Here's the first two... poetse did NOT alter these emails..
Praise God!
Jim..
--- On Fri, 1/16/09, Jim Spalding <avalon9ak@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Jim Spalding <avalon9ak@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: To: poetse@
Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 1:25 AM
XXX, I have given up on you. I have tried the patient approach. I have tried to narrow issues to just one question. Nothing breaks through.. and that does not mean you have to agree with me. You wander all over the landscape when you reply.. and to certain extent, all of us do not stick to strict "thread control doctrine" on any subject we post on. But, sometimes, in fact most times, I am stuck scratching my head when you respond. I literally do not understand how you can get to where you've [apparently] gotten in probably 90% of your posts. My real frustration is that you tend to derail threads that have some semblence of real discussion going on. I have a hard time believing that you don't do that on purpose. Nevertheless, you are neither threatening nor spamming... so, you'll always have a voice on the N54 board. Jim..
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, John Donne wrote:
From: John Donne <poetse@
Subject: To: "Jim Spalding" <avalon9ak@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 4:05 PM
Thanks, Jim.
I know I obviously rub you the wrong way. I don't meant to, and I don't really want to. But sometimes I say exactly the same things that others have said, and you become angry with me.
I try to remain civil and not call names, and I try my best to use acceptable reasoning. But it appears to me that I refute the arguments of my opponents, and they simply tell me that my logic is convoluted or call me stupid. I do wish people would show me the errors of my logic rather than avoid the issues.
Anyway, thanks for not deleting my account and please accept my apology for offending you.
This message has been edited by Avalon99 on May 12, 2009 1:02 AM
I would ask that actual names be deleted from personal or non-person email and correspondence. I would not wish anyone who visits this board to become a target for harassment. Thank you for giving this some careful thought.
I would ask that actual names be deleted from personal or non-person email and correspondence. I would not wish anyone who visits this board to become a target for harassment. Thank you for giving this some careful thought.
*********************************
Everybody already knows my name. And if you think that poetse's real name is "John Donne" you actually need to google that name.
There are other emails pertinent to the discussion. First Jim says that I change the subject. The fact is that joim asks me questions that I answer. Then he accuses me of changing the subject. That shows that he is not as astute as he claims.
I seriously prefer debate as opposed to someone's making a statement only to have it rejected because it is what Fox News said. Despite opinion, Fox News is not the topic of the debate. The topic is the assertion made by Fox News.
And all topics may be debated through 1.Cause and Effect, 2. Analysis, 3. Analogy, and 4. Forensically. Seldom do I see such methods on this board. I see emotionally charged accusations that change the subject and blame Bush for the problem.
For example, Jim and others tell us that Obama's 1.3 trillion-deficit budget is due to George W. Bush's administration. Each administration creates its own budget and funds programs created by the previous administration. BUT, the current administration could completely do away with any program that it wished. Therefore, the Obama administration is responsible for its own budget.
So do we have serious debate on this board? I don't think so.
its it so ironic, potese. you are an island. at the very least every budget contains debt service. so your contention is bullshit. even a bookkeeper from the close cover before striking correspondence school would know this.
edited to add: by the way potty where are the other emails you allude to?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
This message has been edited by j2saret on May 12, 2009 12:40 PM
Jim, since you've questioned and called out other people for searching, then citing, previous discussions and comments made by people here to generally show blantant hypocrisy, I have to ask why you saved these 4 month old emails? I think your responses in another thread are appropriate in this discussion, but now apply to you, and your hypocricy:
Re: Oh Dear...
May 2 2009, 10:04 PM
Now ... do you capiche?
**************************
Really, you save this stuff to your hard drive?
Why? It must mean a lot more to you than it does to me.
Jim..
-------------------------------------
Re: Oh Dear...
May 2 2009, 10:57 PM
(No, I don't save them. It took me all of a few minutes to do a simple search.)
************************************
Precisely. However you save them, it means a lot to you.
Quite frankly, what you said 3 years ago, or what you said yesterday, doesn't mean one goddamn thing to me.
its it so ironic, potese. you are an island. at the very least every budget contains debt service. so your contention is bullshit. even a bookkeeper from the close cover before striking correspondence school would know this.
Of course, J2. You should not make a judgment on one final email. There are others that precede this email. But if you waited to see all the evidence, you would not be J2 the scientific thinker who has the answers with a scan of the surface.
And what do the other emails show? They show that Jim asked my opinion about Obama. I gave my opinion, and Jim lost his cool. He said no one like me on this board and confirms your opinion that I am an island. But notice carefully:
He asked me my opinion and when I gave it, he blew his cool. My opinion belongs to me and it constitutes a correct answer when someone asks for my opinion. Now he accused me of changing the subject when I answered his question.
Yes, I am an island because there is no way to follow Jim's logic. And there is no way to follow your logic. The reason is obvious. You have no logic. As I said, you scan the surface and reach your conclusion. After that, you call names and insist that you have all the evidence you need to prove your conclusion.
I repeat, I want serious debate but you and your ilk do not provide it. You do not use reason, but you claim you use scientific methods. If you used scientific methods, you would have questioned that email Jim posted. Instead, you accepted Jim's opinion and looked for no other evidence.
So I have proved that you are not worthy to claim to use the scientific method as one of your traits. You accept the opinion of someone and never make observations to reach proper conclusions.
edited to add: by the way potty where are the other emails you allude to?
Jim has them. He chose to post only one. But you did ask the right question that proves you don't need additional evidence because you have already reached your conclusion. ROTFLMAO
Here are the rest of them: There are no more. Now, if poetse wants to suggest that he's "proved" anything by this series of posts, let him hold forth.
Jim..
On Thu, 1/15/09, John Donne<poetse@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: John Donne Subject: To: avalon9ak@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 3:51 AM
Jim,
So you did what you said you wouldn't do. I'm neither surprised nor disappointed. I was gettin rather bored anyway. No real insightful thought going on on your board. Just a lot of people who follow the party line and never really present facts.
But that's good. I was planning to leave the board after Obama took office anyway. So a week early doesn't make that much difference. .
We are in for tough times and i figure your boiard is a waste
On Fri, 1/16/09, Jim Spalding <avalon9ak@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Jim Spalding <avalon9ak@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: To: poetse@sbcglobal.net Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 1:25 AM
Don,
I have given up on you. I have tried the patient approach. I have tried to narrow issues to just one question. Nothing breaks through.. and that does not mean you have to agree with me.
You wander all over the landscape when you reply.. and to certain extent, all of us do not stick to strict "thread control doctrine" on any subject we post on. But, sometimes, in fact most times, I am stuck scratching my head when you respond. I literally do not understand how you can get to where you've [apparently] gotten in probably 90% of your posts.
My real frustration is that you tend to derail threads that have some semblence of real discussion going on. I have a hard time believing that you don't do that on purpose.
Nevertheless, you are neither threatening nor spamming... so, you'll always have a voice on the N54 board.
Jim..
--- On Thu, 1/15/09, John Donne<poetse@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
From: John Donne Subject: To: "Jim Spalding" <avalon9ak@yahoo.com> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 4:05 PM
Thanks, Jim.
I know I obviously rub you the wrong way. I don't meant to, and I don't really want to. But sometimes I say exactly the same things that others have said, and you become angry with me.
I try to remain civil and not call names, and I try my best to use acceptable reasoning. But it appears to me that I refute the arguments of my opponents, and they simply tell me that my logic is convoluted or call me stupid. I do wish people would show me the errors of my logic rather than avoid the issues.
Anyway, thanks for not deleting my account and please accept my apology for offending you.
Jim, since you've questioned and called out other people for searching, then citing, previous discussions and comments made by people here to generally show blantant hypocrisy, I have to ask why you saved these 4 month old emails? I think your responses in another thread are appropriate in this discussion, but now apply to you, and your hypocricy
*********************************************
Inka, I did not "save" them, they just didn't fall off the precipice into auto-email deletion oblivion. Now, you can make a big deal out of that if you wish.
I don't know why you would, back when you were still a human being, you would've had at least some semblence of critical thinking left. You've apparently abandoned such things for a life of rage and pettiness.
Well Jim I did not know your last name until i read this post ...
Not that i ever want to know it ...
AB
*****************************************
Your fellow traveler, gillis, has been using my last name for years. If you didn't know that, or a multitude of other posts using my full name, then, you're not really paying attention.
no rage here...or pettiness..... If we want to nitpick my dad about his posting of Poestes emails (which had been at the request of Poeste himself) then you can stuff it when I correct a spelling error.
Tit for tat tit for tat.... Kinda seems rather stupid now doesn't it, Inka?
Why, yes it is and how 'astute' of you to know that. Please note that I did spell it correctly once, but erred on the second use. So sorry. Can we just chalk it off to a typo? That often works for others even when it's a blatant error. TIA.
Inka, I did not "save" them, they just didn't fall off the precipice into auto-email deletion oblivion. Now, you can make a big deal out of that if you wish.
------------
Yes, I do wish to, Jim. Using your own words, as I did above, you searched, found and posted old information so it must mean more to you than it does to me and however you save them it means a lot to you.
============
I don't know why you would, back when you were still a human being, you would've had at least some semblence of critical thinking left. You've apparently abandoned such things for a life of rage and pettiness.
Jim...
-------------
Oh, what bullshit, Jim. You're no different than some of the lesser posters here when you use these low-end tactics in which you attempt to detract from your very own faults and/or hypocrisy by turning your personal rage and pettiness toward the individual(s) who've pointed it out to you or proved you wrong. As you often say...Suck it up, Buckwheat.
And speaking of critical thinking, I must ask why you apparently thought Carolyn "saved stuff to her hard drive" when, as a board administrator, you are obviously aware of the search function on N54 and it's usefulness since you, yourself, have used it and seen others use it.
This message has been edited by inka_d on May 13, 2009 5:38 AM
Again, don't flatter yourself, oh pompous one. (And no, I don't need to identify who I'm talking to. We all know who I mean.) The CAPS were for emphasis. Not anger.
Well Jim I did not know your last name until i read this post ...
No surprise for someone with a retention cycle of say, 3 minutes. Pffft, snort, chortle, fart!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roby. Have you learned the meaning of "Retroactive tax increases"?
Have you learned to wipe your ass?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poetse asked me why this thread was started: Here is his post which started it.
He apparently thought that that exchange of emails would prove that I was an intellectual dunce (at least compared to him), well, you be the judge.
[and, if he's so "bored" why does he persist in sticking around? ... I suspect it is just like most of you rightwing nutballs, you take delight in counting coup, and slappin' each other on the ass]
Would you like for me to post that exchange of emails that prove how intellectually astute you are?
People who are really intellectually astute become bored with the liberals on this board.
Yes, I did say "bored."
You got it, Jim. You admit that you cannot understand my posts? Why not? Less astute.
You accuse me of changing the topic, but you gave up on me in the NYT thread when You asked me questions and I answered them. You were the one who changed the subject. Ask Carolyn she started the thread. BTW you can search the board and find out where you lost your cool.
And look at this thread. do you see any posts that make the liberals look more astute than the conservatives? Of course not. You defend your own arrogance and hypocrisy. Inka pointed that out. Are you getting the idea that you are less astute than Inka?
And I recall that you and cj, told me that I had no right to correct anyone's grammar. But Susan astutely observed that I noticed that you used a singular verb with a plural subject. Then I told you that I used the possessive case before a gerund. You ignored those posts. Why? Because you are less astute.
I could go on, but I think there is enough proof that at least Carolyn, Susan, and Inka are more astute that any liberals in this thread.
But did you astutely defend your position. Hardly. You lamely made excuses.
Now show me the flaws in my logic. Be specific. And I'll be happy to explain anything you don't understand.
You only have to look around this board to see who is intellectually astute, and who isn't.
It ain't the fucking republicans.
Jim..
Well, Jim, I've looked around this board, and I've posted proof of who the intellectually astute are.
In my book. Carolyn got it right. You are a pompous hypocrite.
So, that's what this was all about Poeste???? Proving who is more astute? Jeez... Fine, you take the prize Keerist. Bunch of whiney babies.
So sorry I corrected you Inka. Please, be sure to come back and take your one post snipes then retreat to your hen house to resume your Michelle Obama Fashion Obsession. It's so much better than actually sticking around for the relatively decent conversations that do sometimes occur here.
You only have to look around this board to see who is intellectually astute, and who isn't.
It ain't the fucking republicans.
Jim..
Here, Jennifer, is what your Dad posted. He is the one who makes the assertion wiothut proof. I simply posted what I copnsider as proof of the conservatives' astuteness as compared with the liberals'.
I do think it would be great if people documented their assertions rather than calling names and making unsupported assertions. Isn't that the form of real debate? Well, if it is, you can see your Dad violateed that form.
That was my puurpose. I could care less about who is astute and who isn't.
I simply posted what I copnsider as proof of the conservatives' astuteness as compared with the liberals'.
You post many things that you consider to be proof which are nothing more than your biased opinions, poetse, but rarely do you actually provide anything that can be considered to be acual proof. I will give you credit for being astute in the sense that you are crafty, wily, and sly; but I will never consider you to be anything but a trickster.
You post many things that you consider to be proof which are nothing more than your biased opinions,poetse,
Thanks, Ron, you have stated a profound truth. Evidence that proves a point proves the point according to the opinion of the observer. In fact, it should be noted the debate in global warming. The accumulation of CO2 proves the point accordfing to some and not to others.l Therefore, in your opinion, each side is biased and the truth is not yet known. Nor can it be know because we must wait and see what happens and then decide the cause.
but rarely do you actually provide anything that can be considered to be acual proof.
The evidence is evidence in the eyes of the beholder. Do you really believe that Obama is following the right course to strengthen the economy? Well, I don't. You would point to FDR and his policies of government spending to correct the economy. You would subscribe to the Keynesian theory of economics. Your proof is set in the example of the 1930s until WWll. You would contend that FDR policies worked when it was the war that caused full employment.
OTOH I would point to every instance of people producing wealth and creating prosperity. It is done by investing time, thought, money into the production of goods and services for which people are willing to pay.
And there are times people must borrow money in order to do that. when their debt is obverextended, they are forcded into bankruptcy because their creditors refuse to lend them more money.
Now in the case of the government, they will print money and that money will become worthless with rampant inflation because the money does not produce goods and services. People do. Productive individuals who keep production in relative quality and quantity with the money supply.
I will give you credit for being astute in the sense that you are crafty, wily, and sly; but I will never consider you to be anything but a trickster.
Then refute my economic arguments. That is not being a trickster. It is stating economic facts. You can accept the Marxist theory of economics or the Adam Smith theory. But that would change your meaning of "astute" as you applied it to me. It would mean that you would refute my argumets or prove that I am a trickster. But you are like every other liberal. You make assertions and never give proof.
BTW, you do recall that wonderful insurance problem you, Jim and I got into. There were no tricks to that one. But you guys lied. Real lies.
Oh, you mean when you supposedly quoted some insurance salesman that you met but had no way to confirm his existence while I presented evidence via websites and statistics?
No, there is no way of confirming what one hears personally. But I refer to the test that Jim gave. well, he lied and gave me an F. But that is a part of the liberal mindset. they can never be wrong.
I don't know what test he gave you, I don't know why he gave you an F, I was not connected with any test in anyway and I did not lie so don't include me in on that.
proof as requested that shit for brains is a liar.
May 14 2009, 5:42 PM
---I was planning to leave the board after Obama took office anyway. So a week early doesn't make that much difference. .----
You are still here jerkass
I further infer that because you were acting the sycophant and gushing with thanks that you were not deleted, that actually you had no intention of leaving, that was just a face saving lie.
In either event, your own words or my educated analysis of your words, their emotional content and the outcome of the exchange, you are a proven liar once again.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology. - Carl Sagan
I believe that every right implies a responsibility, every opportunity an obligation; every possession, a duty. - John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
This message has been edited by j2saret on May 14, 2009 5:43 PM
Ron Writes:
I don't know what test he gave you, I don't know why he gave you an F, I was not connected with any test in anyway and I did not lie so don't include me in on that.
Of course you weren't there.;/ That's why you called me a liar when I told you what the salesman said. You weren't there either, but you knew it couldn't happen. Is that being a trickster or stating the facts?
Of course I'm still here, but that doesn't mean that I'm not bored. It's too easy tokick your Ass in debate because you are only capable of calling names. Just read this thread. Only conservatives used reason. You liberals just belly ached and called names. That's all you ever do.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on May 14, 2009 6:17 PM
Of course you weren't there.;/ That's why you called me a liar when I told you what the salesman said. You weren't there either, but you knew it couldn't happen. Is that being a trickster or stating the facts?
LOL... guess you'll have to wear that hat, poetse, since you have no way of proving yourself. I did prove that, salesman or not, what you were claiming was false and I proved it using industry data not some antecdotal story. How can you be stating facts when the information is wrong and you have no way to back up your story, sounds more along the lines of trickster to me.
You liberals just belly ached and called names. That's all you ever do.
---------
ah, like Skippy calling me names???? Others calling my dad all sorts of names? Suuuuure, Liberals are the ONLY ones to call names. Gawd....what a bunch of bs
LOL... guess you'll have to wear that hat, poetse, since you have no way of proving yourself.
I spoke the truth and you didn't believe it. You called me a liar for telling the truth. But you always call people liars so that is nothing new.
I did prove that, salesman or not, what you were claiming was false and I proved it using industry data not some antecdotal story.
But you s=didn't prove that the salesman didn't say what I said he said. But that was enough for you to call me the liar. You wouldn't consider the fact that the salesman could be mistaken or lying about it. You called me the liar when,k in fact, you could not prove that I had not heard what he said.
How can you be stating facts when the information is wrong and you have no way to back up your story, sounds more along the lines of trickster to me.
But I stated the facts as the salesman stated them to me. Is that being a trickster. Well, yes, it could be if I had made the whole thing up. But since I didn't, it is based on facts.
BTW when Obama says we are going to spend our way out of this depression, and you quote him, are you lying? Of course not. Is the source wrong. Indeed he is. So if my salesman was playing the trick, Obama is playing the trick.
Meanwhile I am stating the truth, and you call it trickery. Obama is lying, and you say he's telling the truth. Identical situations. No tricks, just observations--unless you can show me where the trick is.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on May 14, 2009 9:55 PM
You can't prove anything, poetse, it's just a story. You think we're to depend on your word that the story is true or that you remembered what the salesman said correctly? Sorry, you haven't earned that level of trust by any means, poetse. There are many reasons why you're a trickster, poetse, and anyone who has read here regularly knows it; you hide behind questions, rhetoric, and your highly biased egotistical opinion.
Believe what you want to believe, Ron. I have never tried to trick you or anyone else. I simple state the truth and you don't want to believe it.
But that's typical of you and other liberals. You never listen to Rush Limbaugh because he never tells the truth. REALLY? That says something about you, Ron.
Believe what you want to believe, Ron. I have never tried to trick you or anyone else. I simple state the truth and you don't want to believe it.
But that's typical of you and other liberals. You never listen to Rush Limbaugh because he never tells the truth. REALLY? That says something about you, Ron.
********************************
So, Rush Limbaugh "speaks the truth" ...? Anyone else speak the "truth" besides" rush?
You never listen to Rush Limbaugh because he never tells the truth. REALLY?
Here's an example, I say that I no longer listen to Rush because he's full of lies and you change it to that, they are not the same thing, poetse, and you know it but that doesn't matter, you'll argue the semantics of it rather than admit that what you say I have said is not the same thing as I said. REALLY!!!
Here's an example, I say that I no longer listen to Rush because he's full of lies and you change it to that, they are not the same thing, poetse, and you know it but that doesn't matter, you'll argue the semantics of it rather than admit that what you say I have said is not the same thing as I said. REALLY!!!
Well, that was the way I recalled your saying it. But it doesn't matter. The point is the same. If he says something and someone changes it, you will probably believe the changed version. And the point is you heard a story of a story. You cannot know for certain what was originally said.
I know, poetse, because I check to make sure of what he says by getting the transcripts if not video of him saying those things that I believe are lies, and I don't believe his excuses for them.
