Text 14605, 78 rader
Skriven 2007-05-15 20:57:37 av Josh Hill (1017.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Being Poor
======================
On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:01:34 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In article <jo3k43dksuhndc6ok5jnffe06us031uupi@4ax.com>,
> Josh Hill <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:50:54 GMT, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <1179238963.032802.84720@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Bill <beastmachinery@msn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On May 14, 7:08 pm, Josh Hill <userepl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Actually, while there are no hard and fast rules, $100,000 is usually
>> >> > considered a middle class income.
>> >> 
>> >> Okay, I must have a massively different viewpoint on this. Since when
>> >> is $100k considered middle class?
>> >> 
>> >> Bill
>> >
>> >    Since Josh pronounced it?
>> >        Think the old Miller Lite Commercials with Burt Reynolds 
>> >proclaiming "Josh Law".
>> 
>> And to think I was naive enough to think that you were through with
>> the clueless below-the-belts!
>> 
> And to think that I forgot you had your sense of humour surgically 
>removed.

You can't expect me to interpret this as humor given your history of
ad hominem diversions, Kurt, and the fact that I complained about them
only a few days ago.

>I also gotta remember that you think someone asking you to 
>actually back up your overwhelming statements is "below the belt".  Not 
>that it will actually change anything, but I should remember it. 

No, I don't think that. I think that someone who, rather than arguing
the issues, starts making misleading ad hominem statements is arguing
below the belt. And I think that someone who seeks to discredit
another poster by demanding tedious citations rather than checking for
himself is also hitting below the belt. I have seen this again and
again and again, always from right wingers. There have been times when
I've made detailed citations, only to be queried on them the next day,
and the next day, and the next. And when I point out that anyone who
reads back a few posts can see the citations, the other person
inevitably starts making accusations. My attitude towards that is
unprintable in a family newsgroup. When I argue, I extend, and expect
in return, a recognition of integrity. I ask for citations only when
something seems so surprising or off the wall that I can't believe
it's correct or reliable. You'll note, for example, that I asked for
no citations on Carl's statistics, even though I thought they were
designed to mislead.

>> According to the same article, $100,000 is in fact the median income
>> of those with professional degrees.

>         Now that wasn't all that hard, was it?

It took several minutes of my time, and would have taken more had I
not already been familiar with that citation, having come across it
when I double checked my recollection before I made my initial claim.
Still, I did it gladly, because Bill's initial request was polite and
was clearly not an attempt to discredit anyone or play games.

-- 
Josh

"The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet
that people have the right to live life as they please,
as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. . . .
The radical right has nearly ruined our party. Its members
do not care about the Constitution and they are the
ones making all the noise." - Barry Goldwater
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)