"It's Easier to Bury a Tradition Than a Child"

[N80]

Somtimes I feel that discourse with you is like having a discussion with a wall.

Why do you spend several days arguing with a wall? I've never been THAT bored.

You can argue until you are blue in the face and be 100 per cent correct but the wall is not going to care.

Well heck, if you had told me from the beginning that you were 100% correct we never would have needed to have this discussion.

How does it feel to be 100% correct? And if you are 100% correct it makes it all the more amazing that you would spend several days debating with a wall, which, if you are 100% correct has to be 100% wrong! What a strange person.

I have a job kind of like the maytag repairman except I work on computers so I have a lot of time available while I am sitting in front of a keyboard waiting for something to break.

And how is it that you find yourself representing guilty people in this line of work?

I also believe that I said was that this was slightly less boring than what I usually do which is sit and wait for something to happen.

For someone who has described himself as 100% correct, what could be more boring than arguing with a 100% wrong wall? I'm genuinely curious.

I went back and looked at the post which made me feel like you had implied you got out of jury duty and that would be your post #171 hopefully I got the number right. You did not say that you did not do jury duty but the implication that I got out of the post was that you did not do jury duty.

First, "doing jury duty" is not an option. You get called, you go. You get chosen, and you serve, right? Second, if you or Patrick made an assumption that I "did not do jury duty" I would have thought that the six or so times that I plainly told you that I HAVE NEVER BEEN CALLED FOR JURY DUTY would have been sufficient to disabuse you of you mistaken assumption. Third, what I did say, more than once, is that given the chance I would take advantage of any legal and honest measures available not to serve on a jury. Let me repeat the LEGAL and HONEST part just to avoid further confusion. That's it, that's all I said and that was sufficient for Patrick to label me as a shirker of my civic duty when he knows virtually nothing else about me or the ways I've served my neighborhood, community, state and country. You can't white wash this man. He was dead wrong and if you agree with him then you are dead wrong as well and so far neither of you has been willing to admit it. Its pretty clear. Not much room for parsing phrases here.

If I was mistaken I apologize but that was the implication I recieved when reading that.

Since I've pretty much proved that neither you or Patrick had any room for assuming that I'm any sort of shirker (I could be, but you have no proof), then I accept your apology. It would be nice to hear Patrick buck up and admit his mistake as well. And I couldn't care less if he re-joins this thread or not. If I were him I certainly would.

I am sure you have some comments in reply to what I said. .

Unlike you, I don't presume to be 100% correct nor do I consider your contributions to this thread to be a waste of my time. (And rest assured, I would not take the position that you were wasting my time.....and still be posting. That would be more than a little disingenuous wouldn't you say?)

And aside from alllll the sarcasm in the top of this post.....do you really think you are any different from me regarding this wall analogy? Can you imagine that I or anyone else might see you in the same light? After all, who argues with a 'wall' for 4 or 5 days? Answer: another wall, right?

And as for this 100% right bit....I'm sure you'll claim that you were being facetious....you have to, of course, or that would be, well, absurd. Throughout this thread I've asked you very specifically to defend your specific positions with specific facts and examples. In virtually every case you have failed to do so resorting only to citing how what I wrote made you 'feel'. You made me feel like you were a lawyer. You told me I was wrong....but I didn't continue to insist that you were a lawyer after you told me you weren't. Right?

See you next week. I'm going down to my cabin after church tomorrow morning and I've got to finish my lesson tonight since I'm teaching Sunday school in the morning. (Teaching Sunday school is my favorite thing in the world next to shirking jury duty.) So I won't be posting for a few days since I'll be down there playing on my TRACTOR and very unlikely to be doing it with a child on or hot coffee in my lap even though both seem to be perfectly okay according to our glorious and unblemished judicial system.

Edit: As for the George and Gemini show, I don't think we have anything to worry about. I was deluding myself to think that ANYONE has read much of anything either of us has posted in the last few days!

 

[Defective]

I suspect the East & West walls of my shop have been arguing.

Or maybe the West wall has just been trying to brow-beat the East wall.

The East wall seems to be leaning away from the West wall and the West wall is leaning into the East walls personal space in a menacing way.

Should I be concerned? Maybe seek arbitration?

 

[Soundguy]

I'm just tickled that someone other than myself has started a heated argument.. seems I've bene bad about that lately...

soundguy

 

[gemini5362]

Why do you spend several days arguing with a wall? I've never been THAT bored.



Well heck, if you had told me from the beginning that you were 100% correct we never would have needed to have this discussion.

How does it feel to be 100% correct? And if you are 100% correct it makes it all the more amazing that you would spend several days debating with a wall, which, if you are 100% correct has to be 100% wrong! What a strange person.



And how is it that you find yourself representing guilty people in this line of work?



For someone who has described himself as 100% correct, what could be more boring than arguing with a 100% wrong wall? I'm genuinely curious.



First, "doing jury duty" is not an option. You get called, you go. You get chosen, and you serve, right? Second, if you or Patrick made an assumption that I "did not do jury duty" I would have thought that the six or so times that I plainly told you that I HAVE NEVER BEEN CALLED FOR JURY DUTY would have been sufficient to disabuse you of you mistaken assumption. Third, what I did say, more than once, is that given the chance I would take advantage of any legal and honest measures available not to serve on a jury. Let me repeat the LEGAL and HONEST part just to avoid further confusion. That's it, that's all I said and that was sufficient for Patrick to label me as a shirker of my civic duty when he knows virtually nothing else about me or the ways I've served my neighborhood, community, state and country. You can't white wash this man. He was dead wrong and if you agree with him then you are dead wrong as well and so far neither of you has been willing to admit it. Its pretty clear. Not much room for parsing phrases here.



Since I've pretty much proved that neither you or Patrick had any room for assuming that I'm any sort of shirker (I could be, but you have no proof), then I accept your apology. It would be nice to hear Patrick buck up and admit his mistake as well. And I couldn't care less if he re-joins this thread or not. If I were him I certainly would.



Unlike you, I don't presume to be 100% correct nor do I consider your contributions to this thread to be a waste of my time. (And rest assured, I would not take the position that you were wasting my time.....and still be posting. That would be more than a little disingenuous wouldn't you say?)

And aside from alllll the sarcasm in the top of this post.....do you really think you are any different from me regarding this wall analogy? Can you imagine that I or anyone else might see you in the same light? After all, who argues with a 'wall' for 4 or 5 days? Answer: another wall, right?

And as for this 100% right bit....I'm sure you'll claim that you were being facetious....you have to, of course, or that would be, well, absurd. Throughout this thread I've asked you very specifically to defend your specific positions with specific facts and examples. In virtually every case you have failed to do so resorting only to citing how what I wrote made you 'feel'. You made me feel like you were a lawyer. You told me I was wrong....but I didn't continue to insist that you were a lawyer after you told me you weren't. Right?

See you next week. I'm going down to my cabin after church tomorrow morning and I've got to finish my lesson tonight since I'm teaching Sunday school in the morning. (Teaching Sunday school is my favorite thing in the world next to shirking jury duty.) So I won't be posting for a few days since I'll be down there playing on my TRACTOR and very unlikely to be doing it with a child on or hot coffee in my lap even though both seem to be perfectly okay according to our glorious and unblemished judicial system.

Edit: As for the George and Gemini show, I don't think we have anything to worry about. I was deluding myself to think that ANYONE has read much of anything either of us has posted in the last few days!

posted 6 or 7 times that you have not been called for jury duty. Was it that many I dont want to take the time to go back and count. I dont believe you had posted it early in the discussion but maybe you did.

I dont recall saying that I was 100 per cent right. I believe I was making a point that if you were 100 per cent right when argueing with a wall it would not make a difference. That is pretty much what the discussion with you is like. No matter how correct information with you are going to ignore it or find a way to disqualify it. I dont see any arguements changing your mind of course I am sure to you that you are always correct so there are no valid arguements. I of course said that in your mind you are always correct I dont happen to share that opinion.


Lets see how do i find someone to defend in my line of work. I dont know maybe because we have a union and I advocate cases for that union. By the way are your nurses and office staff union members. If you would IM me the office address I would be happy to have the apropriate union organizing committees send them literature.


I was not aware that to be a shirker you have to do something illegal or dishonest to get out of doing it. Actually according to the wikipedia dictionary a shirker is someone who shirks a duty or responsibility shirker - Wiktionary
shirk is defined as to avoid especially a duty or responsibility : to stay away from shirk - Wiktionary I believe the point we were talking about is jury DUTY and given your statement that you would take any legal and honest method to stay out of jury duty maybe that would make someone like me for instance think you are a shirker by definition. If not actually a shirker at this time you would do what ever legal and honest method you could to become one.


The sections of your post that involve my being 100 per cent correct are typical arguements from you. You dont want to stick to the original subject matter so you find something you can throw out there and try to direct people to your sarcasm. It is really a demeaning way to argue and is used by people who are incapable of either argueing that their point is correct in a convincing way or who are unable to change their opinion either way it is similar to my arguing with a wall theory.

 

[gemini5362]

I suspect the East & West walls of my shop have been arguing.

Or maybe the West wall has just been trying to brow-beat the East wall.

The East wall seems to be leaning away from the West wall and the West wall is leaning into the East walls personal space in a menacing way.

Should I be concerned? Maybe seek arbitration?

You might want to worry about that. The restraunt that used to be near the store in my home town had the north wall and the south wall arguing i suspect. The arguement must have turned into an altercation during the night with the North Wall losing and falling over. The north wall falling over fell into the south wall of the store knocking it down and also damaging the east and west walls of the store where they were connected to the south wall.

 

[gemini5362]

I'm just tickled that someone other than myself has started a heated argument.. seems I've bene bad about that lately...

soundguy

Soundguy this is not a heated arguement. pretty soon I am going to start talking about whether you have to twist wires before you put on the wirenuts then you will see it become a heated arguement.

 

[Defective]

You might want to worry about that. The restraunt that used to be near the store in my home town had the north wall and the south wall arguing i suspect. The arguement must have turned into an altercation during the night with the North Wall losing and falling over. The north wall falling over fell into the south wall of the store knocking it down and also damaging the east and west walls of the store where they were connected to the south wall.

I suspect I'm going to need to find an arbiter. Hear a guy named cable is pretty good...

 

[N80]

Should I be concerned? Maybe seek arbitration?

Not if the North and South walls are doing their job!

 

[Defective]

South wall seems to be. Unfortunately, North wall is mostly door. Easternmost door is permanently closed, so I'm thinking cable from bottom center to top corner on East side. Might just do it.

(Good thing this thread was already hijacked all to heck...)

 

[N80]

posted 6 or 7 times that you have not been called for jury duty. Was it that many I dont want to take the time to go back and count.

Well, maybe I only said it 4 times! How many times would I have to say it before YOU would give me credit for saying it????

I dont believe you had posted it early in the discussion but maybe you did.

Well there you go believing in untenable assumptions again. Not only was it early in the discussion regarding jury duty, it was my very FIRST reply to Patrick after he suggested how important it was for us to do that duty. Here is EXACTLY what I said:

"I've never been on or before a jury. Never even been called for jury duty. I think the jury system is badly broken, but if I'm ever called for jury duty I'll do it to the best of my ability. But I'll also avoid selection to the extent that law and duty allow."

So how could I have made it more clear or any earlier in the discussion? Can you read? Can Patrick? Read it again. Did you notice the part about "to the extent that law and DUTY will allow"? And THAT was only in reference to jury SELECTION. You can do jury duty without being selected, right?

Will you admit now that you sensed wrong from my discussion that I was a shirker and that Patrick was, in fact, 100% wrong in THAT assumption? Good heavens, what more can I say? And you say that I am the wall in this discussion? Give me a break!

I dont recall saying that I was 100 per cent right. I believe I was making a point that if you were 100 per cent right when argueing with a wall it would not make a difference.

Well let me refresh your memory. Here is what you said:

Somtimes I feel that discourse with you is like having a discussion with a wall. You can argue until you are blue in the face and be 100 per cent correct but the wall is not going to care.

Okay, let's look at this for a moment. When you say that "you can argue" you are clearly talking about someone arguing with me (the wall). The only one arguing with me here is YOU (Gemini). So you=YOU (Gemini) and in the sentence, that YOU wrote, the subject 'you' is YOU (Gemini) and the sentence indicates that in this situation the subject 'you' which is YOU (Gemini) are 100 percent correct. No you might like to foist the subject 'you' to mean anyone who argues with me, but that would be not only disingenuous but a bit deceptive....because as I said above....we, meaning YOU and me (the wall) are the only ones arguing.

But even if you can't see that and sincerely meant 'you' to include everyone, well, that's quite and insult to suggest that EVERYONE I argue with is 100% right....making me always 100% wrong. I may be a real dunce but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Even my wife would admit that I'm right, say, one or two percent of the time.

That is pretty much what the discussion with you is like.

And you are not like that at all are you? This is getting quite humorous. You respond to every post I make, with out conceding a single thing, assume you are 100% right and still have the nerve to call ME the wall. Its hysterical. I'm not even going to argue that I EVER right or that I'm NOT a wall, both of which are worth conceding in order to hear you go on and one describing a WALL when the description fits YOU as well or better than ME! Absolute blind irony at best. Hypocrisy at worst.

No matter how correct information with you are going to ignore it or find a way to disqualify it.

Well, I think it is pretty unfair of you to even start an argument without warning your opponent that you are always correct and 100% right. You should have to disclose that before any discussion. It would save us all a great deal of trouble.

But to be serious for a second, if I "find a way to disqualify it" then how is that like being a "wall". It sounds more like being RIGHT! So maybe all this wall stuff is just another red herring to divert attention from the fact that maybe, just maybe you aren't 100% right.

I dont see any arguements changing your mind of course I am sure to you that you are always correct so there are no valid arguements.

NOW WAIT A MINUTE! You are really confusing me now! I thought you just got through saying that you (or anyone else) arguing with me was 100% right? How can I be "always correct" and you (or anyone else) be 100% right? I'm not good at math, but that does not compute.

I of course said that in your mind you are always correct I dont happen to share that opinion.

Oh, well that clears things up perfectly.

Lets see how do i find someone to defend in my line of work. I dont know maybe because we have a union and I advocate cases for that union.

Well that surely explains how you'd be defending guilty people. But don't get you undies in a wad. I asked, you told me. That hardly makes you Tarzan.

By the way are your nurses and office staff union members. If you would IM me the office address I would be happy to have the apropriate union organizing committees send them literature.

No they are not. Nor are the BMW or Michelin employees in enormous nearby factories that have positively transformed the local communities that they are in. Feel free to send them some literature. I'm sure it would describe the same principles that shut down an enormous Mack truck plant near my cabin. It also positively transformed the local community. For about one year. Then the union came down with union workers due to a court ruling (not a local vote). The plant is gone. The community has suffered. So sure, send the literature. We just love unions down here. Snicker.

I was not aware that to be a shirker you have to do something illegal or dishonest to get out of doing it. Actually according to the wikipedia dictionary a shirker is someone who shirks a duty or responsibility....snip... I believe the point we were talking about is jury DUTY and given your statement that you would take any legal and honest method to stay out of jury duty maybe that would make someone like me for instance think you are a shirker by definition. If not actually a shirker at this time you would do what ever legal and honest method you could to become one.

Sigh. Once again let me re-quote myself:

"But I'll also avoid selection to the extent that law and duty allow."

Read it ONE MORE TIME and pay attention to the part that says to the extent that law and DUTY will allow. That means, if you still can't figure it out, that if it was my duty, then I would do it. By your definition then, that is not and cannot be shirking. So once again (how many times do I have to say this?) there is nothing in my words that would allow you or Patrick to accurately accuse me of being a shirker. NOTHING

But how can you admit that now? You've invested so much time and effort trying to substantiate it. It would be awfully embarrassing.....yet all the more decent and manly...... to admit it now. I'm not holding my breath though and fully expect you to somehow argue that even though I said I would do what DUTY called for you will still persist in trying to make the label of "shirker" to stick. Gee, that sounds like something a "wall" would do. Right? But then you're nothing like a wall, who, in the face of overwhelming evidence, continues to beg his case. And in this case, man, the evidence is overwhelming. I said, from the very first, that I would do my duty. What more do I have to say? Please, tell me?