Giuliani definitely forgot it also.

I think the perpetrator was trying to protect us from terrorism. It was a terrorist attack.

I think what we had was an anti-terrorist-attack terrorist attack.

You know the rules. Now move along.

But somewhere in an alternate universe where the pudgi principle is not in force, a popular geek site does not close out conversations.

In yet a third, conversations are closed out 10 business days after the last contribution.

I confirm, however, that you, dude, do not live in those universes. So suck it up.

Damn, I did forget about that. But, I consider that to be a "friendly fire" incident, not terrorism.

What do you think?

Hey, muthaFucka, how do you do it? racism permeates our society, and much as I try, it isn't easy to keep it out.

i guess the answer is in trying.

See you out there. And don't get roped in by the ACs too much. They are amusing, but seldom important.

Ciao!

Actually, I confirm I had put you on my "friends" list just before I submitted that. You could confirm it in your messages. It is visible now.

So, pudge, you are my friend in the world of slashdot. I know, friendship is fraught with difficulties, but I will just have to try harder to get you to understand.

Can't we just be friends? You and me? Together? You could add me to your friends list. Then you would know when I journal. It would be a start.

Speaking of journalling, coincidentally, I just did.

Have a nice weekend. I know a weekend is an arbitrary division of the flow of time, but, have one anyway.

Ciao,

truly,

warmly,

check it out,

your friend

Take a deep breath in. Breath out. In. Out. Relax, I am not trying to hurt you.

p.s. Wouldn't it be cool if /. displayed when we added friends to our lists? And foes? That would be cool! Too bad the pudgi exclusion principle predicts it will not happen. But, then again, the principle is only a theory. It could be wrong.

Oh well. See you out there.

Ciao,

p_c

Well, the elucidating link did help! It could have been a lot of things. But, it begs the question- this is only what some AC says.

His answer to that question of noogies was there, though, wasn't it? At first I thought he was being difficult, and not answering, but the answer was implicit!

Poor guy, it must be difficult for him.

I am trying to give him some confirmations. But it is complicated and difficult. Wish me luck!

Speaking from the heart, I confirm I was trying hard to not be going after you. I started this thread in the New Year, a arbitrary point on the calendar when I reflect on how to be a better person.

I actually tried to engage you in a neutral conversation, and I let many of your provocations slide by, or answered them neutrally. I recognize you colored most of my writing with an intent to bait you, but as far as I know, my original intent was to engage you, should you be open to such. I tried.

Now, of course, I got annoyed. I was not a saint, able to turn the other cheek. I apologize, I tried not to let it happen, but it did leak in. I will continue to try.

You are an interesting intellect.

But it is quite frustrating that there appears to be almost no way to get you to understand that when you put out your opinions and assertions, many of them are so far away from the median, that people will engage you with theirs, without it always being people going after you.

And you might actually learn something from that engagement. But you would have to be open to (sometimes unemotional, unbaiting) challenge or conversation. I can provide a reference if you are interested, a recent NYT piece full of speculation.

Surely there is fault on both sides. You will believe I am trying or not, to be good or be bad, and we will go on from here.

Regards,

pudge_confirmer

your friend

Pitiful. And not unexpected.

I read you need more questions from me, so here is one.

Did kids give you noogies at recess?

That is the kind of engagement that does not do you justice.

Correct. Notice I agreed with you! I do note however that there is more than one side to things, and you tend to get very dismissive when that comes up.

Yes, and the grass is green.

Dismiss, dismiss.

Whoa! How did Obama get in here? We were talking about rising health care costs when I came in.

Again, the grass is green.

Well, take a look back and see how you typically respond to questions from people.

Well, I confirm you have a way of saying very sloppy things that lead to very interesting places, and then you generally avoid dealing with it, except to be dismissive, deliberately obtuse, silent, or elusive about your already stated opinion. You say sloppy things that might make sense, and that I am curious about those things, but when I give you a fair chance to have an open exchange, just look in this thread above to see what I get.

False.

as you love to write. you only talk about costs, and i engage you with cost and benefit, and you either can not understand, or think you are being attacked, or ascribe motive and intent that you make up.

Once again, what is not to understand is your sloppy vocabulary. You think you know what you mean, but I can only react to what you write, which typically is difficult to understand, and when thought out, has all kinds of inconsistencies. And when I try to draw you out about what you mean, you typically become insulting, dismissive, unresponsive, demanding, etc., etc. I know this will trigger cognitive dissonance in you, and I expect you will throw up all kinds of chaff, but you really should think about this, since it comes up so often in your posts and how people react to them.

Differences, similarities, blah blah blah. So the only reasons you give, is that they can not negotiate because they are different, apparently the same reason that they can not discriminate, apparently the same reason that they can't teach religion. So, is it in the Constitution? I thought it was just a law, influenced by the drug industry. Does the government ever negotiate? Put out for bid? Or am I stretching your argument too far?

Love,

me

OK. Here is a condensed version.

Those are not fundamental facts, as you may understand with some thought. Read on.

I understand that a large number of employees form a group under an employer. I understand that a large number of professionals form a group under a professional society. I understand that people (professional and otherwise) form societies and contract with insurers to purchase health care. I am sure that happens in Washington, so I believe you are being unimaginative or difficult. For $100 a year, I can be a member of a group that purchases health care, I am am willing to wager with you that you have a similar option also, and that you have an option to form such a group, although you may need to take on other goals as well, and certain goals may be unlawful, such as discriminatory groups. But that is not what you said.

What you seem to think I do not understand, I do not understand, but you probably do not understand this. I do note that you are selective in quoting, and seem determined to find ways to argue rather than progress up until now. Or am I missing something?

Excellent, thanks for that engagement.

Recall we are talking about "high" drug prices. Mill cost is one thing, selling price is another, overhead is yet another, return on investment, etc.

I happen to know a bit about the patent system. From a professional point of view, I am curious as to how you would change it to help solve our health care problems? Many drug companies insist that without the right to exclude afforded for a limited time by the patent system, they would take their marbles and go elsewhere, and new drugs that do amazing things and have "high" prices would not be researched, discovered, or marketed. That might lower our cost, but it could definitely lower our benefit and our freehdom, and I am guessing you want the freedom of benefiting from new drugs. The prices of old drugs have not been going up, rather they tend down. But people (the free market) seem to think they want to buy new drugs. What do you think that is about, and how it interacts with the patent system?

I am also curious as to how you propose to change the FDA testing requirements to improve the health care system or the "high" price of drugs. I agree it will lower the costs, but some thalidomide takers may disagree that it raises the benefits, and insist that the regulations add a very reasonable benefit that has not heretofore been supplied by the free market, and that you you want to remove. Once again, whether you handle this on a state level or a national level, which is of little concern to me though I suspect for you it is a hot-button, I am curious as to what solutions you have thought up. No FDA? 50 state DAs? No regulation? It seems to me, 50 of anything will make prices even higher, but nothing of regulation is not the answer. The solution is somewhere in between, so where do you stand. If I had the answer, I would tell you. If you do, how about you tell us all?

You also seem to think that there will be "losses" if the government negotiates for lower drug prices for medicare recipients. I can see how either drug company profits will go down, or your prices will go up (until and if you go on medicare), so I do not understand your use of the word "losses". It does not seem logical. In a free market, we have fair exchanges. Maybe you as a taxpayer are getting ripped off by drug companies through their lobbying and keeping you out of the free market with your tax dollars. Why can not the government act like other groups? Maybe the regulation costs you more in taxes than it would cost you in increased drug prices. If you have the answer, will you share? With me? Here?

Don't try to trick him!

But it seems to me that there are many flaws in using all the data you have on your own site. I can point them out, but they are so obvious that I am surprised you are not aware of them.

For example, to get you thinking and encourage a discussion, ip addresses can change, multiple users can have the same ip addresses, cookies can be deleted, persons can use more than one computer, multiple persons can use one computer.

It seems to me the more valid and more difficult approach to the problem of OS and browser choices and changes is not to look at websites used by persons (one or many or even all sites), but look at persons (many or all) and see what browsers and OS they use.

What do you think?

It is sad for me to read those words. I find them blunt, terse, and unfair.

I do not feel motivated to cut it way back after spending the time to respond to you in detail.

Yours truly,

me