America's greatness is its working classes not "wealth" creators

[ricechickie]

It doesn't matter whether it's xenophobia or not. Even if it is it's entirely defensible. When you invite a guest into your home and the guest starts demanding that you change your family customs, the guest is out of line. Same with immigration, the people of the welcoming nation HAVE NO OBLIGATION to change. They like their culture as it is. Trying to shame them by calling them xenophobes is, admittedly, an improvement over calling them racists, but it's still an unwarranted accusation. They can be xenophobes and they're still right and have the winning moral argument. The onus of change falls on the person who CHOSE to come to America, not on the people of America to bend to the wishes of the newly arrived.

Almost 319,000,000 people own this house. There's no set of "family customs."

There are rights. Rights enumerated by the Constitution.

 

[ricechickie]

Rikurzhen:

I've also been thinking about your supply and demand model of labor and wage.

Labor supply also increased as women entered the workforce. That's probably not ever going to be dialed back.

 

[Camp]

hadit wrote:
Anyone who participates in a capitalistic economy is a "wealth creator". Some just create more wealth than others.
_______________________________________________

Absolutely untrue. Unless wealth is created by adding value to a marketable product, wealth is just redistributed. Products are traded between buyers and sellers. No new wealth, just moving it around.

If I buy 10 loaves of bread, for a $1 a loaf, and sell those loaves for $1.20 a loaf, I have increased my wealth by $2.00. However, I have decreased the buyers' wealth by exactly the same amount. No change in overall wealth, just a different person owning that $2.00.

Now, it is probably worth the loss of $0.20 to each buyer of a loaf to have that bread available to be purchased at their convenience, and that is the free enterprise system, but no wealth has been created through those transactions.

Why do you leave out the actual producers that create the loaves of bread? At some point you end up at the very beginning when a farmer planted seeds to grow the wheat that produces the flour that produces the bread. At the farmers level there is nothing. A blank void. A piece of barren land. The farmer produced the wealth were there was none.
That is the way with just about everything. A laborer produces something where nothing existed. Everyone who follows are just riding on the product producers work as they add wealth while the product makes it's way to it originally intended use and purpose.

 

[Erand7899]

Smarter than the average bear wrote:
Incorrect, you have increased your buyer's wealth by 10 loaves of bread.
Now of course that value will decline over time for a variety of reasons; but very few people spend money on something that is of NO value.
_______________________________
Not true. The buyer's paid $1.20 for each loaf. They lost one dollar of wealth, plus the service cost, and gained one dollar worth of bread. Their wealth was reduced by the service cost.

The act of buying and selling does not create any wealth, it just shifts wealth around as one valuable asset is traded for another.

If you buy low and sell high, your wealth increases by the same amount that the buyer's wealth decreases. Overall, no change in total wealth.

 

[ricechickie]

Great, then move to Denmark.

A number of things. One is that the people of Denmark are relatively homogeneous. They also have a great work ethic as a generality.

If the US was full of people basically like myself or someone with a hard work ethic, we'd be much better off as well. But unfortunately the ratio of those pulling the wagon is damn near 1 to 1 with those in the wagon. We are also a diverse country with many different value systems, races, religions, work ethics, etc..

In other words, they are pretty much the same with similar value systems, religion, race, etc.... we are a melting pot.

To say it's the leading IN EUROPE is not saying much. Europe is a fucking economic mess.

And no they don't have a lower unemployment rate.

People romanticize Europe but the price paid for their socialist tendencies is high, very high Unemployment rates. Denmark just happens to be one of the best at 6.8. Most are up in or near double digits almost all the time.

The list of what's wrong with your post and Europe in general is so long it's not funny. They also have more govt intervention and a lot less freedom. Long list....

What do you think accounts for their great work ethic?

 

[Darkwind]

Of course I don't have control to determine which is why your interpretation makes no sense to me. It means I personally think it's silly to go to a farming thread and tell people they shouldn't talk about farming.

All it is is a diversion. See how much time has been spent NOT talking about solutions or actual economic points? You do see that don't you?

There is no, and never will be any, solutions that come from this forum.

At best, those who really have a desire to exchange ideas and philosophy will simply ignore those they see as derailing a discussion, or move to a more private discussion.

Solutions and change occur through actions and discussions that take place in venues and with people who have the power to make actual policy change.

The best you can hope for here is that the message will resonate enough to migrate out of this place and begin to alter other people's perceptions of how the economy works.

The fact that Jake was actually arguing management techniques of a business and claiming they were sound economic policy is just proof that this place is nothing more than a means to cement your own thoughts and beliefs.

I have been reading your posts and they are very informative and I think reflect an accurate picture of how much of an economy work. However, anger detracts from your message.

Now, since you think that if people don't reply immediately to posts, they are cowards, I'll let you know that I have other things to do right now and I'll check back in later. Or not. I haven't decided yet.

I disagree with your implication that discussion on the internet doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if anger turns people off, they still remember it later whether they want to or not.

It is perfectly okay for you to disagree.

However, you should consider the venue and application of communication.

For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you. This means that your statement that they will remember falls short of reality. They won't remember because they won't even see it.

Additionally, anger is a burden placed upon you and your health and unless someone is willing to give you free rent in their heads, won't do anything for your content. Only mark you as someone not to be taken seriously.

Ask around about a person called TruthMatters and discover how much anyone remembers of her posts. They only remember she was unthinking, irrational (in My opinion, mentally unstable), and the equivalent of having a five-year-old child screaming at you from the top of their lungs non-stop.

Your content will be quickly lost as people ignore you and tune you out.

Full disclosure is that I have also lost My temper here, and I get angry at some of the stupidity I see and read. I'm working on that and have started making liberal use of the ignore feature.

 

[Erand7899]

Camp wrote:
Why do you leave out the actual producers that create the loaves of bread? At some point you end up at the very beginning when a farmer planted seeds to grow the wheat that produces the flour that produces the bread. At the farmers level there is nothing. A blank void. A piece of barren land. The farmer produced the wealth were there was none.
That is the way with just about everything. A laborer produces something where nothing existed. Everyone who follows are just riding on the product producers work as they add wealth while the product makes it's way to it originally intended use and purpose.
____________________________________________

I don't leave them out. The farmers that grew the grains and other ingredients for the bread are wealth creators. The millers that change the grains to flour are wealth creators. The truckers that move the ingredients to the baker are wealth creators. And, the baker who bakes the bread is a wealth creator. They all added value to a marketable product. Even the wholesaler who distributes the bread to various retailers are wealth creators to a small degree. Once the bread reaches its final stage, and in in the market, no more value is added, and no more wealth is created.

Unless, of course, that is not the final product. A sandwich maker who uses that bread to make sandwiches has also added value and is also a wealth creator. Wealth is created anytime that value is added to a marketable product. Wealth is not created by changing ownership of the product.

 

[Rikurzhen]

hadit wrote:
Anyone who participates in a capitalistic economy is a "wealth creator". Some just create more wealth than others.
_______________________________________________

Absolutely untrue. Unless wealth is created by adding value to a marketable product, wealth is just redistributed. Products are traded between buyers and sellers. No new wealth, just moving it around.

If I buy 10 loaves of bread, for a $1 a loaf, and sell those loaves for $1.20 a loaf, I have increased my wealth by $2.00. However, I have decreased the buyers' wealth by exactly the same amount. No change in overall wealth, just a different person owning that $2.00.

Now, it is probably worth the loss of $0.20 to each buyer of a loaf to have that bread available to be purchased at their convenience, and that is the free enterprise system, but no wealth has been created through those transactions.

That's not wealth creation you're describing. Allow me to paint you a different scenario.

You're a chef and your next door neighbor is an auto-mechanic. You don't know anything about car maintenance and he doesn't know anything about fine cuisine. You guys are both cash-strapped. Your car is acting up and needs repair and he has a hot date with a hottie and he wants to impress her but his cooking skills amount to opening a can of soup and burning it in a pot.

If you were to repair your own car, it would take you 8 hours of reading the manual, tinkering about, making mistakes and then backtracking to correct them. If your neighbor opened his cookbook and set out to create a gourmet feast by a paint-by-numbers approach it would also take him 8 hours of time.

You guys get to talking about your situations and you decide to trade services. He fixrs your car in 90 minutes and you prepare a fabulous dinner for two and it only take you 90 minutes.

Both of you are now richer. You've created wealth from thin air. You'll monetize that wealth if you use that freed up 6.5 hours to go earn money, but simply saving time by itself has made you richer because we can assign some value to leisure time.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It doesn't matter whether it's xenophobia or not. Even if it is it's entirely defensible. When you invite a guest into your home and the guest starts demanding that you change your family customs, the guest is out of line. Same with immigration, the people of the welcoming nation HAVE NO OBLIGATION to change. They like their culture as it is. Trying to shame them by calling them xenophobes is, admittedly, an improvement over calling them racists, but it's still an unwarranted accusation. They can be xenophobes and they're still right and have the winning moral argument. The onus of change falls on the person who CHOSE to come to America, not on the people of America to bend to the wishes of the newly arrived.

Almost 319,000,000 people own this house. There's no set of "family customs."

There are rights. Rights enumerated by the Constitution.

No family customs? If I drop you in Beijing you'd notice right away that the family customs there are different.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Rikurzhen:

I've also been thinking about your supply and demand model of labor and wage.

Labor supply also increased as women entered the workforce. That's probably not ever going to be dialed back.

I already address this earlier.

1.) The Alberta evidence shows that it does dial back.
2.) Change is not always a one-way street.
3.) The influx of women into the labor force is not a phenomenon which is ongoing. Notice that I'm talking about influx, not women.
4.) Absent continuing immigration, the influx of women would have created more labor supply but that oversupply would have slowly been absorbed by the labor market and, over time, labor would not be over supplied.
5.) Women are part of the societal "closed system" and immigrants indicate an "open system" in the labor market.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Great, then move to Denmark.

A number of things. One is that the people of Denmark are relatively homogeneous. They also have a great work ethic as a generality.

If the US was full of people basically like myself or someone with a hard work ethic, we'd be much better off as well. But unfortunately the ratio of those pulling the wagon is damn near 1 to 1 with those in the wagon. We are also a diverse country with many different value systems, races, religions, work ethics, etc..

In other words, they are pretty much the same with similar value systems, religion, race, etc.... we are a melting pot.

To say it's the leading IN EUROPE is not saying much. Europe is a fucking economic mess.

And no they don't have a lower unemployment rate.

People romanticize Europe but the price paid for their socialist tendencies is high, very high Unemployment rates. Denmark just happens to be one of the best at 6.8. Most are up in or near double digits almost all the time.

The list of what's wrong with your post and Europe in general is so long it's not funny. They also have more govt intervention and a lot less freedom. Long list....

What do you think accounts for their great work ethic?

High human capital levels of the group and the harnessing of the human capital via cultural factors.

 

[ricechickie]

No family customs? If I drop you in Beijing you'd notice right away that the family customs there are different.

You assume that no one in America (me included) is of recent Chinese descent.

In a family of 319,000,000, you can't be sure of that.

 

[ricechickie]

I already address this earlier.

1.) The Alberta evidence shows that it does dial back.
2.) Change is not always a one-way street.
3.) The influx of women into the labor force is not a phenomenon which is ongoing. Notice that I'm talking about influx, not women.
4.) Absent continuing immigration, the influx of women would have created more labor supply but that oversupply would have slowly been absorbed by the labor market and, over time, labor would not be over supplied.
5.) Women are part of the societal "closed system" and immigrants indicate an "open system" in the labor market.

Yes, I saw that after I posted my thoughts. Do you think, in a society with a high divorce rate, it will ever dial back by much? Divorced and single women pretty much have to work.

High human capital levels of the group and the harnessing of the human capital via cultural factors.

In English?

 

[deltex1]

Who is "greater". Your garbage man or Steve Jobs?

 

[hadit]

hadit wrote:
Anyone who participates in a capitalistic economy is a "wealth creator". Some just create more wealth than others.
_______________________________________________

Absolutely untrue. Unless wealth is created by adding value to a marketable product, wealth is just redistributed. Products are traded between buyers and sellers. No new wealth, just moving it around.

If I buy 10 loaves of bread, for a $1 a loaf, and sell those loaves for $1.20 a loaf, I have increased my wealth by $2.00. However, I have decreased the buyers' wealth by exactly the same amount. No change in overall wealth, just a different person owning that $2.00.

Now, it is probably worth the loss of $0.20 to each buyer of a loaf to have that bread available to be purchased at their convenience, and that is the free enterprise system, but no wealth has been created through those transactions.

Actually, no. You are confusing money with wealth. My uncle, a chicken farmer, said once that he was tired of being a millionaire who couldn't take his wife to dinner. What he meant was he had wealth in his farming equipment, but little money with which to dine out. Wealth is the value of a good or a service, money is just an expression of that value at that point in time. What you have done in your example is increase the wealth of the person who bought the bread from you, because he valued that more than the money he gave you. You also increased your wealth because you valued the money more than the bread.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I already address this earlier.

1.) The Alberta evidence shows that it does dial back.
2.) Change is not always a one-way street.
3.) The influx of women into the labor force is not a phenomenon which is ongoing. Notice that I'm talking about influx, not women.
4.) Absent continuing immigration, the influx of women would have created more labor supply but that oversupply would have slowly been absorbed by the labor market and, over time, labor would not be over supplied.
5.) Women are part of the societal "closed system" and immigrants indicate an "open system" in the labor market.

Yes, I saw that after I posted my thoughts. Do you think, in a society with a high divorce rate, it will ever dial back by much? Divorced and single women pretty much have to work.

Wow. Big topic. If divorce and single status continue as they are, then women have to work. If we fix this problem then that opens a different front - family income give women a CHOICE. The families which can survive on the husband's income now have a choice, those which cannot don't have a choice. This brings us back to the topic here - how do we raise income levels? If we can do that, then more married women will have a choice. Single women won't.

High human capital levels of the group and the harnessing of the human capital via cultural factors.

In English?

Human capital is the analog of financial capital. In the labor marketplace, you have skills and attributes which you can employ to create wealth, to care for people, to be funny, etc. Your human capital is a combination of what you are born as and what has been added to you through family life, through social influence and through training and experience.

Take as a whole, not as individuals, the people of Denmark have a higher group mean of human capital than the US. Here's a for instance - schooling. The US doesn't compare so well to Denmark when we look at school outcomes. It's not that we're doing anything wrong with how we run our schools, it's that we have different populations and this is the cause of the overall difference. In social science to understand one factor (schooling) you need to compare "like to like" and control for confounding factors which influence the metric (student outcomes) but are not caused by the factor under study (schooling.) When we do that, this is what we get:

With the exception of the city of Shanghai, America's Asian students are the highest performing Asian students in the world. With the exception of Finland, America's white students are the highest performing white students in the world.

Denmark's people have higher human capital levels than America's people, even though some segments of America's population actually surpass Danish levels. It's the aggregate which counts for aggregate outcomes like GDP and Income Inequality and other measures of societal health.

 

[EconChick]

Of course I don't have control to determine which is why your interpretation makes no sense to me. It means I personally think it's silly to go to a farming thread and tell people they shouldn't talk about farming.

All it is is a diversion. See how much time has been spent NOT talking about solutions or actual economic points? You do see that don't you?

There is no, and never will be any, solutions that come from this forum.

At best, those who really have a desire to exchange ideas and philosophy will simply ignore those they see as derailing a discussion, or move to a more private discussion.

Solutions and change occur through actions and discussions that take place in venues and with people who have the power to make actual policy change.

The best you can hope for here is that the message will resonate enough to migrate out of this place and begin to alter other people's perceptions of how the economy works.

The fact that Jake was actually arguing management techniques of a business and claiming they were sound economic policy is just proof that this place is nothing more than a means to cement your own thoughts and beliefs.

I have been reading your posts and they are very informative and I think reflect an accurate picture of how much of an economy work. However, anger detracts from your message.

Now, since you think that if people don't reply immediately to posts, they are cowards, I'll let you know that I have other things to do right now and I'll check back in later. Or not. I haven't decided yet.

I disagree with your implication that discussion on the internet doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if anger turns people off, they still remember it later whether they want to or not.

It is perfectly okay for you to disagree.

However, you should consider the venue and application of communication.

For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you. This means that your statement that they will remember falls short of reality. They won't remember because they won't even see it.

Additionally, anger is a burden placed upon you and your health and unless someone is willing to give you free rent in their heads, won't do anything for your content. Only mark you as someone not to be taken seriously.

Ask around about a person called TruthMatters and discover how much anyone remembers of her posts. They only remember she was unthinking, irrational (in My opinion, mentally unstable), and the equivalent of having a five-year-old child screaming at you from the top of their lungs non-stop.

Your content will be quickly lost as people ignore you and tune you out.

Full disclosure is that I have also lost My temper here, and I get angry at some of the stupidity I see and read. I'm working on that and have started making liberal use of the ignore feature.

Tell you what. You give this lecture to everyone of these fucking liberals that have shown up like attack dogs in threads where I've asked for civil debate, including this POS Jakey Fakey, and I'll take your post seriously. But for someone to lecture me who has no idea what the history is can go fuck himself too.

You wanna get in the middle of this....expect to get hit with mud.

I'm used to people not liking what I have to say.......till they wind up telling me how right I was months or years later.

Furthermore, you're not talking to some college coed. Your quote:

"For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you."

Seriously dude, your head's so big it's going to fucking burst. Do you think I'm a newby to the internet? If you were posting for my benefit, you'd send this in a personal PM. But we all know this isn't about me. This is about you trying to assert yourself as some dude on high or professorial old wind bag.... and you can go give your lectures to people who care what you think.

You don't like my posts, or anyone else for that matter, use the ignore button.

And PLENTY of important people take me seriously, so stick that somewhere too.

 

[Darkwind]

Of course I don't have control to determine which is why your interpretation makes no sense to me. It means I personally think it's silly to go to a farming thread and tell people they shouldn't talk about farming.

All it is is a diversion. See how much time has been spent NOT talking about solutions or actual economic points? You do see that don't you?

There is no, and never will be any, solutions that come from this forum.

At best, those who really have a desire to exchange ideas and philosophy will simply ignore those they see as derailing a discussion, or move to a more private discussion.

Solutions and change occur through actions and discussions that take place in venues and with people who have the power to make actual policy change.

The best you can hope for here is that the message will resonate enough to migrate out of this place and begin to alter other people's perceptions of how the economy works.

The fact that Jake was actually arguing management techniques of a business and claiming they were sound economic policy is just proof that this place is nothing more than a means to cement your own thoughts and beliefs.

I have been reading your posts and they are very informative and I think reflect an accurate picture of how much of an economy work. However, anger detracts from your message.

Now, since you think that if people don't reply immediately to posts, they are cowards, I'll let you know that I have other things to do right now and I'll check back in later. Or not. I haven't decided yet.

I disagree with your implication that discussion on the internet doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if anger turns people off, they still remember it later whether they want to or not.

It is perfectly okay for you to disagree.

However, you should consider the venue and application of communication.

For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you. This means that your statement that they will remember falls short of reality. They won't remember because they won't even see it.

Additionally, anger is a burden placed upon you and your health and unless someone is willing to give you free rent in their heads, won't do anything for your content. Only mark you as someone not to be taken seriously.

Ask around about a person called TruthMatters and discover how much anyone remembers of her posts. They only remember she was unthinking, irrational (in My opinion, mentally unstable), and the equivalent of having a five-year-old child screaming at you from the top of their lungs non-stop.

Your content will be quickly lost as people ignore you and tune you out.

Full disclosure is that I have also lost My temper here, and I get angry at some of the stupidity I see and read. I'm working on that and have started making liberal use of the ignore feature.

Tell you what. You give this lecture to everyone of these fucking liberals that have shown up like attack dogs in threads where I've asked for civil debate, including this POS Jakey Fakey, and I'll take your post seriously. But for someone to lecture me who has no idea what the history is can go fuck himself too.

You wanna get in the middle of this....expect to get hit with mud.

I'm used to people not liking what I have to say.......till they wind up telling me how right I was months or years later.

Furthermore, you're not talking to some college coed. Your quote:

"For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you."

Seriously dude, your head's so big it's going to fucking burst. Do you think I'm a newby to the internet? If you were posting for my benefit, you'd send this in a personal PM. But we all know this isn't about me. This is about you trying to assert yourself as some dude on high or professorial old wind bag.... and you can go give your lectures to people who care what you think.

You don't like my posts, or anyone else for that matter, use the ignore button.

And PLENTY of important people take me seriously, so stick that somewhere too.

I'll do you one better. I"ll demonstrate how right I am.

 

[EconChick]

Jake Starkey wrote:
The wealth creators are not the CEOS etc.
The wealth creators are the inventors, the producers, the manufactures and their employees, and the consumer classes that buy their products.
We have a group of far right folks here who want to redefine terminology and rewrite history without being called out.
The far right revisionists are not going to succeed. Not only do their own peers correct them, the millennials will force them out
___________________________________________________

Minerals in the ground are wealth, and have value because others desire to have those minerals. Their value is limited because being in the ground makes them unuable. When one takes the ore out of the ground, they have created wealth by adding value to the minerals. This added value is distributed amongst the people who have made the effort to remove the ore from the ground. When they spend the money they got from creating wealth, they are not creating more wealth, they are just redistributing the wealth they created. Mining creates wealth, selling bread to the miners does not. Making the bread does create wealth because the bakers are adding value to the individual ingredients that make bread.

Not a difficult concept, but understanding it, is essential to understanding practical economics. The next step is realization that money is nothing more than another product that has value in the marketplace. Then you are on your way to the riches you desire.

Errand, the problem is it's not an exact one for one like this suggests.

 

[EconChick]

Of course I don't have control to determine which is why your interpretation makes no sense to me. It means I personally think it's silly to go to a farming thread and tell people they shouldn't talk about farming.

All it is is a diversion. See how much time has been spent NOT talking about solutions or actual economic points? You do see that don't you?

There is no, and never will be any, solutions that come from this forum.

At best, those who really have a desire to exchange ideas and philosophy will simply ignore those they see as derailing a discussion, or move to a more private discussion.

Solutions and change occur through actions and discussions that take place in venues and with people who have the power to make actual policy change.

The best you can hope for here is that the message will resonate enough to migrate out of this place and begin to alter other people's perceptions of how the economy works.

The fact that Jake was actually arguing management techniques of a business and claiming they were sound economic policy is just proof that this place is nothing more than a means to cement your own thoughts and beliefs.

I have been reading your posts and they are very informative and I think reflect an accurate picture of how much of an economy work. However, anger detracts from your message.

Now, since you think that if people don't reply immediately to posts, they are cowards, I'll let you know that I have other things to do right now and I'll check back in later. Or not. I haven't decided yet.

I disagree with your implication that discussion on the internet doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if anger turns people off, they still remember it later whether they want to or not.

It is perfectly okay for you to disagree.

However, you should consider the venue and application of communication.

For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you. This means that your statement that they will remember falls short of reality. They won't remember because they won't even see it.

Additionally, anger is a burden placed upon you and your health and unless someone is willing to give you free rent in their heads, won't do anything for your content. Only mark you as someone not to be taken seriously.

Ask around about a person called TruthMatters and discover how much anyone remembers of her posts. They only remember she was unthinking, irrational (in My opinion, mentally unstable), and the equivalent of having a five-year-old child screaming at you from the top of their lungs non-stop.

Your content will be quickly lost as people ignore you and tune you out.

Full disclosure is that I have also lost My temper here, and I get angry at some of the stupidity I see and read. I'm working on that and have started making liberal use of the ignore feature.

Tell you what. You give this lecture to everyone of these fucking liberals that have shown up like attack dogs in threads where I've asked for civil debate, including this POS Jakey Fakey, and I'll take your post seriously. But for someone to lecture me who has no idea what the history is can go fuck himself too.

You wanna get in the middle of this....expect to get hit with mud.

I'm used to people not liking what I have to say.......till they wind up telling me how right I was months or years later.

Furthermore, you're not talking to some college coed. Your quote:

"For this and other software forum on the Internet, the ignore feature removes any content you provide. For this software, particularly, your name, posts, and posts that are quoted, are fully eliminated from the view of the person ignoring you."

Seriously dude, your head's so big it's going to fucking burst. Do you think I'm a newby to the internet? If you were posting for my benefit, you'd send this in a personal PM. But we all know this isn't about me. This is about you trying to assert yourself as some dude on high or professorial old wind bag.... and you can go give your lectures to people who care what you think.

You don't like my posts, or anyone else for that matter, use the ignore button.

And PLENTY of important people take me seriously, so stick that somewhere too.

I'll do you one better. I"ll demonstrate how right I am.

Seeeee, the real agenda come out. See how childish. The power trip you're on is obvious. I could less what you think.