Cobol - OT: Life style(s), personal beliefs, faith, opinions, and all that JAZZ

Author

OT: Life style(s), personal beliefs, faith, opinions, and all that JAZZ

William M. Klein

2004-11-17, 8:55 am

Given another thread (clearly marked "OT") going on, I decided that I would post
this (for what it's worth - or not worth)

First let me say, that I am not (personally) offended by any of the "faith
based" or other politically correct or incorrect posts that are going on in
C.L.C. - as long as they are clearly marked "OT". Although they certainly have
NOTHING to do with COBOL or programming, I think this forum is a "social
interface" for many of us. If others want to expound on their "world view," I
don't see any reason that I shouldn't too.

Having prefaced with that, I just thought I would put in one (medium-sized) note
many of the things that "make me - me" - that I am certain will offend some; be
similar (in part, probably not in whole) to others; and generally show why such
posts (with opinions and beliefs) either will or won't impact how some people
"read" other people's posts (that ARE on topic). Obviously, anyone who reads
this and wants to explain how they "differ" may feel free to do so. Anyone who
tells me that I am "wrong" is free to believe and/or live their life as they
want, but this will have little or no impact on me.

"Begin controversial topics"

1) I am openly gay - have been for over 30 years and (luckily) this didn't
impact my business life (getting or keeping jobs) at any time (that I am aware
of). I had an interesting experience when I was hired by the company that
"invented" Xpediter - as it was (at that time) owned and managed by some "born
again evangelical Christians" - who were told by their (equally fundamentalist
boss) to either "live with my life style - when kept out of the office" or quit.

2) I was actively opposed to the US participation in the Viet Nam war and don't
(personally) see much more justification for the current US participation in
Iraq (possibly less as Viet Nam had SOME serious international support). I
applied for "conscientious object" for Viet Nam (with a supporting letter from
my Bishop) but when this was turned down, I was (again luckily?) classified as
1F. I was, am (and probably always will be) against war, capital punishment,
and all other premeditated killing.

3) I am currently an Episcopalian (US part of Anglican Communion - for those
outside the US) and am INCREDIBLY proud of our recent consecration of the first
OPENLY gay Bishop. (Having been in Seminary at one time, I won't comment on the
number of closeted bishops).

4) Although I am Episcopalian, I come from a German (and/or Russian) Jewish
background. I have no idea what I would have done in WW II - especially if I
had known what was happening to Jews (and others - including gays) in Germany,
Austria, Poland, etc. My "hope" is that I would have been a conscientious
objector then too, but who knows (I was born in '50 so this wasn't an issue for
me). I do know that had I been "called up" for Viet Nam (and I was eligible for
the draft), I would have either left the US or accepted jail time rather than
"fight". (I believe in "civil disobedience" - but only if one is willing to
accept the consequences.)

5) I am a NOT a -recreational drug user (MINIMAL wine, nothing else) and
personally don't understand why the US treats marijuana as illegal but tobacco
as legal. (I sort-of lean to making both illegal - if I thought doing so might
be useful - but I also accept "personal responsibility" as a reason for NEITHER
being illegal.) Treating the two differently just makes no sense to me.

6) I fully accept that the history of the US and "church and state" really
started with trying to ensure that there was no "state mandated religion" and
NOT that it was really trying to "totally take religion out of the state". I am
HAPPY that over the last 230+ years it as moved much more to the total
separation of the two. (I am a "card carrying member of the ACLU). I:
- think we should take "under God" back out of the pledge
- think we should take "in God we trust" off our currency
- should prohibit "God save ..." from courts, congress, and all other
governmental bodies
- should insure that all organizations (such as the Boy Scouts) that require
religious or sexual orientation beliefs do NOT receive any government assistance
(or approbation)
- should make marriage (to the extent the law deals with it at all) available
to any 2 (or more?) people wishing to enter such a "contract" - with not LEGAL
distinction between the results.
- should make discrimination (in all "public" activities) on the basis of
sexual orientation punishable to the same extent discrimination for other
reasons is punishable (and illegal to the same extent)
- should pass the (old) ERA amendment and in general insure that women are
treated equally to men in employment as well as other "public" activities, etc

7) I am not a "Libertarian" although I agree with SOME of their beliefs (i.e,
LESS government telling others what is right for them - is better) . Rather, I
am almost the "opposite" in that I once described myself as a "Christian
Communist" - in that I do believe that it is the governments (and society in
general) responsibility to insure the public "welfare". (From each according to
his/her ability, to each according to her/his needs). But think that the Soviet
*anti-* religious indoctrination was as bad as the "Christian right's" thought
that "evolution should be taught as an 'option' to creation" (see recent Texas
school book decision.

8) I am on long term disability as a result of having AIDS (diagnosed in 1984 -
possibly contracted earlier) and its side effects. I am *thrilled* that other
than my eyesight, my health has been great since the current regime of medicines
became available.

***
So, I am certain that at least SOME of what is listed above differs
(significantly) with the beliefs of most (all?) of those who participate in this
forum. (Where each participant differs will depend upon their OWN life
decisions and style.) I am more than willing to discuss WHY I believe and live
as I do (preferably in a more appropriate forum). However, I did think that as
long as others are posting their beliefs, that I might as well make some (many)
of mine public too.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

Jay Moseley

2004-11-17, 8:55 pm

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:15:03 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>Given another thread (clearly marked "OT") going on, I decided that I would post
>this (for what it's worth - or not worth)

Bill,

I applaud you for the courage to make such a public disclosure about
yourself. I have long read and benefited from your knowledgable posts
in this forum and others, and hope to continue to do so for much
longer. It only increases my respect and regard for you knowing these
aspects of your character and self you have chosen to share. It

dens me to hear that you are living with AIDS, having lost several
of my own friends from complications thereof. Still, I am glad to know
that, except for your eyesight, you are maintaining good health.

Thanks for all you do to help the COBOL programming community.
Jay Moseley, CCP

www.jaymoseley.com/hercules Hercules S/370-S/390 resources

Pete Dashwood

2004-11-18, 3:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ntMmd.245243$Pl.202191@pd7tw1no...
> William M. Klein wrote:
>
would post[color=darkred]
> BRAVO to Bill Klein for, as it were, coming out of the closet !

Why? Shouldn't Gays be allowed to do whatever they are most comfortable
with? Just like the rest of us...

I understand you are acknowledging a courageous step here, Jimmy, but it is
important to recognise that there is really no REQUIREMENT for Gays to "come
out" if they don't want to.

> For
> whatever reason, from something Bill wrote quite a while back, I twigged
> he was a homosexual. (I REFUSE to use the politically correct word
> 'Gay', just as I consider 'African-American' to be ludicrous).

I shudder to think of the alternative... <G>

Hope you never meet a Gay Afro-American, Jimmy...

"So how long have you been a queer nigger...?" <G>

Anyone who used that deserves whatever follows....

> Bill
> subsequently confirmed such in writing to a few of us in private.
> However, being the only contributor here I have met, (the J4 meeting at
> Newbury in 2000), I would be more than proud to be known as his friend.
> As Pete would endorse, he is one contributor who has leaned over
> backwards to help others here and is a mine of information on the
Standards.
>
Absolutely. He was also attacked by the Gang of Four for his position on the
Standard. I wrote an article in his defence.

> I knew for sure Pete Dashwood would respond - in support - but I *was*
> disappointed he didn't specifically raise comments for or against what
> Bill wrote - I wish he still would.

Well, there are a number of factors around that. While I love this forum as
one of the last bastions of Free Speech on the planet, it would be foolish
to pretend that serious issues get resolved here. For the most part, it is
fun, and some good COBOL issues get aired. But when it comes to 'personal
beliefs, faith, opinions' I think I'm prepared to restrain myself.

I might comment in passing, but only if it was apposite to a specific
conversation. I see no need to argue Bill's (or anyone else's) beliefs.

Does it serve any useful purpose? (Besides, those of us who regularly attend
the Church of Minimum Entropy are forbidden to reveal our beliefs on pain of
wuzzocking before the Grand Pocketwank...)

>
> Under a different thread Warren wrote he really didn't want to comment
> on this topic but would summarize what he was reading on human
> sexuality. I was tempted to respond to Warren, "Give it a miss. Minds
> are already made up" - but then Bill posts his message.
>
> Ahhh Ha ! Anybody out there thinking another homosexual has jumped out
> of the closet ? You are dead wrong - I am more inclined to be homophobic
> than just plain 'neutral'.
>
Y' know... I was wondering how long it would be before you disavowed any
possibility...<G>

"Methinks he doth protest too much..."

See the trouble you can get into from an innocent conversation...? <G>

I am absolutely certain that there are people reading this who are Gay,
non-white, extreme (right or left), disabled, liberal, devout, Christian,
Buddhist, Atheist, and so on. The hodge podge of diversity that represents
Humanity. Some will have respect for others, some won't. I see no need for
any of them to divulge their particular flavours, unless they want to.
Sometimes this process of public affirmation of a controversial belief can
be useful; sometimes it isn't.

I further see no need to look for trouble... <G> (there are enough endless
threads in this forum, that go nowhere and s

nothing, other than to make
the poster right... )

Entertainment is one thing, intense discussion of totally unimportant things
also is a welcome relief from the pap we have served to us daily by the
media, but when we start tearing into each other over things that actually
matter, well, I would have to think long and hard before participating, (and
then decide not to <G> ).

> I will subsequently be stating my 'history' and position on some of the
> issues Bill raised.

That's entirely your prerogative, Jimmy. Think about it before you do. Can
you handle it if there is criticism or vehement disagreement...? Are you
prepared to have a reasonable discussion or do you feel so strongly that you
will simply rant or slink off and sulk if it doesn't go your way?

> I recently mentioned 'Faith, Hope and Charity(Love - of one's fellow
> human beings)" - and that can be summed up in one word - TOLERANCE.

Precisely. But remember that not all people ascribe to this philosophy.
There are those to whom it is so foreign that they torture and decapitate
people who are trying to help them.There are some people for whom their
belief is so strong that they will open fire on fleeing children with
machine guns and never even consider whether this is likely to help their
cause...

(Hopefully, we don't have any of the above in CLC... but, you never know....
<G> )

> Any
> recent newcomers to c.l.c. will be unaware that it was Alistair McLean,
> a Scotsman and declared atheist, who defended Judson McClendon, a
> baptist, and his *right* to have a signature block, "And God so loved
> the world etc....".

So did I. (Funny how atheists seem particularly sensitive to the rights and
beliefs of others... <G> ). And I don't think we were the only ones.
>
> Some of our right-wing American friends have been quick to express their
> current 'victory', and their religious position, specifically on
> homosexuality. So let's see some of them have the guts to respond with
> reasoned and unemotive arguments.

You seem to be deliberately provoking a heated exchange here. Why? Do you
think minds are likely to be changed? Have you EVER (in all your years as a
contributor here) seen anyone's mind changed about COBOL, never mind their
religion or sexuality?

I see posts here I disagree with all the time. Sometimes I comment,
sometimes I don't. I always remember that others have a right to an opinion.
Pick your battles.

> (Don't quote your bloody Constitution
> at me - we are talking human inter-action - and if you do want to rip
> pieces from the Jewish Bible in defence, I suggest first you look at the
> 'tolerance' in the Christian Bible - the New Testament).

Well, that's not exactly an amenable or non-provocative opening statement
is it? I urge you to reconsider whether you really want this discussion or
not.

Think on't.

Pete.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-18, 8:55 am

You are quite brave to throw your life out there like that. That takes
guts.

I tend to agree with you on the draft. Conscripts aren't worth much in
combat and I know I never wanted the man next to me to be sullen and
grumpy about losing the 18 months. Heinlein once quipped that draftees
are like lobsters -- it may be their finest hour, but hardly their
choice.

But I have to strongly disagree with you on the two cited wars. The
right of all people to be free of oppression doesn't stop at the U.S.
border. We abandoned south Vietnam before I was old enough to
volunteer, but it as a noble effort. A

, mismanaged effort -- but
still noble. In the end, our unconditional departure resulted in the
premeditated reeducation of several million people.

I don't see how you call almost 50 nations in Iraq not "serious
international support", but the 25 nation SEATO in Vietnam "serious
international support". Regardless -- I agree with parts of your point
#2 -- opposing premeditated killing, at least by ones own dictator
(300,000ish Iraqis in various mass graves, millions of south east asians
reeducated).

I'm sorry to hear about your illness, but glad to hear that the various
treatments have been so effective for you.

Alistair Maclean

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<ntMmd.245243$Pl.202191@pd7tw1no>...
> I recently mentioned 'Faith, Hope and Charity(Love - of one's fellow
> human beings)" - and that can be summed up in one word - TOLERANCE. Any
> recent newcomers to c.l.c. will be unaware that it was Alistair McLean,
> a Scotsman and declared atheist, who defended Judson McClendon, a
> baptist, and his *right* to have a signature block, "And God so loved
> the world etc....".
>
>
> Jimmy, Calgary AB

I don't know what upset Bill, but the crime of misspelling my surname
will NEVER be forgiven! FTR, my grandfather changed the family name
from McLean to Maclean because he was pissed off at the English for
misspelling it ever since 1745.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-18, 3:55 pm

On 17-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:

>
> Did you have to put up with 8 years of Bill Clinton? You might
> understand why we'd be excited...

How did your life change because of the change of administration?

JerryMouse

2004-11-18, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 17-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> How did your life change because of the change of administration?

My taxes went down.

Alistair Maclean

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<Gu6nd.261347$nl.140135@pd7tw3no>...
> Alistair Maclean wrote:
>
> Oh I *knew* I'd get that bloody wrong. (Still, it looks like your
> grandfather was the real problem). Maybe I should have left it to the
> spell checker to turn 'Alistair' into 'Alligator'. Bugger me ! It just
> tried to turn Maclean into "Ma clean" :-)
>
> Jimmy

Mine turne it into Maculae. You obviously are not using the MS versions.

Alistair Maclean

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<ROgnd.786$3K3.742@fe40.usenetserver.com>...
> Alistair Maclean wrote:
>
> I thought you were the "tolerant" one... ;) (a joke, of course...)

Yeah, as if my middle name were tolerance. Sorry, but as I am now
officially a middle aged git I seem to be losing my tolerance.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-19, 3:55 pm

In article <cnie9l$n0$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On 17-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> How did your life change because of the change of administration?

Many of my friends still in the military have competant leadership as
they face danger in Afganistan and Iraq.

My taxes were cut.

My future retirment was protected from head-in-the-sand types that want
me to fund systems that will not be available for me.

My relationship with my health care providers was protected from
infringment by government idiots with regulatory power.

The 24-hour cable news channels piped into my house do not have a news
segment on blow jobs at least hourly. (ok, ok, maybe I miss Clintion
just a little)

Cigars are just cigars again.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-19, 8:55 pm

On 19-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>
> Many of my friends still in the military have competant leadership as
> they face danger in Afganistan and Iraq.

Without that change, they would have had competent leadership as they faced
danger in Afghanistan.

> My taxes were cut.

Except a deficit budget *is* a tax.

> My future retirment was protected from head-in-the-sand types that want
> me to fund systems that will not be available for me.

Is that "protection" because of the change of administration or despite it?
All evidence I've seen says the latter.

> My relationship with my health care providers was protected from
> infringment by government idiots with regulatory power.

Mine wasn't. Bureaucrats still run my health care (and my brother slipped thru
the cracks). Just because the feds are in bed with the insurance companies and
the drug companies does not mean I have a real choice.

> The 24-hour cable news channels piped into my house do not have a news
> segment on blow jobs at least hourly. (ok, ok, maybe I miss Clintion
> just a little)
>
> Cigars are just cigars again.

I never did pay much attention to all that.

Alistair Maclean

2004-11-19, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cni7r8$5im$1@panix5.panix.com>...
> In article <6UUmd.499$3K3.16@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Does coprolite count as 'a real gem'?
>
> DD

That depends upon how you cut and polish it. (no split pun intended)

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-20, 3:55 am

In article <d487f04c.0411191630.3c26467a@posting.google.com>,
Alistair Maclean <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cni7r8$5im$1@panix5.panix.com>...
>
>That depends upon how you cut and polish it.

Seems to be the case with a lot of things in Life, aye.

DD

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-20, 3:55 pm

In article <cnlj2n$ajb$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On 19-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Without that change, they would have had competent leadership as they faced
> danger in Afghanistan.

I know what the Clinton/Gore administration considers leadership -- I
saw it's effect in Mogadishu a few months before I returned to civillian
life. Whatever it is, it certainly is not competent.

>
> Except a deficit budget *is* a tax.

No, not really. A deficit is a great way to motivate politicians to
stop spending -- something the will never do with balance or surplus.

However, even with the excessive non-war spending of the first Bush
administration, the new outlays are still less then if Gore were elected
and honored his promises.

Lesser of two evils...

>
> Is that "protection" because of the change of administration or despite it?
> All evidence I've seen says the latter.

Bush is talking seriously about reforming social security. It is
scheduled to go broke somewhere around the time my wife and I turn 67.
If meaningful reform happens, it will be because of Bush, not because of
Gore and his lockbox or Kerry and the same do-nothing-and-hope approach.

>
> Mine wasn't. Bureaucrats still run my health care (and my brother slipped
> thru
> the cracks). Just because the feds are in bed with the insurance companies
> and
> the drug companies does not mean I have a real choice.

You complain about bureaucrats running your health care and yet you want
the Clinton/Gore solution of more bureaucrats in your health care as a
fix?

>
> I never did pay much attention to all that.

That was too much fun -- it was almost worth the extra taxes and stress
for the entertainment value.

Some of the laughs are still echoing -- wasn't it Judy Woodruff that
said she would be "happy to give Bill Clinton a blowjob just to thank
him for keeping abortion legal". Every time I watch CNN I think of
that...(or was that Don Immus?)

What the meaning of is, is...

JerryMouse

2004-11-20, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 19-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Without that change, they would have had competent leadership as they
> faced danger in Afghanistan.
>
>
> Except a deficit budget *is* a tax.
>

No it's not. Prudent use of debt is good. Most imprudent use of debt is
good. Only egregious, corrupt, despotic debt has a chance of being bad.

National debt is now, what, $5000/person? Run it up to $10,000/person (three
months average wages) for roads, education, research, etc. Our grandchildren
pay off the $10,000 in a w

's worth of work because of increased
productivity. Absent the increased productivity the debt can bring, it'll
take our grandchildren the same three months.

Republicans used to harp about the deficit and balanced budget. We've moved
on.

Alistair Maclean

2004-11-21, 8:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-11-21, 8:55 pm

Richard

2004-11-22, 3:55 am

"James J. Gavan" <jjgavan@shaw.ca> wrote

> Oh I *knew* I'd get that bloody wrong. (Still, it looks like your
> grandfather was the real problem). Maybe I should have left it to the
> spell checker to turn 'Alistair' into 'Alligator'. Bugger me ! It just
> tried to turn Maclean into "Ma clean" :-)

Microsoft is the root of all evil ;-)

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-22, 8:55 am

Alistair Maclean

2004-11-22, 8:55 am

JerryMouse

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 17-Nov-2004, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> How did your life change because of the change of administration?

My taxes went down.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

On 20-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> No, not really.

Yes, really. TANSSAAFL. We will pay the piper.

> A deficit is a great way to motivate politicians to
> stop spending -- something the will never do with balance or surplus.

You can measure how great a way it is by observing how well it works.

Does it work at stopping spending? Did the spending rate even remain constant?

Howard Brazee

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

On 20-Nov-2004, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:

>
> No it's not. Prudent use of debt is good. Most imprudent use of debt is
> good. Only egregious, corrupt, despotic debt has a chance of being bad.

Some taxes are good. That doesn't mean they aren't taxes.

> National debt is now, what, $5000/person? Run it up to $10,000/person (three
> months average wages) for roads, education, research, etc. Our grandchildren
> pay off the $10,000 in a w

's worth of work because of increased
> productivity. Absent the increased productivity the debt can bring, it'll
> take our grandchildren the same three months.

No matter what, they *will* pay. Since the debt won't be paid directly, what
it will mean is that a larger and larger percentage of our taxes will be used to
pay interest instead of legitimate government functions.

> Republicans used to harp about the deficit and balanced budget. We've moved
> on.

Power corrupts. You recognized the enemy and then became it.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

On 20-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> You complain about bureaucrats running your health care and yet you want
> the Clinton/Gore solution of more bureaucrats in your health care as a
> fix?

I do? I could have fooled me. In fact I must have, if what I want is so
much different from what I think I want.

Jay Moseley

2004-11-22, 8:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-23, 8:55 pm

JerryMouse

2004-11-23, 8:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-24, 3:55 am

In article <cnt3su$73i$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On 20-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> I do? I could have fooled me. In fact I must have, if what I want is so
> much different from what I think I want.

Considering the origin of the topic was 'how has your life changed with
Bush elected in 2000', the alternative was Algores additional
bureaucracy. (We only really had the two choices -- sometimes I envy
our European neighbours, they get many various shades of grey, but they
also get some scary coalitions.)

If memory servers his platform was a gradual 'move toward universal
coverage' through expansion of programs like medicare and chip -- in
other words, more bureaucracy.

Did you get MORE infringment on your health care by government idiots
with regulatory power because Bush was elected over Gore in 2000?

I'm not saying the status quo is great -- there is way too much
bureaucracy in it everywhere. I'm just saying that, with the exception
of medicare-drugs which both parties promised, bureaucracy has not
increased.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-24, 3:55 pm

On 23-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

> I'm not saying the status quo is great -- there is way too much
> bureaucracy in it everywhere.

Funny thing - when I complained about the status quo, the response was:
[color=darkred]

Now you've done the same thing, does this mean we both want the Clinton/Gore
solution? I'm not real good at this inferring political stands (or for that
matter what "all Mainframers do"), but this seems to be how it's done.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-24, 8:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-25, 3:55 am

In article <co26l6$jle$1@peabody.colorado.edu>,
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

> On 23-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
> Funny thing - when I complained about the status quo, the response was:
>

I thought it sounded like you were opposed to the status quo.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your comments. Sometimes it is hard to
understand without facial expressions and vocal inflection exactly what
a person is saying.

I was reading this through boolean either-or glasses of 2000, because
that is the way the original poster asked -- how is your life different
because of the 2000 election result? Since there were only two possible
outcomes for reality based people (sorry Naderites, I was a Browne
supporter myself...but reality intrudes), I was thinking that
unhappiness with the status quo would indicate more happiness with the
opposite result.

Please forgive my misunderstanding.

[color=darkred]
> Now you've done the same thing, does this mean we both want the Clinton/Gore
> solution? I'm not real good at this inferring political stands (or for that
> matter what "all Mainframers do"), but this seems to be how it's done.

I certainly do not want that. I may be unhappy with what I have now,
but I know I'd be really miserable if it were free and guaranteed.

JerryMouse

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

Howard Brazee

2004-11-29, 3:55 pm

On 24-Nov-2004, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> I certainly do not want that. I may be unhappy with what I have now,
> but I know I'd be really miserable if it were free and guaranteed.

I'd be real happy if it were free. But TANSSAAFL. Changing how something
gets paid for does not make it free.

I just added another $1000 deductible Friday - I should be up to my annual limit
within the w

they keep working on my heart. The fact that my employer pays
for some of insurance instead of giving me that money does not mean that the
insurance doesn't cost.

Howard Brazee

2004-11-30, 8:55 pm

they keep working on my heart. The fact that my employer pays
for some of insurance instead of giving me that money does not mean that the
insurance doesn't cost.

Sponsored Links