Music: Pyotr Tchaikovsky

I am pleased to announce that I received a good deal of hate mail in my last thread.
For some reason, some members seem to enjoy attacking cool skill.
What seemed like an innocent thread turned out to be a flame opportunity for many.

So to clear things up, I have created this poll.

I actually tended to agree with some of your views in other threads. But leaching off of others is low, and cheap. Make your own way in the world and maybe I'd consider you a descent human being again.

jeez i am cracking up!

Bwah-ha-ha.

Ha.

Deja bloody Vu.

I have no clue what other thread on Tchaikovsky you're talking about but this thread.............is nostalgic. Sciforum's wetspot.

Useless info: Tchaikovsky was a gaylord.

LOL!
-10 For some lack of imagination, but the "no epilogue" part is funny, so + 100; score= 90. I am surprised not to see either one line or one line repeated maybe 100 times. Now who hates you again?

First time a thread title made me laugh...good work.

I have no clue what other thread on Tchaikovsky you're talking about

He may be reffering to his thread where he asked for some female advice whether or not you would date a guy on welfare intentionally.

Right.
In the Female Opinion Required (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27888) thread.
Then the next thing you know, I'm getting slandered.:confused:
Where's the justice?

The need to elucidate is clear!!!

[/QUOTE] Iam
Dear Lord!!!
The presumptuousness!!
That there is an "I"!!!!
That it "am" capable of anything!!!


hate
>>>GASP<<<
Judgemental bigot!!!
You Presume To Know TOO MUCH!!!
Now you can read others minds???


some
AHA!
An exclusionist of the lowest stripe!!!
Egad!!!


like
OHO!
A disordered mind!!!!
Can you not express the drivel that passes for thought in the
ramshackle agglomeration of chemical sputterings you refer to as a brain?!?!


created
Mutha-F*****!!!!
What hast thou 'wrought'!?!?
I see but the result of purloining patchworks of possible paste-ups!!!


Clearly you are in need of intensive therapy, and perhaps invasive brain surgery of the most radical order!!
Report immediately to the nearest hospital with printout of your post!
Trained vivisectionists will attend thee!!!

:D

ps:

aaargh!! blaargh!! hate! hate! hate!

OK what the hell did that mean?

LOL@killjoy

Since there's no epilogue to this hate thread, I wanted to get mine in early...

:mad: Aaarrgh!! Hate! Hate!! Blaarrgh!!:mad:

There is some additional hate to help get the hate really going!

Thank you very much for your time...
I hate you :mad:

Well. I am quite happy to see funds being spent on things like providing people with $550 per month.
The government doesn't even provide people with food and shelter. The least they could do is give people some money. You should be happy when somebody is on welfare. That way it shows that the money is going to a good cause.

People are provided with schools, security, defense, mail/communications, transportation etc. Yet they don't get food and shelter. The most important ones. And that's if you're lucky enough to live in America. It sucks to be in 2003.


Here's a better way a good city would use it's collective funds for the people.
Listed with greatest priority.

1. Food/water. The top of the list is to provide people with food/water.

2. Shelter/Sanitation. Providing people with a clean place to live is also one of the most important things funds should be used for.

3. Order. Providing a structure of regulations for people to live by might be good at the top of the list as well because it is very important.

4. Security. A good security/defense system works to keep things peaceful and safe.

5. Energy/water. Provide people with light/power.

6. Medicine. The health of the population is crucial to keeping it functioning.

7. Education. A well educated society promotes progress.

8. Transportation/Communication. Good Transportation and communication systems increase human efficency and awareness.

9. Technology. Striving for and implementing the latest technologies is a measure of our desire to grow.

10. Social activities. This is at the bottom of the list because humans are social animals. They don't really require much support from the city to be social. But whatever funds are left over can be used to promote opportunities for good scoializing.

Hop a time machine to the soviet union to see what that kinda communism is like. even our fucked up version of capitalism is better than what you want.

What for? No its not. It's better.

cool skills, you are one cool dude.
aside from the fact you prefer to leech off of others as a living, and its aperant that you have obvius social dysfunction problems.
you still seam relitivly smart and a genuinly likable guy.
besides, everyone steals from every1 else, but your version is simpy more noticable, and more bashable. :-)

your just another pittifull human scraping to survive. nothing you do can ever be too evil, but you cant do any real good iether.

your a decent guy, ive seen better, and ive seen worse.

but know that your ok in my book.

now go choke on a lemon you filth ;)

Originally posted by cool skill
What for? No its not. It's better.

Well try emigrating to cuba, china or north korea

And it's better for the people who are lazy not for the normal people.

The government doesn't even provide people with food and shelter. The least they could do is give people some money. You should be happy when somebody is on welfare. That way it shows that the money is going to a good cause.

When someone is on welfare, it's assumed that they are incapable of finding a job. A person like you, who just gets his money, so that he can concentrate on other things is a leech.

Originally posted by Bachus
Well try emigrating to cuba, china or north korea

And it's better for the people who are lazy not for the normal people.
I doubt that very much. I don't think anywhere is better than America. At least not in this decade.


Originally posted by airavata
When someone is on welfare, it's assumed that they are incapable of finding a job.
I know. Isn't it terrible?:confused:


Thanks to the few people that sent me PMs for support.:)
Too bad you don't want to post in the open for some reason.:(

It's not the people on welfare that are leeching off of society.
It's society that leeches off of the lower class.
People on welfare are simply preventing society from leeching off of them by not working.
By being on welfare, you are preventing society from leeching off of your efforts.
So you're either on welfare, or you're an underpaid overworked victim of the leisure class supporting the leisure class.

Originally posted by cool skill
I know. Isn't it terrible?:confused:


No, whats terrible is the people who take advantage of a system set up to care for the ones who can't truly provide for themselves.

Originally posted by cool skill
It's not the people on welfare that are leeching off of society.
It's society that leeches off of the lower class.
People on welfare are simply preventing society from leeching off of them by not working.
By being on welfare, you are preventing society from leeching off of your efforts.
So you're either on welfare, or you're an underpaid overworked victim of the leisure class supporting the leisure class.
Interresting, jobs are payed by the demand/supply quota. If you are good at anything you will get a decent salary, if your not good at something you get minimum wage. Now you claim you would be underpaid if you worked, hence you are useless. Please remove yourself from the genepool, thank you.

If you are good at anything you will get a decent salary, if your not good at something you get minimum wage.This theory only works if a number of unrealistic presumptions are in place. The reality of the American economy, at least, is that corporations waste huge amounts of money.

Take Viagra. We hear in the prescription drugs fight in the US about recovering research expenditures for the other 99 drugs that didn't work. Great. So we spent how much money trying to give people erections? The consumers aren't just picking it up when they buy Viagra. They help pay for that with other overpriced drugs.

Or the current RIAA fight about music and "you're hurting the artists". Read Steve Albini's "The Problem With Music (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html)", which is actually designed to put the RIAA line about hurting artists in its proper perspective. And then just thing about it for a moment longer. Look at all that wasted money. Look at how many people get money just because they have a certain job title. Think of Nirvana: Bleach cost $600 to make; the number I've heard for Nevermind is $50,000; however, In Utero featured no producer whatsoever, and the aforementioned Mr. Albini was reportedly paid $3,000,000 to engineer the album. That was the total retail value of at least 150,000, if not 200,000 albums. Think about that: 200,000 albums before the net sales transactions equal the engineer's fee.

Now, don't get me wrong. Inasmuch as the money is being thrown around, I actually applaud the $3m payout, which was reportedly a demonstrative gesture on behalf of a generation that grew up on Songs about Fucking (http://www.dangpow.com/~landed/bigblack/songfuck.htm). But think about it: Nirvana's handing out huge payouts. How much to teach N'Sync to dance? How much of that tour is being paid for by the sponsors, and how much comes down to the band and record sales? (This is especially important if, for instance, you're like the System of a Down/Puddle of Mudd/Jimmy Eat World tour and could not sell out the large arenas you've booked.) In other words, stop before you pay $20 for that CD and ask yourself .... "What am I paying for?"

Why throw so much money around? I remember a four-week television campaign by the label for a Backstreet Boys album. Yes, you paid for that if you bought the album.

But what about more mundane issues? Paperwork-reduction or the reality of two-less temporary employees at an insurance company filing your claim paperwork for a wage that won't keep them housed? Think about bad advertising, PAC contributions, stop by the marketing department of an insurance company and start counting the premium dollars wasted. I worked for an insurance company that eliminated "bonuses" (Americans know what I mean, at least) in order to finance a massive advertising blitz. And that investment wasn't enough to avert a layoff of 15% of the workforce. And insurance premiums still went up.

Don't like high taxes? Look around your workplace if you're taking money from the general public. Everything extraneous, erroneous, or otherwise, that you see, acknowledge that people pay for this when they buy the product. Expenses go up, price goes up.

And look at the competitive marketplace in light of that. Companies can spend as much money as the consumers will give them in order to fight over market-share ambitions and give money to investors who don't actually work for it.

I guess the question is one of what constitutes a decent salary. Even working for a "decent salary", I couldn't afford to live on my own in Seattle. (As a parenthetic aside, let me note that the realization that what a generation's parents prepared them for wasn't enough to get by ... that's a huge part of the attitude problem of the so-called "Genereation X".) Hell, I wasn't even eligible for bonuses under the system at my last employer. And that issue was in effect when I arrived at the company. But I couldn't maintain a residence in the city where I worked without splitting the costs of a more expensive place with somebody. At least my company got to have their name in lights, and, when it comes down to spending your insurance premiums, keeping the company's name in lights is the most important thing ....

Decent work/decent living is a great idea that is obscured by a large amount of wasteful spending in the labor economy. Senator Edwards scored some points with labor during the recent CNBC/WSJ Democratic Debate when he pointed out that his union-labor relatives had health care because of the Union. Give your money to the Union, you might get something in return. Give your money to the government, you might on a frosty Friday in Hell when George Bush needs the approval ratings, get something in return. Give your money to a company?

A couple of friends of mine work at Microsoft, one for the company and one for a contractor. I'm officially offended at the cost of Microsoft's software. What they're doing is, in a strange anthropological sense, necessary and useful (e.g. creating infrastructure), but consumers--that is you, me, and the next guy--should not be so foolish as to presume we are anything more than part of a secondary enterprise designed to bulwark the primary project, that being dominance of infrastructure. I have flashing rubber bouncy-balls, trinkets from dozens of companies; I know a little something of what would otherwise be called theft--I can't tell you how many bottles of wine I've consumed that I suspect were not legitimately purchased by my associates. And your software dollars have paid for that. There's a reason Mircrosoft software is expensive. (And as the consumers flex up and asset their will, Microsoft is getting ready to shift its revenue from software and hardware to hardware and web services.)

But think about what your money pays for.

Decent work for decent wage would be right on if it was actually so simple. But unnecessary complications dominate the situation making life more expensive for all.

(Think of how many tickets or t-shirts or bobble-heads have to be sold just to pay Alex Rodriguez's salary of $10 million a month.)

(Check into your college's sports programs: how much is underwritten by boosters, and how much is underwritten by the state--e.g. public university--or by tuition; even including bowl-game payouts, football programs don't generally make money.)

When people realize how many people they're actually supporting with their "decent pay" for their "decent work", they'll actually be rather indecently disturbed.

I must admit I agree with Tiassa...

On that hallowed day when we have enough robots to supply our basic needs with almost no human labour at all, what are we gonna do?

Ride the gravy train?

Or all fight desperately for the three remaining toilet-scrubbing jobs?

Let's see... I don't really believe that present corporate practices really represent a competitive market...

The ultimate goal of business is to combine everything under one roof (witness AOL Time Warner and MSNBC), and if they ever do pull it off then whatever giant company is left over will be paying its workers in money that is only traded back to the company for goods...

With continuing research into industrial processes (which is the kind of research industry likes the most) the unemployment rate is going to continue to climb because the people just aren't needed...

And our entire population is pretty much destined for welfare sometime soon, unless we're invaded by killer aliens or we all get the plague...

It seems only right to slap down cool skill for being on welfare.

After all, why would you want to buy the cow when... oh, wait. That doesn't support my argument.

Uh... Why would you want to buy the cow when... THE COW'S ON WELFARE?! WAH HAH HAH!!

I'm so mean.:D

Originally posted by Bachus
If you are good at anything you will get a decent salary, if your not good at something you get minimum wage.
On which planet? Not earth. You must be living in some "otherworld."
How good you are at something has little bearing on the salary you get.

An easy example as Tiassa mentioned is N'Sync.
What are they good at? Singing? Dancing? Being good looking? Performing? No. N'Sync is good at NOTHING. Can you get a decent salary by being good at nothing? N'Sync sure does.
So why the hell do they get paid so well?
The same reason the emporor can walk around unoticed without any clothes on. Heavy marketing can get people to see anything they want people to see.

If you are good at something, does that mean you will necessarily get a decent return for the work you do?
Ya. Right. Good luck with that.

coolskill i don't hate you. Just don't listen to nico he's a brain dead loser

He's definitely inferior. No doubt about that. For some reason, he refuses to recognize my superiority.

How about a system that rewards the very rich with huge tax breaks and other perks to the "family" members of the ruling party? How about the government letting many polluting industries just keep on polluting? I can continue about how the rich have their own form of welfare but I think you already know about that.:mad:

what makes this important to you, cool skill?

Please specify what you are referring to.