You said their violent nature wasn't worth discussing, yet it seems a Republican feels he should make a statement against the same thing you said you wouldn't address. So, it seems a much bigger issue. It seems that the violent actions and statements need to be addressed and people warned that the law still applies too them.

Yes, I watched the interview between O'Reilly and Wiener and neither seemed to be willing to listen to the other. Typical American politics, who knows who had a better point, they were to busy yelling at each other, which I might add O'Reilly does quite often. Wiener however said that the lack of insurance was not being criminalized, therefore it seemed to me to be a tax issue, like a lot of other things. It's over what one can claim and not claim on tax forms, what is a deductible and what isn't. There is no crime here.

Let me ask you this. You claim Weiner stated that lack of insurance was not being criminalized.

If you are mandated by the government to purchase something, fail to do so and are fined as a result of your decision, what would you call that? Are you further trying to tell us that violating tax laws is not criminal as well? Ask Al Capone if violating the US tax laws will not send somebody to prison.

You would be breaking the law of the land, which is criminal in nature. As you yourself claim, this is typical American politics and Weiner is lying through his teeth, as politicians will do from time to time.

I further presume the Holocaust shooter was from the Nazi Party but I would bet you're going to tell me he was a registered Republican. Maybe he was a Tea Party member.

You further go on to rant about your Grandfather and his friends, all card carrying members of the NRA and other Godless societies. Are you aware the Obama family still has not chosen a church in Washington nor have they attended a normal Sunday morning worship service, even for show? Maybe Jeremiah Wright drops in to give them a little religion from time to time.

Mr. bebop, what you need to do is stop believing what you read and start questioning more. You are entirely too naive by a long shot (NRA term).

most don't even know enough American history outside what their church or Glenn Beck has told them.

I hope I don't sound nasty, I don't mean nor want to be. I am deeply concerned however at what I hear real Tea Party people tell me, and when I see some of it mirrored in the news I fear things will get out of control. hel_l man, they are already shooting out windows, how long until they start aiming at people?

Yeah seeing this post of yours confirms my suspicion that you are deluded....not in a bad way mind you

But you have been duped along with others into believing those folks are the original Tea Party

All your seeing is the hijackers

But your in the mid west so good luck to you...That area could get a bit hairy

Because by your own description you have some real nut cases near by eh? But again they are not the real deal as in tea party

Then were is the 'real' Tea Party then? What are they standing for?

Then were is the 'real' Tea Party then? What are they standing for?

Basically this would suffice as an explanation

The tea party movement began as a grass roots protest against big government and the out of touch political establishment. The movement revolved around the campaign of congressman Ron Paul and the liberty movement.

But since its inception folks like you mentioned..Glenn Beck...etc. have tried to dominate & call it their own along with many other whack jobs. But back when Paul ran they all but ignored him or worse.

Now the movement had some teeth & suddenly they all jump on & try to direct its course.

So basically the true tea party stood for downsizing government & upholding the constitution.

You might even look into the 10th amendment

You said their violent nature wasn't worth discussing, yet it seems a Republican feels he should make a statement against the same thing you said you wouldn't address. So, it seems a much bigger issue. It seems that the violent actions and statements need to be addressed and people warned that the law still applies too them.

Yes, I watched the interview between O'Reilly and Wiener and neither seemed to be willing to listen to the other. Typical American politics, who knows who had a better point, they were to busy yelling at each other, which I might add O'Reilly does quite often. Wiener however said that the lack of insurance was not being criminalized, therefore it seemed to me to be a tax issue, like a lot of other things. It's over what one can claim and not claim on tax forms, what is a deductible and what isn't. There is no crime here.

Let me ask you this. You claim Weiner stated that lack of insurance was not being criminalized.

If you are mandated by the government to purchase something, fail to do so and are fined as a result of your decision, what would you call that? Are you further trying to tell us that violating tax laws is not criminal as well? Ask Al Capone if violating the US tax laws will not send somebody to prison.

You would be breaking the law of the land, which is criminal in nature. As you yourself claim, this is typical American politics and Weiner is lying through his teeth, as politicians will do from time to time.

I further presume the Holocaust shooter was from the Nazi Party but I would bet you're going to tell me he was a registered Republican. Maybe he was a Tea Party member.

You further go on to rant about your Grandfather and his friends, all card carrying members of the NRA and other Godless societies. Are you aware the Obama family still has not chosen a church in Washington nor have they attended a normal Sunday morning worship service, even for show? Maybe Jeremiah Wright drops in to give them a little religion from time to time.

Mr. bebop, what you need to do is stop believing what you read and start questioning more. You are entirely too naive by a long shot (NRA term).

I believe that it will be paid for through taxes not penalties. So, people who can pay for it have it and don't need to worry about it. The cost for those that can't afford it comes form county, state whatever level of taxes, just like the roads and fire departments and police stations, like so many other things in America.

As far as Wiener and O'Reilly, yeah, they both lie. Money is on the line for politicians and news/editorial people. Ratings and all that jazz. I only touch upon what big name news sources are talking about. I don't go to them for editorials or talk show stuff. All of it will be leaned one way or another. The trick is to figure out how and which way.

Don't Nazis vote republican if they vote at all. You really think that they would vote democrat?

LOL, Godless, all these folks go to church every Sunday, how much more God to you want? I said they were members of the NRA and the Tea Party, are you saying that the Tea Party is godless, LOL! As far Obama, I really don't care. I am a secularist, like the founding fathers, please don't tell me you buy that Christian nation line, please!! I am happy he doesn't go to church. I am pleased with anyone who doesn't go to church, it means that they are doing something more productive with their time. Church should stay out of politics. Jefferson was concerned over organized religion influencing our government and low and behold both parties always have to factor in religion and play to the faithful, while church leaders hold sermons in which they inform their flock on who Jesus would vote for. Please let Godlessness reign!!

Now, me questioning, or rather not questioning. Well, I question quite a bit really. My main concern is where is the money going. I say the companies, because they have the lobbyists and those guys wine and dine our congressmen and thus decide policy. Why is it that some of the biggest funders of the Tea Party movement are in the healthcare business? Why is it that after a closed door meeting between Obama and lobbyists from the healthcare industry Obama comes back with the public option gone? Why is it that when Republicans or Democrats leave office they have jobs in industries that they supported while in office? Me being naive? Come on Chuck, you really believe that they have the best interests of the American People at heart? You really believe either side is fighting for something that helps people? This whole fight is about who is gonna get the bigger check at the end of day from the lobbyists for protecting the industry better than the other guy. They just use tactics to get people to support them to make look on the up and up, cover their tracks. Obama a socialist they say, that is the biggest load of crap. How much is he and his getting for dropping the public option?

There is no American dream or apple pie for anyone but the wealthy and that is what this is really about. Rich white folks afraid of losing money. I watched one video of a Tea Party woman saying the government just wanted to take their money and give it to un-working minorities. Really? I see a lot of 'minorities' working. Crap jobs mostly but doing all these jobs that so many white people feel are beneath them. I guess I get included in that as well. My company pulled my insurance, took it right away from me because I didn't have high enough hours within the quarter. That was because they closed my store and I was waiting on a transfer. Now, I just go to school, because I couldn't get my insurance back. The insurance companies think I am a risk for heart attacks because my family has a history of high blood pressure so they won't cover me. I now have no insurance and have to pay $280 a month for my wife and two kids. I get help from my Tea Party, private insurance, Grandfather to pay for that. Yet, he still supports these insurance companies. Me Naive? What cloud are you living on again?

Here, watch this if you have the time. A Right wing blogger has been calling for vandalism and violence, and it's already happening. Listen to his own words in this clip, and tell me he isn't nuts. People are listen to these nutjobs.

Then were is the 'real' Tea Party then? What are they standing for?

Basically this would suffice as an explanation

The tea party movement began as a grass roots protest against big government and the out of touch political establishment. The movement revolved around the campaign of congressman Ron Paul and the liberty movement.

But since its inception folks like you mentioned..Glenn Beck...etc. have tried to dominate & call it their own along with many other whack jobs. But back when Paul ran they all but ignored him or worse.

Now the movement had some teeth & suddenly they all jump on & try to direct its course.

So basically the true tea party stood for downsizing government & upholding the constitution.

You might even look into the 10th amendment

Yeah, I know Ron Paul, was thinking about voting for him. Where is he now? I know he was doing well but is he running again? I liked him better then Obama and McCain. I however don't put much stock in voting, not until the electoral college is abolished along with lobbyists and healthy campaign reform introduced. A lot to ask for I know, believe I am not holding my breath.

I think I should add that whatever the Tea Party was, it is not now. So, it has to be judged by what it;s members are doing now. So, I believe my opinion on them still holds weight. Maybe when Ron Paul was running the show things were different, but now other people have the reigns and there are people responding to that influence.

Your attempt to pull me up with misuse has backfired and only goes to show your own limited vocab

That is rich, coming from you. He understands the meaning of most words and how to use them. He is not the one who comes across like someone who is lifting words from a thesaurus and using them like someone who has only started studying English in the last six months. He is not the one who should be ashamed.

Mr. Bebop:

A couple of things. First, you need to learn how to recognize irony. Secondly, the following was gleaned from an e-mail sent to me by a tea partier. This is really how I feel about the government takeover under Obama, including health care.

_____________________________________________________

To All 535 voting members of the Legislature; it is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 235 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 75 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 72 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 46 years to get it right; Billions of tax dollarsare confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 45 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 40 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 33 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

__________________________________________________________

My argument isn't with health care reform in limited doses. It is about trusting the government to run it.

You are completely off topic once again.

Technically, and pedantically, calling a post off topic is in itself off topic. (chuck is starting to influence me....I figure fight fire with fire....if you can call pedantic technicalities "fighting").

But to respond directly.....I responded directly to your post and your only response is that I am off topic?????

Great reply UG...showing your usual pithiness (sic), lack of comprehension, and illogical perception (or lack thereof).

When you finally spell an unusual word correctly, why do you feel it necessary to write (sic) following it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pithiness

. I had already made my point that UG's one-liners are not pithy because they are never meaningfull, thus, in using "(sic)" I was alluding to the error of the use of "pithy" and that it was a quoted word.

Sic adv. Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sic

Your attempt to pull me up with misuse has backfired and only goes to show your own limited vocab....again. Why do you never point out your cohorts spelling mistakes?

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary advises about the use of (sic).

________________________________________________

Frequently Asked Questions

Usage

Q. When you are quoting a phrase that is incorrect, do you follow that phrase or the incorrect word with (sic)? Printer Friendly Version

A. There is a helpful article on the use of sic in A Dictionary of Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner (OUP 1998).

sic Sic (=thus, so), invariably bracketed and usually set in italics, is used to indicate that a preceding word or phrase in a quoted passage is reproduced as it appeared in the original passage. Sic at its best is intended to aid readers who might be confused about whether the quoter or the quoted writer is responsible for the spelling or grammatical anomaly.

You should therefore position [sic] straight after the error to which it refers: if a misspelling, after the word concerned; otherwise after the phrase.

_____________________________________________________

The way I see it, you have several problems.

1. You did not quote my post, which was the "pithy"one.

2. I did not use "pithiness", but rather "pithy" therefore you did not reproduce it in its original form.

3. You addressed your response to UG, who had nothing to do with my "pithy" remark, other than being the recipient.

4. The world does not revolve around your definition of what might be "pithy" or meaningful.

5. I do not point out mistakes by others because their posts are not made by a pompous ass.

You haven't figured this out by now?

Technically, and pedantically, calling a post off topic is in itself off topic. (chuck is starting to influence me....I figure fight fire with fire....if you can call pedantic technicalities "fighting").

But to respond directly.....I responded directly to your post and your only response is that I am off topic?????

Great reply UG...showing your usual pithiness (sic), lack of comprehension, and illogical perception (or lack thereof).

When you finally spell an unusual word correctly, why do you feel it necessary to write (sic) following it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pithiness

. I had already made my point that UG's one-liners are not pithy because they are never meaningfull, thus, in using "(sic)" I was alluding to the error of the use of "pithy" and that it was a quoted word.

Sic adv. Thus; so. Used to indicate that a quoted passage, especially one containing an error or unconventional spelling, has been retained in its original form or written intentionally.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sic

Your attempt to pull me up with misuse has backfired and only goes to show your own limited vocab....again. Why do you never point out your cohorts spelling mistakes?

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary advises about the use of (sic).

________________________________________________

Frequently Asked Questions

Usage

Q. When you are quoting a phrase that is incorrect, do you follow that phrase or the incorrect word with (sic)? Printer Friendly Version

A. There is a helpful article on the use of sic in A Dictionary of Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner (OUP 1998).

sic Sic (=thus, so), invariably bracketed and usually set in italics, is used to indicate that a preceding word or phrase in a quoted passage is reproduced as it appeared in the original passage. Sic at its best is intended to aid readers who might be confused about whether the quoter or the quoted writer is responsible for the spelling or grammatical anomaly.

You should therefore position [sic] straight after the error to which it refers: if a misspelling, after the word concerned; otherwise after the phrase.

_____________________________________________________

The way I see it, you have several problems.

1. You did not quote my post, which was the "pithy"one.

2. I did not use "pithiness", but rather "pithy" therefore you did not reproduce it in its original form.

3. You addressed your response to UG, who had nothing to do with my "pithy" remark, other than being the recipient.

4. The world does not revolve around your definition of what might be "pithy" or meaningful.

5. I do not point out mistakes by others because their posts are not made by a pompous ass.

You haven't figured this out by now?

No problems whatsoever.

1. I assumed you had read my response to your use of "pithy" with regard to UG, therefore you knew my attitude towards how innapropriate "pithy" was in relation to UG's one-liners.

2. Silly, pedantic excuse. Using a derivative, to maintain grammar, is acceptable among those of us that know how to use English.

3. As above.

4. See 1. above.

5. I think we have had this discussion before. If you think I'm pompous because I use words you're unfamiliar with.....that says more about your inadequate vocabulary than it does about my profiency.

If you spent as much time learning from me as you do researching to try to prove me wrong, you would be better off.

Your attempt to pull me up with misuse has backfired and only goes to show your own limited vocab

That is rich, coming from you. He understands the meaning of most words and how to use them. He is not the one who comes across like someone who is lifting words from a thesaurus and using them like someone who has only started studying English in the last six months. He is not the one who should be ashamed.

Get a life. All you can do is hide behind your cohorts because you can't debate (you want VL to do that), and you don't have adequate English skills (case in point).

If I was "lifting words from a thesaurus and using them like someone who has only started studying English in the last six months" you would be able to detect it...I would be able to anyway...maybe you couldn't since one has to have a fair grasp of English to be able to do that.

Is it possible that you have gone tropo and now your values are all Thai-centric? I suspect as much, lately, and especially now.

I had assumed (wrongly, I see now) that as a bookseller, you would have been articulate and well read. I should not assume. There's my mistake.

If you spent as much time learning from me as you do researching to try to prove me wrong, you would be better off.

Have you been doing a little too much of this tonight?

You two, chuck and ug, when you can't actualy debate an issue, resort to pedantic spelling or word usage issues. especially you, chuck.

I have admitted I do not use spell-check and that my spelling is not the best....this does not matter; the intent, context, and meaning of the word is what matters, and if you are so narrow-minded and illiterate that a spelling mistake leaves you misunderstanding the intent, then no wonder you guys struggle to win a debate.

chuckd, if you swallowed your pride for a moment, and spent less time in fruitless efforts to fault my English (my spelling weakness aside), you would probably find your life less miserable, and these threads more enjoyable

I saw a grammatical error of yours several posts ago. There was no use in me pointing it out...would that have made me superior? Not at all. It would have just detracted from the thread. Why do you persist in trying to fault my English? Haven't you learnt yet that you can't? I'm not going to dumb it down for you, and I will continue to use my normal vocabulary.

It would be more constructive if, whenever you came upon a word usage of mine that you are unfamiliar with, to research it with a view to improving your own vocabulary rather than researching it with a view to discrediting me......it's not as if by discrediting my English you will win the debate of the subject at hand.

Nobody is taken in by your pathetic, pedantic and futile attempts to bring me down with English lessons.

I should rephrase that....ug seems to be taken in by it as he is now championing you. More fool him.

If you spent as much time learning from me as you do researching to try to prove me wrong, you would be better off.

Have you been doing a little too much of this tonight?

"None so blind as he who will not see".

Lets face it, chuck....you have consistantly tried to pull me up on word usage and failed. Each time you do it, it is obvious that you research it untill you find a tenuous dictionary definition that sort of makes your point....yet you disregard the dictionary definitions that vindicate me. Quite silly really.

Harcourt, while I admire your persistance in attempting to persuade us of your intelligence, let me explain why your poor spelling irritates me so much.

You seem to make every effort to impress your readers with words and phrases that are seldom, if ever, used by normal people. It follows, thereby, that your efforts to impress should be to also impress by spelling the words properly. When you misspell words, that comes off as an insult to the readers. It simply is not professional.

I would have thought by now you would have realized it only takes a few more moments to proof read a post and Google any words that might look suspicious to you.

Your post on NZ taxes was well done. That's the type post you should be preparing. Not the sloppy ones.

You really need to give your readers, and yourself, more respect.

If I was "lifting words from a thesaurus and using them like someone who has only started studying English in the last six months" you would be able to detect it...

I have detected it and pointed it out to you. You did what you always do when confronted with a fact; first you denied it and then tried to wriggle out of it.

In a post above, you try to claim that when Chuck provides proof that you are incorrect, it is not valid because he does not point out when you are (which is once every blue moon at very best). You claim that you are "debating". Why would that be his responsibility?

The thing is that you do not debate. You write down every asinine thought in your head and then completely ignore all the evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. “Debating” you is a complete waste of time.

Harcourt, while I admire your persistance in attempting to persuade us of your intelligence, let me explain why your poor spelling irritates me so much.

You seem to make every effort to impress your readers with words and phrases that are seldom, if ever, used by normal people. It follows, thereby, that your efforts to impress should be to also impress by spelling the words properly.

It is best to ask someone how to use words lifted from a thesaurus properly. Using ten-dollar words incorrectly tends to point out one's true mental ability.

1. ten-dollar word

Using large, difficult words that most people will not understand. Makes you look like an elitist prick that wants to flaunt your advanced intelligence or vocabulary.

"So I told the rather rubicund fellow that I would not forbear his facetious predilection, and that I would extirpate him if he persisted. However I refrained from the notion because I desiderated copulation with his girlfriend."

Said without ten-dollar words:

"So I told the red-faced bastard that I wasn't gonna put up with his sarcastic attitude, and I was gonna kill 'em if he didn't stop. But I decided not to 'cuz I wanted to bang his girlfriend.

I was surprised to see Palin was there at all and was even paid $ 100,000 to speech.......but why on earth would the Tea Party ask and pay for Palin ? Isn't that asking for the devil to be in your midst and embrace him/her ?

I have to agree. The woman has nothing going for her other than she is mildly attractive and she is very right wing. Haven't we learned our lesson about electing candidates that are just not qualified?

That woman is dangerously stupid. I would like to think that would be apparent to anyone but I've been wrong before.

I'm not sure that she is as stupid as she is made out to be. The media have a away of manipulating us when it comes to such things. However, I can see no reason at all that she deserves to be in a a major public office.

If I was "lifting words from a thesaurus and using them like someone who has only started studying English in the last six months" you would be able to detect it...

I have detected it and pointed it out to you. You did what you always do when confronted with a fact; first you denied it and then tried to wriggle out of it.

In a post above, you try to claim that when Chuck provides proof that you are incorrect, it is not valid because he does not point out when you are (which is once every blue moon at very best). You claim that you are "debating". Why would that be his responsibility?

The thing is that you do not debate. You write down every asinine thought in your head and then completely ignore all the evidence that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. "Debating" you is a complete waste of time.

You're a silly man to state as fact your opinion of something that you have no way of proving. I say again, just because you are unfamiliar with a word does not make the word "lifted from the thesaurus". I say again, I only use words with which I am familiar, and I do not take any words from the thesaurus. (Not that it would matter if the word is appropriate...which it always is when I use it )

I agree with "It is best to ask someone how to use words lifted from a thesaurus properly. Using ten-dollar words incorrectly tends to point out one's true mental ability...", but I can't see how that relates to my use of words....I choose words that are the most appropriate because I know what the word means.

Honestly, I am astounded by you guys' being so incredulous, each and every time you make an issue of my vocabulary.

Your comprehension skills are low also; "...In a post above, you try to claim that when Chuck provides proof that you are incorrect, it is not valid because he does not point out when you are (which is once every blue moon at very best). ....". I tried to claim nothing of the sort. Let me put it simply for you; When chuck researches a word to "prove" me wrong, he is sure to find alot of dictionaries actually prove me right, but he overlooks those.

You're a fine one to complain about a person not debating and writing assinine things!

Your ONLY defence against my arguments is never a logical rebuttal, just the accusation that I'm loony. Which is your opinion but hardly an argument in any topic at hand.

You would consider debating me as a waste of time......I can imagine it would be disheartening to always lose.

Harcourt, while I admire your persistance in attempting to persuade us of your intelligence, let me explain why your poor spelling irritates me so much.

You seem to make every effort to impress your readers with words and phrases that are seldom, if ever, used by normal people. It follows, thereby, that your efforts to impress should be to also impress by spelling the words properly. When you misspell words, that comes off as an insult to the readers. It simply is not professional.

I would have thought by now you would have realized it only takes a few more moments to proof read a post and Google any words that might look suspicious to you.

Your post on NZ taxes was well done. That's the type post you should be preparing. Not the sloppy ones.

You really need to give your readers, and yourself, more respect.

I'll say it again....Honestly, I am astounded by you guys' being so incredulous, each and every time you make an issue of my vocabulary.

I will also say again, that I do not try to persuade anyone of my intelligence, nor do I try to impress anybody, certainly not with vocabulary. Each time you bring up this issue, it seems that you are secretly impressed. Well, that's a little bit flattering but I didn't try to impress you, so no need to flatter me any more.

I don't care if you don't like my poor spelling, and it is hardly an insult to the readers. Look to your own spelling and grammar first.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Mr. Bebop:

A couple of things. First, you need to learn how to recognize irony. Secondly, the following was gleaned from an e-mail sent to me by a tea partier. This is really how I feel about the government takeover under Obama, including health care.

_____________________________________________________

To All 535 voting members of the Legislature; it is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 235 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 75 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 72 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 46 years to get it right; Billions of tax dollarsare confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 45 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 40 years to get it right and it is broke.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 33 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?

__________________________________________________________

My argument isn't with health care reform in limited doses. It is about trusting the government to run it.

This is the same e-mail that my Grandfather has sent me too many times to count. It just keeps circling around his group of friends like many other e-mails, now I find it here. I don't trust the government, never have never will, but I don't trust companies who put the bottom line before morality, either. I would prefer to use the two as balance to each other, because both are dangerous to human beings.

These Tea Party folks want to have the companies have all this freedom, when after years they have treated people horribly. The list of how many people have been cheated by these companies and whose death could be laid at their doorstep is too long to bring up here. So, trust neither and play these powers of each or tear it all down and start over. Since the first is more reasonable I would prefer that.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

Percy Bysshe Shelley

Instead of "ditto", I'll paraphrase your quote.

It is better to keep your mouth shut, leaving people in doubt, than to post one-liners and appear stupid.

Harcourt, while I admire your persistance in attempting to persuade us of your intelligence, let me explain why your poor spelling irritates me so much.

You seem to make every effort to impress your readers with words and phrases that are seldom, if ever, used by normal people. It follows, thereby, that your efforts to impress should be to also impress by spelling the words properly. When you misspell words, that comes off as an insult to the readers. It simply is not professional.

I would have thought by now you would have realized it only takes a few more moments to proof read a post and Google any words that might look suspicious to you.

Your post on NZ taxes was well done. That's the type post you should be preparing. Not the sloppy ones.

You really need to give your readers, and yourself, more respect.

I'll say it again....Honestly, I am astounded by you guys' being so incredulous, each and every time you make an issue of my vocabulary.

I will also say again, that I do not try to persuade anyone of my intelligence, nor do I try to impress anybody, certainly not with vocabulary. Each time you bring up this issue, it seems that you are secretly impressed. Well, that's a little bit flattering but I didn't try to impress you, so no need to flatter me any more.

I don't care if you don't like my poor spelling, and it is hardly an insult to the readers. Look to your own spelling and grammar first.

Don't flatter yourself. I am hardly impressed with your vocabulary. It is your sloppiness in spelling those words that has impressed me.

Since you now state you don't care if you have poor spelling, you have proven you have no personal pride as well.

Harcourt, while I admire your persistance in attempting to persuade us of your intelligence, let me explain why your poor spelling irritates me so much.

You seem to make every effort to impress your readers with words and phrases that are seldom, if ever, used by normal people. It follows, thereby, that your efforts to impress should be to also impress by spelling the words properly. When you misspell words, that comes off as an insult to the readers. It simply is not professional.

I would have thought by now you would have realized it only takes a few more moments to proof read a post and Google any words that might look suspicious to you.

Your post on NZ taxes was well done. That's the type post you should be preparing. Not the sloppy ones.

You really need to give your readers, and yourself, more respect.

I'll say it again....Honestly, I am astounded by you guys' being so incredulous, each and every time you make an issue of my vocabulary.

I will also say again, that I do not try to persuade anyone of my intelligence, nor do I try to impress anybody, certainly not with vocabulary. Each time you bring up this issue, it seems that you are secretly impressed. Well, that's a little bit flattering but I didn't try to impress you, so no need to flatter me any more.

I don't care if you don't like my poor spelling, and it is hardly an insult to the readers. Look to your own spelling and grammar first.

Don't flatter yourself. I am hardly impressed with your vocabulary. It is your sloppiness in spelling those words that has impressed me.

Since you now state you don't care if you have poor spelling, you have proven you have no personal pride as well.

Ok, so stop trying to fault my word usage. Stop bringing it up and trying to make an issue of it.

Fair enough if I use a word and you think it is used incorrectly, by all means look it up....but be certain that there are no dictionaries that support my usage before you pull me up on it....I would accept that, no argument. I am always ready to admit when I am at fault. (unlike some around here).

It is you who has no pride because when you were caught out in a lie, and I called you on it and challenged you....you did not even have the good grace to apologise.

Do you deliberately spin my words? If so, that is deceitful. I said that I don't care if YOU don't like my poor spelling, meaning I don't give a hoot what you like or dislike.

Do you deliberately spin my words? If so, that is deceitful. I said that I don't care if YOU don't like my poor spelling, meaning I don't give a hoot what you like or dislike.

If you don't give a "hoot" what I like or dislike, then why do you respond every time I make a post?

It is you who has no pride because when you were caught out in a lie, and I called you on it and challenged you....you did not even have the good grace to apologise.

If that were true - and I seriously doubt it - he is certainly not the only one.

Do you deliberately spin my words? If so, that is deceitful. I said that I don't care if YOU don't like my poor spelling, meaning I don't give a hoot what you like or dislike.

If you don't give a "hoot" what I like or dislike, then why do you respond every time I make a post?

I don't follow your logic. Two very seperate things there, chuck; my not caring if you like my spelling or not has no bearing or connection to whether I reply to you or not.

Explain, please.

It is you who has no pride because when you were caught out in a lie, and I called you on it and challenged you....you did not even have the good grace to apologise.

If that were true - and I seriously doubt it - he is certainly not the only one.

Blah blah blah.....one line one line one line....silly, nonsensical and assinine as usual.

Why don't you save your breath....or typing as the case may be?

.

Do you deliberately spin my words? If so, that is deceitful. I said that I don't care if YOU don't like my poor spelling, meaning I don't give a hoot what you like or dislike.

If you don't give a "hoot" what I like or dislike, then why do you respond every time I make a post?

I don't follow your logic. Two very seperate things there, chuck; my not caring if you like my spelling or not has no bearing or connection to whether I reply to you or not.

Explain, please.

Sigh.....I rest my case.