In article ,
katysails wrote:
The sins of the past coming back to haunt you? Or more likely, kick you in
the butt?

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

Maybe I'm in love and feel a need to protect a loved one from
libel and slander?

CN

How sweet... Neal wants to "protect" the 13 year old. Must be similar
to Mooron trying to be with his chickens.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

What you're all missing is the fact that the options you mention are all
possible thanks to the battle fought by unions. How blind can you be? Still,
you folks can probably live the rest of your lives in ignorance, living off
the inertia of union accomplishments; but mark my words, your children will
pay the price for your lack of diligence. Of course, Neal wouldn't care
about that nor would his many sock puppets.
Scout

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Mooron" wrote

Nah... You've got that all wrong... if you don't like your boss...
you raise
the bar on job performance and then request a lay-off.

Unions have had their day..... if I had a preference I would
suggest the
staff establish a committee and hire a Legal Firm to negotiate wages
and
benefits. No strikes.. just costly litigation which would prove
incentive to
settlement. I would then as well have an accounting of where my
monthly
"union dues" were being spent and wouldn't have some dork calling me
"Brother Mooron"....


I prefer my method. I quote a price. They can take it or shove it.

Scotty

Holy **** Dave, read the full article!
The current feeding frenzy happening in the real estate market does not mean
Americans are wealthier than ever. The second half of your evidence is a sad
ending for such a promising thesis.
What it means is young people must wait for their parents to die to get
their first home. What it means is that people who can scrape together two
nickels to save will get 1.5% interest while credit card companies rape
people for 20% (check out Citi-Bank's earnings and policies). What it means
is that gasoline will soon be $3 / gallon. What it means is that apartments
in the sticks are going for $2,000/month.
That article is nothing more than red paint on a whore's lips. Don't ****
down my back and tell me it's raining Dave.
Scout

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:04:41 GMT, "Scout" said:

I hardly call posting propaganda a debunking.

The Federal Reserve and Reuters are big in the propaganda business, right?

"Capt. Neal®" wrote
Wrong! That is pure liberalism. You need to consider the fact that
everyone who works hard, works hard. That's it. That's all of it.
If he has something to show for his hard work or nothing to show for it
that is his own choice and his own responsibility.

Yes folks, right there is the mentality that brought you the union!
And by the way, I'm not excusing the corruption seen in many unions. That's
just one more burden placed on the worker. It doesn't justify crushing the
unions, however, so we can go back to the days of bidding for workers.

I once worked as a manager for a large petroleum company who owned wells in
Texas City. I sat in a management meeting and listened as they laid out
their plan to keep the union out.
"Let's pay the workers just slightly below union rate, so they won't vote
union," they said.
The non-union workers got a raise, I got a raise (managers salary was based
on workers highest salary). We all got raises, without being union, but
thanks to the union.

"So, who will work for $100 per day?
~ Ok, who will work for $50?"
Scout

"Capt. Mooron" wrote
Unions have had their day..... if I had a preference I would suggest the
staff establish a committee and hire a Legal Firm to negotiate wages and
benefits. No strikes.. just costly litigation which would prove incentive
to settlement. I would then as well have an accounting of where my monthly
"union dues" were being spent and wouldn't have some dork calling me
"Brother Mooron"....

Very good. And because they had that day, hired goons no longer show up and
split your head open with a baseball bat for wanting a fair share of the
profits of a company's efforts. Had you seen that, you might be glad to have
a brother close by. These heavy handed "negotiations" made bar room fights
look like a day at the beach.

It's all very well and good to espouse a philosophy that worked in the day
of the agrarian citizen, but the sheer number of people in the modern
workforce demands different rules. Hobbes would have agreed with me. People
are inherently greedy; generally speaking they are pricks. ASA provides all
the evidence one needs to believe that is true. Government and big business
are one and the same, and together they are still the Leviathan. Mutually
beneficial contracts are needed today more than ever. God bless a nation
where a guy like Scotty can make the offer of "take it or shove it." He can
do so only because others have paid the cost, and continue to pay the price,
for that privilege.
Scout

It's not that we don't comprehend..it's that we reject that as anything
other than what it is....uncontrolled testosterone...it worked for cavemen
because that's the physical reality they lived in but the idea of man
(gender, not species) as hunter/gatherer in an enlightened society is an
anachronism...


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:5huYd.20032$ZO2.7495@edtnps84...
NO! Kitty.... You are confusing aggressiveness and assertiveness....
which is understandable. I will repeat myself despite the fact I know you
are not capable of understanding the logic..... You cannot be assertive
without being aggressive.

Let's take the scenario you utilized.... you assume that aggression
requires physical intervention. It does not! Aggression between males has
a multi-tiered level.... none of which can be comprehended by females. The
level of aggressive behaviour is dependant on the situation. This is
comprehended by even the youngest of our gender.

CM



CM

"katysails" wrote in message
...
An assertive person makes their point by showing you the hole in the
ground; an aggressive person puts you in the hole in the ground.

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:gXrYd.19227$ZO2.4609@edtnps84...
You require aggressiveness to be assertive.... the very act of
asserting yourself, places others as either your equal or your
subordinate.... despite what they may have perceived. This situation is
not attained by passive compliance, nor neutral indifference.

CM


"katysails" wrote in message
...
I am assertive....not aggressive....

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:hTpYd.20694$i6.18071@edtnps90...
Aggression need not be physical....

CM

"katysails" wrote in message
...
I am not a physically aggressive person....except for the boots,
chains, spurs, etc....but that's not the same thing...

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:xghYd.40369$fc4.33395@edtnps89...
You may indeed suggest it...... but I'd sooner you take your own
advise.

CM

"katysails" wrote in message
Well, may I suggest you rise above your base animal instinct and
start using the tools that were given you to negotiate and walk
away from aggression?

Nah....you just happen to know the swuatters...

"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:WiuYd.20034$ZO2.2028@edtnps84...
A man can turn his back to the world and relieve himself... a woman must
squat and bear herself to it.

CM

"katysails" wrote in message
...
We live on top of a hill and the woods only covers one side...the
exposure level from the other side is...very open....unfortunately,
that's where the neighbors live...


"Capt. Mooron" wrote in message
news:2psYd.19538$ZO2.16990@edtnps84...
One of the joys of livin' in the country.

CM

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Why not? I do it all the time.

Scotty

"katysails" wrote in message
news Not good to pee in your own backyard, Lonny...

1. No one owes you a job.

2. You get what you negotiate for.

Amen!

BC

"Scout" wrote in message
...
. . . that being comfortable with the few profiting from the hard work of
the many, while the many receive no profit, is to be comfortable with
slavery, which doesn't surprise me a bit.


"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

Being?

"Scout" wrote in message
...
that's just perversion of a more noble idea.
Scout

"Capt. Neal®" wrote
Wrong! That is pure liberalism. You need to consider the fact that
everyone who works hard, works hard. That's it. That's all of it.
If he has something to show for his hard work or nothing to show for
it
that is his own choice and his own responsibility.

I thought they created a Confederation.


"Scout" wrote in message
...
"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Scout" wrote in message
...
So our founding fathers, who believed in strength through unity, were
socialists?

Bwaahahhahahahhah. You are definitely a product of the liberal public
educational system. You learned a slanted view of what our founding
fathers were all about. Our founding fathers believed in strength
through
individualism and hard work.

Nope, Catholic school, then private college.
And, our founding fathers United the colonies, they made a UNION. Care to
guess why?
You lose, once again.
Scout

So, basically, unions are all good?

What is the cost of the teachers union to the future productivity of this
country?

How many jobs in the last century were shipped overseas because of unions?

How much environmental damage have unions caused in the steel and automotive
industry clinging to old methods and factories?

How many companies will default on their pension promises because of bloated
union demands? How many people will wind up getting nothing or very little
when they retire?

How many union members have been ripped off or beaten up by their own
unions?

What is the overall cost of unions impeding the fluidity of capital?


BC


"Scout" wrote in message
...
What you're all missing is the fact that the options you mention are all
possible thanks to the battle fought by unions. How blind can you be?
Still,
you folks can probably live the rest of your lives in ignorance, living
off
the inertia of union accomplishments; but mark my words, your children
will
pay the price for your lack of diligence. Of course, Neal wouldn't care
about that nor would his many sock puppets.
Scout

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Capt. Mooron" wrote

Nah... You've got that all wrong... if you don't like your boss...
you raise
the bar on job performance and then request a lay-off.

Unions have had their day..... if I had a preference I would
suggest the
staff establish a committee and hire a Legal Firm to negotiate wages
and
benefits. No strikes.. just costly litigation which would prove
incentive to
settlement. I would then as well have an accounting of where my
monthly
"union dues" were being spent and wouldn't have some dork calling me
"Brother Mooron"....


I prefer my method. I quote a price. They can take it or shove it.

Scotty