Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?
posted at 7/14/2010 2:07 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Have New Englanders Considered an Independent New England?
In Response to: Okay this has gone on long enough. With all due respect dude, I've read your original post a number of times, and you obviously don't have much of a grip on reality. You equate imitating the language of the founders, with being intelligent. And I am willing to wager a bet that most of what you know about the world you learned from reading fiction. Just go away. Posted by JaySev2010
There isn't much point to continued elaboration here (though I may put forth the effort), as the traffic level is abysmal, and made up primarily of 'politically correct' trolls with limited cognitive depth. But the cognitive depth isn't so much the problem as is the lack of a serious interest in analyzing public problems to ascertain solutions. Of course, the cognitive ability is a problem to the degree that a certain level is needed to see that which is not readily apparent, and to concieve of that which does not exist, yet could. The lack of those abilities could be overriden with curiosity and a belief that there are things to be learned, and in one's own faith in their ability to learn, however long that may take. Here, I do not see those latter characteristics. Though they likely exist to some degree, it is largely repressed by the much more powerful need to 'be right' with the amount of mental exertion already expended, and moreover the need to be seen as being right. You said you read my post three times, a thorough effort on your part. And yet, you've barely addressed any of the core elements given for prompting the title of the post. The closest you've come has been with, " . . this is a bad idea because we we would lose economically and the US would lose economically AND militarily," and "You think losing land, resources, and unity with the rest of the country will grow new england?" The first statement asserts a contrary opinion without any supporting rationale; it simply states that my assertion is not true; it doesn't debunk any of my underlying rationale. The second statement, on a latter reply, at least ventures a little foundation to your opinion, but was in the midst of a larger irrational or off subject rant that I was too distracted to bother focusing on it. But not wanting to ignore the little objection you offered . . . New England currently has no more control over the 'land' and 'resources' outside of its six states than it proportionally has over the land and resources in the other 44 states, which is to say that only federal statutes applicable to private land, and the lands which are owned by the U.S. government are at issue, and New England would not lose anymore 'advantage', whatever that might be, as it would gain by a separation. Adding to that point: we are a capitalist nation, resources are far and away in private hands, not considered community wealth, beneficial to the state only to the extent they are taxed. 'Unity' is a state of being that out of context poses neither a negative or positive, and is again only a contrary opinion of a preferred state of being without supporting rationale. You've made two references to my writing as an 'attempt' to mimic a style, that of the 'founders'. As I initially give all criticism a fairshake, as I do people, I winched at the accusation, then simply laughed. Finally, I realized that if your remark wasn't simply part of one of your attack formulas, i.e. a group of rehearsed slurs for a topic, but was a genuine original analysis, then I am quite complimented. The latter, not because I think my style mimics that of the founders, but that you've confused style with articulation. That my ariculation evokes in your mind the 'style' of the founders is both humorous and comforting. Finally, you've at least twice signaled your inner desire to dictate, "But more importantly I have no desire to separate" and "Okay this has gone on long enough. Just go away." I don't know your personal desires, and even if I had, a single person's desire wouldn't have carried more weight than my concern for the welfare of 14 million others, though I am interested in your thoughts, as they pertain to these matters, as I would hope you were in mine. Your last comments are just pathetic, but thanks for playing; sorry we have no parting gifts.
Posted by TheRLeePost
And you've shown a continued interest in wasting your own time. I've addressed the core concerns of your OP. If you are too stupid to accept that fine, but don't blame me if I happen to think your reasoning is terrible. Like I said, being able to use big words, and knowing how to think are two very different things. You can emulate the style of a thinker, but you have no substance in your remarks. And I pretty much ignored all but the first paragraph of your last post for this reason. I can't waste my time reading drivel from someone who thinks he has a handle on things because he's mastered a word-a-day dictionary. All your points have been addressed by different posters here. You have failed to convince anyone. I repeat, you've failed to convince anyone. Rather than blame the posters for failing to catch on to your "brilliant ideas" maybe you should blame yourself for taking a terrible idea, and building a bad argument for it.
Enjoy your re-enactment of Bunker Hill (and before you correct us, or insert some other pedantic remark, yes everyone here from mass. knows it was mostly fought on Breed's Hill).