----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 11:54 AM Subject: RE: Gummint programs and stats (was RE: Presidents RE: Corruption ...)
> > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Erik Reuter > > Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2002 5:32 AM > > To: Brin-L > > Subject: Re: Gummint programs and stats (was RE: Presidents RE: > > Corruption ...) > > > > > > Wow, Nick. That was totally incoherent. If you want to persuade people > > to your point of view, you should take it easy and work on making more > > reasonable arguments. Did you see my post? I tried to engage you in > > discussion about one of your points, but instead of replying to that you > > insult people. By the way, most of what Gautam said made perfect sense > > to me. > > Did this make sense to you: "If inflation had gone up by 40% in the same > period of time, then this would be a _good_ thing, not a bad one"? > It did me. It meant that, even though inflation went up 40%, income of the poor went up 41%, so that would be a plus. Dan M. > To me, something that ridiculous is just perversity. Nick, why aren't you accepting common ecconomic definitions? If you did, this sentence would make sense. I'm in the middle of a long reply, but I decided to quickly respond to this. Dan M.
