Oh noes, a poster was rude and snotty in the Pit. Heaven forfend!
Perhaps you’re too sensitive for the internet.
What the fuck is this, junior high?
Perhaps you need to read better. I read his post in Great Debates to be snotty and rude.
No, it’s the Internet. Fuck off if you don’t like it.
I’m beginning to see sailor’s point. If would be helpful if you at least pointed to which posts you mean.
Do you mean the posts you pointed out in this post? Because those had to do with privatization, which I’m distinguishing with elimination here. If you’re not making that distinction, perhaps you can point that out.
Again, it would be helpful to know which people. You’re making the argument that someone else doesn’t have a point, but you’re not willing to post the evidence for it?
And you’re making us guess which evidence you’re basing your point on?
Do you mean this post by sailor himself?
In this, sailor talks about decreasing physical mail delivery, not eliminating it.
OK, well at least we know that’s not what you meant.
Why does internet usage have to get to 99% of the population before you would consider privatizing the US postal service? That doesn’t seem to follow.
Because as noted above, privatizing the mail system wouldn’t seem to have anything to do with the internet usage of the population. . . especially 99% usage, which seems to have no significance whatsoever. It only makes a smidgen of sense if you’re thinking that internet usage would eliminate the need for the postal service. Otherwise, why are the two even related at all?
Your comments were very black/white given the topic of the conversation up until the time. It’s possible (probable) that someone misunderstood them, but it doesn’t make them snotty and rude for having done so given your lack of trying to show them their error.
Well, that is what I meant when I wrote it and for me it is clear that it would be silly for anyone to post “I am considering closing down the USPS” because they are in no position to do it. To me the meaning is clear but I understand misunderstandings happen and have misunderstood posts myself.
There was no offense meant whatsoever and I am sorry if it sounded that way. It was just a quick note written without second thought. I do not recall having any exchanges with you, good or bad, and I would have no reason to be rude or snotty to you. I apologise if it came across that way.
E.T.A: A simple comment in the original thread mentioning that my comment seemed unnecessarily harsh would have received the same prompt apology. Maybe we can avoid misunderstandings in the future.
We already have privatized mail delivery in the US, right? You can send your mail via UPS of FedEx if you want to. I assumed people who were talking about privatizing the USPS were proposing eliminating the government-owned postal delivery monopoly. Now, I guess, I’m beginning to see that it might have been a mistaken assumption. Perhaps they meant turning the USPS into a privately owned, well-regulated monopoly, like most utilities. I suppose that’s possible, but that’s not what I usually take it to mean when people advocate “privitization.” That to me means that people are advocating making the USPS a privately owned, perhaps publicly traded, company that is no different from UPS or FedEx. Which means it’s subjected to bankruptcy, buyouts, downsizing, and all the other things that come with privitization.
At that point, you’ve eliminated the USPS as a gov’t owned monopoly, so I don’t see what this distinction is between privitization and elimination. If you are privatizing the USPS, then aren’t you eliminating the government’s monopoly on postal delivery?
I certainly wasn’t using the word “eliminate” to mean going out and smashing all of the USPS trucks and throwing them in a hole somewhere, anymore than I took sailor’s use of the word “rid” to mean that. But whether you sell off the USPS as a whole, or in bits and parts, you clearly won’t have the same thing that you have now.
In my OP in this thread, I did post sailor’s reference to eliminating the postal service. And I posted two references to elimination which neither you nor sailor seem to accept as references in GD. But here are some more:
Now that I understand that you are using the word elimination in a different sense than I am, well, I guess that’s beside the point.
I didn’t want to hijack the thread completely. I can lay out my reasoning for it. But the main issue I have is that a number of government and private organizations aren’t set up to handle electronic transactions yet, and these transactions have to be conducted physically. Right now, the government guarantees that those transactions can be conducted at a fairly low price through its postal delivery monopoly. It’s possible that a competitive market could provide the same services for physical delivery, but particularly for rural and less-developed areas, competition might not be able to push price down to an affordable level. However, if private companies have to compete with email, then that injects a whole new level or price competition into the picture for rural and less-developed areas. In short, until the government and private sector are better able to handle electornic transactions, I want a guarantee of low-price mail delivery to every place in the US. If I have to subsidize it, so be it.
I don’t want to rehash this, since sailor and I have already exchanged apologies. I don’t know what the point of this comment is.
Ok. Well, I agree that I could have behaved better.
I suppose a mod can close this thread.
You got a problem with that, tiger? Tell you what, buckaroo, if you don’t like it, leave it. Is that clear, buddy?
I’m not your buddy, Pal!
What the hell does that mean? That because it’s the internet, boasting about how you have a better reputation than someone else is cool once again, just like when we were twelve?
Awesome. Go on with your dick waving contest, then.
No, it means I don’t give a shit what you think. I’m tired of shrews like you and wring injecting your sanctimonious tongue-wagging into any admittedly petty bickering that happens to get your undies in a bunch. If I feel like blowing off a little steam, I don’t need some battleaxe flouncing in to lecture me about it.
WTH? What does **wring **have to do with anything?
I know you can read; I’ve seen you do it. So, I’ll let you go ahead and do that again and report back.
Bingo!
That’s certainly one interpretation that people may have been considering.
I’m not sure how you’re using the word monopoly here. You’d have to be more explicit.
And thus the use of the term ‘elimination’ of the USPS. . .as it stands now.
I think it’s the whole point.
This thread? This is your thread.
Your theory above shows a tenuous connection between e-mail and delivery of physical mail. There are underlying assumptions here that have not been spelled out explicitly anywhere. They’d have to be much more fleshed out for this to have any meaning. And condensing it down to a sentence clearly didn’t have meaning at all.
I don’t know what the point of this thread is, but you’re right: I don’t want to rehash it, so we best just wait for a mod to close this down.
Well color me surprised and dip me in flour…I fuckin’ agree w/CS.
The End is near.
As for the “reputation referendum” I don’t think I’ve had a beef with any of the parties, so I’ll just vote for myself instead.
… Aren’t you a law-talking guy, Q.E.D? I could use some help with an analysis of constitutional requirements.
Another county heard from here in why sailor is being pitted. It is my fervent hope that mail service is kept sacrosanct, but I think it’s a bit early to panic.
This whole thread seems like a waste of… something.
Not to mention the fact that the OP’s original post was itself rather snotty and condescending. “Get back to me… and I’ll consider…”. Jesus, talk about annoying.
If you consider me annoying, I’ll take that as a badge of honor, since I find your posts to be rather stupid in general.