|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
10-02-2010, 01:53 PM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Ay Dios Mio.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
10-02-2010, 02:01 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
The poor also have to pay more for insurance on the car. They pay more for food. It's way stacked against the poor.
|
Are you saying the poor have to pay higher premiums?
|
10-02-2010, 02:10 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen65
Depends on the context, Pete was talking strictly in terms of monetary purchasing power
brought about by increased financial wealth. In that context the wealthy obviously have more
choices.
|
I was speaking about the grammatical error. Because choices are something one could enumerate, less is not a proper modifier - the correct word is fewer. They have fewer choices, not less. I was giving Pete a hard time, because - well because he is Pete. I know he can take it, and I fully expect him to dish it back out.
When you have people who like to debate, you can see arguments about further - farther; accept - except; affect - effect; fewer - less; lay - lie; and my favorite "very unique."
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
10-02-2010, 02:10 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
One doesn't necessarily need to have lots of money, or fancy things to be fortunate,nor is one necessarily poor if he has little money, but does have good friends and a family who loves him.
I wish more people understood this.
Dave
|
No argument here,
But I don't see anyone here really suggesting that lots of money
is the key to happiness.
|
10-04-2010, 08:59 AM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
First, I want to say thanks for answering my questions honestly. Your second paragraph, however, took a huge jump in logic. If you followed the slave analogy through (As some tea partiers have), having to buy health insurance, having to buy auto insurance, having federal funds tied to particular policies (i.e. equal opportunities in school, or working on federal buildings), or having to list ingredients on products turns us into slaves. I'd trade that type of slavery for wondering whether you are going to keep the heat on because you were laid off to increase the CEO's bonus; or figuring out if you can afford to drive while Exxon made $45 billion in profit last year.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
I wasn't saying we are slaves (although?), just pointing out a comfortable slavery is still slavery, and a robust culture would rather have rough freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Pete, I'm not picking on you - well yes I am, but you're used to it - but the above is one of my pet grammatical peeves. The poor might have less money, and IMHO less freedom but they don't have less choices. They have FEWER choices. They have less money, but fewer dollars.
At least you did not use the abomination "very unique" or you might have faced capital punishment.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
We have a very unique situation here
And dang it, I know there's a mad hatter paraphrase in there somewhere but I can't find it.
When I look at this: 'the poor have less choices than the rich' I get the feeling there may be another mistake, perhaps it should be 'the poor have less choice than the rich'. Close enough for gov't work, more or fewer
Pete
Sticker on gas pump: 'Please Prepay in Advance'
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
10-04-2010, 01:25 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
I was speaking about the grammatical error. Because choices are something one could enumerate, less is not a proper modifier - the correct word is fewer. They have fewer choices, not less. I was giving Pete a hard time, because - well because he is Pete.
|
Despite grammar used in the post the main point was clear enough.
Quote:
I know he can take it, and I fully expect him to dish it back out.
|
Then the question becomes "can you take it"?
And when he or someone else does dish it out
are you going to take your negative view of that
person and drag it back to the audio forum?
Quote:
When you have people who like to debate, you can see arguments about further - farther; accept - except; affect - effect; fewer - less; lay - lie; and my favorite "very unique."
|
I generally don't waste a bunch of time picking apart grammar and spelling.
If I see something and don't understand I'll simply ask him to elaborate or rephrase.
|
10-04-2010, 01:39 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by glen65
Then the question becomes "can you take it"?
And when he or someone else does dish it out
are you going to take your negative view of that
person and drag it back to the audio forum?
|
Where did that come from?
You certainly misread my posts. Pete and I disagree a lot, but I also respect him a lot. Pete has an interesting sense of humor, and I expected the type of fun, in your face, response I got from him. I try to keep my disagreements here civil, and even more so on the audio side. One of the people whose views over here I have the least respect for, is someone whose audio ideas and contributions I greatly respect.
What I have a lot of trouble respecting are arguments from someone who would parrot Boss Rush or the Court Jester over at Fox, and not have any evidence or logic to back it up.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
10-04-2010, 01:43 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete
I wasn't saying we are slaves (although?), just pointing out a comfortable slavery is still slavery, and a robust culture would rather have rough freedom.
Pete
Sticker on gas pump: 'Please Prepay in Advance'
|
Pete, do you believe that there is something like economic slavery? If so, in what circumstances do you think it would exist?
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
10-04-2010, 02:05 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Where did that come from?
You certainly misread my posts. Pete and I disagree a lot, but I also respect him a lot. Pete has an interesting sense of humor, and I expected the type of fun, in your face, response I got from him. I try to keep my disagreements here civil, and even more so on the audio side. One of the people whose views over here I have the least respect for, is someone whose audio ideas and contributions I greatly respect.
What I have a lot of trouble respecting are arguments from someone who would parrot Boss Rush or the Court Jester over at Fox, and not have any evidence or logic to back it up.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Thanks D. You're alright - for a commie lawyer
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Pete, do you believe that there is something like economic slavery? If so, in what circumstances do you think it would exist?
Regards,
D-Ray
|
Company towns spring to mind, heck any real monopoly. And government control over economic activity - 'legal' monopoly.
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
10-04-2010, 02:12 PM
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 222
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
Where did that come from?
You certainly misread my posts. Pete and I disagree a lot, but I also respect him a lot. Pete has an interesting sense of humor, and I expected the type of fun, in your face, response I got from him. I try to keep my disagreements here civil, and even more so on the audio side. One of the people whose views over here I have the least respect for, is someone whose audio ideas and contributions I greatly respect.
What I have a lot of trouble respecting are arguments from someone who would parrot Boss Rush or the Court Jester over at Fox, and not have any evidence or logic to back it up.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
It was simply a question,
I based around what you said earlier when you said this...
Quote:
I was giving Pete a hard time, because - well because he is Pete. I know he can take it, and I fully expect him to dish it back out.
|
So here you are clearly telling me that you are giving
him a hard time simply because of 1, who he is and
2, because he can take it. Well ok, if he can take it fine.
I simply asked the question can you take it when and if he
decides to throw some of it back at you.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:23 AM.
|