Impeding changes to our Health Care system

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The other side of that coin is that if Merc knew you, he wouldn't say nearly as much of that kind of thing. Merc suffers very strongly from the Anonymity Syndrome of the internet. If you're some stranger, his default position is to be a douchebag towards you. When he first arrived, he was a douchebag to a lot of people. As he got to know us, and we got to know him, he stopped being nearly so childish towards most people and most discussions. Still does on occasion, to be sure, but nowadays it's almost 100% directed towards you. He's fiercely loyal to those he cares about, and violently defensive against people he doesn't know. It's a character flaw, to be sure, but it's known. You are unknown, so not only does Merc taunt you like a pit bull, but we don't care enough to stop him.

Clod..we obviously have different ways of dealing with discussion board bullies.

You (and others) do what works for you....get to know him, find his good points and then ignore what you readily characterize as his most bullying and ignorant posts.

Sorry, that just wont for me.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You are unknown, so not only does Merc taunt you like a pit bull, but we don't care enough to stop him.

Well, if I could stop Merc from a pit bull, believe me, I would. Merc did me a real kindness a couple of months back, so I have been able to see that he does have a humane side. That doesn't mean I like the tone of his posts here, though. So play nice, Merc. (like this is really going to have a big effect).

[classicman]

Here we go again. . .

Originally Posted by Redux

Expressing my opinion is not a personal attack or an insult...simply an observation with which you can agree or disagree.

Calling me narrow-minded which is only your latest, is.

And facts are a stubborn thing.

How many times would you like to do this? You mind is apparently as closed as you believe mine to be.

Its a shame you two cant admit the same.

1) Again lumping individuals together and
2)You are completely wrong - Posted two days ago - 02-23-2010, 11:25 AM
Link

Originally Posted by classicman

Here we go again. . .

Calling me narrow-minded which is only your latest, is.

How many times would you like to do this? You mind is apparently as closed as you believe mine to be.

What started this all...as you want to put it...was your posts from stimuluswatch.org

And your assertion that it was independent and thus more credible than government data.

What you continue to ignore are the facts that I pointed out over the course of the "discussion":
- the jobs data is not government data, but data provided by the grant recipients.
- your "independent" site pulls this data from the government site...but that still doesnt make it government data
- your "independent" site presented the same jobs data (in the case of the Jennie-O grant) that you inferred was biased from the government site

Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?

In fact, if you look at any independent study of a large government program, you are most likely to find that the independent study relies heavily, if not solely, on data either generated by the government or submitted by federal program recipients and compiled by the government.

Yeah...narrow minded.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

the jobs data is not government data, but data provided by the grant recipients.

Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.

Originally Posted by Redux

Yeah...I'm narrow minded.

Nice avoidance of the last part of my post. No retraction, no admission of the reality, just the same old crap from you.

I'm done - you can have the last word. I'm out.

Originally Posted by classicman

Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.

Nice avoidance of the last part of my post. No retraction, no admission of the reality, just the same old crap from you.

I'm done - you can have the last word. I'm out.

Damn dude...nice avoidance of the fact that your independent site uses the same data, as I have pointed out on several occasions now. Yet is somehow more credible? You dont see the fallacy of that argument? IMO, narrow-minded thinking.

If I recall, you've said you personally know several people who received stimulus funds. Do you think they are inherently biased, or intentionally misleading, and inflate the numbers when they report the jobs data as required by the law? Not the hundreds that I know. Another sweeping generalization w/o foundation and, IMO, narrow-minded.

And thank you for acknowledging that you are part of the problem as well. I stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Redux
Yeah...I'm narrow minded.

Changing a quote to my name? A classic response!

added:
Oh...nice avoidance of the last part of my post as well:

In fact, if you look at any independent study of a large government program, you are most likely to find that the independent study relies heavily, if not solely, on data either generated by the government or submitted by federal program recipients and compiled by the government.

But then if you had ever done any independent research on federal programs in your career, you would probably know that.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Redux

Clod..we obviously have different ways of dealing with discussion board bullies.

There was once another prolific poster who kept insisting that this was a "discussion board," not a community. Maybe you should get yourself a YouTube channel.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

There was once another prolific poster who kept insisting that this was a "discussion board," not a community. Maybe you should get yourself a YouTube channel.

I have tried to be respectful in responding to your suggestions and because I disagree, I should go somewhere else? I abide by the rules of the community and have said repeatedly now that I would try to do better. That should be enough, but thanks for this latest suggestion as well.

I do find it funny that you have no problem suggesting how I should behave but you have no suggestions to The Mercenary on how he might be a better contributor to the community ("we can don't care enough to stop him").

[Griff]

We tried very hard with merc but he is incapable of improving. As a newer poster, we have not lost hope in you.

[classicman]

<snigger> @ griff.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

Nice avoidance of the last part of my post. No retraction, no admission of the reality, just the same old crap from you.
I'm done - you can have the last word. I'm out.

Redux presented and asked a simple question. You cannot even answer that? No answer combined with an indignant reply exposes bias. You get all tied up in a huff and storm out? Of course not. You will not leave. You are dodging a damning question. Taking insult so that you can evade reality in that question.

Question was upright, honorable, and so simple. A candid poster would have no problem answering:

Originally Posted by Redux

What you continue to ignore are the facts that I pointed out over the course of the "discussion":
- the jobs data is not government data, but data provided by the grant recipients.
- your "independent" site pulls this data from the government site...but that still doesnt make it government data
- your "independent" site presented the same jobs data (in the case of the Jennie-O grant) that you inferred was biased from the government site

Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

Tell me...which of these facts is incorrect?

Originally Posted by tw

Redux presented and asked a simple question. You cannot even answer that?

I already did.

Originally Posted by classicman

Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.

And again perhaps you both missed it - I am trying to leave the politics for you two to post in. Have fun. PLEASE, again please leave me out of it.

Originally Posted by classicman

I already did.

Since they obviously have a financial interest (the grant money) they are inherently biased.

And again perhaps you both missed it - I am trying to leave the politics for you two to post in. Have fun. PLEASE, again please leave me out of it.

Got it!

The thousand of federal employees (nearly all of whom are not politicians and lawyers as you asserted) who work with govt data and federal program recipient data are biased.

The more than 50,000 stimulus grant/contract recipients are biased.

Do you think those you know who received stimulus funds are inherently biased, or intentionally misleading, and inflate the numbers when they report the jobs data as required by the law?

I am biased.

TW is biased.

Here a bias, there a bias, everywhere a bias.....e - i -e - i -o

But you're not biased.

And Fox News is fair and balanced.

[classicman]

*EVERY SINGLE RECIPIENT IS BIASED.
*EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL EMPLOYEE IS BIASED
*EVERY SINGLE CONTRACTOR THAT WORKS FOR, WITH OR NEAR A GOV'T FACILITY OR LIVES WITHIN 5 MILES OF ANY GOV'T EMPLOYEE, TW, LOBBYIST, CONTRACTOR, YOU OR FAMILY MEMBER OF ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED THEREOF, IS BIASED.

NOW TO YOUR QUESTION -

Do you think those who received stimulus funds are inherently biased, or intentionally misleading, and inflate the numbers

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS

WHAT PART OF THAT ARE YOU NOT GRASPING?

And again perhaps you both missed it - I am trying to leave the politics for you two to post in. Have fun. PLEASE, again PLEASE leave me out.

[Shawnee123]

Don't get your panties in a twist. Just quit responding. *shrug*

In other words:

Patient: Doctor, it hurts when I do this.

Doctor: Then quit doing that.

In even other words:

Um, something about heat and kitchens.