[Al_U_Card]

Anonymity usually assures consistency. Chances are excellent that he is EXACTLY like that in "real" life...

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Feb 16 2008, 01:23 AM, said:

Jimmy I really don't understand how you can still take mike777 serious, all he does is trying to provoke with inconsistent remarks in confusing directions while he never says what his opinion actually is. You are reading too much into his words.

you're right arend, mike does try to provoke (and often does)... he also uses thinly, and sometimes not so thinly, veiled sarcasm to make a point... but i take him seriously because i respect his intellect, and i usually know what he's trying to do (if someone would just once take one of his posts and simply answer the questions he asks, i think things will clear up)

i'm sure all of us have annoyed some with our words or styles, i know i have... but i still respect the vast majority of the 'regulars' in the WC whether i agree with them or not

Al_U_Card, on Feb 16 2008, 08:05 AM, said:

Anonymity usually assures consistency.  Chances are excellent that he is EXACTLY like that in "real" life...

i think you're right, which means i'd enjoy drinking brandy with him - as long as he buys

[helene_t]

luke warm, on Feb 16 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

[concerning Mike777's posting style] (if someone would just once take one of his posts and simply answer the questions he asks, i think things will clear up)

Often someone tries to make a guess about what the question is and then try to answer, then it turns out that the question was misunderstood. This is what happened in this thread. It wasn't clear to me whether the question was exactly how many bugs healthcare would cost or whether it was if one should just trust Clinton and Obama when they say it will be affordable or whatever, but in any case several posters have adressed the question from various perspectives. I for one have tried to say why I don't think it's reasonable to talk about a concrete budget during an election campaign.

[Winstonm]

han, on Feb 16 2008, 02:27 AM, said:

If by that you mean that one should not complain if someone is utterly annoying then I disagree Winston.

To whom do you complain, Han? A complaint is nothing more than an expression of displeasure over lack of control of another's actions. There really isn't such thing as someone "being annoying" - the feeling of being annoyed is a response to behavior, not the behavior itself. You may find the behavior annoying, whereas I may find it funny - a matter of perception and how we chose to respond. A better solution is either change your own perceptions or to take your own action, two solutions over which you do have control.

If you don't like the rules of a game, either start your own game or do not play.
If you chose to play, then learn to enjoy it within the confines of the rules as they are.

[helene_t]

Winston, I think it can be useful to give people feedback on their behaviour. If one person finds me annoying I can change my way of interacting with that particular person. If many people find me annoying it may give me reason to change the way I address the forum in general.

I don't generally find Mike777 annoying, I think he can be funny and usually I read a friendly tone in his posts. But more generally I think it's a bad habbit to use rethoric questions on web fora. There are so many communication barriers that make posts subject to misunderstandings that would never occur in IRL communcation, so I think it is strongly adviceable to just state one's point as concisely as possible. Smileys can help, Mike777 are good at using those

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 16 2008, 11:41 AM, said:

There really isn't such thing as someone "being annoying"

Clearly you have not read his posts.

Hypothetically, if someone is either trying to be annoying or engaging in behavior they know most people would find annoying, and most people do indeed find that person annoying, I would argue that person is being annoying.

Why is it ok for you to object to how han posts but not ok for han to object to how mike posts? I think I know which of those views could garner more popular support...

By the way, I generally like your posts, and perhaps somewhat related-ly generally agree with your views. But I can't agree with you here. To answer your question, the person to whom he complains that someone is being annoying is the annoying person.

[Winstonm]

Jdonn and Helene,

I certainly agree that a societal charge of "acting in an annoying manner" can be valid. Perhaps I was being too obtuse or eclectic in my observations, as I believe that all human behavior eminates at the individual level - even groups are individuals chosing to adopt the group mentality. But the validity of the claim of "acting in an annoying manner" stems from each person within the society reacting in a similar fashion to the actions.

Maybe the claim of actions verses reactions is picking at gnats, but it is the way I think.

And Jdonn, understand that I am not critical of Han's posts - my thoughts were simply to point out that emotional response (which annoyance most certainly is) is the choice of the responder and not the actor. Emotions do not have to be in charge.

We do not have to act the way we feel - we do not have to react to our emotions but may chose to overrule those feelings.

That is all I was trying to say.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Winston, I think it can be useful to give people feedback on their behaviour. If one person finds me annoying I can change my way of interacting with that particular person. If many people find me annoying it may give me reason to change the way I address the forum in general

Helene, I agree completely. The only point I was making is that the behavior is not the cause of our reactions - it is ourself who reacts. How we act in response to our emotional reactions is a choice.

The actor, seeing how his actions are perceived, may decide to change; however, if the person is unwilling to change, then our only solutions to our annoyance is to chose not to act annoyed or remove ourselves from the environment.

Notice in your description above, it is your willingness and desire to interact effectively that prompts the change in behavior - if you were unwilling to change, then all the negative feedback in the world will not cause you to change behavior.

It really gets down to the inherent cause of all emotional conflict - the desire to control that which is out of our control. Once we reach a deep understanding that the only control we have is of ourselves, then actions of others is irrelevant to how we chose to act and feel.

That's all I'm trying to point out.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 16 2008, 12:57 PM, said:

I am not critical of Han's posts

I do not agree with that.

Quote

We do not have to act the way we feel

Agreed. Nor do we have to be annoying But certain people conciously choose to do so. Perhaps you are a better man than some of us (in fact I'm quite certain of it), but many people find it next-to-impossible to act anything but the way they feel.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I am not critical of Han's posts


I do not agree with that

Let me rephrase, then. It was not my intention to be critical of Han or his posts. After all, he is as entitled to his beliefs as am I.

Quote

Perhaps you are a better man than some of us (in fact I'm quite certain of it), but many people find it next-to-impossible to act anything but the way they feel.

I am no better than anyone else - it is simply a matter of choice. I would hope others would not have to travel the path I took to arrive at my present destination, though.

Odd thing is, 10 years ago I was one of those who found it next-to-impossible to seperate feelings from reality. The first time someone told me "they are just feelings," I thought he was nuts.

So if you conclude I am nuts, I can understand that.

[helene_t]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but what suggests that Han's reaction is more "emotional" than that of you, or me, or Josh, or Jimmy? And even if it is, then so what? After all if someone has an interest in the (according to his own taste) quality of this forum (and I suppose everyone who spends a significant amount of time reading and writing here does), then I think it makes perfect sense trying to influence any behavior of other posters which that person perceives as reducing the quality of the forum. Or at least, if that is not feasible, make other posters who also feel annoyed know that they are not alone.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Feb 16 2008, 11:24 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 16 2008, 02:07 PM, said:

[concerning Mike777's posting style] (if someone would just once take one of his posts and simply answer the questions he asks, i think things will clear up)

Often someone tries to make a guess about what the question is and then try to answer, then it turns out that the question was misunderstood. This is what happened in this thread. It wasn't clear to me whether the question was exactly how many bugs healthcare would cost or whether it was if one should just trust Clinton and Obama when they say it will be affordable or whatever, but in any case several posters have adressed the question from various perspectives. I for one have tried to say why I don't think it's reasonable to talk about a concrete budget during an election campaign.

yeah, sometimes it's difficult to understand exactly what he (and others, to be fair) are saying... i guess i'm more ... i don't know, maybe the word is appreciative ... of his style because i've often posted in the same way... so maybe my view is subjective

the truth is, i read what the last 5 or 6 posters have to say on just about any subject because i have a high opinion of all their (yours and han's and arend's and winston's and al's - and mike's - and forgive me if i left anyone out, it [probably] wasn't intentional) intelligence

as for emotionalism, i've never found han's posts to be that... i find ad hominem posts to be the most irritating, personally, because they show a complete lack of discussion skills

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 16 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

i read what the last 5 or 6 posters have to say on just about any subject because i have a high opinion of all their (yours and han's and arend's and winston's and al's - and mike's - and forgive me if i left anyone out, it [probably] wasn't intentional) intelligence

Yeah right wasn't intentional

[finally17]

Whoa, totally wrong thread. Thought I was in another. Again I wish I could delete my own response.

Oh well.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Maybe I'm misinterpreting something, but what suggests that Han's reaction is more "emotional" than that of you, or me, or Josh, or Jimmy?

Nothing suggests that it is more or less emotional than another's reaction. The principle I have been trying to explain is that emotions and actions do not have to match, regardless of who is feeling the emotions.

This shows the difficulty of languages - what I am trying to say is quite evident to me - but hard to get someone else to understand it from my perspective.

By the way, according to U.S. law, if we post to each other two more times this week, it means we are going steady.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Feb 16 2008, 03:23 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 16 2008, 03:03 PM, said:

i read what the last 5 or 6 posters have to say on just about any subject because i have a high opinion of all their (yours and han's and arend's and winston's and al's - and mike's - and forgive me if i left anyone out, it [probably] wasn't intentional) intelligence

Yeah right wasn't intentional

you were one of the last 5 or 6 posters, no? and fwiw, if i ever had a *real* online debate here, you'd be one of the two people i'd pick to referee it (the other being fred)... the reason has nothing to do with whether or not either of you agree with me, most likely neither of you would, but on my impression that you're both more than capable and would both be fair

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Feb 16 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

fwiw, if i ever had a *real* online debate here, you'd be one of the two people i'd pick to referee it (the other being fred)... the reason has nothing to do with whether or not either of you agree with me, most likely neither of you would, but on my impression that you're both more than capable and would both be fair

That is officially a tie with the time awm said I am the best bridge player he knows at knowing when to do the 'wrong' thing as the most unexpected compliment I ever received. And both on the forums too. Gotta love this place.

[kenberg]

I have had the great good fortune to be mostly healthy most of my life. But I recently had an "episode" and I can see how costs mount.

I awoke around 2 in the morning with severe pains, mostly in my back and neck but pain spreads and my chest wasn't feeling so great either. After a little bit I woke my wife and after a little bit more I called the doc and he told me to get myself to the emergency room. So far, so good. I got various tests through the next day, and by the day after that, a Sunday, it was clear that I hadn't had a heart attack and I think it must have been clear to everyone I wasn't about to have one either. Still, they wanted to do this procedure where they put some dye or such in your veins and then watch it move around in your heart. The problem was that they had to get me to a different hospital where this could be done, and since eeryone could agree that it wasn't an emergency I had to wait until Monday. Fine, I said, I'll check out and come in Monday. No way. I was to stay in the hospital for another day and then be transported by ambulance to the other hospital. No reason was given but it's not hard to guess. If they sent me home and then I had a heart attack Sunday afternoon my wife might well become a rich widow.

Now what do I think?

I am glad I had all of these test on my heart. As near as I can tell, I have the most thoroughly examined heart in my neighborhood and it seems to be fine (the pains were from a pinched nerve and that is coming along fine as well). Still, somewhere along the line, maybe it was time to say "Well, it seems pretty clear this isn't your heart. There are more tests we could run but you, rather than your insurance, will have to pay for them". Quite possibly I would have had the extra test(s), although I would not have stayed an extra day in the hospital and I would have driven my own car.

Health care for everyone is a fine idea and a country as rich as ours should be able to afford it. But. Even with our riches we cannot afford it unless we can get some sort of sensible idea about the limits. Someday I am going to die. It's a fact, and I don't expect either my family or my government to go into bankruptcy trying to alter that fact. I was developing some severe embarrassment in this prolonged hospital stay when nothing showed up as wrong. Of course something might have shown up, you never know. But that's true of everyone.

It's hard to know where these lines should be drawn, and that makes calm discussion very difficult. But we now have so many procedures we can perform that we can run up quite a bill, and then someone has to pay it. Of course with 300 million people in the country, any one person's bill can be covered no matter how excessive. But when we have to cover the bill for all 300 million of us, that's another matter.

Maybe it would be better if we decided "We will do it like Canada (or like the UK or France or etc) does it" but I get the idea that when people look at the details they are no longer so sure that this would be better. No doubt part of the issue is "better for whom?". Looking at my own self-interest, I have absolutely no complaints.

[helene_t]

Very good post, Ken.

Cesarean sections come to mind. According to http://www.childbirt...ion/CSFact.html the number of sections in the US are way above what would make sense from a medical point of view. I suppose it is due to doctors being afraid of getting sued if they don't do it and something goes wrong.

I think it would be a good thing if there was an option of cheaper insurances with the only limitation that the patient will have no right to malpractice compensation, but I can also imagine some reasons why that is not realistic.

[finally17]

40 years later, a different election, but not without relevance:

Quote

If we believe that we, as Americans, are bound together by a common concern for each other, then an urgent national priority is upon us.  We must begin to end the disgrace of this other America.
    And this is one of the great tasks of leadership for us, as individuals and citizens this year.  But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all.  Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.  It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.  It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.  It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife.  And the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.  Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.  And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.
-Robert F Kennedy
March 18, 1968

For the full text of this speech, see here.

I don't know much about Bobby, wasn't around back then. But I'd pick the man who delivered and meant this speech over any of the options we have offered this year in a heartbeat.