Say Anything Blog

Is that how they make their billions? Stealing from the little guy?

It would be funnier than hell if Sam Walton (I think that’s his name) walked into the courthouse and said “would you like that $2 billion in the form of cash or check?”

e moron: If you think you can get rich by stealing from poor people, you are far more stupid than I imagined.  This is just more tired old Marxist class envy crap.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Now come on, 108; the government gets its trillions significantly by stealing from the poor, no?  :^)

Personally, I think this is just another case where the cost-saving culture has lost any moral moorings--joining their abuse of eminent domain, asking for tax breaks in exchange for a store, relentless cheapening of products, and trying to sue disabled women into the poorhouse.  Just because you can get someone to sign a contract doesn’t mean that what you did is just.

It’s also worth noting that this is a judge’s ruling, meaning that Wal-Mart felt confident enough to ask for a ruling from the bench.  Usually this is done when the defendant is very confident about its case, and wants things over with quickly.  They gambled and lost, big time.

I am so sorry uncle Robert.
I pushed the send button by mistake.
This is what I meant to write:

realitybasedbob. There you go again with your leftie lies and marxist propaganda.
It was a simple missunderstanding between Wal-Mart and their employees, and these left wing leach lawyers blew it out of proportion.
e- moron you are twisting a simple labor violation into theft.
No one stole from the Wal-Mart employees. They (Wal-Mart) had two problems:
A) they forgot to adjust their clocks for the Daylight savings time.
B)When they found out their error, a lot of their clocks were either broken and/or needed new batteries but no one noticed.
Furthermore these labor rules were instituted by leftie marxists and their scum union bosses because they hate America and want to bankrupt our country in order to prove that the Bush tax cuts were giveaways to the wealthy.
Not to mention those workers should be glad Wal-Mart gave them a job. This is a free country. They have a choise. If they don’t like the work rules at Wal-Mart they should feel free to seek employement with some employer that follows leftist labor laws.

Speak for yourself; you always get it wrong when you try to put words in my mouth.  If you knew anything, you would know that WalMart is successful because they sell people what they want, and at an attractive price.
I wonder who appointed this judge.  Let’s see how the appeal works out.
WalMart can’t force anyone to either shop there or to work there, unlike govt.  You lefties are always trying to insulate yourselves from the consequences of your actions.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108,

e moron

You have consistently accused people of ‘personal attacks’ and yet do not have the backbone and integrity do so yourself.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=robert108+"personal+attacks"+site:sayanythingblog.com&btnG=Search

I established e moron’s level of both intelligence and argument long ago; I’m under no obligation to keep repeating the same logical and factual arguments over and over.
I notice you presented no logical or factual argument, Nunez; you tried to twist my words, instead.  Shame on you!

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You have consistently accused people of ‘personal attacks’ and yet do not have the backbone and integrity do so yourself.

Please document his personal attacks! The exact words please!

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

robert108,

I established e moron’s level of both intelligence and argument long ago;

You established it? That’s quite the joke. Did you preform some kind of IQ test? Or did you base your ‘intelligence and argument’ of the complete person from comments on a blog? Quite scientific.

I notice you presented no logical or factual argument, Nunez; you tried to twist my words, instead.  Shame on you!

You crack me up. “presented no logical or factual argument” is your regular refutation when you have nothing else besides personal attacks.

Please explain to me how I’ve twisted your words, when I quoted “e moron” which you said twist-free, and a Google search of the countless times you’ve commented on your ‘superiority’ of not indulging in personal attacks.

Please document his personal attacks! The exact words please!
Neiman on July 1, 2008 at 05:10 pm

Mr Neiman old buddy how quickly you forget.
I was part of the conversation/personal attack on you person by this hooligan.
No need for documentation. Just pick any response of his to anyone who dares to dissagree with him and you shall find plenty of his personal attacks! The exact words are there for everyone to see.

Ellinas: You are indeed a good friend, I understand your position and truly appreciate your feelings. I am talking about this particular instance, neither denying nor agreeing he made any personal attacks, just asking for specific attack words in this specific situation. The reason I ask is that we all use intemperate words at times to express our feelings, but that doesn’t always constitute a personal attack.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Well here it is. An assault on my person:
e moron:robert108 on July 1, 2008 at 02:58 pm

The exact words are there for everyone to see.

Indeed your words are here for all to see; still waiting for your definition of “profit”, btw.  Got one yet?

I have been very patient with your arrogant ignorance, as a matter of fact.  I didn’t start calling you “e moron” until after you, while claiming to be of Greek origin, demonstrated complete ignorance of the meaning of the word “monogamous”, insisting that “gamous” meant “fucker"(your word).  In fact, it refers to marriage, meaning “married to one person”.  After that particularly egregious display of ignorant hubris, I think you richly deserve the sobriquet “e moron”.

In case you are unable to comprehend it, I just made a factual and logical argument for why I address you the way I do.
Have you any sort of counter argument, illustrating your intelligence? (still waiting for your definition of “profit")

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Well uncle Robert108 on that same thread I told you to take the word “gamos/gameen/gamo/gamias” to a Greek speaking greek, but through no fault of mine you failed to do so.
Sorry you don’t speak greek. Sorry you can’t go out and find the truth.

e moron: There you go again, lying to cover for your lack of an argument.  You backtracked with that after I corrected your initial mistake.  Besides, I also called you on the fact that “monogamy” is an English word, so the Greek definition wasn’t relevant.  You still gave the wrong response initially.  At least have a shred of honesty and admit your egregious error.  It’s not worth my time to expose you by reprinting your statement as you made it.  My time is more valuable than that. Have some integrity.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Still waiting for your definition of “profit”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

While I won’t get into the middle of the definition of certain words nor take sides in this argument -debate; and without any desire whatsoever to offend anyone, I like Ellinas very much as a friend and I think he is a very decent fellow. I think Robert108 is a very intelligent and agressive debater that contributes in a positive way to every debate.

Considering the definition of the term moron, I do not believe Ellinas can reasonably be considered learning disabled or lacking in intelligence. So, while it can be argued whether or not the term was a personal attack, versus a crude way of expressing doubt about his knowledge in this matter, I do think it was unnecessarily demeaning and it certainly stopped any further meaningful communication on this topic. I say this with all due and most sincere respect for Robert108 whom I have willingly defended on many occasions as he has defended me.

I recall in Transactional Analysis, wherein one person can easily stop all meaningful communication, with or without meaning to, by changing the level of the conversation via use of a single word. I have been guilty of this without meaning to on all too many occasions, and I wish I had stopped using that word or words sooner, because it was more important to my learning by engaging in intelligent debate than it was to employ such an unpleasant term.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Besides, I also called you on the fact that “monogamy” is an English word, so the Greek definition wasn’t relevant.
robert108 on July 1, 2008 at 06:28 pm

Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
Date: 1612
archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
merriam-webster

ellinas:  Perhaps you need to check out 108’s recent entry post titled “A Reality of Argument/discussion.”

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

monogamy Show phonetics
noun [U]
when someone has a sexual relationship or marriage with only one other person at a time
Compare bigamy; polygamy.
dictionary.cambridge.org

mo·nog·a·my [ mə nóggəmee ]

noun

Definition:

1. cultural anthropology marriage to one person: the practice of being married to only one person at a time

2. practice of having one sexual partner: the practice of having a sexual relationship with only one partner during a period of time

3. zoology practice of having one mate: the practice of having only one mate at a time or during a lifetime

Greek monogamos
[Early 17th century. < French monogamie<
Encarta online

Go find a Greek speeking greek and ask.
Monogamy is a greek word that the Francophones and anglophones borrowed and are using. Period.

Now back to the subject at hand.
What do you call what Wal-Mart did in Minnesota? Please give us your definition.

ellinas:  Perhaps you need to check out 108’s recent entry post titled “A Reality of Argument/discussion.”
pparets on July 1, 2008 at 07:08 pm

pparets I did read his post. How ironic. Fits him good.

Please give us your definition.

You have yet to demonstrate that you know enough about either economics or business to merit any effort on my part in that regard.  Start by defining “profit”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

...it certainly stopped any further meaningful communication on this topic.

You incorrectly assume that e ever offered any meaningful communication on any topic.  My use of the term “e moron” has come after a very long period of effort to get this person to give any sort of factual or logical argument on any topic.  This person deals only at the personal level, in my experience, and is simply interested in provocation, while rarely demonstrating any factual knowledge on any subject.
Nevertheless, I am ready to recognize any real factual or logical argument, if and when it is given.
If he wants to discuss any subject, he must be ready to define terms, or there is no point in proceeding.
After that, his insults get answered with insults that can be proved, and that will be proved.  Good behavior=good consequences; bad behavior=bad consequences.  It ain’t rocket science.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Just because you can get someone to sign a contract doesn’t mean that what you did is just.

Your assumption is that this judge is unbiased.  We will see how the appeal turns out.
I know you dislike WalMart, but your last accusation was not fact-based; I did the investigatory work.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108:  You really need to get a grip!  You are NOT the arbiter of the comments of others. You are NOT in sole possession of wisdom, nor does every comment uttered need to pass your muster for ‘facts’. 

ellinas nailed your ass to the wall on the origin of ‘monogamy’. Why don’t you have the guts and the honor to admit you were wrong?

You claim ellinas only deals at the “personal level” - not true by the way - and yet you stoop to silly name-calling like ‘e-moron’. 

Didn’t you just say on your Argument/Discussion post that those who lack the skill to debate resort to “personal attack of the opponent, on various levels.”

How true, how true.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

robert108: You really need to get a grip! You are NOT the arbiter of the comments of others. You are NOT in sole possession of wisdom, nor does every comment uttered need to pass your muster for ‘facts’.

Once again, no valid argument, just an attempt at personal invalidation.  You seem to be in a rut, pp.

If you go back and read e man’s first attempt to define “monogamy”, you will see that what I said about it is factually accurate.  He tried to cover his mistake in later posts, but never acknowleged his inital error.  Hubris.

Didn’t you just say on your Argument/Discussion post that those who lack the skill to debate resort to “personal attack of the opponent, on various levels.”

Absolutely.  You just illustrated that with this comment.  You give none of your premises nor your chain of logic that yields the conclusion you offer.  You just try to make a personal attack on me.
BTW, that was a logical refutation of your comment.

You keep clinging to the idea that you can prevail by attacking me in some way; no sale.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

"e-moron”
“You lie”
“stupid”

Those who lack the skill to debate resort to

personal attack of the opponent, on various levels

How true, how true.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

If you go back and read e man’s first attempt to define “monogamy”, you will see that what I said about it is factually accurate.  He tried to cover his mistake in later posts, but never acknowleged his inital error.  Hubris.
robert108 on July 1, 2008 at 08:18 pm

Not true. My definition of monogamous/monogany is the same as before.

ellinas:  108 lacks the personal and intellectual integrity to admit an error or concede a point.

It is plainly obvious to all of us that you were right from the get-go.

When proven wrong, robert resorts to claims that you attacked him, twisted his words or didn’t provide ‘facts’.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

I said:
What do you call what Wal-Mart did in Minnesota? Please give us your definition.
ellinas on July 1, 2008 at 07:10 pm

You answered:
You have yet to demonstrate that you know enough about either economics or business to merit any effort on my part in that regard.  Start by defining “profit”.
robert108 on July 1, 2008 at 07:38 pm

Evidence of your innability and or denial to answer a simple question.
You view answering a question as relinquishing control of the debate.
Don’t worry about appeals. Wal-Mart waived their right to a jury trial. As the facts stand right now what do you call Wal-Mart’s actions?

pparets. Thank you for recognising the truth.
This girl is unable to concede the obvious.

Not true. My definition of monogamous/monogany is the same as before.

Now you’re just lying.  Your initial comment:

Marriage is more than a commitment to a monogamous relationship.
HG on June 16, 2008 at 10:54 am

Hailing from Greece, and “monogamous” being a greek word I shall offere my two cents: Mono means sole, only, or one. Gamos or ganous is derived from gametes which means fucker.So monogamous are people that “gamen” or simply put fuck the same person for life. When one dies the other the other stays true to the gamos (marriage) and no longer gamen (fucks).
ellinas on June 16, 2008 at 04:56 pm

Exposed! “Gamous” is a derivative of gamien, which is Greek for “marriage”, not “fucker”.  Furthermore, as I pointed out at the time, “gamete” means “fertilized ovum”, and has nothing to do with monogamy at all.
Now, quit lying.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

ellinas: 108 lacks the personal and intellectual integrity to admit an error or concede a point.

Unlike you and your little buddy here, I will gladly admit it if you ever prove me wrong on anything; you have yet to do that.

When proven wrong, robert resorts to claims that you attacked him, twisted his words or didn’t provide ‘facts’.

You have yet to prove anything to support your attacking me; if you can give a logical or factual argument proving I made a mistake, I will admit it.  Would that you would do the same when I regularly refute you.  You ask me to do something you have yet to do.
You keep insisting that I have some personal or emotional reason for not voting for McCain, even though I have made multiple logical and factual arguments for my position, based on McCain’s statements of his positions on specific issues.  You have yet to admit that I make a clear argument, and keep trying to twist what I say to make it personal.
Try living by the standard you demand of me.  Show me how it’s done, then make an actual argument that refutes the facts or logic of anything I write here.
Bring it.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Those who lack the skill to debate resort to

personal attack of the opponent, on various levels

How true, how true.

It’s true of you; I make logical and factual arguments to support what I write.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

robert108

It’s not worth my time to expose you by reprinting your statement as you made it.  My time is more valuable than that. Have some integrity.

Posted at 7:28pm

Eight comments later...How about we stick to the topic. A wonderful post in the Readers section about argumentation calls this ‘Changing the subject;’

Eight comments later...How about we stick to the topic. A wonderful post in the Readers section about argumentation calls this ‘Changing the subject;

Due to escalating dishonesty on e’s part, I did reprint his statement, which proved him a liar.  Have you no integrity?  I proved my case; maybe you are so unable to make any sort of logical argument that it’s just beyond your comprehension.  I repeat: I proved what I said was true.  It is you who are trying to change the subject.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

You view answering a question as relinquishing control of the debate.

Wrong; that would be you.  Still waiting for your definition of “profit”.  Still waiting for you to have the integrity to admit your lie about your mistaken attempt to define “monogamous”.  I proved that you lied about it, and you have yet to admit the fact.  You have no position to criticize anyone else on this blog.
Clean up your act.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

"Wrong”
“Escalating dishonesty”
“proved him a liar”
“Have you no integrity?”
“I proved my case”
“beyond your comprehension”
“admit your lie”
“I proved you lied”

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Mono means sole, only, or one. Gamos or ganous is derived from gametes which means fucker.So monogamous are people that “gamen” or simply put fuck the same person for life. When one dies the other the other stays true to the gamos (marriage) and no longer gamen (fucks).
ellinas on June 16, 2008 at 04:56 pm

Besides, I also called you on the fact that “monogamy” is an English word, so the Greek definition wasn’t relevant. robert108 on July 1, 2008 at 06:28 pm

Etymology: French monogamie, from Late Latin monogamia, from Greek, from monogamos monogamous, from mon- + gamos marriage, from gamein to marry
Date: 1612
archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime merriam-webster

ellinas on July 1, 2008 at 06:58 pm

monogamy Show phonetics
noun [U]
when someone has a sexual relationship or marriage with only one other person at a time
Compare bigamy; polygamy.
dictionary.cambridge.org

mo·nog·a·my [ mə nóggəmee ]

noun

Definition:

1. cultural anthropology marriage to one person: the practice of being married to only one person at a time

2. practice of having one sexual partner: the practice of having a sexual relationship with only one partner during a period of time
3. zoology practice of having one mate: the practice of having only one mate at a time or during a lifetime

Greek monogamos
[Early 17th century. < French monogamie<
Encarta online

Go find a Greek speeking greek and ask.
Monogamy is a greek word that the Francophones and anglophones borrowed and are using. Period.

Now back to the subject at hand.
What do you call what Wal-Mart did in Minnesota? Please give us your definition.

ellinas on July 1, 2008 at 07:10 pm

All factual statements, pp.  Sorry you can’t deal with facts.  All inconvenient truths for those who deal only in personal attack.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Now back to the subject at hand.
What do you call what Wal-Mart did in Minnesota? Please give us your definition.

Still awaiting an answer.

BTW, parroting my words is not a valid counter-argument.  It actually shows that you have nothing.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

"can’t deal with facts”
“inconvenient truths”
“deal only in personal attack”
“you have nothing”
“wrong”
“escalating dishonesty”
“proved him a liar”
“have you no integrity/?”
“I proved my case”
“beyond your comprehension”
“admit you lied”
“I proved you lied”

Those who lack the skills to debate resort to

personal attacks of the opponent, on various levels.

How true, how true.

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

I have no clue how this monogamous debate started. And honestly, I’m still not all that sure as to the exact positions of each side.

However, I’m going to have to side with e here on at least the definition of “Gamo”. “Fuck” in Greek is “Gamo” and “Marriage” in Greek is “Gamos”. You can even look it up with this:

http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon

Now whether “gamos” is derived from “gamo” or vice versa, I haven’t the slightest clue. But honestly, why the hell is anyone really having a debate about this?

... probably because r108 can’t admit his own error even when he steps in it. 

"Here lies, in honored glory, an American soldier, known but to God.”

The times, they are a-changin’...
Bob Dylan

Ken thank you for shedding some more truth to the issue. R108 is using the word “monogamous” from another post to: a)try to prove I lied.  b) change the subject because that is how he debates when he smells defeat, c)change the goalposts to aposition to his liking, and so on and so forth.

However he/she cannot answer this:What do you call what Wal-Mart did in Minnesota? Please give us your definition.

Would you guys quit arguing about the greek etamology of monogamy and address the central issue; whether Wal-Mart’s loss here is legitimate (given a bench trial, I think it is), and what does it mean?

Personally, I think it merely means that in certain areas, Wal-Mart’s cost-cutting drive has gotten out of control, to the point where “Thou shalt not steal” isn’t being heeded, nothing more.  Y’all?

Personally, I think it merely means that in certain areas, Wal-Mart’s cost-cutting drive has gotten out of control, to the point where “Thou shalt not steal” isn’t being heeded, nothing more. Y’all?

The case has been in litigation for seven years, and yet the only fact you have is the judge’s decision.  If you really want to know, you might read the WalMart side of the situation, check out who appointed judge and the judge’s record, and make your own evaluation.
An unprejudiced person can’t make a decision on the basis of an rbb posting, that’s for sure.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.