OT : Twinkies Soar On Ebay

[mo_ntresor]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/capitalism-work-twinkies-soar-ebay

$99? government needs to get on this and FAST! IMPRISON AND EXECUTE the
price gougers!!!

mo_ntresor

[brattt]

and make them take the $99 and give it to the guy with the sign "will work
for food"


---------------------------------------------------------------

Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator, rec.gambling.poker
Whose stated mission is to call out the Asses on RGP

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 17 2012 7:03 AM, brattt wrote:

> > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/capitalism-work-twinkies-soar-ebay
> >
> > $99? government needs to get on this and FAST! IMPRISON AND EXECUTE the
> > price gougers!!!
>

> and make them take the $99 and give it to the guy with the sign "will work
> for food"

you charge what the market will bear for a good, you're a price gouger.
you bankroll a politician, implement nonsense work rules and confiscate
obscene pay, you're a middle class hero.

mo_ntresor

[VegasJerry]

It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit I was right, the press (real press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that when the company was filing for bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its CEO’s pay, and increased other executives’ compensation by as much as 80 percent.

While you drank the cool aid, the creditors warned that the decision signaled another attempt to sidestep bankruptcy rules.

I was right. The union was right. The creditors were right. You were wrong.


Jerry (lol @ wing-nuts) 'n Vegas

[bub]

issue an executive order from the oval office

"it's time for people to do their patriotic duty..to get some skin in
the game. so anyone we deem making too much on obsolete baked goods
will be paying a 90% tax on their earnings to help pay for more
teachers and highways"

[popinjay999]

On Nov 17, 5:43 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/capitalism-work-twinkies-soa...

>
> $99?  government needs to get on this and FAST!  IMPRISON AND EXECUTE the
> price gougers!!!
>
> mo_ntresor

Let me ask an innocent question. I happen to like those little
Hostess pies, although I have not eaten any since my health issues
last year. But I just cannot imagine there not being any Twinkies,
Cupcakes, and those little pies. I liked the cherry ones. So anyway,
don't you think someone else will fill the void? Don't you think
someone else will make copycat "Twinkies" and those little pies and
stuff?

[mo_ntresor]

On Nov 17 2012 8:57 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> > http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/capitalism-work-twinkies-soa...
> >
> > $99?  government needs to get on this and FAST!  IMPRISON AND EXECUTE the
> > price gougers!!!
>

> Let me ask an innocent question. I happen to like those little
> Hostess pies, although I have not eaten any since my health issues
> last year. But I just cannot imagine there not being any Twinkies,
> Cupcakes, and those little pies. I liked the cherry ones. So anyway,
> don't you think someone else will fill the void? Don't you think
> someone else will make copycat "Twinkies" and those little pies and
> stuff?

the brands will be sold in bankruptcy. another company operating sensibly
will carry on the fine tradition of making us all fatter!

mo_ntresor

[datty oh]

> the brands will be sold in bankruptcy. another company operating sensibly
> will carry on the fine tradition of making us all fatter!
>

Probably in Mexico. Twinkitos!

[mo_ntresor]

twinkaritos!

mo_ntresor

[Follow]

Can you link that news from somewhere other than a union website?



Follow :)

[Tim Norfolk]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:18:24 PM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 17 2012 7:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
>
>
> > It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit I was
>
> right, the press (real
>
> > press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that when the
>
> company was filing for
>
> > bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its
>

> CEO�s pay, and increased
>
> > other executives� compensation by as much as 80 percent.

>
> >
>
> > While you drank the cool aid, the creditors warned that the decision
>
> signaled another attempt to
>
> > sidestep bankruptcy rules.
>
> >
>
> > I was right. The union was right. The creditors were right. You were wrong.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Jerry (lol @ wing-nuts) 'n Vegas
>
>
>
> Can you link that news from somewhere other than a union website?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Follow :)

How's this?

http://americablog.com/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-ceo-salary.html

[ramashiva]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18:24 PM UTC-8, Follow wrote:

> Can you link that news from somewhere other than a union website?

The current CEO and Forbes aren't good enough for you? How about the Wall Street Journal?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304072004577323993512506050.html

The union website is merely repeating allegations of Hostess creditors. Due to lack of cooperation from Hostess, the facts still aren't known for sure, but it will all come out during bankruptcy court proceedings.


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[da pickle]

This is supposed to be different?

[Tim Norfolk]

See the link from ramashiva above.

Running the numbers, we have 18,000 employees at say $14 per hour asked to give pay concessions on the order of 10% in pay, and 20% in medical and pension benefits, while the senior management increases their own pay by 90-200%. This fits the small business failures that I have seen in the past 10 years locally. Every single one had the people at the top pulling out too much money, or selling out to someone who couldn't figure out that paying back loans meant that the profit margin goes down.

[Alim Nassor]

On Nov 17, 5:44 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 6:07:37 PM UTC-5, da pickle wrote:

> > Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:18:24 PM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
>
> > >> On Nov 17 2012 7:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > >>> It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit I was
>
> > >> right, the press (real
>
> > >>> press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that when the
>
> > >> company was filing for
>
> > >>> bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its
>

> > >> CEO s pay, and increased
>
> > >>> other executives compensation by as much as 80 percent.

>
> > >>> While you drank the cool aid, the creditors warned that the decision
>
> > >> signaled another attempt to
>
> > >>> sidestep bankruptcy rules.
>
> > >>> I was right. The union was right. The creditors were right. You were wrong.
>
> > >>> Jerry (lol @ wing-nuts) 'n Vegas
>
> > >> Can you link that news from somewhere other than a union website?
>
> > >> Follow :)
>
> > > How's this?
>
> > >http://americablog.com/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-ceo-salary.html
>
> > This is supposed to be different?
>
> See the link from ramashiva above.
>
> Running the numbers, we have 18,000 employees at say $14 per hour asked to give pay concessions on the order of 10% in pay, and 20% in medical and pension benefits, while the senior management increases their own pay by 90-200%. This fits the small business failures that I have seen in the past 10 years locally. Every single one had the people at the top pulling out too much money, or selling out to someone who couldn't figure out that paying back loans meant that the profit margin goes down.

And yet, what did the employees win by walking out?

[gtech1]

Ok. The union was right. What did that get them?

[brattt]

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/homemade-twinkies/

[Follow]

On Nov 17 2012 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:18:24 PM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
> > On Nov 17 2012 7:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit I
was
> >
> > right, the press (real
> >
> > > press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that when
the
> >
> > company was filing for
> >
> > > bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled
its
> >

> > CEO�s pay, and increased
> >
> > > other executives� compensation by as much as 80 percent.

> >
> > >
> >
> > > While you drank the cool aid, the creditors warned that the decision
> >
> > signaled another attempt to
> >
> > > sidestep bankruptcy rules.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I was right. The union was right. The creditors were right. You were
wrong.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Jerry (lol @ wing-nuts) 'n Vegas
> >
> >
> >
> > Can you link that news from somewhere other than a union website?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Follow :)
>
> How's this?
>
> http://americablog.com/2012/11/hostess-twinkie-ceo-salary.html

Tim, have you read this link? Did you read it before posting? I have
this annoying habit of reading things. I suppose life would be more
simple if I didn't bother reading.

In the very first paragraph of your link, it very clearly states that it
is only repeating the allegations made by the union. It links to an
article in the Sacramento Bee, which has a disclaimer on top that they are
only repeating the allegations and have not checked the veracity of the
statements. WSJ and every single other source from which this shit has
spewed have stated clearly that they are only repeating allegations.

Do you know what that means? It means these allegations are *not*
substantiated, they are only being claimed by the unions and we aren't
sure yet. I'm not saying it was this way or it wasn't, Tim, but all of
you need to stop parading this banner around like it's gospel truth,
because it isn't! We have no idea if these accusations are real or they
aren't. No matter how much you or the other libs hope they are.



Follow :)

[Follow]

So all coming from the unions, just like I said. You can read the reply I
posted to Tim. In the end, I'm glad you're acknowledging the lack of
foundation to this particular rumor as of right now. I agree, things will
come out in the bankruptcy hearing. But they aren't evidence yet.

You were parading this particular piece of information as fact, and now
you are admitting that it is not yet substantiated.



Follow :)

[BillB]

On 11/17/2012 9:17 PM, Follow wrote:

> You were parading this particular piece of information as fact, and now
> you are admitting that it is not yet substantiated.

Yet you were taking the side of the company even though you demonstrated
complete ignorance of the facts.

[Follow]

There's that famous BillB civility. Please find any post of mine that
claimed the information given was false. All I said was that it wasn't
cited and seemed unbelievable. I challenge you to find a post where I've
said anything else.

If you can't, I think you're the ignorant one.



Follow :)

[ramashiva]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 9:18:35 PM UTC-8, Follow wrote:

> So all coming from the unions, just like I said.

No, it is not coming from the unions. You have severe reading comprehension problems. The allegations come from the creditors, and the union website just repeated the creditors' allegations.

> You can read the reply I
> posted to Tim. In the end, I'm glad you're acknowledging the lack of
> foundation to this particular rumor as of right now.

LOL @ "rumor". The creditors are privy to many court documents which have been made public. They are convinced that the allegations repeated on the union website are true.

Your reflexive blaming of the bakers' union for the closing of Hostess demonstrates beyond any doubt that you are a gullible capitalist running dog willing to swallow whole the blatant lies which have been told about this case.

The union is a scapegoat for years of feckless mismanagement of the company. Here is an article which sheds some light on the situation --

http://www.politicususa.com/romney-vulture-capitalist-style-management-killed-hostess-unions.html


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 05:39:42 -0800, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:

Then this is certainly a bargain (see #7, about 4:20 into the video):

http://www.noob.us/humor/top-20-jay-leno-headlines/

--

Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon

[VegasJerry]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 1:18:24 PM UTC-8, Follow wrote:

> On Nov 17 2012 7:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit I was
> right, the press (real
> > press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that when the
> company was filing for
> > bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled its

> CEO�s pay, and increased
> > other executives� compensation by as much as 80 percent.

> >
> > While you drank the cool aid, the creditors warned that the decision
> signaled another attempt to
> > sidestep bankruptcy rules.
> >
> > I was right. The union was right. The creditors were right. You were wrong.
> >
> >
> > Jerry (lol @ wing-nuts) 'n Vegas
>

> Can you link that news from somewhere other than a union website?
> Follow :)

Yes. Can you do a search and find out for yourself? (Try Forbes Mag). Especially after reading the various accounts posted by others here.

Jerry 'n Vegas

[VegasJerry]

.> And yet, what did the employees win by walking out?

WHA! HA~HA! I'll give you credit because of the age of this post. But by now you know you've been bitch slapped for dodging with a phony question that you, yourself, admit can't be answered. Now back to some facts…..

Jerry 'n Vegas

[Tim Norfolk]

On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:18:32 AM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
> On Nov 17 2012 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:18:24 PM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17 2012 7:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > > It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit I
>
> was
>
> > >
>
> > > right, the press (real
>
> > >
>
> > > > press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that when
>
> the
>
> > >
>
> > > company was filing for
>
> > >
>
> > > > bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually tripled
>
> its
>
> > >
>

> > > CEO�s pay, and increased
>
> > >
>
> > > > other executives� compensation by as much as 80 percent.

I did, and noted it. The creditors will hopefully find out the truth. If it is true, I suggest that every one of those executives be stuffed in prison with nothing but Hostess products to eat.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Saturday, November 17, 2012 8:43:22 AM UTC-5, mo_ntresor wrote:
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-16/capitalism-work-twinkies-soar-ebay
>
>
>
> $99? government needs to get on this and FAST! IMPRISON AND EXECUTE the
>
> price gougers!!!
>
>
>
> mo_ntresor

Can we repeat the classic Soupy Sales joke now?

[Pepe Papon]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:15:03 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>In the very first paragraph of your link, it very clearly states that it
>is only repeating the allegations made by the union. It links to an
>article in the Sacramento Bee, which has a disclaimer on top that they are
>only repeating the allegations and have not checked the veracity of the
>statements. WSJ and every single other source from which this shit has
>spewed have stated clearly that they are only repeating allegations.
>
>Do you know what that means? It means these allegations are *not*
>substantiated, they are only being claimed by the unions and we aren't
>sure yet. I'm not saying it was this way or it wasn't, Tim, but all of
>you need to stop parading this banner around like it's gospel truth,
>because it isn't! We have no idea if these accusations are real or they
>aren't. No matter how much you or the other libs hope they are.

By the same token, you need to stop parading the banner that the union
is responsible for the shutdown. If you and your fellow wingnuts
hadn't done that right from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this
conversation.

[Follow]

On Nov 18 2012 5:07 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:

> On Sunday, November 18, 2012 12:18:32 AM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
> > On Nov 17 2012 3:54 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Saturday, November 17, 2012 4:18:24 PM UTC-5, Follow wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 17 2012 7:27 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > It was as I said. While you easily deceived wing nut refuse to admit
I
> >
> > was
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > right, the press (real
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > press, not Fox and the other shit you wing-nuts read) reveal that
when
> >
> > the
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > company was filing for
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > bankruptcy, for the second time, earlier this year, it actually
tripled
> >
> > its
> >
> > > >
> >

> > > > CEO�s pay, and increased
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > other executives� compensation by as much as 80 percent.

Then why is it that when I ask for a source other than the same union
group that has been propagating this, you just give me the same source and
say "how's this?"



Follow :)

[Follow]

My statement is entered in evidence and proven in a court of law. When
Hostess filed for liquidation they CITED THE STRIKE as the cause.
Therefore, Hostess said, and it was entered and accepted in bankruptcy
court that the strike was UNAFFORDABLE and Hostess was justified in
liquidation.

The other post saying management got all these pay increases and whatever
other damned thing, is unsubstantiated rumor because HOSTESS WAS PRIVATELY
HELD and their BOOKS AREN'T OPEN. That means, Pepe, that WE DON'T KNOW if
those accusations hold water yet. Get it? They aren't evidence, they
aren't proven! They are rumors and allegations right now. In a few
months, when the books are opened in bankruptcy court, THEN we will know
for sure.

How is this so hard for you?



Follow :)

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:14:45 -0800, "Follow" <lamema...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

A court of law is irrelevant. It's still what management said.

>The other post saying management got all these pay increases and whatever
>other damned thing, is unsubstantiated rumor because HOSTESS WAS PRIVATELY
>HELD and their BOOKS AREN'T OPEN. That means, Pepe, that WE DON'T KNOW if
>those accusations hold water yet. Get it? They aren't evidence, they
>aren't proven! They are rumors and allegations right now. In a few
>months, when the books are opened in bankruptcy court, THEN we will know
>for sure.

First, the information came from the creditors, who had plenty of
access to the books. Secondly, RGP is not a court of law, so we
don't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Thirdly, your position
requires the assumption that the bakers were a bunch of complete
morons who went on strike for no good reason, knowing that it would
cause them to lose their jobs. Perhaps seems like a valid
assumption to a rabid right-wing union hater.

>How is this so hard for you?

The hard part is trying to carry on a discussion with an ideologue who
insists on behaving like an asshole.
>
>
>Follow :)

[Alim Nassor]

On Nov 20, 3:16 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:14:45 -0800, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 18 2012 9:54 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>

> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:15:03 -0800, "Follow" <lamemailna...@yahoo.com>

Ahhh, so could we say that your post was unsubstantiated?

> Thirdly, your position
> requires the assumption that the bakers were a bunch of complete
> morons who went on strike for no good reason, knowing that it would
> cause them to lose their jobs.    Perhaps seems like a valid
> assumption to a rabid right-wing union hater.

They were told flat out, if they didn't return to work, Hostess was
shutting down operations. They chanted on the picket line "SHUT IT
DOWN"

Friday, November 16, 2012 12:01 PM EST
BIDDEFORD — “Shut it down, shut it down.” That was the chant by more
than 100 people, members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers
and Grain Millers International Union and their supporters at 5 p.m.
last night on Precourt Street in Biddeford outside the Hostess Brands
Inc. bakery.

Five o’clock Thursday was the cut-off time for BCTGM union members,
employed by Hostess in Biddeford, and at other Hostess facilities
across the country, to end their strike or face the closure of the
company and the loss of their jobs.

[Pepe Papon]

You can say whatever you want. The question would be what point,
precisely, was unsubstantiated, and is substantiation essential to the
argument?

>
>> Thirdly, your position
>> requires the assumption that the bakers were a bunch of complete
>> morons who went on strike for no good reason, knowing that it would
>> cause them to lose their jobs.    Perhaps seems like a valid
>> assumption to a rabid right-wing union hater.
>
>They were told flat out, if they didn't return to work, Hostess was
>shutting down operations. They chanted on the picket line "SHUT IT
>DOWN"

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. It's already been established that
they were aware that they'd lose their jobs. The assumption is the
part about them being complete morons who went on strike for no good
reason.

[Alim Nassor]

My opinion is that they were morons for walking away from a decent job
in a bad economy when they could have just as easily stayed at work
while looking for another job.

[VegasJerry]

.> My opinion is that they were morons for walking away from a decent job

> in a bad economy when they could have just as easily stayed at work
> while looking for another job.

You believe they didn't consider looking for work while at work or on strike? And you're calling THEM morons?

Heh.

[Alim Nassor]

Dipshit, if they had another job before they went on strike, don't you
think they would have been at that job rather than walking a picket
line scraming"SHUT IT DOWN" If they didn't have another job, and
walked away from Hostess, they were morons.

[VegasJerry]

.> Dipshit, if they had another job before they went on strike, don't you

> think they would have been at that job rather than walking a picket
> line scraming"SHUT IT DOWN" If they didn't have another job, and
> walked away from Hostess, they were morons.

You stupid fucking moron, go look at your question.
JFC; no wonder nobody can explain anything to you.

[Alim Nassor]

I didn't ask a question you fucking idiot. I expressed an opinion

[VegasJerry]

Then you stated what you considered fact and I showed you how you were wrong and you couldn't address it.

[brattt]

Even B-BillB is having a hard time spinning him today.

[VegasJerry]

> > > > > > > You can say whatever you want. � The question would be what point,

>
> > > > > > > precisely, was unsubstantiated, and is substantiation essential to
>
> the
>
> > > > > > > argument?
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > > >> Thirdly, your position
>
> > > > > > > >> requires the assumption that the bakers were a bunch of complete
>
> > > > > > > >> morons who went on strike for no good reason, knowing that it
>
> would
>
> > > > > > > >> cause them to lose their jobs. Perhaps seems like a valid
>
> > > > > > > >> assumption to a rabid right-wing union hater.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > > >They were told flat out, if they didn't return to work, Hostess
>
> was
>

> > > > > > > >shutting down operations. � �They chanted on the picket line
>
> "SHUT IT
>
> > > > > > > >DOWN"
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > > Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. � It's already been established that
>
> > > > > > > they were aware that they'd lose their jobs. � The assumption is

>
> the
>
> > > > > > > part about them being complete morons who went on strike for no
>
> good
>
> > > > > > > reason.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > > --
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
> > >
>
> > > > > .> My opinion is that they were morons for walking away from a decent
>
> job
>
> > >
>
> > > > > > in a bad economy when they could have just as easily stayed at work
>
> > > > > > while looking for another job.
>
> > >
>
> > > > > You believe they didn't consider looking for work while at work or
>
> > > > > on strike? And you're calling THEM morons?
>
> > >
>
> > > > > Heh.
>
> > >
>
> > > .> Dipshit, if they had another job before they went on strike, don't you
>
> > >
>
> > > > think they would have been at that job rather than walking a picket
>

> > > > line scraming"SHUT IT DOWN" �If they didn't have another job, and

>
> > > > walked away from Hostess, they were morons.
>
> > >
>
> > > You stupid fucking moron, go look at your question.
>
> > > JFC; no wonder nobody can explain anything to you.
>
> >
>
> > I didn't ask a question you fucking idiot. I expressed an opinion
>
>
>

.> Even B-BillB is having a hard time spinning him today.

And SS make up another position for another poster.
Nothing strainge here - move along.....


Jerry

"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants."
-- SS (11-21-12)

[Alim Nassor]

You didn't show anything you idiot.

[VegasJerry]

I showed you how stupid your position was that the workers, that knew their jobs were on the line, wouldn’t have considered looking for other work while still working. You may go ahead and play Beldon with that.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:10:11 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.   It's already been established that
>> they were aware that they'd lose their jobs.   The assumption is the
>> part about them being complete morons who went on strike for no good
>> reason.

>My opinion is that they were morons for walking away from a decent job
>in a bad economy when they could have just as easily stayed at work
>while looking for another job.

Yes, you've made that clear all along. And I've been trying to say
that it's unfair to make such a judgment when you don't have all the
facts about their situation. You're also assuming that someone must
be a moron if they base employment decisions on some other factor(s)
besides maximizing the net present value of their cash flows. I
don't think that's a valid assumption at all.

[Alim Nassor]

On Nov 22, 2:14 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:10:11 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>

So we disagree. What exactly is wrong with that?

[Pepe Papon]

I don't know. You're the one who's been calling me names over it.

[Alim Nassor]

I don't think I called you a name. I responded unkindly because you
were acting like a pretentious douche.

I'll be Israel, you can be Hamas, and we'll call a truce.

[Pepe Papon]

I think I was merely presenting an argument that you didn't like, and
I think your remarks were uncalled for.

>I'll be Israel, you can be Hamas, and we'll call a truce.

An apology wouldn't hurt.

[Alim Nassor]

On Nov 24, 2:02 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 20:27:04 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree. I''ve been waiting.

[fffurken]

On Nov 24, 12:08 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >I'll be Israel, you can be Hamas, and we'll call a truce.
>
> > An apology wouldn't hurt.
>
> > --
>
> > Pepe "The Crapflooder" Papon
>
> I agree.  I''ve been waiting.

Pepe doesn't understand how he irritates and in his eyes he does no
wrong, quite like Beldin (RIP) actually.

I should know, I spent months arguing with the cunt and some of that
was trying to persuade him that arguing was a two way street. He had
none of that. He isn't the reasonable person he likes to make himself
out to be.

[Beldin the Sorcerer]

And you're a drunken retard

That you're both as stupid as you are has been commented on extensively

[Pepe Papon]

Oh, bullshit. You have an argument, then present it. If I disagree
with it, I'll attempt to refute it. That's how debates work.

If you want to end the debate, don't present another argument. Either
concede or propose to agree to disagree. That's how we end debates.

[Pepe Papon]

>I agree. I''ve been waiting.

You got nasty and *I'm* supposed to apologize? For what?

[Alim Nassor]

Many more ways to be an ass than just to get "nasty"

[Pepe Papon]

>Many more ways to be an ass than just to get "nasty"

I challenged your opinion. You called me an asshole. I'm not the one
who ought to be apologizing.