Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (41999)	10/3/2000 2:56:57 PM
From: kvkkc1	Respond to of 769670

Mike has plenty of credibility unlike you and your cronies who are a bunch of gullible brainless dolts. If you think the country's great, vote for the same. I can tell you that most folks don't really have it that good.knc

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (41999)	10/3/2000 4:26:50 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I did not think it was a lie. I thought it was an understandable inaccuracy given the different rates of unionization in the private and public sectors. I know you are angry, but I did not intend to provide fodder for accusations of lying.......

To: Mr. Whist who wrote (41999)	10/3/2000 8:44:20 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Flapjack, your little tantrums would be comical if they weren't so rude and nasty. Regarding my credibility; I will admit to being wrong regarding total union membership. However, in my defense, I will point out the methods used in determining the numbers are subject to serious error. As I understand it, as long as a private sector person has available a union at their place of work, they count them as being a union member. So the data could be in error. A couple of million off though? probably not. So I will admit to being wrong. And thank Neo for going through the trouble of digging up the data. As to how you equate my error with being a liar? It's not only disingenuous on your part, but calls into question your character as a person. I will gladly apologize to the thread for being wrong regarding total union members. Sorry thread...I must have remembered the numbers differently. Now, will you apologize for calling me a liar for simply saying I wasn't going to respond to your one sound-bite post? Will you apologize to this thread for repeatedly calling posters here childish names? And will you apologize for calling me a liar for simply being wrong regarding a number, you yourself (a union person) were unable to locate? Michael