🚀 go-pugleaf

I P Seldom wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> 
>> I P Seldom wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>
>>>> I P Seldom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pit_Bull wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 19:55:23 GMT, Jonathan Ball 
>>>>>>> <jonball@whitehouse.not>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you would be pleasently surprised by just how 
>>>>>>>>> articulate and
>>>>>>>>> well-read "blue collar" workers can be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Undoubtedly some small number of them are.  They're a distinct 
>>>>>>>> minority, as the intellectual tone of beer, pick-em-up truck and 
>>>>>>>> various other blue-collar-oriented advertising makes clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're an elitist pig. It comes through loud and clear in your 
>>>>>>> posts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not an elitist, if by that you mean one who favors some kind 
>>>>>> of aristocracy based on inheritance.  I do believe in a natural 
>>>>>> merit-based elite, though.  Cream rises.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Intellectually, blue collar workers, on average, are skim milk.  
>>>>>> That's just how it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, an elitist pig to the core, and you can't even see it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You just don't get it.  "Elitist" isn't the
>>>> character-assassinating swearword you want it to be.  I
>>>> believe in recognition of and rewards to merit, and it
>>>> is clear that, because of differences in ability, there
>>>> will be a natural elite.  There's nothing "unfair" (a
>>>> meaningless word) or undemocratic about it.
>>>>
>>>>> How sad.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's sad, dumb LCD Rusty, is that you have been so thoroughly 
>>>> indoctrinated with a completely bogus sense of egalitarianism as a 
>>>> social organizing principle. Wait; "indoctrinated" is too tough a 
>>>> word for a prole like you; how about "brainwashed"?  You clearly 
>>>> suffer from a low intellect and an overpowering sense of envy
>>>> toward your intellectual betters.
>>>>
>>>> Call me an "elitist" if it makes you feel better, LCD
>>>> Rusty.  It only make me sneer at you that much more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're the one being divisive
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought you said I was being elitist?  Which is it? What does being 
>> divisive have to do with being elitist?
>>
>>> and trying to cause a gap between two classes,
>>
>>
>>
>> The gap is already there.  You are the one trying to play on it, 
>> illicitly.
>>
>>> I'm well aware that there are people who are less able to succeed, 
>>> and those who are more able to succeed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll bet you are, dumbo.
>>
>>> Right there in your original post it shows you wish to divide people 
>>> by what some have and what others do not,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nope.  The division is there already.
>>
>>> and you also lumped an entire class of people, blue collar workers, 
>>> together by stating they are "intellectually...skim milk".
>>
>>
>>
>> Which they are, and which you haven't really disputed.
>>
>>> You did say "on average" which is a good qualifier, but you still 
>>> tend to lump the whole group together.
>>
>>
>>
>> You just don't like the way I see the group.  It doesn't mean my way 
>> of seeing it is inaccurate.
>>
>>> I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling the way you do,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, you do.  Your use of politically charged words like "divisive" 
>> shows it.
>>
>>> but at least admit that you do,
>>
>>
>>
>> I always have.  Where have you been?
>>
>>> instead of saying "I don't feel that way" and then "there's nothing 
>>> wrong with me feeling that way."
>>
>>
>>
>> I didn't say either of those, or anything remotely like them.
>>
> 
> The hell you didn't.

I didn't.  You put some things in quotes as if I had 
said them, and I didn't.  Your quotes are fabricated. 
That means you made them up.  That means you're a lying 
fat fuck.

> "I'm not an elitist" (scroll up to read it, I 
> didn't snip anything).

You left something off, you lying fabricating fat fuck. 
  I wrote, "I'm not an elitist, if by that you mean one 
who favors some kind of aristocracy based on 
inheritance."  Why did you omit the clause beginning 
"if by that you mean..."?

I'll tell you why:  It's because you're a fabricating 
lying fat fuck, and you're trying to "win" by twisting 
and misrepresenting.  You will fail.

> Then you backpedal and act like being an elitist is not bad,

No backpedaling.

> in this quote:
> "You just don't get it.  "Elitist" isn't the character-assassinating 
> swearword you want it to be.  I believe in recognition of and rewards to 
> merit, and it is clear that, because of differences in ability, there 
> will be a natural elite."

No backpedaling.  I never pretended I *don't* believe 
in some form of elitism.  You are lying to suggest 
otherwise.

> Which is true, there are those naturally predispositioned towards 
> success,

"Predisposed", not "predispositioned", and no, there 
aren't.  I know plenty of people with all the equipment 
for success EXCEPT for the predisposition.

> and those who are equally predispositioned towards failure.
> But, for God's sake, admit how you feel, instead of trying to play both 
> sides of the issue.

I have admitted to favoring a merit-based elite.  You 
are either too fucking incompetent to read for 
comprehension, or you're a lying fabricating fat fuck. 
  I favor the latter, because you deliberately omitted 
a key clause from something I wrote.