RE: Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: How the Supreme Court Resolve the Debt-Ceiling Crisis
You must have meant more than that, Share. "Overly expensive housing" is "unsustainable" for anyone who doesn't have an overly high income. And of course it doesn't matter how old you are. Nobody needs to be "convinced" of that, nor does anyone even need to have the point made. It's a truism. Come on, now, you can do it. Give it another try. Share wrote: > Judy, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. To me my > point was obvious when I referred to an aging population. I think > overly expensive housing is unsustainable for those living on fixed > and low incomes. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:43 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Nope, that's no good either. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. What is keeping you from addressing the issue here? You must know you're not convincing anybody that you're even trying to deal with it. Is it fear? Are you afraid that if you do try to deal with it, you'll fail? Are you afraid you'll never understand what we're getting at? Is that why you keep tap-dancing away from it? One more time, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." Share wrote: > Judy, unsustainable as in reliance on fossil fuels because we're running out > of > them and they pollute horribly and they're expensive. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:04 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share, no, you're still just pulling crap out of your ass instead of dealing with what Emily, Ann, and I have been pointing out to you. You do not make yourself look clever when you do that, to the contrary. As Emily says, your attempts to obfuscate (including this one) are obvious. You aren't fooling anybody. And this isn't that hard to figure out. What will continue (or not)? If you can force yourself to think about that question, you may begin to see where the problem lies. Ann and Emily and I all gave you good hints. Share wrote: > Judy, another angle: to the extent that something is self energizing, it will be self sustaining. > To the extent it is self sustaining, to that extent it will continue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As I said, that makes no sense in this context. What "will eventually end"? Share wrote: > Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet > applied > way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it > generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. Share wrote: > Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes > more energy to continue than it generates. No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking about is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term "unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them together, and hoping they make sense. Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't anything we need to be told. Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." wrote: As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either (and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one you read "years ago"). So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken literally. I wrote: > > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's high housing costs in general. > > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > I'll do better than that, Judy. Here's a very cool website that> compares places cost wise. Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is 255% more expensive there.> http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 On Monday, October 14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share wrote: > > > John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coa
Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: How the Supreme Court Resolve the Debt-Ceiling Crisis
Judy, I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. To me my point was obvious when I referred to an aging population. I think overly expensive housing is unsustainable for those living on fixed and low incomes. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:43 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: Nope, that's no good either. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. What is keeping you from addressing the issue here? You must know you're not convincing anybody that you're even trying to deal with it. Is it fear? Are you afraid that if you do try to deal with it, you'll fail? Are you afraid you'll never understand what we're getting at? Is that why you keep tap-dancing away from it? One more time, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." Share wrote: > Judy, unsustainable as in reliance on fossil fuels because we're running out > of > them and they pollute horribly and they're expensive. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:04 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share, no, you're still just pulling crap out of your ass instead of dealing with what Emily, Ann, and I have been pointing out to you. You do not make yourself look clever when you do that, to the contrary. As Emily says, your attempts to obfuscate (including this one) are obvious. You aren't fooling anybody. And this isn't that hard to figure out. What will continue (or not)? If you can force yourself to think about that question, you may begin to see where the problem lies. Ann and Emily and I all gave you good hints. Share wrote: > Judy, another angle: to the extent that something is self energizing, it will > be self sustaining. > To the extent it is self sustaining, to that extent it will continue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As I said, that makes no sense in this context. What "will eventually end"? Share wrote: > Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet applied way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. >>> >> >> >>Share wrote: >> >> >>> Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes more energy to continue than it generates. >>> >>> >>> >>>No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking >>>about is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term >>>"unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. >>> >>> >>>Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express >>>what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them >>>together, and hoping they make sense. >>> >>> >>>Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know >>>it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't >>>anything we need to be told. >>> >>> >>>Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: >>> >>> >>>"I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being >>>unsustainable, especially for an aging population." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." >>>wrote: >>> >>> >>>As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what >>>you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. >>> >>> >>>And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." >>>Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either >>>(and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one >>>you read "years ago"). >>> >>> >>>So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in >>>specific terms. What do you expect to happen? >>> >>>Share wrote: >>> >>> Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken literally. >>> >>> >>>I wrote: >>> > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's > high housing costs in general. >>> > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean >>> > by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? >> >>> >>Share wrote: I'll do better than >>>that, Judy. Here's a very cool website >>>that> compares places cost wise. >>>Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is >>>255% more expensive there.> >>>http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 >>> >>> >>>On Monday, October >>>14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Share >>>wrote: > John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly >>>inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of >>>those high rent >>>districts on the east and west
RE: Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: How the Supreme Court Resolve the Debt-Ceiling Crisis
Nope, that's no good either. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. What is keeping you from addressing the issue here? You must know you're not convincing anybody that you're even trying to deal with it. Is it fear? Are you afraid that if you do try to deal with it, you'll fail? Are you afraid you'll never understand what we're getting at? Is that why you keep tap-dancing away from it? One more time, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." Share wrote: > Judy, unsustainable as in reliance on fossil fuels because we're running out > of > them and they pollute horribly and they're expensive. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:04 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share, no, you're still just pulling crap out of your ass instead of dealing with what Emily, Ann, and I have been pointing out to you. You do not make yourself look clever when you do that, to the contrary. As Emily says, your attempts to obfuscate (including this one) are obvious. You aren't fooling anybody. And this isn't that hard to figure out. What will continue (or not)? If you can force yourself to think about that question, you may begin to see where the problem lies. Ann and Emily and I all gave you good hints. Share wrote: > Judy, another angle: to the extent that something is self energizing, it will be self sustaining. > To the extent it is self sustaining, to that extent it will continue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As I said, that makes no sense in this context. What "will eventually end"? Share wrote: > Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet > applied > way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it > generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. Share wrote: > Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes > more energy to continue than it generates. No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking about is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term "unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them together, and hoping they make sense. Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't anything we need to be told. Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." wrote: As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either (and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one you read "years ago"). So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken literally. I wrote: > > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's high housing costs in general. > > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > I'll do better than that, Judy. Here's a very cool website that> compares places cost wise. Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is 255% more expensive there.> http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 On Monday, October 14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share wrote: > > > John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as> > > being unsustainable, especially for an aging population.>> What, pray tell, do you mean by "high rent districts"? Give us an East Coast > example, please.
Re: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: How the Supreme Court Resolve the Debt-Ceiling Crisis
Judy, unsustainable as in reliance on fossil fuels because we're running out of them and they pollute horribly and they're expensive. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 12:04 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" wrote: Share, no, you're still just pulling crap out of your ass instead of dealing with what Emily, Ann, and I have been pointing out to you. You do not make yourself look clever when you do that, to the contrary. As Emily says, your attempts to obfuscate (including this one) are obvious. You aren't fooling anybody. And this isn't that hard to figure out. What will continue (or not)? If you can force yourself to think about that question, you may begin to see where the problem lies. Ann and Emily and I all gave you good hints. Share wrote: > Judy, another angle: to the extent that something is self energizing, it will > be self sustaining. > To the extent it is self sustaining, to that extent it will continue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As I said, that makes no sense in this context. What "will eventually end"? Share wrote: > Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet applied >>> way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it >>> generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. >> > > >Share wrote: > > >> >>> Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes >>> more energy to continue than it generates. >> >> >> >>No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking about >>is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term >>"unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. >> >> >>Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express >>what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them >>together, and hoping they make sense. >> >> >>Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know >>it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't >>anything we need to be told. >> >> >>Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: >> >> >>"I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being >>unsustainable, especially for an aging population." >> >> >> >> >>On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." wrote: >> >> >>As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what >>you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. >> >> >>And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." >>Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either >>(and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one >>you read "years ago"). >> >> >>So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in >>specific terms. What do you expect to happen? >> >>Share wrote: >> >> >>> Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken >>> literally. >> >> >>I wrote: >> >>> > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's >>> > high housing costs in general. >> > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean >> > by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? > >> >Share wrote: >>> I'll do better than >>that, Judy. Here's a very cool website >>that> compares places cost wise. >>Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is >>255% more expensive there.> >>http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 >> >> >>On Monday, October >>14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Share >>wrote: >>> > >>> John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly >>inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of >>those high rent >>districts on the east and west coasts >>as> > > being >>unsustainable, especially for an aging >>population.>> What, pray >>tell, do you mean by "high rent districts"? Give >>us an East Coast > example, >>please. >> >> >> >>
RE: RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: How the Supreme Court Resolve the Debt-Ceiling Crisis
Made ya look! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Share, you replied to the wrong conversation here. Oh yes, you know this don't you? Sharester, in general, as an observation, your attempts to obfuscate are obvious. Check it out! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: shucks, I thought Dale Evans had joined FFL and was sharing our antics with her hubby Roy (-: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:51 AM, "emilymaenot@..." wrote: Share: Hint, try explaining what you meant in a way that could be interpreted at face value. This..["Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end", especially for an aging population] makes no sense whatsoever. You made a pretty simple statement; you don't need to try and pretend it was rooted in "scientific" principle. Just explain what you were thinking at face value. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet applied way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:08 AM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share wrote: > Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes > more energy to continue than it generates. No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking about is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term "unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them together, and hoping they make sense. Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't anything we need to be told. Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." wrote: As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either (and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one you read "years ago"). So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken literally. I wrote: > > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's high housing costs in general. > > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > I'll do better than that, Judy. Here's a very cool website that> compares places cost wise. Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is 255% more expensive there.> http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 On Monday, October 14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share wrote: > > > John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as> > > being unsustainable, especially for an aging population.>> What, pray tell, do you mean by "high rent districts"? Give us an East Coast > example, please.
RE: RE: RE: Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: How the Supreme Court Resolve the Debt-Ceiling Crisis
Share, no, you're still just pulling crap out of your ass instead of dealing with what Emily, Ann, and I have been pointing out to you. You do not make yourself look clever when you do that, to the contrary. As Emily says, your attempts to obfuscate (including this one) are obvious. You aren't fooling anybody. And this isn't that hard to figure out. What will continue (or not)? If you can force yourself to think about that question, you may begin to see where the problem lies. Ann and Emily and I all gave you good hints. Share wrote: > Judy, another angle: to the extent that something is self energizing, it > will be self sustaining. > To the extent it is self sustaining, to that extent it will continue. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: As I said, that makes no sense in this context. What "will eventually end"? Share wrote: > Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet > applied > way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it > generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. Share wrote: > Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes > more energy to continue than it generates. No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking about is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term "unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them together, and hoping they make sense. Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't anything we need to be told. Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." wrote: As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either (and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one you read "years ago"). So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken literally. I wrote: > > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's high housing costs in general. > > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > I'll do better than that, Judy. Here's a very cool website that> compares places cost wise. Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is 255% more expensive there.> http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/5 On Monday, October 14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." wrote: Share wrote: > > > John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as> > > being unsustainable, especially for an aging population.>> What, pray tell, do you mean by "high rent districts"? Give us an East Coast > example, please.
