Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you

"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
: Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy
and
: incompetant.
:
: "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
: news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
: > If that's an inference that private sector employees are more competent
: > that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
: >
: > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
: > news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
: > : did a government employee make this document? That would explain the
: > : "state" mess...
: > :
: > : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
: > : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
: > : >
: > : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
: > : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
: > : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
: > : >
: > : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It does
: say
: > : > population by "state".
: > : >
: > : > >
: > : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
: > : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
: > : > > >
: > : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
: > : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had no
: > income
: > : > tax
: > : > > > but
: > : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will
accept
: > your
: > : > word
: > : > > > on
: > : > > > > > it./
: > : > > > >
: > : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
: > : > > > >
: > : > > >
: > : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
: > included
: > : DC
: > : > in
: > : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
: > : > > >
: > : > > >
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : >
: > : >
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

 

st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> <snip>
> > > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > > strength of the economy, worldwide.
> >
> > This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> > and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> > often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> > economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> > priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> > (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> > priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> > gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
> >
> > One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> > contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> > percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> > cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> > having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> > some way be a result).
>
> I wasn't assigning cause and effect.

Excuse me, but you clearly were - in your original statement ("If you
want to maintain your strong economy, it [striving for clean air and
clean water] makes sense, too. There is a strong correlation between
fresh water supplies and strength of the economy, worldwide") you were
clearly implying that keeping clean air and water leads to a good
economy - read the first sentence of yours in that quote. I'm not
saying I disagree. I'm simply saying that one doesn't necessarily
*cause* the other - there may be common factors - for example: Mexico's
economy is bad and Mexico's water is bad. I doubt if Mexico has a poor
economy because the water is bad. Both may be bad due to corruption and
an economical bootstrapping problem (proverbial cycle of poverty sapping
individual initiative, etc.), but if Mexico did nothing but clean up its
water, I doubt that that would turn its economy around.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> <snip>
> > > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > > strength of the economy, worldwide.
> >
> > This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> > and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> > often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> > economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> > priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> > (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> > priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> > gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
> >
> > One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> > contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> > percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> > cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> > having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> > some way be a result).
>
> I wasn't assigning cause and effect.

Excuse me, but you clearly were - in your original statement ("If you
want to maintain your strong economy, it [striving for clean air and
clean water] makes sense, too. There is a strong correlation between
fresh water supplies and strength of the economy, worldwide") you were
clearly implying that keeping clean air and water leads to a good
economy - read the first sentence of yours in that quote. I'm not
saying I disagree. I'm simply saying that one doesn't necessarily
*cause* the other - there may be common factors - for example: Mexico's
economy is bad and Mexico's water is bad. I doubt if Mexico has a poor
economy because the water is bad. Both may be bad due to corruption and
an economical bootstrapping problem (proverbial cycle of poverty sapping
individual initiative, etc.), but if Mexico did nothing but clean up its
water, I doubt that that would turn its economy around.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <bputney@kinez.net> wrote in message news:<3FB0C2D6.55E0E1C4@kinez.net>...
> > st3ph3nm wrote:
> <snip>
> > > If you want to maintain your strong economy, it makes sense, too.
> > > There is a strong correlation between fresh water supplies and
> > > strength of the economy, worldwide.
> >
> > This could be a chicken-egg thing too. If the country (its government
> > and its people) are in survival model (or is totally corrupt - the two
> > often go hand in hand), then chances are high that it's going have a bad
> > economy as well as not properly take care of its water system (due to
> > priorities being elsewhere) - one may have nothing to do with the other
> > (economy and clean water) in such a country (either due to the
> > priorities being different - only so much money to go around - or the
> > gov't plain not watching out for the peoples' interests).
> >
> > One must be careful in assigning cause and effect. You might find that
> > contries that have healthy economies and clean water have a much higher
> > percentage of blue cars, whereas poor countries with crappy water have
> > cars that are more earth tones. It would be a mistake to conclude that
> > having blue cars makes for clean water or a good economy (but could in
> > some way be a result).
>
> I wasn't assigning cause and effect.

Excuse me, but you clearly were - in your original statement ("If you
want to maintain your strong economy, it [striving for clean air and
clean water] makes sense, too. There is a strong correlation between
fresh water supplies and strength of the economy, worldwide") you were
clearly implying that keeping clean air and water leads to a good
economy - read the first sentence of yours in that quote. I'm not
saying I disagree. I'm simply saying that one doesn't necessarily
*cause* the other - there may be common factors - for example: Mexico's
economy is bad and Mexico's water is bad. I doubt if Mexico has a poor
economy because the water is bad. Both may be bad due to corruption and
an economical bootstrapping problem (proverbial cycle of poverty sapping
individual initiative, etc.), but if Mexico did nothing but clean up its
water, I doubt that that would turn its economy around.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

 

Correct.
But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?

"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
> Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
>
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> news:bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy
> and
> : incompetant.
> :
> : "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
> : news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
> : > If that's an inference that private sector employees are more
competent
> : > that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
> : >
> : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> : > news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : did a government employee make this document? That would explain
the
> : > : "state" mess...
> : > :
> : > : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> : > : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
> : > : >
> : > : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> : > : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
> : > : >
> : > : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It
does
> : say
> : > : > population by "state".
> : > : >
> : > : > >
> : > : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> : > : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> : > : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had
no
> : > income
> : > : > tax
> : > : > > > but
> : > : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will
> accept
> : > your
> : > : > word
> : > : > > > on
> : > : > > > > > it./
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
> : > included
> : > : DC
> : > : > in
> : > : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > >
> : > : > >
> : > : > >
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

 

Correct.
But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?

"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
> Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
>
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> news:bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy
> and
> : incompetant.
> :
> : "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
> : news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
> : > If that's an inference that private sector employees are more
competent
> : > that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
> : >
> : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> : > news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : did a government employee make this document? That would explain
the
> : > : "state" mess...
> : > :
> : > : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> : > : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
> : > : >
> : > : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> : > : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
> : > : >
> : > : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It
does
> : say
> : > : > population by "state".
> : > : >
> : > : > >
> : > : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> : > : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> : > : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had
no
> : > income
> : > : > tax
> : > : > > > but
> : > : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will
> accept
> : > your
> : > : > word
> : > : > > > on
> : > : > > > > > it./
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
> : > included
> : > : DC
> : > : > in
> : > : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > >
> : > : > >
> : > : > >
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

 

Correct.
But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?

"Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
> Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
>
> "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> news:bouf8i$1hti71$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : Sorry I didn't mean to infere anything... government employees are lazy
> and
> : incompetant.
> :
> : "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
> : news:i6zsb.392$cX1.107@fed1read02...
> : > If that's an inference that private sector employees are more
competent
> : > that government employees, it is a completely invalid premise
> : >
> : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> : > news:boud6l$1ijklk$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : did a government employee make this document? That would explain
the
> : > : "state" mess...
> : > :
> : > : "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> : > : news:vr5dnh48ssmhd7@corp.supernews.com...
> : > : >
> : > : > "Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
> : > : > news:bouc5k$1i589o$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : > : > > because the residents of DC don't belong to any state.
> : > : >
> : > : > So list them like they did in 2000, population but no rank. It
does
> : say
> : > : > population by "state".
> : > : >
> : > : > >
> : > : > > "The Ancient One" <onlytheone@thetopknows.com> wrote in message
> : > : > > news:vr5bo9koi8vc00@corp.supernews.com...
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> : > : > > > news:3FB246A5.66BB1060@mindspring.com...
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > The Ancient One wrote:
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > > The least populous state is Wyoming, which I thought had
no
> : > income
> : > : > tax
> : > : > > > but
> : > : > > > > > did have a sales tax. If you live there though I will
> accept
> : > your
> : > : > word
> : > : > > > on
> : > : > > > > > it./
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html
> : > : > > > >
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > > Yep, Wyoming is the least populous state, not sure why they
> : > included
> : > : DC
> : > : > in
> : > : > > > the 2002 numbers though.
> : > : > > >
> : > : > > >
> : > : > >
> : > : > >
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > :
> : >
> : >
> :
> :
>
>

 

Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
yourself. Have a nice daze


"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:boui95$1hnchn$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
: Correct.
: But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
:
: "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
: news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
: > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
: >
:

 

Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
yourself. Have a nice daze


"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:boui95$1hnchn$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
: Correct.
: But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
:
: "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
: news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
: > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
: >
:

 

Wrong, Quiz Kid. I like reading idiotic statements from morons like
yourself. Have a nice daze


"Joe" <me@privacy.net (jo_ratner@yahoo.com)> wrote in message
news:boui95$1hnchn$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de...
: Correct.
: But you are obviously a government employee so who cares what you say?
:
: "Ben Dover" <cornhole@allspammers.com> wrote in message
: news:IDzsb.395$cX1.71@fed1read02...
: > Your asinine generalizations tell us all we need to know about you
: >
: