Re: #Why Amtrak is dying when we need it the most

On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 22:06:46 -1200, "Steve"
<stevencanyon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>Oon Mun, 07 Jool 2008 04:52:26 GMT, Synzeeteec Netvurked Undrueed
>Respunseeble-a ffur Keelling und Yerdvurk
><mhm29x21@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> vrute:
>
>>Hail Eris! On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:36:23 -0400, Eris Kallisti Discordia
was
>>laughing at the antics of Steve, when they suddenly burst out in tears:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 00:18:59 GMT, "The God of Odd Statements, Henry
>>> Schmidt" wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 03:57:16 -0400, Steve did most oddly state:
>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:49:05 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 12:05:52 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
wrote:
>>>>>>> > Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:22:53 GMT, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 10:57:15 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>On Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:39:39 -0700, mariposas rand mair fheal
>>>>>>> >> >>wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>>> >be specific
>>>>>>> >> >>>> >list anything you think is necessary service and show to
>>>>>>> >> >>>> >make it pay for
>>>>>>> >> >>>> >itself
>>>>>>> >> >>>> >and what you dont list one can assume you claim is not
>>>>>>> >> >>>> >necessary
>>>>>>> >> >>>>
>>>>>>> >> >>>> <LOL>   Any and all of what you mentioned..   for
instance,
>>>>>>> >> >>>> if people believe that police and firemen are necessary,
they
>>>>>>> >> >>>> will pay for them..  of course, there are those that might
>>>>>>> >> >>>> not be able to pay for them...   too bad.....
>>>>>>> >> >>>
>>>>>>> >> >>>okay
>>>>>>> >> >>>so your idea of successful society denies necessities to
poor
>>>>>>> >> >>>people
>>>>>>> >> >>
>>>>>>> >> >>I'm not denying anything...  I'm just to wiling to pay for it
>>>>
>>>>I can't parse that -- "to wiling"?
>>>
>>> Anyway, who said *you* were "denying"
>>>
>>> "just not to willing"
>>
>>Uh-huh. So basically, English was never your best course in school.
>
>Ectooelly, my Ingleesh ees fery guud..  my typeeng, hooefer, dues
>sooffffer..
>
>>>>Anyway, who said *you* were "denying"
>>>
>>> Se above..  "so your idea of ..... "
>>
>>In fact, you must have failed it multiple times from Grade 7 or 8
onwards.
>>"So your idea of a successful society..." is a complete subject, whereas
>>"So your idea of..." is not, in this context. *Your idea of a successful
>>society* denies necessities to poor people, regardless of what you
>>yourself may think (or claim) you believe, since you actually said, in
>>the following quote:
>>
>>>>>>> >> >>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >>>> <LOL>   Any and all of what you mentioned..   for
instance,
>>>>>>> >> >>>> if people believe that police and firemen are necessary,
they
>>>>>>> >> >>>> will pay for them..  of course, there are those that might
>>>>>>> >> >>>> not be able to pay for them...   too bad.....
>>
>>How else should I parse that?
>
><Seegh>  ...thet sume-a peuple-a cunnut effffurd ffuremen...
>
>>>>anything? "So your idea of [a] successful society denies necessities
to
>>>>poor people." That isn't about what you would deny.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it is...
>>
>>OK, so you would in fact deny emergency services to poor people, if you
>>had any say.
>
>Nu...  perheps yuoo cuoold du a remedeeel reedeeng cuoorse...
>
>>>>>>> >> >That's an intriguing idea.  It means for example that you can
>>>>>>> >> >expect fires that spread across most of the city destroying
most
>>>>>>> >> >of it because the fire fighters only respond to them after the
>>>>>>> >> >situation is utterly uncontrollable.
>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>> >> That's a ridiculous claim..   a private fire brigade would
spring
>>>>>>> >> into action any time their customers requested them...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >what private fire brigade?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You poor thing...   are you having trouble keeping up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>no answer
>>>>>>
>>>>>>i win
>>>>>
>>>>> <LOL>  You win an award for making an ignorant reply?
>>>>
>>>>He wins your foam.
>>>
>>> <LOL> Like your opinion is worth anything?
>>
>>My opinion is informed. Yours is that of a dullard who failed remedial
>>reading over and over.
>
>Yuoor oopeeniun ees eendeed vurthless beyund zee hoomur eet prufeedes
>vhen yuoo preseent eet een poobleec.
>
>>>>Moffitt's, too. I note you still haven't answered the question: What
>>>>private fire brigade?
>>>
>>> You must be another loser leftist with a reading disability..  did
anyone
>>> say there was a private fire brigade?
>>
>>My good colleague spooge illustrated your idiocy in that regard most
>>thoroughly. You did indeed say there would be a "private fire brigade",
>
>Nupe, surry..   my menshun ooff a preefete-a ffure-a breegede-a ves
>noohere-a cluse-a tu a sooggesshun thet Ee knoo ooff sooch un inteety..
>
>..du vurk oon yuoor reedeeng sume-a beffure-a replyeeng next teeme..
>
>>and now you are frantically attempting to back-pedal from that bit of
>>cretinous half-thought by pretending you never said it. You are a
spankard,
>>and may consider yourself thrashed.
>
><LOL> Nut herdly....
>


<LOL>   Apparently, I've backed another immature leftist coward into a
place they cannot find a way out of...