From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 12/1/25 09:22, Tom Elam wrote:   
   > On 11/30/2025 4:33 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >> On 11/30/25 12:55, Tom Elam wrote:   
   >>> On 11/30/2025 10:20 AM, -hh wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/29/25 16:41, Tom Elam wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/29/2025 4:20 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 11/28/25 17:49, Alan wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 2025-11-28 13:40, Tom Elam wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 3:38 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> BTW, Ubiquti is having a pretty good Black Friday sale going on   
   >>>>>>>>> right now if you need anything; I'm picking up their Dream   
   >>>>>>>>> Router 7; you may recall that I had been looking at it (well,   
   >>>>>>>>> the prior version) back during CoVid, but it was constantly out   
   >>>>>>>>> of stock. Figured I'd try it out, along with their G5 Pro 4K   
   >>>>>>>>> UHD webcam.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Hmmm, I looked up those 2 items on Amazon and they don't seem to   
   >>>>>>>> be on sale there.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Because if it's not on sale at Amazon, it can't be on sale, Asshole?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> For a guy who claims (implicitly) to be capable of doing research...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> ...you seem to be utterly clueless.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>    
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Took me 30 seconds to find.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Or is it that you're more interested in trying to create a   
   >>>>>>> "gotcha" moment, Asshole?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Ding, ding, ding!   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> But since you seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for   
   >>>>>>>> Black Friday...   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Something you just made up, you mean, Asshole.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yeah, we've seen this pattern before.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Pretty much, despite Tommy guessing correctly that Black Friday   
   >>>>>> sale advertisements were involved.  The problem with his narrative   
   >>>>>> attempt is that I wasn't the one reading the ads: they were   
   >>>>>> mentioned to me. These were a Wirecutter article for a $80 TP-Link   
   >>>>>> which prompted a "do you need a new router?" question.  Similarly,   
   >>>>>> a Wyze BF email for a <$20 security cam was: "need more cameras?"   
   >>>>>> question.  Even though everything's been okay, I took a look for   
   >>>>>> opportunity's sake.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You assume something (incorrectly) and then treat your own   
   >>>>>>> assumption as "proof" that it's correct.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Well noted, for if there were money concerns like what Tommy   
   >>>>>> always tries to allude, the problem with that narrative attempt is   
   >>>>>> why weren't the above TP-Link & Wyze gear selected, since their   
   >>>>>> cost is ~$400 less than the UI stuff?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> BTW, card inbound ..   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> -hh   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Hugh, I'm pretty sure you do not have money issues.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Right side of Tommy's piehole, on 11/28/25 16:40:  "But since you   
   >>>> seem to need $120 SO badly you had to wait for Black Friday..."   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Likewise, same piehole, on 11/28/25 10:58:  "Followup #2 ... My take   
   >>>> is that in actual reality that $120 seems to be very important to   
   >>>> YOU. Needing that for groceries or utility bills, are you?"   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> But I am sick and tired of you implying I do.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you're so sick & tired of discussing wealth, why is it that   
   >>>> you're invariably who brings it up?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in   
   >>>> comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had   
   >>>> ~half as many years of wealth accumulation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Tit-for-tat that was.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Except that your 'revenge' is invalid.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> When you've pulled these dick-measuring brag attempts before, I've   
   >>>> specifically noted that your comparisons were invalid because of   
   >>>> your age difference.  You've been asked for what level of net worth   
   >>>> would be appropriate for someone who's a fraction of your age.  Did   
   >>>> you ever answer to that?  Nope.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So until you do, you're at risk of being reminded of your systematic   
   >>>> dishonesty whenever you start to try to brag about money.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> -hh   
   >>>   
   >>> LOL. Wow, your numbers are SO wrong.   
   >>   
   >> Nope, just dated to when your trolling started which was years ago.   
   >>   
   >>> Alan's ... [all snipped due to invalid termination date]   
   >>   
   >> Go back to the year when you first started your trolling and see how   
   >> those numbers work out to then, not 2025.   
   >>   
   >> For as I said, you never answered the question back then.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> -hh   
   >   
   > Total BS excuse. Read your own post.   
   >   
   > No brag here, only facts.   
   >   
   > "You're always desperately trying to make you look good, and often in   
   >  >>> comparison to Alan, who's ~2 decades younger than you and has had   
   >  >>> ~half as many years of wealth accumulation."   
   >   
   > Back then? That is all PRESENT tense, not PAST tense. But it does not   
   > matter. You are still VERY wrong.   
      
   No, it was your clue to check your math.:   
      
   "Alan's LinkedIn profile says he started high school in 1975. If 18   
   then, he was born in 1957, ..."   
      
   Oh, so how many people **START** high school at age 18, hmmmm?   
      
   In the US, a freshman starting 9th grade is typically age 14 or 15, and   
   gradates 4.5 years later, usually at age 18.   
      
   As such, a 1975 start nominally means born in 1960-61, not your 1957.   
      
   Plus this assumes similarity to US education, which isn't necessarily   
   so:  in Canada, most Provinces consider secondary education to start in   
   8th (some, 7th) grade: so it nominally means born in 1961-63.  Not 1957.   
      
      
   > Alan has NEVER been 20 years younger, more like 10 or 11.   
      
   More like 1946 to 1962 = 16 years.   
      
      
   > The difference in workforce entry is only 9 years. In 1992 Alan had   
   > 11 years of work to my 20.   
      
   Only if you totally ignore your pre-PhD jobs...right?   
      
   [quote]   
   1960-64 - delivered newspapers, Junior High and High School   
      
   1965-1966 - Part time grocery store clerk during undergrad school, left   
   for better pay and better job   
      
   1966-1969 - Part time technician, City Planning Department (and   
   undergrad school) left to go to grad school. This was a GREAT job, loved   
   the work and it paid 4x minimum wage.   
      
   1969-1972 - Grad school on NSF Fellowship, UT Knoxville, MS/PhD Ag   
   Economics.   
      
   1972-1975 - Assistant Prof Economics, No. KY State U, left due to   
   contract termination...   
   [/quote]   
      
      
      
   So by your above 1992 benchmark date, you'd already had various jobs for   
   a period of 32 years (vs allegedly 11): a 21 year delta & a ~3:1 ratio.   
      
   Plus even if we take off your high school gig, its still 27 years for a   
   16 year delta & 2.5:1 ratio.   
      
   It doesn't drop to 2:1 until 1997...but just how far back does your CSMA   
   bit on this topic go back?  Got its start date figured out yet?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)