A long but interesting read

[bljones]

Well, the post title was half right.

[bljones]

Here's what none of us want to face- we have lifespanned beyond our ability to sustain life. We all want the pensions and the health care and the cheap chinese tv's so now the economy can no longer sustain the demands upon it. Liberals, conservatives, apathetic hypocrites, whatever, everybody wants the same thing- truly golden golden years.

When you look at the demands on health care, insurance, government programs, they aren't coming from welfare moms, students, the poor and the disenfranchised. Nope, it's coming from the Crown Vic driving left turn signal blinking bluehairs who, by god think they deserve it because they still have a pulse and "paid into the system." The demands placed on the system by the walker- and- Depends set far outpace their contribution over the years, no matter how you amortize it. Gone is the concept of dying with dignity, replaced by the conceit of grimly hanging on as long as the oxygen tank and the pills hold out. As sual, because self-absorbed Western society is not able to self-regulate at the personal level, I expect that within 2 generations lifespan regulation/ geriatric care limits will be in place

I don't know, maybe "Logan's Run" isn't as fictional as we all hope.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Well now, ya see, that's the problem, I did read what was written, found it ambiguous, and so, asked for clarification, as one doesn't usually think of a person reading two things simultaneously. Most people would read the link, then return to the thread.

It is only ambiguous when you take the last sentence by itself. See the first two sentences only make sense if I read the article. You even state that "most people would read the link, then return to the thread", which I did and nothing in the post indicates otherwise. Still with the gotcha games

[therapy23]

Originally Posted by BentSailor

Incorrect. Nowhere in that sentence (or my post) does it say I did not finish the article. It simply states that the thread devolved into the usual fare before I did so. If I wanted to say as you imply, I would have written "Sadly the thread devolved into the usual fare so I could not finish it."

I'd suggest you practise what you preach and read what is written, not what you would like to argue about. The whole gotcha game & thread diversion you seem to be trying to play is exactly what I'm talking about as "usual fare".

You guys are silly because you speak different english.

Sadly the thread devolved into the usual fare before I could finish it

Makes it sound like you were going back and forth.

I would have said - Sadly the thread devolved into the usual fare before I finished it.


So I'm not going to read the article.
Someone just post the cliff notes.

[PBzeer]

Gotcha would be to STATE you didn't finish, not ask if you didn't. But, have it your way.

[BentSailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Gotcha would be to STATE you didn't finish, not ask if you didn't. But, have it your way.

Really? Funny, even the Newt disagrees with that assessment. Asking leading questions ignoring context is a well-known and often practised form of gotcha game. One he railed against quite recently, so strongly it even made the ABC News here.

Also, recall you have history where stating something outright took pages of repeating the same question.

[PBzeer]

More reading ... for those who have an interest in ideas rather than critiquing other posters:

Beyond Blue Part One: The Crisis of the American Dream | Via Meadia

Beyond Blue Part Two: Recasting The Dream | Via Meadia

It's an ongoing series to which I'll keep posting the links.

[bljones]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

More reading ... for those who have an interest in ideas rather than critiquing other posters:

You haven't read them, then, Mr. Pot?

[PBzeer]

Thanks for your critique.