a) Ilsaloving never mentioned his own health. Us humans generally get upset when bad things happen to other people.

b) He's upset because what I said is basically common knowledge for most people and the recent outbreaks are just the logical result of not enough people getting vaccinated.

Yes. New cars are quite expensive purchases and are usually done by people with relatively high disposable incomes. There exist people like your adoptive mother who (I assume) don't see the need to carry a computer with them every where they go. For the most part they probably don't care about the toys on a new car either and are more interested in the reliability aspect.

The statistics speak for themselves, most people with enough disposable income (and quite a few who can't really afford it) have smart phones.

Bear in mind that we are talking about new cars.

But it was the anti-vaxxers who reduced the number of people by enough that the transmission rates have gone up. I am vaccinated, but I know that it is not 100% effective. If it's 90% effective and I'm the only person who has it I still have a 10% risk. If everyone around me has also had it my risk drops to 1%. These statistics matter when you start talking about outbreaks and pandemics.

Thank you for your wonderfully informative and thought out response. How in any way is it not true that reducing the numbers of guns in society will reduce the total number of nutcases who end up in possession of a gun. Are you trying to tell me that basic statistics do not hold?

They will probably whack themselves off, does that count for anything?

It's not that guns are the only way to cause mass death and fear, it is that they make it easier.

Nutcase+ability to do lots of damage=a bad day. If we reduce the number of nutcases (by making access to mental health more prevalent) and reduce the number of ways to create lots of damage (partly by restricting guns) then we will reduce the number of bad days we have.

probably knows how to spell.

If only there was some way we could make decisions based on the specific details of the particular circumstance rather than relying on some universal ideals about what should happen every time. We'd have to hire a whole force of people to go about and look at specific situations and police what happens.

If you learned to spell you might be able to get a job. Aloud means audible, allowed is what you are permitted.

We know better than to try to argument with you. You hold a position in which you are emotionally invested. All we have is a bunch of statistics showing how welfare helps out the entire population, examples of people who really needed the welfare and who are now back on their feet and have become productive members of society and historical accounts of the fortunes of welfare states against non-welfare states. We know that these facts are no match for your completely made up stats and feelings of loss toward the people who are abusing the system.

It's not about punishing people. These are people who hold absolutely no value to society, and allowing them to keep living is just a waste of perfectly good oxygen.

Also, in the rest of Texas there's the joke that Austin isn't really part of Texas, it's a colony from California.

I understood the question as "Which one of these random acronyms do you think rolls of the tongue the nicest?"

That leads to the good/bad pattern. 95 was bad, then 98 was a refinement which was good. ME was bad then XP was the refinement that was good. Vista was bad, then 7 was the refinement that was good. 8 is bad so maybe soon we'll get a refinement that is good.