🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <slrn4o114j.26l.root@marsgrp.tamu.edu>,
balthazaar <semon@comp.tamu.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 1996 20:37:10 GMT, Rick Shank <ricks@dvorak.amd.com> wrote:
> >In article <4loh0s$otn@newsgate.sps.mot.com>,
> >Gordon Gunn  <ggunn@aton.sps.mot.com> wrote:
> >>In article <DqFAtA.HBw@txnews.amd.com> Rick Shank,
> >>ricks@dvorak.amd.com writes:
> >>>Ignorance, abundance of jobs, and poor road system design.  The abundance
> >>>of jobs allow the ignorant to actually have a place to go for employment.
> >>>This leads to an increased density of ignorant.  These losers had no/poor 
> >>>jobs where jobs were tight.  They move here (along with the intelligent,
> >>>but in higher percentages) in droves.  Take a poorly designed traffic 
> >>>system like Austin has (can you say safety?), stir in a bunch of ignoramuses 
> >>>(5% - 10%) and you get driving pandemonium.  
> >>
> >>And just where did you get these "statistics"?  Out of thin
> >>air?  I thought so.
> >>
> >
> >I doubt exact numbers are critical to the argument.  The message I was trying
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >to convey is that the numbers are small but not insignificant.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> 

From below, it appears you learned to read at the same level as your 
predecessor.


> 
> Hmm... Let's see here. First, we have an argument which 
> is based on statistics. Then, following a request for the 
> source, the person claims the basis of his argument is 
> insignificant. So as he put it, he is trying to convey
> a message based on an insignificant argument. I was 
> wondering who was going to hold down the fort for 
> Dan Quayle in Nov.
> 

Wow, another mindreader.  When I wrote the above text, I was not quoting 
a statistic, I was approximating.  It is a no win situation.  If I had 
said small or insignificant, I would have been asked 'what do you consider
small' (but only after months of debate on the validity of the thought.  So
I put down an reasonable approximation and those who only believe in statistics
want to know from where I got my research data.  Please send all further 
correspondence to my accounting secretary Helen Wate.



> >
> >>>Disclaimer: To me, ignorance (from the word ignore), is the blatant disregard
> >>>for knowledge.  
> >>
> >>Not in my dictionary.
> >>
> >
> >Either get a better dictionary or learn what etymology means.
> >
> 
> 	And look up Potatoe while you're at it.

Go suck an egg!


> 
> >
> >>>It is not to be confused with lacking intelligence which to
> >>>me means one is learning but hasn't yet achieved.  It is more a statement of
> >>>attitude than a statement of status.
> >>
> >>Actually, "learning but hasn't yet achieved", sounds a lot more
> >>like my dictionary's definition of "ignorance".  The definition
> >>of "ignorance" contains no mention of attitude.  Look it up.
> >>
> >
> >I did look it up.  My dictionary specifically says; "see ignore".  It also
> >states lack of knowledge.  Specifically, ignorance implies lack of knowledge
> >from ignoring rather than just not yet experiencing.  Before I wrote this,
> >you were unaware.  If you still don't know the truth, you are ignorant.
> >
> >
> 	You could try setting up an ignorant web page and take
>	votes. This would yield an insignificant basis for a
>	definition, but at least we wouldn't have to have this
>	here.
> 

How did you get out of the dickhead webpage to here?


> >As you improve your reading skills you will realize what I have said
>>does not necessarily contradict what you have just said.
>>
>	Uh. Oh. Cat Fight.

Duh!


>>
>>
>>
>	I think you're winning now. I'm sure any second he'll
>	recognize that he can't read. Maybe after he reads the
>	next vicious attack.
>>

And just where is it that you wake up and pull your head out?



>>
>>I have moved all my life and I learned to drive in Boston.  I tend to 
>>disagree.  Austin drivers are some of the worst I have ever seen.  There
>>is another group of people who tend to disagree with your assessment.  They
>>are called insurance companies and Austin is considered a significantly high
>>risk area.  If you have experienced this level of ignorant driving in other
>>cities, please state the names of these cities so the rest of us can avoid
>>them.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>
>	And states too. Let's see, New Mexico via Louisiana. I feel
>	safer already.
>

I've not driven in Louisiana but I'll agree with New Mexico.



>>-- 
>>Disclaimer: Not only are these NOT necessarily the opinions of the great company
>>I work for - AMD, they may not even be the opinions of this author.  If you are 
>>smart, you will take this post as the scribblings of a madman and ignore it.
>>                      "I know NUSSING, absolutely nussing."  Sgt. Schultz
>
>
>
>	No argument about that.
>-- 
>semon@comp.tamu.edu
>

I see you're not far behind me.

Rick -


nd @�� Newsgroups: tx.general,houston.general,austin.general,tamu.general,dfw.general,austin.autos,rec.autos.driving,r
Subject: Re: Why speed limits in Texas are rising
Summary: 
Expires: 
-- 
Disclaimer: Not only are these NOT necessarily the opinions of the great company
I work for - AMD, they may not even be the opinions of this author.  If you are 
smart, you will take this post as the scribblings of a madman and ignore it.
                      "I know NUSSING, absolutely nussing."  Sgt. Schultz