Dead Peasants and Someone's Enlightenment
Over at Jeffrey P. Snider's Swap Spreads Implicate Huge 'Dollar' Divergence [View article]
Kramer: "I did not ask YOU to explain JPS's code. I asked SOMEONE to explain it, de dicto. "-----"Can YOU answer the questions in my last comment?"
We Natter: You know, SOMEONE has a real APT-itude for pissing on and off others, with their attitude problem. But this doesn't surprise me as that's probably part and parcel of a pattern. Yeah, SOMEONE could have enlightened someone else by now, but that SOMEONE needs schooling of another kind. I've got nothing better to do in life than that, while helping SOMEONE stick that "de dicto" where it don't shine. Above, YOU asked ME if I could answer your questions, not SOMEONE or JUST ANYONE.
Kramer: "I have no objection to people not responding. But anyone who has the time to say that it is wrong to ask is already wasting time, so I figured I'd ask. You've already spent more effort on scolding me than it would have taken to enlighten me. But that's not how you roll."
You bet that's NOT how I roll. NOBODY said it was WRONG to ask. Its the way SOMEONE approached it. Instead of ASKING for help, SOMEONE contemptuously stated "Is this article available in English". Others addressed that SOMEONE, who then whined about jargon. Then SOMEONE ASKED ME if I could answer THEIR questions. In so many words, I told SOMEONE to "figure it out yourself" and pointed them to some resources.
SOMEONE then bitched about fallacy of composition and how the article should have been translated from its mother tongue of KLINGON? into KramerEASE. I then constructed a humorous raconteur's allegory to explain WHY in this case SOMEONE should do it themselves. SOMEONE then whips out their "de dicto" and plays with it by claiming they DIDN'T ASK ME, they asked SOMEONE. What the? Really? What funhouse mirror or warped pair of coke bottle lenses does SOMEONE view this world through?
Oh wait a damn minute, below, Common Sense APTLY guesses and asks: "I have another guess: couldn't make it as a litigator but still carry around the chip about it?"
Common sense may have no idea that SOMEONE is an ex general counsel of some notoriety for providing a certain sobriquet, however "unintentionally". And the Warhol-ish 15 minutes of splainin SOMEONE did in that regard which came and went.
Kramer: "the analogy to peasants who were, in a sense, no longer peasants seemed apt. It never occurred to us that the term “dead peasants” would be applied to dead employees."
Past results are NOT an indicator of future returns... in the case of gambling or investing yes. But, in the case of SOMEONE's behavior, quite the opposite.
It "never occurred" to SOMEONE THEN because their allusion to Gogol’s Dead Souls may have "seemed APT" to THEM. Unintentional? Perhaps well intended? Deserved notoriety?
It probably "never occurred" to SOMEONE NOW... that if SOMEONE had asked in a proper manner, sans a condescending sense of entitlement and not proceeded to whine like a jail house bitch, rather than getting rolled by the "inmates" (doin the jailhouse rock), SOMEONE ELSE might have gladly answered those queries... but for naught, because once again SOMEONES behavior "seemed APT" to THEM.
Kramer: "Yeah, I'm busy doing other things, like writing 7000 comments for the Macro section of this financial website, most of them explanatory."
SOMEONE needs to realize, 7K explanatory comments isn't APT to give THEM a license to entitlement, nor anything else.
Kramer: "SA is not "free." SA works because people contribute. I've done my part, and I do it every day."
Does SOMEONE want a brownie button or gold star next to their name? Call for the prison guards, see if they hear or answer the moaning and crying.
Kramer: "It's an economics website, folks; maybe you should understand how a microcosmic economy works...."
SOMEONE needs to understand how it is NOT APT to treat others with contempt or like "dead peasants". Rather than vinegar, try honey or sugar, and some decaf, or go revisit that Tijuana whorehouse.
Kramer: "The brains stay the same; only the scapegoats change."
Perhaps more APTLY put for SOMEONE, the brains stay the same; only the dead peasants change. Cheap rim shot!
The attitude problem we alluded to in the first paragraph? SOMEONES presumption and pompousness APT-ly precede them. If SOMEONE didn't have the APT-itude to get it THEN, why would they get it NOW? With regard to SOMEONE's "enlightenment", this usually takes an army of "dead peasants" if not a whole village, which would include the idiot writing this, albeit a useful one on occasion. To those ends, aside from what I have already attempted on this and other occasions, while frequenting this particular celestial orb, should the scope and scale change, I will let SOMEONE know HOW I roll when I'm ready to.
Kramer: "I did not ask YOU to explain JPS's code. I asked SOMEONE to explain it, de dicto. "-----"Can YOU answer the questions in my last comment?"
We Natter: You know, SOMEONE has a real APT-itude for pissing on and off others, with their attitude problem. But this doesn't surprise me as that's probably part and parcel of a pattern. Yeah, SOMEONE could have enlightened someone else by now, but that SOMEONE needs schooling of another kind. I've got nothing better to do in life than that, while helping SOMEONE stick that "de dicto" where it don't shine. Above, YOU asked ME if I could answer your questions, not SOMEONE or JUST ANYONE.
Kramer: "I have no objection to people not responding. But anyone who has the time to say that it is wrong to ask is already wasting time, so I figured I'd ask. You've already spent more effort on scolding me than it would have taken to enlighten me. But that's not how you roll."
You bet that's NOT how I roll. NOBODY said it was WRONG to ask. Its the way SOMEONE approached it. Instead of ASKING for help, SOMEONE contemptuously stated "Is this article available in English". Others addressed that SOMEONE, who then whined about jargon. Then SOMEONE ASKED ME if I could answer THEIR questions. In so many words, I told SOMEONE to "figure it out yourself" and pointed them to some resources.
SOMEONE then bitched about fallacy of composition and how the article should have been translated from its mother tongue of KLINGON? into KramerEASE. I then constructed a humorous raconteur's allegory to explain WHY in this case SOMEONE should do it themselves. SOMEONE then whips out their "de dicto" and plays with it by claiming they DIDN'T ASK ME, they asked SOMEONE. What the? Really? What funhouse mirror or warped pair of coke bottle lenses does SOMEONE view this world through?
Oh wait a damn minute, below, Common Sense APTLY guesses and asks: "I have another guess: couldn't make it as a litigator but still carry around the chip about it?"
Common sense may have no idea that SOMEONE is an ex general counsel of some notoriety for providing a certain sobriquet, however "unintentionally". And the Warhol-ish 15 minutes of splainin SOMEONE did in that regard which came and went.
Kramer: "the analogy to peasants who were, in a sense, no longer peasants seemed apt. It never occurred to us that the term “dead peasants” would be applied to dead employees."
Past results are NOT an indicator of future returns... in the case of gambling or investing yes. But, in the case of SOMEONE's behavior, quite the opposite.
It "never occurred" to SOMEONE THEN because their allusion to Gogol’s Dead Souls may have "seemed APT" to THEM. Unintentional? Perhaps well intended? Deserved notoriety?
It probably "never occurred" to SOMEONE NOW... that if SOMEONE had asked in a proper manner, sans a condescending sense of entitlement and not proceeded to whine like a jail house bitch, rather than getting rolled by the "inmates" (doin the jailhouse rock), SOMEONE ELSE might have gladly answered those queries... but for naught, because once again SOMEONES behavior "seemed APT" to THEM.
Kramer: "Yeah, I'm busy doing other things, like writing 7000 comments for the Macro section of this financial website, most of them explanatory."
SOMEONE needs to realize, 7K explanatory comments isn't APT to give THEM a license to entitlement, nor anything else.
Kramer: "SA is not "free." SA works because people contribute. I've done my part, and I do it every day."
Does SOMEONE want a brownie button or gold star next to their name? Call for the prison guards, see if they hear or answer the moaning and crying.
Kramer: "It's an economics website, folks; maybe you should understand how a microcosmic economy works...."
SOMEONE needs to understand how it is NOT APT to treat others with contempt or like "dead peasants". Rather than vinegar, try honey or sugar, and some decaf, or go revisit that Tijuana whorehouse.
Kramer: "The brains stay the same; only the scapegoats change."
Perhaps more APTLY put for SOMEONE, the brains stay the same; only the dead peasants change. Cheap rim shot!
The attitude problem we alluded to in the first paragraph? SOMEONES presumption and pompousness APT-ly precede them. If SOMEONE didn't have the APT-itude to get it THEN, why would they get it NOW? With regard to SOMEONE's "enlightenment", this usually takes an army of "dead peasants" if not a whole village, which would include the idiot writing this, albeit a useful one on occasion. To those ends, aside from what I have already attempted on this and other occasions, while frequenting this particular celestial orb, should the scope and scale change, I will let SOMEONE know HOW I roll when I'm ready to.
Comments