Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:20:22 GMT
Let's explore that. Are they in excess of those held by the poorest people in society? Not asking for a number, just a yes or no. Can you confirm that you have zero knowledge of the value of my assets please? Let's explore that. Are they in excess of those held by the poorest people in society? No need for a number, just a yes or no. Not trying to sidestep the answer are you?
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 12:21:37 GMT
There we go. Wasn't hard, was it? 1. Great, so its a pointless point then. Fantastic. 2. You said, "I've not suggested that he said I should cede any of my assets". You also said "The difference is, I'm not on here telling other people to" - carrying on into our example of clothes and coca-cola. You're therefore suggesting by saying "I'm not on here telling other people to", that Oldie is telling people to do this with income distribution. So your entire argument is flawed, because he hasn't told you to cede any assets, so why are you saying he should? We can therefore establish, the entire argument you're making is pointless. 3. See point 2. 4. So you actually think, just to confirm - that best way to drive change in income distribution is for a guy on an internet forum to cede his assets? This is your entire argument? My word. 5. See point 2. 6. You ignored my point twice about Oldie insulting you. You said, "The statement that my knowledge is close to zero is, in my opinion, a bit worse than what you decided was an insult aimed at you a few days back, the difference is, I think it's funny.". So either, you admit you insulted me. Or, you admit Oldie didn't insult you. You can't have it both ways. So which is it? 1. You are entitled to your opinion. 2. I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing (flattening income distribution in this case), you cited specific examples, Oldie is talking about a different specific example, so, in context, I'm not telling people not to drink Cola whilst drinking it myself. Oldie on the other hand is saying that flattening income distribution is an element that will drive towards his objective whilst acting in a way contrary to that objective. 3. See above. 4. No, I didn't say that. Please review what's been said. 5. Please demonstrate your assertion or I will discard it. 6. It's OK to hold different opinions as to what constitutes an insult, because one person feels A is an insult and B isn't doesn't mean that another person has to accept that B negates A. Shall we continue with these ping pong posts, I'm not fussed at all, or would you like to move on? 2. "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing". Oh really? Then gift all of your possessions to the disadvantaged, go on, double dare you. Why don't you pledge to leave anything above the median average UK estate value to charities that assist disadvantaged groups and gift any earning above the median average direct to those groups? Of course, there will need to to some retrospective payments made for years in the past when you've done well out of this system that oppresses minorities. I'm absolutely serious. Now, back to you giving up your material possessions to disadvantaged groups, to flatten this 'income distribution' that offends you so much. If you won't commit to that then I don't expect you to ever mention the subject again. Yes, I'm serious. Nope nothing to see here. You're literally making it up as you go along, as now proven. 6. And there we have it! You want it both ways. Discrediting everything you've said you're here for. You can suggest someone is less intelligent that you, not an insult. Oldie suggests your have no knowledge - deemed as an insult. Can't say I'm surprised. What was it you said before? Ah I think I remember, 'You've had you pants pulled down in public'. Now that's out of the way, yes, let's indeed carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:22:11 GMT
Looks as though you can only see this through a capitalist individualist lens. Isn't the whole point of egalitarianism that everyone is equal? You can't have some less equal than others, so everyone will have to be involved. If you were offered furlough money, would you reject it on principles that it's leftist rubbish? Same with healthcare? Change is driven by mass movements, not politicians. Rubbish mate! Change is driven by an old geeza on a football forum. Everyone knows that! 😂😂😂
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:27:23 GMT
1. You are entitled to your opinion. 2. I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing (flattening income distribution in this case), you cited specific examples, Oldie is talking about a different specific example, so, in context, I'm not telling people not to drink Cola whilst drinking it myself. Oldie on the other hand is saying that flattening income distribution is an element that will drive towards his objective whilst acting in a way contrary to that objective. 3. See above. 4. No, I didn't say that. Please review what's been said. 5. Please demonstrate your assertion or I will discard it. 6. It's OK to hold different opinions as to what constitutes an insult, because one person feels A is an insult and B isn't doesn't mean that another person has to accept that B negates A. Shall we continue with these ping pong posts, I'm not fussed at all, or would you like to move on? 2. "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing". Oh really? Then gift all of your possessions to the disadvantaged, go on, double dare you. Why don't you pledge to leave anything above the median average UK estate value to charities that assist disadvantaged groups and gift any earning above the median average direct to those groups? Of course, there will need to to some retrospective payments made for years in the past when you've done well out of this system that oppresses minorities. I'm absolutely serious. Now, back to you giving up your material possessions to disadvantaged groups, to flatten this 'income distribution' that offends you so much. If you won't commit to that then I don't expect you to ever mention the subject again. Yes, I'm serious. Nope nothing to see here. You're literally making it up as you go along, as now proven. 6. And there we have it! You want it both ways. Discrediting everything you've said you're here for. You can suggest someone is less intelligent that you, not an insult. Oldie suggests your have no knowledge - deemed as an insult. Can't say I'm surprised. What was it you said before? Ah I think I remember, 'You've had you pants pulled down in public'. Now that's out of the way, yes, let's indeed carry on. In your apparent desperation to prove a point you are quoting things out of context here. The specific thing that I am not requesting that anybody does is flatten income distribution. That's Oldie's idea, my comments are driven by that but are not specifically arguing for it, I'm requesting that he demonstrate his commitment to it. Hope that's cleared everything up for you. Now, please demonstrate your assertion as referenced in point 5.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:28:48 GMT
1. You are entitled to your opinion. 2. I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing (flattening income distribution in this case), you cited specific examples, Oldie is talking about a different specific example, so, in context, I'm not telling people not to drink Cola whilst drinking it myself. Oldie on the other hand is saying that flattening income distribution is an element that will drive towards his objective whilst acting in a way contrary to that objective. 3. See above. 4. No, I didn't say that. Please review what's been said. 5. Please demonstrate your assertion or I will discard it. 6. It's OK to hold different opinions as to what constitutes an insult, because one person feels A is an insult and B isn't doesn't mean that another person has to accept that B negates A. Shall we continue with these ping pong posts, I'm not fussed at all, or would you like to move on? 2. "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing". Oh really? Then gift all of your possessions to the disadvantaged, go on, double dare you. Why don't you pledge to leave anything above the median average UK estate value to charities that assist disadvantaged groups and gift any earning above the median average direct to those groups? Of course, there will need to to some retrospective payments made for years in the past when you've done well out of this system that oppresses minorities. I'm absolutely serious. Now, back to you giving up your material possessions to disadvantaged groups, to flatten this 'income distribution' that offends you so much. If you won't commit to that then I don't expect you to ever mention the subject again. Yes, I'm serious. Nope nothing to see here. You're literally making it up as you go along, as now proven. 6. And there we have it! You want it both ways. Discrediting everything you've said you're here for. You can suggest someone is less intelligent that you, not an insult. Oldie suggests your have no knowledge - deemed as an insult. Can't say I'm surprised. What was it you said before? Ah I think I remember, 'You've had you pants pulled down in public'. Now that's out of the way, yes, let's indeed carry on. The thing is Gassy, wouldn't it be good if people like Jung said, for example, "Oldie, that's just not right and this is why" Instead I lay my thoughts out and what do we get? "You might be right (by the inference from the responses), so why don't you give away every thing we think you have?"
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 12:31:30 GMT
2. "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing". Oh really? Nope nothing to see here. You're literally making it up as you go along, as now proven. 6. And there we have it! You want it both ways. Discrediting everything you've said you're here for. You can suggest someone is less intelligent that you, not an insult. Oldie suggests your have no knowledge - deemed as an insult. Can't say I'm surprised. What was it you said before? Ah I think I remember, 'You've had you pants pulled down in public'. Now that's out of the way, yes, let's indeed carry on. The thing is Gassy, wouldn't it be good if people like Jung said, for example, "Oldie, that's just not right and this is why" Instead I lay my thoughts out and what do we get? "You might be right (by the inference from the responses), so why don't you give away every thing we think you have?" Exactly, Oldie. Thus proving my earlier point, there is no want for debate. Just desperation of points scoring against you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 12:42:04 GMT
2. "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing". Oh really? Nope nothing to see here. You're literally making it up as you go along, as now proven. 6. And there we have it! You want it both ways. Discrediting everything you've said you're here for. You can suggest someone is less intelligent that you, not an insult. Oldie suggests your have no knowledge - deemed as an insult. Can't say I'm surprised. What was it you said before? Ah I think I remember, 'You've had you pants pulled down in public'. Now that's out of the way, yes, let's indeed carry on. The thing is Gassy, wouldn't it be good if people like Jung said, for example, "Oldie, that's just not right and this is why" Instead I lay my thoughts out and what do we get? "You might be right (by the inference from the responses), so why don't you give away every thing we think you have?" OK, so, if you like, let's explore our different points of view. This flattening of income, how far do you propose to go with it. Are we talking about a banded pay structure, flat income across society, raising minimum wage, setting a maximum wage, something more / other, what's your proposal please?
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 12:42:16 GMT
2. "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing". Oh really? Nope nothing to see here. You're literally making it up as you go along, as now proven. 6. And there we have it! You want it both ways. Discrediting everything you've said you're here for. You can suggest someone is less intelligent that you, not an insult. Oldie suggests your have no knowledge - deemed as an insult. Can't say I'm surprised. What was it you said before? Ah I think I remember, 'You've had you pants pulled down in public'. Now that's out of the way, yes, let's indeed carry on. In your apparent desperation to prove a point you are quoting things out of context here. The specific thing that I am not requesting that anybody does is flatten income distribution. Hope that's cleared everything up for you. Now, please demonstrate your assertion as referenced in point 5. There's no desperation here. I haven't taken anything out of context, you've been caught out and you're trying to distance yourself as far away as possible from your statements. Here's one you'll like, "I didn't intend to upset anybody, I was just using what you had written as a point of reference for what appears to be acceptable behaviour on this forum." Glad to see you concede the wanting of both ways on insults. Regarding point 5, can you please point out which part specifically you'd like me to explain? There were quite a few points mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 13:00:03 GMT
In your apparent desperation to prove a point you are quoting things out of context here. The specific thing that I am not requesting that anybody does is flatten income distribution. Hope that's cleared everything up for you. Now, please demonstrate your assertion as referenced in point 5. There's no desperation here. I haven't taken anything out of context, you've been caught out and you're trying to distance yourself as far away as possible from your statements. Here's one you'll like, "I didn't intend to upset anybody, I was just using what you had written as a point of reference for what appears to be acceptable behaviour on this forum." Glad to see you concede the wanting of both ways on insults. Regarding point 5, can you please point out which part specifically you'd like me to explain? There were quite a few points mentioned. Go back and read the example relating to insults again, you appear to have misunderstood. I'll have another go at it if that's OK? Because you decide that not accepting premise A negates premise B doesn't mean that I have to agree with your assessment. I'm happy to explain things, as I've always maintained, a reasonable number of times, but for me that's long enough on a point not even relating to the thread subject matter. I'm now done with that point. But as always, it's fine to disagree on something, that's often the nature of discussion. 5 related to 2 on your list. I've explained it, I think quite clearly, please take another look and demonstrate that what you've asserted is correct, if you can't or won't I'm disregarding the point, as is normal. You can keep insisting that I've conceded points, but that's my decision to make, not yours. By all means ask me to and explain why you think that I should, but you can't just tell me that I have.
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,357
|
Post by Marshy on Jul 3, 2020 13:14:59 GMT
It’s turned out nice again. 😂
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 13:24:24 GMT
There's no desperation here. I haven't taken anything out of context, you've been caught out and you're trying to distance yourself as far away as possible from your statements. Here's one you'll like, "I didn't intend to upset anybody, I was just using what you had written as a point of reference for what appears to be acceptable behaviour on this forum." Glad to see you concede the wanting of both ways on insults. Regarding point 5, can you please point out which part specifically you'd like me to explain? There were quite a few points mentioned. Go back and read the example relating to insults again, you appear to have misunderstood. I'll have another go at it if that's OK? Because you decide that not accepting premise A negates premise B doesn't mean that I have to agree with your assessment. I'm happy to explain things, as I've always maintained, a reasonable number of times, but for me that's long enough on a point not even relating to the thread subject matter. I'm now done with that point. But as always, it's fine to disagree on something, that's often the nature of discussion. 5 related to 2 on your list. I've explained it, I think quite clearly, please take another look and demonstrate that what you've asserted is correct, if you can't or won't I'm disregarding the point, as is normal. You can keep insisting that I've conceded points, but that's my decision to make, not yours. By all means ask me to and explain why you think that I should, but you can't just tell me that I have. Fine let's agree to disagree on the insult. I can clearly see you like to have it both ways. Now I know what I'm dealing with, at least. So you want me to explain that your argument holds no ground? Happily. Your entire argument is based on, "Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change". You therefore believe that Oldie should therefore donate his assets to drive that change. You must surely believe that this is the most effective way of income distribution, otherwise why would you suggest it? In fact, you actually told him to do so, neigh, dared him to. When I called you out on it, you back tracked and said "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing", but I've proven that you've done exactly that, with your own words. You've since all but admitted yourself that Oldie hasn't told anyone to give away their assets, so why are you suggesting he should? So your entire argument to Oldie that he should donate his assets holds no ground because it is clearly an invalid method of suggesting Oldie is a hypocrite. Do you honestly believe that Oldie giving away all of his assets is the only way he can ever suggest or argue that the income distribution is unfair? Really?
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 13:26:04 GMT
Marshy is right.
Let's move on.
Agreed?
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,357
|
Post by Marshy on Jul 3, 2020 13:46:27 GMT
Marshy is right. Let's move on. Agreed? Don’t drag me into it, I’m not playing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 13:50:56 GMT
The thing is Gassy, wouldn't it be good if people like Jung said, for example, "Oldie, that's just not right and this is why" Instead I lay my thoughts out and what do we get? "You might be right (by the inference from the responses), so why don't you give away every thing we think you have?" OK, so, if you like, let's explore our different points of view. This flattening of income, how far do you propose to go with it. Are we talking about a banded pay structure, flat income across society, raising minimum wage, setting a maximum wage, something more / other, what's your proposal please? Do you agree that there might be an issue? Btw I laid out previously 4 direct proposals. Now those proposals might not fit your narrow definition of the correction required, but that's by the by and for you to argue for. Or against.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 13:59:08 GMT
Go back and read the example relating to insults again, you appear to have misunderstood. I'll have another go at it if that's OK? Because you decide that not accepting premise A negates premise B doesn't mean that I have to agree with your assessment. I'm happy to explain things, as I've always maintained, a reasonable number of times, but for me that's long enough on a point not even relating to the thread subject matter. I'm now done with that point. But as always, it's fine to disagree on something, that's often the nature of discussion. 5 related to 2 on your list. I've explained it, I think quite clearly, please take another look and demonstrate that what you've asserted is correct, if you can't or won't I'm disregarding the point, as is normal. You can keep insisting that I've conceded points, but that's my decision to make, not yours. By all means ask me to and explain why you think that I should, but you can't just tell me that I have. Fine let's agree to disagree on the insult. I can clearly see you like to have it both ways. Now I know what I'm dealing with, at least. So you want me to explain that your argument holds no ground? Happily. Your entire argument is based on, "Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change". You therefore believe that Oldie should therefore donate his assets to drive that change. You must surely believe that this is the most effective way of income distribution, otherwise why would you suggest it? In fact, you actually told him to do so, neigh, dared him to. When I called you out on it, you back tracked and said "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing", but I've proven that you've done exactly that, with your own words. You've since all but admitted yourself that Oldie hasn't told anyone to give away their assets, so why are you suggesting he should? So your entire argument to Oldie that he should donate his assets holds no ground because it is clearly an invalid method of suggesting Oldie is a hypocrite. Do you honestly believe that Oldie giving away all of his assets is the only way he can ever suggest or argue that the income distribution is unfair? Really? No, asking someone to demonstrate that their argument is sound and that they are committed to it in no way suggests that you agree with the premise of that argument. Did I say that him providing funds towards that end was the only method of producing that outcome? Please show me where I've even suggested that. I don't know how many times this is now, the quote relating to the 'specific thing' relates to your example of Cola. Now, if I say that drinking Cola is bad and society would be better if we stopped doing so but refused to commit to stopping consuming the product then you would have a point, but I didn't say that, so you don't. Are we done yet?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 14:00:43 GMT
OK, so, if you like, let's explore our different points of view. This flattening of income, how far do you propose to go with it. Are we talking about a banded pay structure, flat income across society, raising minimum wage, setting a maximum wage, something more / other, what's your proposal please? Do you agree that there might be an issue? Btw I laid out previously 4 direct proposals. Now those proposals might not fit your narrow definition of the correction required, but that's by the by and for you to argue for. Or against. Please don't answer questions with questions, I've tried to start a sensible conversation with you. Would you like to try to hold one? If so, please expand on that area of your thoughts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 14:24:55 GMT
Do you agree that there might be an issue? Btw I laid out previously 4 direct proposals. Now those proposals might not fit your narrow definition of the correction required, but that's by the by and for you to argue for. Or against. Please don't answer questions with questions, I've tried to start a sensible conversation with you. Would you like to try to hold one? If so, please expand on that area of your thoughts. I point the learned gentleman to the response I gave to Gassy earlier in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 3, 2020 14:31:33 GMT
Fine let's agree to disagree on the insult. I can clearly see you like to have it both ways. Now I know what I'm dealing with, at least. So you want me to explain that your argument holds no ground? Happily. Your entire argument is based on, "Oldie suggesting that moving money around in this way, ie, flattening of income distribution, will affect change". You therefore believe that Oldie should therefore donate his assets to drive that change. You must surely believe that this is the most effective way of income distribution, otherwise why would you suggest it? In fact, you actually told him to do so, neigh, dared him to. When I called you out on it, you back tracked and said "I'm not here telling people to do a specific thing", but I've proven that you've done exactly that, with your own words. You've since all but admitted yourself that Oldie hasn't told anyone to give away their assets, so why are you suggesting he should? So your entire argument to Oldie that he should donate his assets holds no ground because it is clearly an invalid method of suggesting Oldie is a hypocrite. Do you honestly believe that Oldie giving away all of his assets is the only way he can ever suggest or argue that the income distribution is unfair? Really? No, asking someone to demonstrate that their argument is sound and that they are committed to it in no way suggests that you agree with the premise of that argument. Did I say that him providing funds towards that end was the only method of producing that outcome? Please show me where I've even suggested that. I don't know how many times this is now, the quote relating to the 'specific thing' relates to your example of Cola. Now, if I say that drinking Cola is bad and society would be better if we stopped doing so but refused to commit to stopping consuming the product then you would have a point, but I didn't say that, so you don't. Are we done yet? You suggested it. I've already quote it, but I'll quote it again as it seems to be difficult. Now, I know that as a Champaign socialist you love nothing more than to pontificate and tell others how to live their lives from the well heeled comfort of your (white) privileged comfortable middle class lifestyle and won't give that up in its entirety, so how about a compromise. Why don't you pledge to leave anything above the median average UK estate value to charities that assist disadvantaged groups and gift any earning above the median average direct to those groups? Of course, there will need to to some retrospective payments made for years in the past when you've done well out of this system that oppresses minorities. I'm absolutely serious. You clearly see this as a cause and effect. So much that instead of exploring other angles to help the income distribution, you mentioned it three times to Oldie. In fact you didn't just mention it, you told, dared and essentially tried to bully him into doing it. If you don't believe it's the best way, why did you keep mentioning it over and over? You've ignored my other question, please address it: "You've since all but admitted yourself that Oldie hasn't told anyone to give away their assets, so why are you suggesting he should?" It's not a coincidence that you refuse to answer this, is it? If you post about telling people not to do a specific thing was in reference to a coca-cola reference, you then surely admit that you were telling someone what to do! Who are you to do that? As you've had your pants pulled down multiple times, then yes. I'd say we're done.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 14:34:29 GMT
No, asking someone to demonstrate that their argument is sound and that they are committed to it in no way suggests that you agree with the premise of that argument. Did I say that him providing funds towards that end was the only method of producing that outcome? Please show me where I've even suggested that. I don't know how many times this is now, the quote relating to the 'specific thing' relates to your example of Cola. Now, if I say that drinking Cola is bad and society would be better if we stopped doing so but refused to commit to stopping consuming the product then you would have a point, but I didn't say that, so you don't. Are we done yet? You suggested it. I've already quote it, but I'll quote it again as it seems to be difficult. Now, I know that as a Champaign socialist you love nothing more than to pontificate and tell others how to live their lives from the well heeled comfort of your (white) privileged comfortable middle class lifestyle and won't give that up in its entirety, so how about a compromise. Why don't you pledge to leave anything above the median average UK estate value to charities that assist disadvantaged groups and gift any earning above the median average direct to those groups? Of course, there will need to to some retrospective payments made for years in the past when you've done well out of this system that oppresses minorities. I'm absolutely serious. You clearly see this as a cause and effect. So much that instead of exploring other angles to help the income distribution, you mentioned it three times to Oldie. In fact you didn't just mention it, you told, dared and essentially tried to bully him into doing it. If you don't believe it's the best way, why did you keep mentioning it over and over? You've ignored my other question, please address it: "You've since all but admitted yourself that Oldie hasn't told anyone to give away their assets, so why are you suggesting he should?" It's not a coincidence that you refuse to answer this, is it? If you post about telling people not to do a specific thing was in reference to a coca-cola reference, you then surely admit that you were telling someone what to do! Who are you to do that? As you've had your pants pulled down multiple times, then yes. I'd say we're done. It's laughable isn't it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 3, 2020 15:09:23 GMT
No, asking someone to demonstrate that their argument is sound and that they are committed to it in no way suggests that you agree with the premise of that argument. Did I say that him providing funds towards that end was the only method of producing that outcome? Please show me where I've even suggested that. I don't know how many times this is now, the quote relating to the 'specific thing' relates to your example of Cola. Now, if I say that drinking Cola is bad and society would be better if we stopped doing so but refused to commit to stopping consuming the product then you would have a point, but I didn't say that, so you don't. Are we done yet? You suggested it. I've already quote it, but I'll quote it again as it seems to be difficult. Now, I know that as a Champaign socialist you love nothing more than to pontificate and tell others how to live their lives from the well heeled comfort of your (white) privileged comfortable middle class lifestyle and won't give that up in its entirety, so how about a compromise. Why don't you pledge to leave anything above the median average UK estate value to charities that assist disadvantaged groups and gift any earning above the median average direct to those groups? Of course, there will need to to some retrospective payments made for years in the past when you've done well out of this system that oppresses minorities. I'm absolutely serious. You clearly see this as a cause and effect. So much that instead of exploring other angles to help the income distribution, you mentioned it three times to Oldie. In fact you didn't just mention it, you told, dared and essentially tried to bully him into doing it. If you don't believe it's the best way, why did you keep mentioning it over and over? You've ignored my other question, please address it: "You've since all but admitted yourself that Oldie hasn't told anyone to give away their assets, so why are you suggesting he should?" It's not a coincidence that you refuse to answer this, is it? If you post about telling people not to do a specific thing was in reference to a coca-cola reference, you then surely admit that you were telling someone what to do! Who are you to do that? As you've had your pants pulled down multiple times, then yes. I'd say we're done. It's not even my suggestion, income distribution is Oldie's subject, so I'm not responsible for exploring different opportunities, but I have asked him to expand on his thoughts. It doesn't matter if I ask 1000 times. that in no way suggests that I believe what I'm asking Oldie relates to what I think would be the best course of action. No, I wasn't telling anybody what to do with the Cola reference, is this the 4th or 5th time I've explained it; in that example if I were drinking the soda whilst suggesting that others shouldn't then you may have a ghost of a point, but I didn't, so you don't. Sorry but I'm now bored with replying to the exact same points time after time, so won't address any of them again. If that means that you win then I can live with it.
|
|