior"
to themselves without thinking twice.

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in message
news:Nh5md.4512$wY2.206@trndny05...
>
> Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
> Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
> a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
> eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.
>
> cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

What scares me is how readily willing some people are to believe it. I truly
think they feel superior and would "eliminate" those they deemed "inferior"
to themselves without thinking twice.

[George Gleason]

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
> "U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in message
> news:Nh5md.4512$wY2.206@trndny05...
>
>>Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
>>Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
>>a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
>>eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.
>>
>>cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
>
>
> What scares me is how readily willing some people are to believe it. I truly
> think they feel superior and would "eliminate" those they deemed "inferior"
> to themselves without thinking twice.
>
two chances were given
2000 and 2004
g

[George Gleason]

Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
> "U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in message
> news:Nh5md.4512$wY2.206@trndny05...
>
>>Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
>>Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
>>a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
>>eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.
>>
>>cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
>
>
> What scares me is how readily willing some people are to believe it. I truly
> think they feel superior and would "eliminate" those they deemed "inferior"
> to themselves without thinking twice.
>
two chances were given
2000 and 2004
g

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:42:00 -0500, L David Matheny wrote
(in article >):

> "Bryson" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> L David Matheny wrote:
>>> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>
>>>> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>>>> examination of the "state of the nation."
>>>>
>>>> http://****thesouth.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
>>
>> Specifically?
>>
> Where to begin .... F

begin by posting this on an appropriate newsgroup.

Thanks

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Ty Ford]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:42:00 -0500, L David Matheny wrote
(in article >):

> "Bryson" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>> L David Matheny wrote:
>>> "hollywood_steve" > wrote in message
>>> om...
>>>
>>>> And don't get hung up on the URL, it is a very well written
>>>> examination of the "state of the nation."
>>>>
>>>> http://****thesouth.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose it's well written as a rant, but it's full of misinformation,
>>
>> Specifically?
>>
> Where to begin .... F

begin by posting this on an appropriate newsgroup.

Thanks

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Nmm]

George Gleason > wrote in message >...
> Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
> > "U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in message
> > news:Nh5md.4512$wY2.206@trndny05...
> >
> >>Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
> >>Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
> >>a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
> >>eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.
> >>
> >>cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
> >
> >
> > What scares me is how readily willing some people are to believe it. I truly
> > think they feel superior and would "eliminate" those they deemed "inferior"
> > to themselves without thinking twice.
> >
> two chances were given
> 2000 and 2004
> g


Don't you mean 1860?

Where is General Sherman when you really need him

[Nmm]

George Gleason > wrote in message >...
> Ricky W. Hunt wrote:
> > "U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" <"Charles > wrote in message
> > news:Nh5md.4512$wY2.206@trndny05...
> >
> >>Myth, I'm afraid. To believe the version I've read, the IQ of
> >>Mississippi is two standard deviations below the mean, which anyone with
> >>a single semester of statistics should realize is so unlikely as to
> >>eliminate the possibility of serious consideration.
> >>
> >>cf: http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp
> >
> >
> > What scares me is how readily willing some people are to believe it. I truly
> > think they feel superior and would "eliminate" those they deemed "inferior"
> > to themselves without thinking twice.
> >
> two chances were given
> 2000 and 2004
> g


Don't you mean 1860?

Where is General Sherman when you really need him