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

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:23:18 GMT, Demon Lord Henry Schmidt of
Confusion
<popesnarky.verwarring@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:39:38 -0400, Steve attempted to confuse the issue
>further by squeaking:
>> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 04:52:26 GMT, Synthetic Networked Android
Responsible
>> for Killing and Yardwork wrote:
>>>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.
>> 
>> Actually, my English is very good..  my typing, however, does suffer..
>
>Among other things.
>
>>>>>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?
>> 
>> <Sigh>  ...that some people cannot afford firemen...
>
>No, you actually said "police and firemen".
>
>>>>>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.
>> 
>> No...  perhaps you could do a remedial reading course...
>
>Well, either you would or you would not deny necessities to poor people,
>or else "your idea of a successful society" would deny them (I'm betting

As I said, I made no mention of anyone denying anything to anyone.
It's all available to anyone willing to pay for it.  

>on the latter), even if you don't comprehend that. I've had the reading
>level, so I'm told, of a college/university senior since I was 12, and
I'm
>fairly sure I understand what you said better than you think you do.

I'm fairly sure that you're a moron..

>>>>>>>> >> >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.
>> 
>> Your opinion is indeed worthless beyond the humor it provides when you
>> present it in public.
>
>Your opinion is that of a Bush sup****ter in the final months of his
admin.
>There aren't many opinions less-informed than yours. My four-year-old
>nephew's, perhaps.

Your opinions are not anywhere near as significant as you seem to
believe they are...

>>>>>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",
>> 
>> Nope, sorry..   my mention of a private fire brigade was nowhere close
to
>> a suggestion that I knew of such an entity..
>
>You were speaking all along of a hypothetical private fire brigade. 

<LOL>  Any fool could have figured that out, but you apparently could
not.

>A
>hypothetical can be used in argument by anyone who knows how, not just
>the one who comes up with it, and the Grey Kitten is one of those fully
>qualified to use them.
>
>Now, you say a "private fire brigade would spring into action anytime
>their customers requested them", without explaining how they would deal
>with fires which began in areas unable to afford to pay for firefighters
>before spreading to their customers' property. If they would simply put
>the fires out before they could so spread, where is the motivation for
>poor people to pay for a private fire brigade? If they would not put them
>out before going that far, they wouldn't have a hope of stopping them
>before the fires could devastate the property of customers, thus causing
>those customers to renege on payments. Either way, private fire brigades
>would lose money.

Nope..  many people who might contract with a private fire brigade
could easily isolate themselves from most external sources of fire
threats.  The ticket here is that the poor neighborhoods are generally
not next door to the nicer neighborhoods.

>> ...do work on your reading some before replying next time..
>
>Yeah, you might want to re-think your ideas before attempting to put them
>across again.
>
>>>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> Not hardly....
>
>Oh, very hardly.

Again, your opinions are not anywhere near as significant as you seem
to believe they are...