patrick.net

Bap33,

I welcome any views and I think you probably know by now that I'm not ideological. The specific comments about homosexuals were over the line. I ask people to keep in mind that we have all types of readers. Arguments about the relative position of homosexuality in society are fine. Calling them names based upon a personal viewpoint is not.

I would have similarly censored anyone calling all southerners stupid, or all republicans heartless.

The only broad generalizations I let slide are all FBs using NAAVLPs are imbeciles.

well, that's a tidy little 555 posts...

i came in at about post 400 with time zone lag, and repeated half the arguments already made... oh well...

but i still maintain that 2+2=4 is not 'true', it's 1) a symbolic representation and 2) a claim or belief that is actually not even real, but is a semiotic representation of physicalness enforced by an overweening semantic patriarchalism... neodeconstructivist conceptualism ... social convention... experential intersubjectivity... etc... burble...

Rancher:
30 = gross profit for rancher
-5 = discount paid by rancher
25 = net profit to rancher

Men:
-30 = gross cost
3 = rebate
-27 = net cost

Boy:
2 = gained from stealing portion of rebate

The Boy's $2 is the difference between the Rancher's profit and the Men's cost.

Bap33, thanks for demonstrating the power and import of accounting principles.

Bap33

LOL! I guess I did assume the Rancher leveraged at 0% in order to have a $0 cost of goods sold.

Damned exotic cow financing products.