"ulysses" wrote in message
news:1095272053.X9cY0fJzPW3oG4ozAj6mWA@teranews...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:03:20 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"ulysses" wrote in message
news:1095266965.WX5XkS7LQt4+idu19d04bg@teranews.. .
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:41:09 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"ulysses" wrote in message
news:1095261721.m9yz/7tepYEAPetvTvLPxQ@teranews...
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:57:26 GMT, "Jeffrey McCann"
wrote:


"ulysses" wrote in message
news:1095192909./Wl3rcn/JAP8b7yrZmYwew@teranews...
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:43:14 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

ulysses wrote:


The one on the top of your head, on which the sheet fits so
nicely?

Yes, folks, this is why I FINALLY gave up on liberalism.
Sanctimonious, semi-educated, twits.

ulysses


You're just a typical uselessnet rightie, hiding behind a handle
and a
munged email address...

Hiding from what?

poorly educated, barely literate, and spoonfed
mountains of political garbage every day.

Typical leftist. Too machine-headed to come up with original
retorts.

So, what, specifically, was the original poster (Jonathan) so
"stupid"
about
that caused you to reply "Talk about stupid. History, I take it,
was
never
one of your strong suits." Please be specific.

Thank you.

Jeff

Okay .. Jeff .. ery .. I .. will .. try ...

cut/paste

His Bush's economic policy (which has put the majority of
US citzens in the tightest financial bind since the great
depression)

end cut/paste

My .. point .. : Anybody .. who knows .. History .. knows .. ..
that
any .. "dire" .. economic .. conditions .. that we are having ..
today
.. are as nothing .. NOTHING .. compared to what .. our forebears ..
endured .. back .. in .. the .. 1930s.

Just .. as one .. example .. .. , .. during the 1930s .. we did not
...
have .. annual GDP growth rates .. of .. PLUS .. two .. or three ..
or
.. four .. percent. .. Indeed .. , .. GDP growth rates .. were .. in
.. SEVERE .. and .. frighteningly steady .. DECLINE .. back then
... --
Hence .. , .. the term .. De .. pression.

Have .. a .. nice .. .. day.

ulysses

Thanks, Ulysses:

I'm typing this really slowly, so you can follow along. Do you
understand
what Jonathan meant by " . . . since the great depression"? The
modifying
clause means "not including the great depression, or other events
prior
to
the great depression." So your alleged point is totally inapposite.
Given
this display of poor reading comprehension, I'm inclined to doubt your
grasp
of any history you might have read. Care to try again?

So, if I say "Man, I haven't seen things this bad since the Great
Depression," what I 'm *actually* saying is "Man, I haven't seen
things this bad since right up to but not including the Great
Depression"?

Do I got that right, Jeffery?

No, you don't. What you are, in effect, saying is that you haven't seen
anything this bad since after the great depression until now, not "right
up
to . . ."

You're right, I got that turned around. So, to amend, when I say
"Man, I haven't seen things this bad since the Great Depression," my
actual meaning is "Man, I haven't seen things this bad since *just
after* but not including the Great Depression"; or, put differently,
"Man, I haven't seen things this bad since the Great Depression but
not the Great Depression itself"?

Is that right? It still seems awkward to me. Because when I hear
someone say "Man, I haven't seen things this bad since the Great
Depression," I take them to mean that things today are as bad as they
were back then.

Hmm. Interesting. I see your point now. I think you are right. It could
be read either way with equal logic, I guess. Sorry.

Jeff