Are we falling down on the job of collecting?
stonej
Michael Benveniste
> http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=6150
Quoting from that article:
> When all this is sorted out in the years ahead, will future
> collectors say that we were falling down on our basic job as
> collectors, which is to collect and to preserve all coin issues?
I'm tentatively willing to accept those job requirements and
duties. Now let's discuss compensation. Who's paying me and
how much?
No one you say? Then I don't have a "basic job of collecting,"
so I can't be falling down on the job.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Nid wif yn y swyddfa ar hyn o bryd. Anfonwch ar unrhyw waith i'w
gyfieithu.
Mr. Jaggers
> "stonej" <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>> http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=6150
>
> Quoting from that article:
>
>> When all this is sorted out in the years ahead, will future
>> collectors say that we were falling down on our basic job as
>> collectors, which is to collect and to preserve all coin issues?
>
> I'm tentatively willing to accept those job requirements and
> duties. Now let's discuss compensation. Who's paying me and
> how much?
>
> No one you say? Then I don't have a "basic job of collecting,"
> so I can't be falling down on the job.
I think one would be very hard pressed to find collectors of the past whose
primo motivation was to preserve coins so that you and I could own them in
2009. In fact, it is because few actually did preserve coins that makes
collecting them such an adventure today. Sounds as if somebody with nothing
to say had a deadline to meet and column inches to fill.
James
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gmg1m...@enews5.newsguy.com...
Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing after I read the piece. My
first reaction was that our resident Googlers should proof the links they
post for relevance, but then I guess they do provoke on-topic comments after
all, especially from those of us who can't resist picking at stuff and
eventually at each other.
stonej
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>
> news:gmg1m...@enews5.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Michael Benveniste wrote:
> >> "stonej" <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >> Quoting from that article:
>
> >>> When all this is sorted out in the years ahead, will future
> >>> collectors say that we were falling down on our basic job as
> >>> collectors, which is to collect and to preserve all coin issues?
>
> >> I'm tentatively willing to accept those job requirements and
> >> duties. Now let's discuss compensation. Who's paying me and
> >> how much?
>
> >> No one you say? Then I don't have a "basic job of collecting,"
> >> so I can't be falling down on the job.
>
> > I think one would be very hard pressed to find collectors of the past
> > whose primo motivation was to preserve coins so that you and I could own
> > them in 2009. In fact, it is because few actually did preserve coins that
> > makes collecting them such an adventure today. Sounds as if somebody with
> > nothing to say had a deadline to meet and column inches to fill.
>
> > James
>
> Funny, I was thinking exactly the same thing after I read the piece. My
> first reaction was that our resident Googlers should proof the links they
> post for relevance, but then I guess they do provoke on-topic comments after
> all, especially from those of us who can't resist picking at stuff and
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's all relevant if being about coins, I will admit some of them are
a bit "out there" in
logic but by picking them apart we can still learn things as well.
oly
> Michael Benveniste wrote:
> > "stonej" <sto...@mail.lib.msu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > Quoting from that article:
>
> >> When all this is sorted out in the years ahead, will future
> >> collectors say that we were falling down on our basic job as
> >> collectors, which is to collect and to preserve all coin issues?
>
> > I'm tentatively willing to accept those job requirements and
> > duties. Now let's discuss compensation. Who's paying me and
> > how much?
>
> > No one you say? Then I don't have a "basic job of collecting,"
> > so I can't be falling down on the job.
>
> I think one would be very hard pressed to find collectors of the past whose
> primo motivation was to preserve coins so that you and I could own them in
> 2009. In fact, it is because few actually did preserve coins that makes
> collecting them such an adventure today. Sounds as if somebody with nothing
> to say had a deadline to meet and column inches to fill.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
It wasn't his prime motivation, but Virgil Brand apparently preserved
a great deal of material that was considered dross in his day, but
which is decent today (especially barrels of Civil War tokens and
Confederate notes).
oly
PC
>
> It wasn't his prime motivation, but Virgil Brand apparently preserved
> a great deal of material that was considered dross in his day, but
> which is decent today (especially barrels of Civil War tokens and
> Confederate notes).
I am going to make DAMN sure future generations can enjoy the Barack
Obama coin set.
Mr. Jaggers
Hmm, I wonder if any of my CWTs were in his hoard.
James
Bruce Remick
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:118d7f87-332c-4bc1...@y23g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
oly
Or one might say he hoarded them so his contemporaries couldn't enjoy them.
Like we're supposed to bite the bullet so our grandchildren will have it
easy.
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You certainly have a bizarre point of view. If our financial system
holds together (a very very big if) your grandchildren will be slaves
to the bankers and Chinese bondholders, all so you can get a cushy
federal pension today.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
Speaking as a pension recipient, I must state that I had no choice but to
contribute a hefty percentage of my salary for 33 years (approaching a
tithe) to a mandatory retirement plan. I took an actuarial chance by
electing an annuity in lieu of a cashout all at once. Comfortable, yes;
cushy, mon cul. For a third of a century I worked for this, and the only
way I can possibly look at this is that a deal is a deal. I encourage Bruce
to answer for himself.
Whatever you have done and are doing to help make your declining years
comfortable is your business, and I wish you well. In your case likewise, a
deal is a deal, and not to be begrudged by anyone here.
James
Bruce Remick
-----------------
I'm expecting my grandchildren to be a lot smarter than me (one already is)
and will have technological resources that we haven't imagined yet. For me
to sacrifice so they can have nothing but carefree times is not high on my
priority list. I doubt my grandchildren will be "slaves" to anyone or
anything, unless they feel they will have everything handed to them. I
worked hard for my "cushy federal pension" and I can laugh now at many of my
private sector friends who would let me know they were making more than me
but now find themselves looking for financial aid or advice, or a job.
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gmhrf...@enews2.newsguy.com...
You know I don't need much encouragement. I chose a govt career largely for
the security and benefits it offered during my working years and thereafter.
The fact that the work was exciting and challenging was a bonus. Many of my
friends went private and often made more money than me but seldom found the
job security I had and often had to make major career changes along the way.
The same guys who considered me a "bureaucrat" now find their retirement
and insurance benefits don't meet their needs. I'm just as proud of my
service as my friends and Mr. J are of theirs. I wasn't working so my
grandchildren could have things easy. Actually, I worry for them when I see
young people with Masters Degrees looking for almost any kind of job out of
pride and to avoid having to keep living with their parents.
Mr. Jaggers
Someday we old flatulences will have to get together, pool our resources,
and see if we can find a bottle of cheap beer to share, while away a lazy
Saturday afternoon on a bench in the shade of a public park, ogling the
hotties, talking about the good old days, and kvetching about the younger
generation. Maybe Jud can join us? I hear he can afford a bottle all to
himself if he saves up for a couple of weeks.
James the Impecunious Retiree
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bruce has often enough displayed the "I've got mine, Jack" mentality
here on RCC. Mon vieux, I would hardly say the you subscribe to the
"sauve qui peut" and "let the devil take the hindmost" attitude that
Bruce often displays.
oly
Bruce Remick
oly
__________________
Proud of it. I did get mine-- the old fashioned way. Proud of that, too.
No more than I needed to get by comfortably, but I worked for it. Made do
with the bare minimum when I had to, and kept my affairs in order so I never
had to be a burden to anyone else. The opportunity is still there for
anyone who cares to go that route.
You're right. I don't share your exaggerated view that the economic sky is
falling, our children will be slaves to the Chinese, and it's up to us to
save them (the children) now or they will be doomed. They will adapt to
whatever they're faced with just like past generations have done and any
adversity will make them stronger in the long run. And I'll gladly take
that offer of a cheap beer with Dr. J under that shade tree in the park,
protected from any pieces of sky. No French necessaire either.
Bruce
'ex-Junior Alliance Francais president, which never quite made it to the
subversive organizations list'
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
(including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes part
of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
adding to the burden of present and future generations.
Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a
lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are
intellectually dishonest.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and have,
in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.
But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am jumping
in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were not our
idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is with the
government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen. Make sure you
pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or lifetime health
benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander Governors.
The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of contempt. You
may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your station if that should
abruptly change? Is it time to decide that seniors are expendable? "Let
'em die, and if in agony and poverty, all the better" has already been used,
I believe back in the 30th century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I
was able to trace it.
Dagnabbit, oly, you'd better be nice to us, because Bruce, Jud, and I were
thinking of inviting you to join us on that park bench. I'd even let you
use my binoculars (they're image-stabilizing, in case you shake a bit) from
time to time and share part of my liquid allotment.
James the Burden
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whatever system is paying you, mon vieux, you may rest assured that
Bruce's federal scheme is much much much better. I deal with
federales most every day, and they often laugh about how good they
have it.
I would perhaps like to be nice, but really I want to make my elders
uncomfortable for their own good. The present and future financial
bailouts are going to create vastly more inflation than has ever been
seen in this country since the 1860s (in the Confederacy) or in the
late 1770s & early 1780s (with the Continental currency, under the
Articles of the Confederation). Do not plan on a comfortable pension
remaining comfortable. Unless you plan on "checking out" quite soon,
you are going to see a great upset in this country - perhaps on the
scale of the old U.S.S.R. in 1989-1991.
I deeply believe that and complacency is quite dangerous right now.
oly
Bruce Remick
_________
Man, what a negative person! I never knew my govt pension was unsound. I
always hoped I would live long enough to take out more than I contributed
over 33 years. I believe I may now have, but I lost interest in keeping
track years ago. What a burden I must be to future generations. And oh,
did I mention before that the govt employment option has always been
available to everyone? Talk about a real burden on society-- what about
the millions of private sector workers who have lost their jobs and are now
living off the taxpayers. Not many federal employees among them.
___________
> Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all a
lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you are
> intellectually dishonest.
_______________
Oly, please consider me intellectually dishonest. Welfare is a handout for
people who don't work. I always looked at my retirement income as the same
type of pension most large companies were offering at the time-- and not
even as lucrative as many company's programs. I watched while many of the
private companies bailed out on their employees, leaving them struggling to
find health care and accumulate a new nest egg on their own.
Bruce Remick
_______
It wasn't always that way. But it does look pretty good now, especially to
us pre-FERS retirees, when compared to what private industry offers. For
the record, most of us are thankful for our situation, but certainly do not
laugh about it in a smug way.
________
> I would perhaps like to be nice, but really I want to make my elders
> uncomfortable for their own good.
________
That has become plainly evident. And I don't believe you mean to restrict
it to your elders.
__________
The present and future financial
bailouts are going to create vastly more inflation than has ever been
seen in this country since the 1860s (in the Confederacy) or in the
late 1770s & early 1780s (with the Continental currency, under the
Articles of the Confederation). Do not plan on a comfortable pension
remaining comfortable. Unless you plan on "checking out" quite soon,
you are going to see a great upset in this country - perhaps on the
scale of the old U.S.S.R. in 1989-1991.
____________
Oly, you've just gotta look beyond the textbooks and black helicopter
rhetoric and try a more positive outlook. You remind me of some of the
egghead scientists I used to work with who I'm convinced secretly wished for
a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union so they could evaluate and validate
their CEP and yield estimates. The sky may be falling already (looking
outside). Nope it's snow.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any
possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has
to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies
back in full).
As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said:
"Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is
going very badly".
Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years
of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the
Revolution.
oly
Bruce Remick
On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
<snips>
> If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any
possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money has
to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies
> back in full).
____________
When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in was
trumped at the time by some private companies where employees didn't have to
contribute at all to their retirement or health care. It still was meant as
an incentive to encourage federal employees to stay on, unlike today where
few people will ever stay their career with the same employer.
All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM
employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price GM
charges us taxpayers for its cars.
____________
> As for negativity (or pessimism), let us remember what Voltaire said:
"Optimism is the mania for declaring that all is well, when all is
> going very badly".
> Being fortunate, Voltaire managed to live under many of the best years
of the Ancien Regime and still got "checked out" well before the
> Revolution.
___________
You're burying yourself in those scholarly books again. Look out the window
occasionally.
oly
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
I've spent more than one full work day out of the last five driving
across east central Illinois. I read tons of course, but I see a lot
of what's "out the window" too.
oly
Bruce Remick
______________
You know it helps to stop the car once in a while and get out. I've never
been able to make it all the way across southern Illinois in one day from
here in VA enroute to Colorado using Rte 64. I usually end up staying in
Mt. Vernon about an hour out of St. Louis. I'll admit to reading very
little or the type of stuff that theoretically would make me economically
smarter. I do always favor non-fiction, though.
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gmk9u...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> oly wrote:
...
>> Might I remind you that all the pensions related to the government
>> (including Social Security) are actuarially unsound, and that after
>> you have recieved the pension just a very few years, that you have
>> recieved MORE than your contributions and any earnings could have
>> possibly amounted to? At that point, your pension just becomes
>> part
>> of the debt being left to future taxpayers and that indeed you are
>> adding to the burden of present and future generations.
>>
>> Maybe you are just recieving what you were promised, but it was all
>> a
>> lie from the get-go. Senior Welfare. If you don't see that, you
>> are
>> intellectually dishonest.
I don't think it was a lie "from the get-go". Initially, benefits
levels were very low and of limited eligibility. Life expectancies
were such that upon retiring at 60, on average you would collect only
a few years before the Grim Reaper cut you out of the betting pool.
SS probably was on a decent actuarial footing at first. It was only
in later years that mission creep from the politicians (see James'
remarks) kept expanding the SS pie.
Even with that, the Ponzi scheme worked very well because the bubble
kept expanding. It still is working - we're looking well into the
future before it will really blow up in our faces. If we made the
necessary changes for continued viability just by reducing benfits and
not raising FICA, we still could be receiving benefits well above the
original levels.
You can criticize the basic unsoundness of a "Ponzi scheme," but much
of economic theory implicity or explicitly assumes, and relies on,
continued growth of economic activity and systems. The difference
between SS and typical unsustainable bubbles is that we have the
opportunity now to make corrections that will keep it going under
well-managed conditions. You can look back on other bubbles, say like
housing, and say "Gee, if we had just known the limits of sustainable
expansion and done something to keep the system from exceeding them,
we'd have stimulated home building and generated some nice increases
in home equity values without driving the car over a cliff." The
problem for SS is the political "third rail" of telling all those
current and about-to-be retirees that in order for SS to be around for
them, they're going to have to accept a lowering of the pay-outs to
them. Given the history of human nature in responding to future
threats, I think we're going to have to start falling over the SS
cliff before anything meaningful is done. As with threats like global
warming, it then becomes a question of whether the sysytem still can
be rescued at that point.
> Speaking again only for myself, yes, I was aware of all of this, and
> have,
> in fact, now drawn out more than I put in.
>
> But oly, you're blaming Bruce (and, by proxy, me, which is why I am
> jumping
> in here) for being part of the problem. These pension plans were
> not our idea. They were forced upon us by law. Your beef, then, is
> with the government, not with Bruce or me. Write your Congressmen.
> Make sure you pick Congressmen who are not in line for pensions or
> lifetime health benefits themselves. Ditto for ex-Flatlander
> Governors.
>
> The expression "Senior Welfare" is a thinly-veiled phrase of
> contempt. You may be hale and hearty now, but what will be your
> station if that should abruptly change? Is it time to decide that
> seniors are expendable? "Let 'em die, and if in agony and poverty,
> all the better" has already been used, I believe back in the 30th
> century B.C.E. At least that's as far back as I was able to trace
> it.
We stilll have time to save SS by putting in motion the old SF plot of
killing everyone when they reach 30. Ten years of that and FICA will
become a profit center for Uncle Sam.
Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at 60
you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming suit and
a pair of sunglasses.
> Dagnabbit, oly, you'd better be nice to us, because Bruce, Jud, and
> I were thinking of inviting you to join us on that park bench. I'd
> even let you use my binoculars (they're image-stabilizing, in case
> you shake a bit) from time to time and share part of my liquid
> allotment.
>
> James the Burden
But in a few years the young joggers and nannies pushing baby trams
are all going to be replaced by old farts shuffling along with walkers
and medical care workers pushing wheelchairs. Where's the fun in
ogling them?
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am in basic agreement with your line(s) of thought, but Social
Security was very unsound from the "get go". FDR was politically
scared to death of Huey Long and Dr. Townsend. He had to co-opt their
ideas about old-age pensions. Many of the first recipients made zero
contributions. Even my own grandpa, a farmer, only paid in two or
three years before starting to draw "Social Security" (most farmers
wren't finally forced to make a decision to get in or permanently stay
out until the mid 1960s!!!).
The future of Social Security may not ever have to be addressed given
the financial crisis we now are in the early stages of...
oly
Bruce Remick
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cTojl.1614$N02...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker, that
soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, free vacation is happening already. State workers in California
are being forced to take every other Friday off, without pay. Free
vacation!!!
oly
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Gore is a f***tard.
Bruce Remick
Hey! We agree on something! I think.
And if mail delivery drops to five days a week to save money, a unionized
postal worker currently making $1200 a week will effectively get a 20%
raise.
mazorj
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cljjl.3314$VT3...@newsfe25.iad...
>
> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:f6b458e7-cbba-41b2...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 7, 10:42 am, "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> <snips>
>
>> If you've gotten back far more than your contributions and any
> possible earnings over the years, call your current checks what you
> may. And yes, you are being intellectually dishonest - the money
> has
> to come from somebody else (even if it is only from those in your
> pension system that died prematurely - before recieving their monies
>> back in full).
> ____________
>
> When I signed up, the possibility of getting back more than I put in
> was trumped at the time by some private companies where employees
> didn't have to contribute at all to their retirement or health care.
> It still was meant as an incentive to encourage federal employees to
> stay on, unlike today where few people will ever stay their career
> with the same employer.
>
> All money we receive basically comes from somebody else, like the GM
> employees' generous retirement which comes from the inflated price
> GM charges us taxpayers for its cars.
Worker health care and pensions have to come from somewhere. Here
we've done it by collective bargaining for those benefits, so the cost
is passed directly to the buyer. Many foreign governments subsidize
the manufacturing cost of their cars and other goods by providing
universal pensions and health care paid for by all their taxpayers.
As the old motor oil commercial once put it, "You pays me now, or you
pays me later." Neither method is inherently good or evil, it's a
question of which works best in a given economy and culture. The only
way to not pay sooner or later is to eliminate the pensions and health
care. Is that what we really want?
mazorj
"Logan's Run" for those not familiar with that dystopian novel and
movie.
>> Ten years of that and FICA will become a profit center for Uncle
>> Sam.
>>
>> Either that, or in a variation on the ancient tribal practice, at
>> 60 you get transported to Antarctica with nothing but a swimming
>> suit and a pair of sunglasses.
>
> Don't forget to think outside the box here. For the younger worker,
> that soon may amount to a free vacation, according to Al Gore.
Doh! Okay, then we have to go with the "Logan's Run" scenario. We'll
have to revise the old Sixties slogan, though: "You can't trust
anyone over 30 - they're all dead now."
note.boy
A government could always start a flu epidemic similar to the one at the end
of WWI which killed millions of old people, this is not necessarily a
suggestion but if one suddenly breaks out the conspiracy people will have a
new one to ponder over. Billy
oly
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Wwtjl.1938$eK2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:cljjl.3314$VT3...@newsfe25.iad...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The conspiracy people are already doing so, over various bird and
swine flu. Vietnam, China, some parts of Africa have had some
virulent, but isolated, outbreaks already.
oly
oly
mazorj
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CrAjl.57018$OP2....@newsfe29.ams2...
Conspiracymongers don't need no stinkin' epidemic to start wagging
their tongues. Gold id up? It's a conspiracy, sheeple! Gold is
down? It's a conspiracy, sheeple! A hurricane hit New Orleans? It's
a conspiracy, dammit! The sun rose in the east again? It's a
conspiracy, I tell ya!
mazorj
On Feb 8, 6:43 am, "note.boy" <note....@naespamntlworld.com> wrote:
...
> A government could always start a flu epidemic similar to the one at
> the end
> of WWI which killed millions of old people, this is not necessarily
> a
> suggestion but if one suddenly breaks out the conspiracy people will
> have a
> new one to ponder over. Billy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
< The conspiracy people are already doing so, over various bird and
swine flu. Vietnam, China, some parts of Africa have had some
virulent, but isolated, outbreaks already.
It's about time that all you sheeple broke that code. There's a
building in the southeast corner of Ft. Detrick, MD where they've
cooked up every outbreak of polio, bird and swine flu, SARS, and AIDS,
not to mention virulent new forms of psoriasis and teenage acne.
They used to run their ebola virus operation out of a building on
Einstein Square in Reston, VA, but the monkeys escaped and they had to
raze the building, which was right across the street from a heavily
frequented Mcdonald's. There's a completely new building on the site
now, occupied by a tech company.
RWF
> Conspiracymongers don't need no stinkin' epidemic to start wagging
> their tongues. Gold id up? It's a conspiracy, sheeple! Gold is
> down? It's a conspiracy, sheeple! A hurricane hit New Orleans? It's
> a conspiracy, dammit! The sun rose in the east again? It's a
> conspiracy, I tell ya!
TRIM YOUR HEADERS PEOPLE - it's getting out of control!
BTW mazorj - PLONK
mazorj
"RWF" <R...@200902.invalid> wrote in message
news:gmmonp$9st$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Oh, the irony!
Bruce Remick
Not at all. My point was that any cash benefits a govt or private worker
receives will come from other taxpayers one way or another, either from the
taxes they pay or factored into the price of the product the worker
produces. Sadly, many of these benefits which once were considered to be
automatic, are disappearing and the burden is being placed on the shoulders
of the worker to find his own health insurance and to provide for his own
retirement.
Bruce Remick
>
> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:792be13a-5bb5-437a...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 6:43 am, "note.boy" <note....@naespamntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>> A government could always start a flu epidemic similar to the one at the
>> end
>> of WWI which killed millions of old people, this is not necessarily a
>> suggestion but if one suddenly breaks out the conspiracy people will have
>> a
>> new one to ponder over. Billy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> < The conspiracy people are already doing so, over various bird and
> swine flu. Vietnam, China, some parts of Africa have had some
> virulent, but isolated, outbreaks already.
>
> It's about time that all you sheeple broke that code. There's a building
> in the southeast corner of Ft. Detrick, MD where they've cooked up every
> outbreak of polio, bird and swine flu, SARS, and AIDS, not to mention
> virulent new forms of psoriasis and teenage acne.
Thankfully, I am immune to teenage acne.
>
> They used to run their ebola virus operation out of a building on Einstein
> Square in Reston, VA, but the monkeys escaped and they had to raze the
> building, which was right across the street from a heavily frequented
> Mcdonald's. There's a completely new building on the site now, occupied
> by a tech company.
You may THINK it's an innocent tech company. There's no such thing in NoVA.
mazorj
mazorj
There's a 3-mile stretch of road near my former office that in
addition to the ebola site has seven buildings surrounded by boulders
or concrete-filled steel barrier pipes to block car bombs, most are
surrounded with razor-wire fencing, and all have armed guards at the
controlled entrances, many of which have steel spike or plate barriers
guarding the entry and exit lanes. Of course, there are no names
showing anywhere.
That's in addition to the endless warrens of office buildings with
cryptic company names like "Omega Corporation" or "Global Strategic
Services". As far as you can tell, they're legitimate high-tech
companies but it would be a great way to hide a clandestine operation
right out in plain view.
note.boy
You need an extra layer on your tin foil hat. :-) Billy
Bruce Remick
Ya think?
oly
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> news:RjBjl.1690$N02...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:CrAjl.57018$OP2....@newsfe29.ams2...
>
> >> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>news:Wwtjl.1938$eK2...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
> >>> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:cljjl.3314$VT3...@newsfe25.iad...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Always remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that
they're not out to get you!
oly
mazorj
Heh, heh - from your side of the pond:
note.boy
I am greatly concerned that you can supply a link like that, better make it
two extra layers. Billy
mazorj
>
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:SKEjl.1724$N02....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>
>> "note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:NlEjl.6314$9u6....@newsfe27.ams2...
>>>
>>> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RjBjl.1690$N02...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
...
>>>> Conspiracymongers don't need no stinkin' epidemic to start
>>>> wagging their tongues. Gold id up? It's a conspiracy, sheeple!
>>>> Gold is down? It's a conspiracy, sheeple! A hurricane hit New
>>>> Orleans? It's a conspiracy, dammit! The sun rose in the east
>>>> again? It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
>>>
>>> You need an extra layer on your tin foil hat. :-) Billy
>>
>> Heh, heh - from your side of the pond:
>>
>> http://eclectech.co.uk/mindcontrol.php
>
> I am greatly concerned that you can supply a link like that, better
> make it two extra layers. Billy
I was googling for a parody page put up years ago by Harvard students
that discussed the tin foil hat in mock academic terms. We frequently
used that link on a newsgroup that attracted more than its fair share
of conspirowacko types. Couldn't find it but this popped up.
Johnny Doe
wrote:
>You're right. I don't share your exaggerated view that the economic sky is
>falling, our children will be slaves to the Chinese, and it's up to us to
>save them (the children) now or they will be doomed. They will adapt to
>whatever they're faced with just like past generations have done and any
>adversity will make them stronger in the long run. And I'll gladly take
>that offer of a cheap beer with Dr. J under that shade tree in the park,
>protected from any pieces of sky. No French necessaire either.
>
>Bruce
Bruce, the distinction is that what the past generations were faced
with WAS NOT their own ancestors sticking it to them for their own
comfort and greed.
Bruce Remick
"Johnny Doe" <n...@home.net> wrote in message
news:ga11p49qdtbj0i7g8...@4ax.com...
I understand that. But I feel comfortable as an individual in that I'm not
burdening my grandchildren by the way I'm living. If those who would make
general accusations have specific names in mind, why not be specific without
painting all members of a whole generation as greedy bastards who couldn't
care less about what they leave behind. I hate blanket generalizations.