on 2005-04-12 at 08:25 wrote:

in thread arble.net:
shelly whittled the following words:
Finding stuff on line is STALKING? Isn't that what you just did?
Same thing.

no, not quite. it's kind of yucky to go to completely
unrelated fora to dig up irrelevant info (or in other cases,
what you clearly saw as dirt) on people, then post that crap
here. i mean, really, were you trying to be helpful when you
posted my boss' boss' boss' e-mail address? or when you outed
someone else? i find that sort of thing just a little bit
yucky, so i obviously am not likely to do it. kind of like i
would never call someone a "stupid lonely bitch" or tell them
to go **** themselves. YMMV, of course.

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/
http://letters-to-esther.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/3/05)

In article .com,
wrote:
No, it's only because I have an opposing POV, Melinda, that YOU resort
to such ad hominems.

No, it's because your "POV" is completely and thoroughly
unsupported by anything resembling a fact. When you
introduced an irrelevant and incorrect defense of The Party
in response to a fact (that when Clinton raised taxes the
GOP predicted dire results) it became clear that you're not
interested in data, you're not interested in references,
you're not interested in "science" - you're just another
dimwitted partisan nitwit who's more loyal to The Party than
to the country.

Really. If you truly believed my opinions were rooted in fallacy, then
why not simply argue the points instead of trying to be so desperate in
your attempts??

I've repeatedly provided numbers, references, and so on, and
with the exception of the CBPP I've made a point of
referring to conservative sources to support my positions.
I've also provided some sources, also conservative,
if you're interested in learning more about economics in
general. I'd be happy to provide references to very wonky
macroeconomics blogs, as well. But to be honest I don't
think you're interested in learning anything about
economics beyond Party indoctrination.

You know NOTHING about my level of education or my
intelligence.

Here's what I know: 1) You provide absolutely nothing to
support your position other than GOP talking points (vague
generalities), and 2) your writing is dreadful. Prove me
wrong and I'll change my mind - I'm not a Republican.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Amount George W Bush has borrowed from the "worthless" Social
Security Trust Fund to pay for other things: $639 billion

Melinda Shore wrote:

I've repeatedly provided numbers, references, and so on, and
with the exception of the CBPP I've made a point of
referring to conservative sources to support my positions.

Here's what I know: 1) You provide absolutely nothing to
support your position other than GOP talking points (vague
generalities), and 2) your writing is dreadful. Prove me
wrong and I'll change my mind - I'm not a Republican.

Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly; unless I concede to
your opinions, you'll keep using ad hominems and personal attacks. Got
it!

I'm not out to turn you into a Republican, LOL. We have enough of those
in this country.

Now, I do admit, I haven't read your references Melinda, and you're
right -I should have. That's only fair that I respond to those
directly, but I don't have the time or inclination right now to do so.
I've done a lot of reading and research on this subject in the past
(especially before the election), so I *was* pulling from generalities.
I am not an expert in macroeconomics and I've already admitted that you
probably know more on the subject than I do. I do feel I've educated
myself enough to make an informed decision however, but there is always
room for growth and learning. I don't think you need to be an expert on
macroeconomics to have political opinions though, and I do feel quite
confident in mine.

I will try to take a look at your references this week. I just need to
find a block of time to look over them carefully. I haven't had that
yet.

I just have very little respect for you Melinda, resorting to personal
attacks against my writing style and calling me illiterate. You come
off, at least to me, as a tasteless ass-wipe instead of an informed
individual. Maybe you crave negative attention in lieu of positive
attention, I dunno...but I do know that it takes away from the debate
itself.

From: (Luna)

I'm thinking the flavour is that diddy is 'bad' while shelly is 'good'
yet the behaviour essentially isn't dissimilar.
=A0
If you truly believe that, you haven't been here long enough.

Debbie

Looking for a buddy? Meet Sunny!
http://community.webtv.net/staffymom/Adoptme

In article . com,
wrote:
Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly; unless I concede to
your opinions, you'll keep using ad hominems and personal attacks. Got
it!

Clearly you understand this issue about as well as you
understand economics. That is to say, not at all. The fact
that you're hewing ever more closely to your uninformed
opinions even when presented with data that make it clear
that you're incorrect tends to suggest that you're pretty
much of a complete wiener. Grown-ups adapt their opinions
to fit the facts, not vice-versa.

There is no reason to think that your opinions are informed
by any awareness whatsoever of what's going on in the real
world. They're out-of-step with what mainstream economists
are saying and they aren't rooted in facts. What they most
closely resemble is GOP (White House, specifically) talking
points.

In the meantime, wallow in the record trade deficit in
February announced a few hours ago. You guys are doing a
*boffo* job running the country.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Amount George W Bush has borrowed from the "worthless" Social
Security Trust Fund to pay for other things: $639 billion

on 2005-04-12 at 08:37 wrote:

Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly; unless I
concede to your opinions, you'll keep using ad hominems and
personal attacks. Got it!

i think the point was that until you provide some of those
"facts" you're fond of paying lip service to, there's not much
point in taking your posts on the subject seriously.

individual. Maybe you crave negative attention in lieu of
positive attention, I dunno...but I do know that it takes
away from the debate itself.

i find it peculiar that anyone would feel that responding to
facts and citations with nothing more than personal opinion
would constitute "debate."

--
shelly
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
http://cat-sidh.blogspot.com/
http://letters-to-esther.blogspot.com/ (updated 4/3/05)

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article .com,
gaubster2 wrote:
No, that's your OPINION.

No, it's a fact. Check out the CBO numbers if you don't
believe me. The CBO is run by a Republican former member of
Bush's economic team, Douglas Holtz-Eakin (the only
economist to escape from the Bush administration with his
reputation intact), which is something you need to know
given your history of rejecting any source that's not a
partisan Republican gasbag. Either get some numbers and
sources behind your position or, really, give it up.

I see that (once AGAIN), you didn't bother to reply to the substanative
comments I made. This is a common tactic of yours, Melinda. You have
the wrong idea about me, too (another trait of yours). I don't "drink
the koolaid" of Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else. As for someone
escaping "with their reputation intact", what exactly are you referring
to?

Let's see....Houseboo and now, me...we disagree w/ you and all you can
do is throw out a few insults in our direction. How diverse and
tolerant of you.

In article .com,
gaubster2 wrote:
I see that (once AGAIN), you didn't bother to reply to the substanative
comments I made.

You didn't make any.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Amount George W Bush has borrowed from the "worthless" Social
Security Trust Fund to pay for other things: $639 billion

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
Okay, let me make sure I understand this correctly; unless I concede
to
your opinions, you'll keep using ad hominems and personal attacks.
Got
it!

Clearly you understand this issue about as well as you
understand economics. That is to say, not at all. The fact
that you're hewing ever more closely to your uninformed
opinions even when presented with data that make it clear
that you're incorrect tends to suggest that you're pretty
much of a complete wiener. Grown-ups adapt their opinions
to fit the facts, not vice-versa.

There is no reason to think that your opinions are informed
by any awareness whatsoever of what's going on in the real
world. They're out-of-step with what mainstream economists
are saying and they aren't rooted in facts. What they most
closely resemble is GOP (White House, specifically) talking
points.

In the meantime, wallow in the record trade deficit in
February announced a few hours ago. You guys are doing a
*boffo* job running the country.

Obviously there's no point in discussing anything with you nor do you
really want me to read your references and respond to them for some
strange reason. Go back to jerking off your dogs and attacking people
with opposing opinions. You are simply not worthy of my time.

Melinda Shore wrote:
In article .com,
gaubster2 wrote:
I see that (once AGAIN), you didn't bother to reply to the
substanative
comments I made.

You didn't make any.

I sure did. That's why you didn't respond. I must have been making
too much sense again. You'd rather debate economic theories from some
economist who's never made any significant achievement to society than
discuss current events that have contributed to current day economic
indicators. Again, the world isn't black and white. What sounds good
on paper doesn't always transfer over to real life application. I
asked you for some ideas on what YOU would do to "turn things around",
since you pretend to be so concerned about the direction the country is
headed. You refused to provide any solutions....I don't think you have
any. You'd rather bitch about a President who doesn't fit your
personal belief system.