It was all in your head, Tim.
As I have now clearly established (with the links and excerpts in my last post... not to mention the half dozen times I'd said the exact same thing before <g>), the ORIGINAL ARTICLE was very unclear/vague about the government's exact treatment of 'part time' workers (then, or now) It simply does not say.
It merely made one glancing reference to part-time workers... without actually specifying ANY facts.
And, as I've repeated until I'm numb --- I DID NOT ASSERT ANYTHING EITHER about that.
(And YOU haven't posted ANY facts about the matter either, as I've also pointed out.)
So --- it was all in YOUR HEAD... you simply jumped the gun in making an assumption.
And --- that one link you keep trying to shove back at me, wasn't even for the original post, or it's follow-up, where the points were made... but was just some quickie late-night reply to a question you asked me (concerning what you thought was in the original article) wherein I, without bothering to go back and reread the original article mind you, but simply working from memory and in haste and desirous of answering your question --- simply replied that I thought it contained something along the lines of the 'part-time' methodology being a part of the over all question.
Which, upon going back to the original article, is pretty damn accurate... 'cause that's basically what the article does: although 'part-time' is CLEARLY not the main point (the LBJ era changes to the methodology for counting/not counting of 'discouraged workers' is the MAIN POINT the article advances...), the article does glancingly refer to 'part-time' also... while leaving a possible assumption hanging out there that changes have been made in that category as well.
Although it's clear that the article NEVER directly comes out and says that.
And it's a dozen times even more clear that I did not either.
And a triple dozen times even CLEARER that the phase you put inside in quotation marks and then queried me about was not a 'quote' at all --- was, in fact, NOTHING I'd ever said, nor anything from the article --- but was just something that you made up, and then tried to pass off inside of quotation marks.
In short... it seems that you are letting your imagination run wild here, and being a bit slip-shod with the facts.... |
