Jeffrey doesn't discuss anything

Maybe I'm just smart enough to realize that you come from the generation that had everything and I come from the beginning of a long line of generations that have fallen victim to your generations selfishness, and that no matter what I say, you will come up with some pathetic excuse to justify why everyone today should have to pay your generation so much money for the very same items that your generation paid so little for back in your day...

Enjoy your heated car seats, you've earned them... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I think the price of a car now and 40 years ago should be related to the average wage and what this bought in each time period.

Cars in the UK are now cheaper, on an approximately like-for-like comparion, than they were 40 years ago, when compared to the average take home pay (before tax and deductions).

Moreover, they are safer, perform better, go further to the gallon, are cleaner for pollution, the engine power is far superior and they have many additional features that the 40 year old rust bucket did not have (technology, demands and tastes move on).

The basis for the comparison, using the average wage, is for several reasons -

1. The comparison should not be on the money charged, but on how many hours, days or months the guy on the average wage needed to work to buy the chosen car 40 years ago and the time to buy the equivalent car now.

2. Trying to judge value then and now for someone on the minimum wage is baloney. The guy on the minimum wage could not afford the car new then nor now. So, the argument is in the same category as speculating "how many angles' can stand on the heaf of a pin".

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Maybe I'm just smart enough to realize that you come from the generation that had everything and I come from the beginning of a long line of generations that have fallen victim to your generations selfishness, and that no matter what I say, you will come up with some pathetic excuse to justify why everyone today should have to pay your generation so much money for the very same items that your generation paid so little for back in your day...

You aren't smart enough. For example, I don't come from that generation, I'm not old enough, you're wrong. Another example, your Mustang and paying "so much money for the very same items that your generation paid so little for." That fails as well, that original car would be brutally expensive today as compared to a 2006 model. Yer wrong again.

We don't even have to get into the average standard of living, either in the U.S. or worldwide. Which, of course, has risen significantly over the past 40 years. Demonstrating, once again, that you are wrong; that previous generation did not "have everything."

Enjoy your heated car seats, you've earned them... ;)

Whatever I have, I have earned, exactly.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Whatever I have, I have earned, exactly.

Purchased for the low low price of: 1 soul... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Maybe I'm just smart enough to realize that you come from the generation that had everything and I come from the beginning of a long line of generations that have fallen victim to your generations selfishness, and that no matter what I say, you will come up with some pathetic excuse to justify why everyone today should have to pay your generation so much money for the very same items that your generation paid so little for back in your day...

Enjoy your heated car seats, you've earned them... ;)

Jeffrey, could you just clarify which generations you are talking about. I don't know whether I'm a goodie or a baddie.

---

Maybe I'm just smart enough to realize that you come from the generation that had everything and I come from the beginning of a long line of generations that have fallen victim to your generations selfishness, and that no matter what I say, you will come up with some pathetic excuse to justify why everyone today should have to pay your generation so much money for the very same items that your generation paid so little for back in your day...

Enjoy your heated car seats, you've earned them... ;)

Jeffrey, could you just clarify which generations you are talking about. I don't know whether I'm a goodie or a baddie.

Es = good generation and Hev = bad generation? ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Whats with this off topic bitching?

Why not return to the thread subject?

This mainly aimed at the other 3 Sarge!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Whats with this off topic bitching?

Why not return to the thread subject?

This mainly aimed at the other 3 Sarge!

To them, it is part of the subject and you can find their bickering throughout many threads.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Whatever I have, I have earned, exactly.

Purchased for the low low price of: 1 soul... ;)

Yet another self-serving, conclusatory statement.

That is, as usual, wrong.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Whats with this off topic bitching?

Why not return to the thread subject?

This mainly aimed at the other 3 Sarge!

To them, it is part of the subject and you can find their bickering throughout many threads.

So I've seen! Especially R ... I cannot see Je ... he has been filtered for years!

Backing off to watch the haunted fishtank (TV) through a glass of single malt!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Whatever I have, I have earned, exactly.

Purchased for the low low price of: 1 soul... ;)

Yet another self-serving, conclusatory statement.

That is, as usual, wrong.

Did you just make up that word, conclusatory?
Hate to break it to you, btw, but that's what statements are. Propositions which can be determined to be true or false.
So, wouldn't mentioning statements and conclusions in such close proximity be redundant, repetitive and, in general, just repeating something? :)

I win.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Jeffrey, could you just clarify which generations you are talking about. I don't know whether I'm a goodie or a baddie.

Talkin' 'bout my ge-...ge-...generation.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Did you just make up that word, conclusatory?

Probably, as I meant "conclusory." 8^]

Hate to break it to you, btw, but that's what statements are. Propositions which can be determined to be true or false.
So, wouldn't mentioning statements and conclusions in such close proximity be redundant, repetitive and, in general, just repeating something? :)

I win.

Is this really so hard that it has to be explained to you?

You obviously understand what a proposition is, you can therefore probably understand why a proposition in and of itself, is not an argument for or against a position, i.e. posting the price of a '64 Mustang is not, in and of itself, an argument for much of anything. Yet it was posted almost as if it were an axiom.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Jeffrey, could you just clarify which generations you are talking about.

I'm referring to the generation of kids that were born immediately following the great depression of the 40s who were the working class people through the 60s and 70s and who have been coasting through life on fat salaries or pensions ever since... Their parents must be proud of what they've done with the place...

Es = good generation and Hev = bad generation?

Bingo! Relax Hev, You're still a 'goodie' in my book... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Did you just make up that word, conclusatory?

Probably, as I meant "conclusory." 8^]

Hate to break it to you, btw, but that's what statements are. Propositions which can be determined to be true or false.
So, wouldn't mentioning statements and conclusions in such close proximity be redundant, repetitive and, in general, just repeating something? :)

I win.

Is this really so hard that it has to be explained to you?

You obviously understand what a proposition is, you can therefore probably understand why a proposition in and of itself, is not an argument for or against a position, i.e. posting the price of a '64 Mustang is not, in and of itself, an argument for much of anything. Yet it was posted almost as if it were an axiom.

Guess I should have typed the humor on and humor off stuff.

If you and Jeffrey, or anyone else, is going to continue debating, then you all need to work out a small set of axioms you can all agree to and proceed from there. Otherwise, all your debates will go round and round, lack depth, and probably involve sophistry. You will probably tell me not to hold my breath.

So, to Jeffrey, I challenge to you to list a short set of axioms upon which you will base your arguments. See if you can come up with a list upon which the main people you debate with can agree.

Folks, if you cannot do something like that, then you're wasting your time. When others wander into these forums and say you are bickering, then they'd be right. Do you really think you're going to educate someone or make a convincing point if you have so little ground upon which to work?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

I'm referring to the generation of kids that were born immediately following the great depression of the 40s who were the working class people through the 60s and 70s and who have been coasting through life on fat salaries or pensions ever since...

Yet The Great Depression was in the 1930s!
Let's make this simple, Jeffrey. Are you, or are you not, referring to the Baby Boomers, which I believe began around 1945-1946? (How long it lasted, I do not know.) If you are not referring to the Baby Boomers, then to whom are you referring?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Guess I should have typed the humor on and humor off stuff.

Heh heh. I probably should as well.

If you and Jeffrey, or anyone else, is going to continue debating, then you all need to work out a small set of axioms you can all agree to and proceed from there. Otherwise, all your debates will go round and round, lack depth, and probably involve sophistry. You will probably tell me not to hold my breath.

Sadly, you would be right sir. It never gets that far.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Guess I should have typed the humor on and humor off stuff.

Heh heh. I probably should as well.

If you and Jeffrey, or anyone else, is going to continue debating, then you all need to work out a small set of axioms you can all agree to and proceed from there. Otherwise, all your debates will go round and round, lack depth, and probably involve sophistry. You will probably tell me not to hold my breath.

Sadly, you would be right sir. It never gets that far.

If that's what you believe, why do you spend the time trying to educate or convince somebody else of your points?

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

If that's what you believe, why do you spend the time trying to educate or convince somebody else of your points?

Mental exercise. Practice. The opportunity to continually reassess my arguments.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

So, to Jeffrey, I challenge to you to list a short set of axioms

JMVII 1966 - 3500 sq ft house - 3.5 acres - $33k

TL04 1981 - 2600 sq ft house - 1/3 acre - $320k

I think the numbers speak for themselves... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .