Text 12564, 111 rader
Skriven 2005-05-13 08:57:20 av MARNIE TROSCLAIR (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av JOHN HULL
Ärende: NWS Privatization
=========================
Hello John, darling, 
 
JH> You still don't get it, do you? 
 
It is you who "don't get it," dear.  And it appears you never will. 
And THAT is the real shame.   
 
JH> The networks wouldn't waste a nano-second on Jerry Springer 
JH> if there weren't sufficient people watching that show 
 
Your point, John?  We should all watch Jerry Springer? 
We should aspire to be like the people on that show? 
Jerry Springer is what, John?   
 
JH> They put on what people want to see 
 
Who is they?  What people?  People who don't have cable? 
People who don't have better sense?  People who have no ambition? 
People with time to waste watching trash? 
 
JH> and they spend a lot of money finding out who is watching what 
 
I suppose you'd find a lot of people watching porn if you aired it 
in the same time slot as Jerry Springer.  Because something is  
profitable for the vendor, it doesn't follow that it's profitable 
for society.  It doesn't mean the "programming" is edifying. 
In fact, it could be the very opposite.  
 
JH> All of that, however, has nothing at all to do with politics. 
 
I thought Jerry Springer served as mayor of some city. <g>  Whatever 
the case, I only referred to the "programming" because it served to 
underscore my point.  And it wasn't about politics, as much as it 
was about the claims to education and the examples being set in this 
echo.  My point apparently went over your head, even though I spelled 
it out very clearly for you.  Here it is again: 
 
MT> Nevertheless, our Pecksniffian Republican friends in the echo 
MT> would likely tell you an uneducated king is a crowned ass. 
MT> It seems they want it both ways.  They want to be good ol' boys 
MT> who advocate better education for the children, but they don't 
MT> want to be bothered with providing the better example. 
 
If you need the context, John, I suggest you go back over the thread. 
 
JH> The American people have roundly rejected liberalism in increasing 
JH> numbers since 1994 
 
I don't really care, John.  The label "liberalism" means nothing to me. 
It's the manner in which you apply it when attacking anyone and 
everyone with whom you disagree that I find curious.   
 
JH> people like you just can't adjust to that fact 
 
You see?  That's what I'm talking about.  "People like you..."   
You don't even know who I am.  You've claimed that you know nothing  
about me.  But you're going to advance an argument involving  
people like me.  You assume that I'm a liberal.  Where is the  
basis for this claim?  Unlike you, I've not boasted about smoking 
marijuana.  Unlike you, I've not bragged about sexual dalliances. 
Unlike you, I've not made statements against organized religion. 
You know, John, you come across more like a liberal than me, on 
that basis alone.  That's why I refer to you as a Pecksniffian  
Republican.  You guys fault your enemies for doing the same things 
that you've bragged about in this echo.  I find that most amazing. 
Then you want to talk about how well-educated you are? 
 
JH> With regard to your comment about our president's education, 
JH> do YOU have an MBA?  
 
There you go again.  We weren't talking about the president. 
Thurston was talking about some politico in Boston, I think. 
And I was talking about our resident pol, Mr. Humphrey.  But, 
I was talking about the so-called conservative, "moral," poseurs 
in this echo like you also.  You, and Binkley, and Hardegree. 
I was talking about the examples YOU set.  Here's my comment again, 
Mr. Hull: 
 
MT> Nevertheless, our Pecksniffian Republican friends in the echo 
MT> would likely tell you an uneducated king is a crowned ass. 
MT> It seems they want it both ways.  They want to be good ol' boys 
MT> who advocate better education for the children, but they don't 
MT> want to be bothered with providing the better example. 
 
JH> Have you ever run for elective office and won? 
 
Sometimes one attains office without actually running for it. 
Still, I think you miss the point.  It is possible to be made king 
and yet be poorly educated.  It may not happen often, but it has  
happened.  Thurston was making an argument to that effect.  You  
must have missed it. <g> 
 
JH> If that's what you think dumb is, we should all be so dumb. 
 
John, many elections are popularity contests.  The winner may be the 
best known, but not the most intelligent.  Further, John, getting 
elected isn't a sign of intelligence.  Though it certainly benefits you 
to be intelligent, should you be elected, getting elected to office may 
not be the most intelligent choice a person can make.  In fact, it could 
be a "dumb" move, especially if the person isn't up to the tasks at 
hand.  The office could involve a lot of responsibility that you're not 
able to handle.  And, instead of advancing your career, the office could 
prove to be your downfall, as you become yet another example of the 
Peter Principle. 


Love and Kisses,

Marnie
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)