Stock Market

[DanaC]

I already did rephrase it for you in the Bridge Collapses thread. To whit:

Or even better, DanaC - rephrase that first paragraph to be political correct? You know what my point was. Post the rewrite.

ok.



Quote:
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.

or

It's been pointed out that the eye is drawn immediately to the yellow school bus...the time to worry about that schoolbus was was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school buses.

Note in the second reworded paragraph that no one person is singled out as short sighted. Nor does the second paragraph raise the poster to the heights of good sense as yours does. In your paragraph you manage to both insult yesman and elevate yourself.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

I don't watch the show but am told one judge is particulary good. He does not waste time with silly emotions. If you are bad, he says so. That is what your best friend does - honest.

I'm sorry... did tw just compare himself to Simon on American Idol?

The complete lack of context makes me think he wrote more, and intended to delete whole reference but missed a line.

[lookout123]

So how am I to even consider your post as credible? I have posted repeatedly why not. Your turn. To have credibility, your post must tell us why that phrase is demeaning.

How sadly amusing. Our DLM doesn't even recognize the irony here. A person's post isn't credible because that person didn't provide an answer to a question that DLM asked. (never mind the fact that they did provide that answer) Sad, so sad.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Note in the second reworded paragraph that no one person is singled out as short sighted. Nor does the second paragraph raise the poster to the heights of good sense as yours does. In your paragraph you manage to both insult yesman and elevate yourself.

Ok. And having done that, the example is now distorted and ambiguous. Your assumption is that by using two people we all know, then it is somehow insulting or demeaning. So let's make the example even more ambiguous and useless. Let's instead talk about mythical A and mythical B. And then we cannot even imply anyone as example since we must so worry about the emotions of adult children. Then we have zero idea what the example demonstrates.

Why do I so disdain political correctness? Your rewrite is a perfect example. Distort and make ambiguous only because we must be ‘politically correct’. Worry about emotions of children at the expense of clarity? Just another example of why politicians must tell half truths or lie rather than be honest to get elected.

Second point is about applying personal bias to see insult. Why does my paragraph insult yesman and elevate me? All people who view from a bigger perspective are superior? Are those who only see details of an event are inferior? Where did that spiteful bias come from? Why do you have so much contempt for the latter group? Why do you make an assumption using the same emotion that also justified racism? Why do you apply class to different people? You applied your personal biases to my paragraph. Had you not valued one group as inferior, then no insult exists.

Change your bias. If all who only see the little picture and all who see the bigger picture are equal, then where is this insult? The insult only exists when we apply your bias to that paragraph. That is DanaC’s bias; not tw’s.

Is a sergeant inferior to the general? That also is what you have just declared. Sergeant is an expert on making tactics work - application of weapons - trivial details. He can only see the little details. He does what yesman065 did. According to your bias, a sergeant is inferior because he can only see the little picture. Only the general has that larger perspective. Only the general is superior? Why do you make such value judgments? Why do you have such bias?

That ‘sergeant verses general’ concept was where I was headed with that paragraph and post. I would have never guessed you (and so many others) are so pre-judgmental as to consider a sergeant inferior to a general. Are all sergeants only cavemen? Is yesman065 also only a caveman because he did not immediately see the bigger picture? Only your assumptions are the source of insult.

I also do not accept the spiteful concept of 'good verses evil'. Do you remember that discussion? Do you think I just invented that to argue? Bull. There is no ‘good verses evil’ just as there is no value judgment of a ‘sergeant verses general’ AND no such value judgment in a paragraph contrasting ‘yesman065 and tw’. There was no value judgment except where the reader injected his own biases into that paragraph. Insult did not exist until you applied a personal bias that also defines sergeants as inferior. How many times must I make that point before you appreciate what I am saying? Only you saw the ‘little perspective’ as inferior to the ‘big perspective’. It's not even implied in my paragraph.

Well at least you are willing to put your opinions up for scrutiny. Yesman065 will not. He would entertain his emotions rather than explain why that paragraph is demeaning (the "it is because it just is" logic).

DanaC was willing to rewrite the paragraph. In doing so, you demonstrated how you would rather be politically correct than be honest and definitive. That you would distort the message only to appease those who must inject their bias into what they read. But then, that is what I have been saying all along. Does it make sense to you yet?

I am not playing a game with you. I truly don't have your personal biases which, for example, is why I saw so much hatred of April when others mocked her with contempt. Ask why I saw something completely different in the animosity spitefully directed at April. So much hostility only because she was probably posting as a confused teenager. Did you also hold so much contempt for April? Did you see overt bias that resulted in ‘I loath April’ posts? Do you also see “good and evil"? That too only comes from personal biases that even some religions openly (hatefully) encourage.

The only reason you took insult with that paragraph? You applied personal biases to that paragraph when no such emotional judgment was stated or even implied. I am not playing games with you for the exact same reason I was previously so adamant – there is no such thing as ‘good verses evil’ except among those who are so biased. My paragraph only has insult when we include your bias of 'those with little perspectives must be inferior'.

Two points. First your rewrite is ambiguous and distorted only becase we must worry about something that only children have - silly emotions. Some rediculous need to be "politically correct" because we must worry about another's emotions? Second, the only reason you saw insult is because of your biases. Only you saw the sergeant with trivial perspectives as somehow inferior. That silly and erroneous assumption is your bias; was never in my paragraph.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm sorry... did tw just compare himself to Simon on American Idol?

Is Simon the guy who honestly rates acts? Then he is the best friend each contestant has. He is the one we should all aspire to be. There is no reason to lie only because we might hurt someone's emotions. Those are not children up there. That 'politically correct' lying is so spiteful.

Did I compare myself with anyone? No. How do you compare to Simon (if he is the honest one). Are you honest enough to do as he does; or do you have so little respect for another as to sugar coat reality?

Did you see what DanaC just did? She finally posted an example of how my paragraph should have been written. Unlike others, she had the balls to honestly put up something - the whys. Due to her honesty, we now have meat; something to work with. She has simply posted something that can demonstrate how 'politically correctness' creates other problems.

Simon (if that is who he is) being honest; is therefore the best judge for every contestant. Is Clodfobble honest? Are Clodfobble's friends honest? Compare and contrast Simon to you. That really is the point. Are you honest or only politically correct? Are your friends secure enough to accept honesty?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by tw

~snip~ the example is now distorted and ambiguous. Your assumption is that by using two people we all know, then it is somehow insulting or demeaning. ~snip~ And then we cannot even imply anyone as example since we must so worry about the emotions of adult children. Then we have zero idea what the example demonstrates.

Let us take this one at a time. #1 you don't know me at all so your references to me are invalid. Using faulty logic again is not a way to express a cogent argument when none exists. If your initial assumption is wrong, as it obviously is in this case, then the rest of your argument has zero validity.

#2 Repeating it as you have done still does not make it valid no matter how many times you do so. Stop it, this makes your posts overtly long winded and a waste of time for the reader.

Originally Posted by tw

... Worry about emotions of children at the expense of clarity?

The emotions aren't the issue here - the issue is that your premise is completely unfounded and incorrect from the beginning and therefore invalidated.

Originally Posted by tw

Change your bias. If all who only see the little picture and all who see the bigger picture are equal, then where is this insult? The insult only exists when we apply your bias to that paragraph. That is DanaC’s bias; not tw’s.

Every reader and writer has innate biases from all that which has brought them to the point of writing or reading. It is impossible to separate them - impossible. Dana's rewrite deftly explains what you were meaning to say and the only reason you find it ambiguous is because of your biases.

Originally Posted by tw

Sergeant is an expert on making tactics work - application of weapons - trivial details. He can only see the little details. He does what yesman065 did.

You just stated that a sergeant is in charge of trivial details - obviously something that is trivial is not as important as something which is reasonably considered vital.

Definition of TRIVIAL:
fiddling: (informal) small and of little importance; a little (or small) matter"; ; "limited to petty enterprises"

Antonyms for TRIVIAL:
: vital, critical, central, decisive, key, essential, fundamental, important, necessary, imperative

How much clearer and example of what we are all trying to explain to you do you need? You just compared yesman to a sergeant - trivial, and tw to a general - vital. That is disparaging, rude disrespectful and again - INCORRECT. If you cannot see that then you are denser than originally thought.

Originally Posted by tw

Is yesman065also only a caveman because he did not immediately see the bigger picture? Only your assumptions are the source of insult.

You assumed - incorrectly, that I did not see the bigger picture and further assumed that you were superior to me because you assumed you did. I stated that I recognized the "bigger picture" as you put it AND I took action upon that realization. You, it can be assumed by your ignorance of the question put to you, did nothing to rectify or take any action whatsoever to protect the children in your area - I not only saw the "bigger picture", but also took action and did my part to ensure the safety of the children in my area. Do not make assumptions that the "bigger picture" was not seen simply because a post containing an article was made. Another faulty assumption of tw based upon tw's biases.
How many times must I make that point before you appreciate what I am saying?

Originally Posted by tw

Well at least you are willing to put your opinions up for scrutiny. Yesman065 will not. He would entertain his emotions rather than explain why that paragraph is demeaning (the "it is because it just is" logic).

BS - I have made my point repeatedly and if what I think, feel and have ALREADY done are not clear to everyone who has read the previous posts I will gladly repeat myself. I won't here because it would be redundant to do so.

The fact that I embrace my emotions and am passionate about what I think and about my opinions, does not devalue them in any way. In fact, I think it elevates my opinions over yours for, if no other, that very reason. Posting devoid of emotions does not lend any more credibility to your posts - it actually makes them robotic in nature and difficult to ascertain what the hell it is you are trying to say. Leaving the reader to guess at what you are saying is creating more problems, not solving them. Your dehumanizing posts are tiresome to read because there is no emotion - there is no feeling there is nothing but raw opinion based on, at times, incorrect information or assumptions. That which you claim to bother you most about others is that which you are most guilty of here.

Originally Posted by tw

I am not playing a game with you. I truly don't have your personal biases ~snip~

BS again - if you need me to expound upon them also, I will.


I will ask you one question tw - something I think everyone would like to know. Are you passionate about anything, and if so what?

[DanaC]

DanaC was willing to rewrite the paragraph. In doing so, you demonstrated how you would rather be politically correct than be honest and definitive. That you would distort the message only to appease those who must inject their bias into what they read. But then, that is what I have been saying all along. Does it make sense to you yet?

Nope. Could you explain it again please?

Did you see what DanaC just did? She finally posted an example of how my paragraph should have been written.

Wrong. There was no 'finally' about it. That was a cut and paste from the thread in question, I think from about a week ago. So, no, I did not 'finally' post the rewrite just now. I repeated the rewite because you clearly didn't read it the first time. Cock.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by yesman065

I will ask you one question tw - something I think everyone would like to know. Are you passionate about anything, and if so what?

Writing long winded posts that are total bull shit?

[lookout123]

Now just a damn minute. I want you all to back up and apologize to our sad, sad DLM. It is not his fault that his medications are a little off at the same time that his mother demanded he turn off his turntable and clean the basement. I think his little episode of overly emotional posting is perfectly understandable under the conditions. Poor DLM, I've got your back. Don't cry.

[TheMercenary]

[DanaC]

*chuckles*

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't be fooled, Lookout is part of the system, a shill for "the man".
Probably even wears socks.

[lookout123]

SILENCE YOU!!! I'll have the man put you back in your cage. or take away your doodads!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ah lookout, you know I loves ya man.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

SILENCE YOU!!! I'll have the man put you back in your cage. or take away your doodads!

Even with direct access to all databases, lookout123 still cannot dispute an original point. Stock brokers on average underperform the market.