: What part of "FOUND THIS AND THOUGHT I'D SHARE" didn't you understand?
Q: What part of a joke don't you understand?
A: The joke part, apparently.
: *I* am not saying anything, I just found it an interesting observation.
If you post a long description of why certain people are better
than others, it's pretty reasonabe to conclude you
agree with the sentiment.
-- Andy Barss
I will try to explain this, and for you, Andy, I will do it slowly.
I found an article. I found it interesting.
If I find a 1937 German Mark and I show it to you, does that mean I
agree with the price of fish?
: If "X" were, "Seven Reasons Why Dogshit Tastes Better Than Cheerios",
: and I prefaced this with, "Found this and thought I'd share:", would
: you be entitled to conclude that I had a preference for one over the
: other as a breakfast food?
With a title like that, it'd most likely be a humor piece, so I'd conclude
you thought it was funny. See how it works now?
The OP's forwarded piece wasn't a humor piece. It was a ploddingly earnest
So, I conclude that Robotoy agrees with it (and thus found his
"who? me?" reply to Rick Samuel upthread to be so disingenuous).
See how it works now?
: As to your diminution of his attribution by the use of the term,
: "allegedly", did you think before doing so to use, "7 Things that
: separate lesser human beings from their betters", as the search terms
: in Google? I did, and found several prior references.
Eh, fine. So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
-- Andy Barss
:> :>:> :> Eh, fine. ?So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.:> :>:> :> ? ? ? ? -- Andy Barss
:> : I disagree.
:> ? ? ? ? I very much doubt that.
: What do you doubt I disagree with?
The original essay you posted.
Again, I found an article. I found it interesting. No more, no less.
For you to insist that I am in agreement with that article, is just
plain wrong. You have absolutely nothing upon which to base that
opinion. Whether I agree with the article or not.
I have also not said that I disagree with the article, just with you.
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:10:04 -0400, Robatoy wrote:
Thank-you for sharing, Robatoy.
I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements. I strongly
reject the tone of the arguments and the choice of the words used to
present the arguments. Whoever the author is, the author wrapped his
ideas within a socially, culturally, and maybe even an ethnic point of
view. A point of view that demonstrates a cultural chauvinism bent on
social Darwinism bordering on racism.
From my point of view, those statements are an attempt at a description
of a social / cultural norm that is instilled into a person starting at
childhood. My impression of those statements (the intended idea) are
they are culturally linked to the dominate Western European cultural
ancestral heritage of the USA.
My point: If one grew up in a Wealthy Suburb of a Major Metropolitan
city, then a young adult would have more exposure to such personal habits
as described, and that young person would (could be expected to?)
assimilate such in their own behavior.
(There are of course other social classes that would teach these ideal
behaviors to their children; but more likely, IMHO, it would be left to
an individual family and less across the board.)
However, people who grew up in other economic, social, and cultural
environments would not necessarily be exposed everyday to real roll
models who exhibited behaviors such as described in the statements. Or
in other words, if you grew up where it is the norm behavior of adults to
occasionally ride in the back of a Pickup Truck drinking whiskey as the
pickup truck barrels down the highway, well you can draw your own
conclusions as to the behavior of such a child at adulthood.
There may be some grain of truth in those statements. However, the
social and cultural "My-Culture-Is-The-One-and-Only-Correct-Society" that
oozes from those specific statements, as worded, makes them solely a
preaching-to-the-choir set of statements. If you believe in those
statements, they are good arguments to continue your believe, and maybe
hold those beliefs in more emphatic esteem. As worded and presented,
those statements will not convince anyone else; No One.
By The Way: Even using the words 'Better' and 'Lesser' becomes code words
(intended or not) to evoke the worst sort of thoughts of social
Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a short step away from a rigid class
society that inhibits upward mobility for all.
I actually thought 'sediment' was more interesting.
As though it was the residue of failed ideas.
Sometimes spielchuck is more sophisticated than we give it credit for.
Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
OK, so one guy posted something he found on the internet. Another guy
assumed it reflected the first guy's sentiment. First guysaid that he
did not necessarily agree. Second guy is dubious of this claim,
First guy responds by saying that he didn't say that he disagreed with
the sentiment of said article, only with (the supposition of) the
second guy, and that Second Guy had no basis for his reasoning.
Several others chimed in along the way.
I must admit that my initial reading lead me to believe that there was
a significant level of agreement on your part, else there would have
been some commentary. That is, of course, not deifinitive proof of
your agreement, but certainly is a basis for surmising it. I was
ready to dismiss the supposition as incorrect, based upon a parsing of
your words as a tacit (at least partial) disavowal of the ideas until
your post indicating that you did not state disagreement with the
article. (I also don't really care who is right. I just found this
to be a strangely interesting exchange.)
So, let's clear this up: First Guy - Do you agree with the sentiments
presented in the original list you presented? Second Guy - Why do you
care? All of us - Are we aware that there is an impending
presidential election, a war, terrorism, illegal immigration, a gas
crucnh, the prospect of confiscatory taxes, and dogs and cats living
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.