Political Satire: The Old Man of the Mountain (-1)

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

Ralph47 said:
Indubitably!

It looks like I have been trying hard to communicate with a 5-month-old baby or an "adult baby". Well, continue with your "goo goo" and "ga ga" baby talks.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/uncategori...rs-a-nappy-as-welland-her-boyfriend-loves-it/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

mcstites said:
Don't confuse lack of interest with lack of ability. I enjoy reading and art.

But Ralph is correct. My talent is mostly math and sciences. A world where I suspect you would be lost.

If you're a good numbers person, you're a bad language person.
- Frank Luntz

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

Ralph47 said:
My friend, unfortunately the problem with implications or saying things figuratively, rather than literally, is "the message" is highly dependent upon one's perspective! :redface::redface:

From my perspective, the message is: "if you wanna make an omelet, you gotta break some eggs".

Bon appétit!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?...bout+people's+faces+messed+by+eggs&ajaxhist=0

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

arcturus88 said:
this is true, but only because there are very few that post here at all.

that said I read them.

you and ralph lack the artistic gene needed for such depth.

As usual, arcturus88's rebuke is sharp and forceful.

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

mcstites said:
I agree. For me it is a bit pointless. I have no desire to try to figure out the meaning. I don't bother reading them and I would guess that very few people bother to read them based on the response.

It is ironical for someone who always "asks for specific numbers" to "guess that very few people bother to read them (my threads) based on the response".

You are certainly not intelligent in your guess. You are simply blind to the number of views I garner for the following threads of mine.

N.B. The number in each bracket after the link shows the number of views I get for each thread at the point of time I posted this reply.

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4257-when-hell-breaks-loose.html
(3,255)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4744-agong-s-fairy-tales.html
(5,171)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4287-confusionism-confucius-say-jokes.html
(7,785)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4275-yogiisms-other-humorous-quotes.html
(3,331)

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

mcstites said:
I agree. For me it is a bit pointless. I have no desire to try to figure out the meaning. I don't bother reading them and I would guess that very few people bother to read them based on the response.

I don't mind you "just won't bother reading them (my threads)". However, I shall be saddened and disappointed if you won't bother to criticise my threads. Together with Ralph47, the criticisms by both of you have added much-needed "life" and "vitality" to all my threads.

Thank you to both of you, friends!

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

Ralph47 said:
We both are highly scientific. It would be highly unusual to be gifted with both talents! :giggle:

It is great news for America to have great sons like both of you who are "highly scientific" and "highly unusual to be gifted with both talents!"

It is quite likely that one of you will kick Trump out of the White House in the next presidential election.

reedak · Apr 24, 2018

mcstites said:
Don't confuse lack of interest with lack of ability. I enjoy reading and art.

But Ralph is correct. My talent is mostly math and sciences. A world where I suspect you would be lost.

Don't be lost in your world of numbers. Like all mankind, your days will be numbered as time ticks away.

P.S. Like all humans, the consolation for a number lover like you will be resting in peace in the World of Infinity (symbol: ∞)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

mcstites · Apr 25, 2018

reedak said:
P.S. Like all humans, the consolation for a number lover like you will be resting in peace in the World of Infinity[/url]

If you go back and read all of what you just wrote, you might get an idea why I rarely read what you wrote. You tend to write for your own benefit rather than trying to convey a message to your reader.

Ralph47 · Apr 25, 2018

reedak said:
If you're a good numbers person, you're a bad language person.
- Frank Luntz

But I'm good with numbers, but literally NEVER use bad language.

Ralph47 · Apr 25, 2018

reedak said:
It is great news for America to have great sons like both of you who are "highly scientific" and "highly unusual to be gifted with both talents!"

You got it WRONG - sorry! I am NOT artistically talented. Never said I was.

reedak · Apr 25, 2018

mcstites said:
If you go back and read all of what you just wrote, you might get an idea why I rarely read what you wrote. You tend to write for your own benefit rather than trying to convey a message to your reader.

Since you always "ask for specific numbers", let the numbers below speak for themselves.

Viewership of my threads keeps on growing. You are the minority, if not the odd man out, to "rarely read what I wrote". Using an analogy, you are standing on the railway track trying to stop an oncoming train with both hands.

Good luck and goodbye!

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4257-when-hell-breaks-loose.html
(3,255 --> 3,266)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4744-agong-s-fairy-tales.html
(5,171 --> 5,202)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4287-confusionism-confucius-say-jokes.html
(7,785 --> 7,798)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4275-yogiisms-other-humorous-quotes.html
(3,331 --> 3,342)

reedak · Apr 25, 2018

Ralph47 said:
You got it WRONG - sorry! I am NOT artistically talented. Never said I was.

Neither have I ever said you are "artistically talented". Fat hope and pipe dream for such a praise for you!

reedak · Apr 25, 2018

Ralph47 said:
But I'm good with numbers, but literally NEVER use bad language.

Congratulations for proving Frank Luntz wrong. It is quite likely that you will be America's next top political wordsmith.

N.B. "If you're a good numbers person, you're a bad language person"- Frank Luntz

Frank Luntz is America's top political wordsmith, best-known public-opinion guru; the tubby, rumpled guy who runs the focus groups on Fox News after presidential debates; the political consultant and TV fixture whose word has been law in Republican circles since he helped write the 1994 Contract With America; the master political manipulator, a man who has always evinced a cheery certainty about who's right and who's winning and how it all works.

http://quoteaddicts.com/184125

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

mcstites · Apr 26, 2018

reedak said:
Since you always "ask for specific numbers", let the numbers below speak for themselves.

Viewership of my threads keeps on growing. You are the minority, if not the odd man out, to "rarely read what I wrote". Using an analogy, you are standing on the railway track trying to stop an oncoming train with both hands.

Good luck and goodbye!

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4257-when-hell-breaks-loose.html
(3,255 --> 3,266)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4744-agong-s-fairy-tales.html
(5,171 --> 5,202)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4287-confusionism-confucius-say-jokes.html
(7,785 --> 7,798)

http://politicalfray.com/political-humor/4275-yogiisms-other-humorous-quotes.html
(3,331 --> 3,342)

I don't "always ask for numbers". If someone is predicting something and claims this amazing ability to correctly predict, then the prediction should be specific enough to verify its correctness. Otherwise the prediction is meaningless and they do not have this amazing ability.

As for the rest, is there a message in there somewhere?

reedak · Apr 26, 2018

mcstites said:
I don't "always ask for numbers". If someone is predicting something and claims this amazing ability to correctly predict, then the prediction should be specific enough to verify its correctness. Otherwise the prediction is meaningless and they do not have this amazing ability.

As for the rest, is there a message in there somewhere?

Yes, there is a message for you:

"All the while I have been stressing that I am just making "intelligent guesses". I have never claimed to have 'this amazing ability' of prediction. So please don't put words into my mouth.

Your head is like those of the cemetery statues. No matter how many times I repeat my words, they can never enter your head." :angel:

https://abduzeedo.com/exquisite-cemetery-statues

mcstites · Apr 26, 2018

reedak said:
Yes, there is a message for you:

"All the while I have been stressing that I am just making "intelligent guesses". I have never claimed to have 'this amazing ability' of prediction. So please don't put words into my mouth.

Your head is like those of the cemetery statues. No matter how many times I repeat my words, they can never enter your head." :angel:

https://abduzeedo.com/exquisite-cemetery-statues

Knock of the insults. I will report you.

chip said:
I have absolutely no problem if anyone and everyone disagree with one another on here. I cannot stress that enough. That said, please attack the position and not the person.

I don't care what you call them. They are both attempts to portray what will happen in the future. The same logic applies. If you want to claim this amazing ability, then your predictions/intelligent guesses should be specific enough to verify. Otherwise they are worthless.

mcstites · Apr 26, 2018

reedak said:
"All the while I have been stressing that I am just making "intelligent guesses".

In the Air force, I was an aviation weather forecaster among other things. We called it "forecasting", "prognosticating", "predicting" and occasionally "WAGs" (Wild Ass Guesses). Whatever we called it, the intent was the same. We were trying to look in the future and provide a picture of what would happen at a specific time in the future. Our forecasts were always specific enough that they could be verified when some sort of tolerance was applied. Generally, our tolerance were along operational lines. For example, below minimums, IFR and VFR. The forecast was either a hit or a miss.

Ralph47 · Apr 26, 2018

mcstites said:
In the Air force, I was an aviation weather forecaster among other things. We called it "forecasting", "prognosticating", "predicting" and occasionally "WAGs" (Wild Ass Guesses). Whatever we called it, the intent was the same. We were trying to look in the future and provide a picture of what would happen at a specific time in the future. Our forecasts were always specific enough that they could be verified when some sort of tolerance was applied. Generally, our tolerance were along operational lines. For example, below minimums, IFR and VFR. The forecast was either a hit or a miss.

When in engineering on gov't contracts, we used to say "close enough (or good enough) for government work".

reedak · Apr 26, 2018

mcstites said:
Knock of the insults. I will report you.

Knock of the lies and disinformation. I will report you for your lies and for putting words into my mouth.

mcstites said:
I don't care what you call them. They are both attempts to portray what will happen in the future. The same logic applies. If you want to claim this amazing ability, then your predictions/intelligent guesses should be specific enough to verify. Otherwise they are worthless.

Your head is not only like that of a cemetery statue, you also behave like a robot, keep repeating all your old nonsense in your posts.

Political Satire: The Old Man of the Mountain (-1)

Similar threads