XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general   
   From: nospam@thanksalot.com   
      
   John Fleming wrote:   
   > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 20:39:04 -0700, while chained to a desk   
   > in the scriptorium "merlin!"  wrote:   
   >> $John Fleming wrote:   
   >> $> On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 13:40:50 -0700, while chained to a desk   
   >> $> in the scriptorium "merlin!"  wrote:   
   >> $>> $John Fleming wrote:   
   >> $>> $> On Wed, 6 Jul 2011 21:59:55 -0700, while chained to a desk   
   >> $>> $> in the scriptorium "merlin!"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> $>> $>> $So, you have absolutely no comprehension of what it's like   
   >> to $>> $>> suddenly be $plunged into unmanageable debt, having done   
   >> nothing $>> $>> wrong. But you insist $that this only happens to   
   >> welshers, $>> losers, $>> irresponsible deadbeats etc. $You are a   
   >> clueless twit, $>> badly in need $>> of an education.   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $> I'm sure your ex would disagree on the "done nothing wrong"   
   >> $>> $> part.  If you hadn't done something wrong, she wouldn't have   
   >> $>> $> divorced you, right?   
   >> $>> $   
   >> $>> $She didn't mention anything like that.   
   >> $>   
   >> $> Oh, I'm sure she didn't.  But I'm sure she didn't divorce   
   >> $> you on a lark either.  No, there were serious problems   
   >> $> festering in your relationship, and you were as guitly as   
   >> $> sin as far as she was concerned.   
   >> $   
   >> $In later years, she admitted that she had been "a real bitch". I am   
   >> not $suggesting that I was a perfect husband, nobody is. However, I   
   >> certainly $did not deserve what the lawyers and judges dish out. I   
   >> suspect that only $1 in 1000 men do deserve that, but they get it   
   >> anyhow.   
   >   
   > What she admitted she was is immaterial.  It's what she   
   > thought you were that counts.   
      
   She thought I was married to "a real bitch".   
      
      
   > If she dumped you, she came to the conclusion you weren't as   
   > hot a catch as she originally thought.   
      
   I guess you are right. You have amazing insight into the female psyche!   
      
      
   >> $>> $>> $>>> Nope.  Just have my eyes open and a good grip of   
   >> reality. $>> $>> $>>   
   >> $>> $>> $>>  From what you have written here, it is clear to me that   
   >> your $>> $>> $>> conception of reality is extremely narrow and   
   >> limited. $>> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $>> $> Reality and truth are often very limited and exact.   
   >> $>> $>> $   
   >> $>> $>> $And your ignorance knows no bounds.   
   >> $>> $>> $   
   >> $>> $>> $   
   >> $>> $>> $>>> Funny, of all the friends I knew as kids that smoked   
   >> dope, $>> not $>> a one $>>> amounted to anything.  Not a one.  But   
   >> the ones $>> that $>> didn't toke $>>> most became something.  Go   
   >> figure. $>> $>> $>>   
   >> $>> $>> $>> Corelation is not causation.   
   >> $>> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $>> $> True.  But can be.  My experience suggests in this case   
   >> it is. $>> $>> $   
   >> $>> $>> $You said you have no experience of such matters. You deny   
   >> the $>> $>> existence of $such things. You might be wise to admit   
   >> ignorance, $>> $>> rather than dispensing $judgment.   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $> Face it merlin.  It costs money to support a drug habit. How   
   >> $>> $> long does it take a man to drain his bank account to feed a   
   >> $>> $> cocaine addiction?  And if you are spending your money on   
   >> $>> $> drugs, you aren't spending it improving your education and   
   >> $>> $> training.  Nor are you spending it on keeping your patner   
   >> $>> $> happy.   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $> And you you spend half your life in a drug induced haze,   
   >> $>> $> you're not giving your girl the attention she wants and   
   >> $>> $> needs either.  Nor are you giving your job the attention and   
   >> $>> $> due dilligence your boss expects you to give it.   
   >> $>> $>   
   >> $>> $> OK, you can argue a drug habit doesn't turn you into a   
   >> $>> $> failure.  Heck, lots of rock and pop musicians pop pills by   
   >> $>> $> the handful and still sell lots of records.  But, on the   
   >> $>> $> balance, if a drug problem doesn't cause failure, it sure   
   >> $>> $> indicative of a deeper problem that does cause failure.   
   >> $>> $   
   >> $>> $It's none of my business if someone wants to take drugs, or   
   >> spend $>> every $dime they have on drugs, or whatever it is that   
   >> turns their $>> crank. I'm $pretty sure that it's none of your damn   
   >> business either. $>   
   >> $> It is everybody's business when they are breaking into homes   
   >> $> to steal money to support a drug habit.   
   >> $   
   >> $Stealing is my business. Taking drugs is not. See the difference?   
   >> $   
   >> $> It's everybody's   
   >> $> business if they use hospital services to treat an overdoes.   
   >> $   
   >> $It is, but that is easily remedied by reforming the idiotic   
   >> tax-funded $hospital system. Harming drug addicts (more they they   
   >> already harm $themselves) because people like you have their   
   >> "universal healthcare" $heads up their asses, really does not seem   
   >> rasonable or fair. $   
   >> $> It is everybody's business if they get behind the wheel of a   
   >> $> car while high on drugs.   
   >> $   
   >> $Public saftey issues are my business. Using drugs is not. See the   
   >> $difference?   
   >   
   > You are tyring to tell me that operating a motor vehicle   
   > while high on drugs isn't a public saftey issue?  Give your   
   > head a shake man.   
      
   I said exactly the opposite. Give your glasses a good cleaning and cut   
   down on the booze.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)