Jeffrey Lytle wrote:
<quoted text>Hmmmm, you said what you said in your own words after twisting my words which you were intentionally, with malice, steering in a different direction for other readers to misinterpret. I was asking for some clarity regarding a suggestive comment you made, to be clear. If you can't handle an appropriate conversation, then your less than amicable easy way out tactic (name calling) shall suffice the reality of uneasing truth.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District
Which words of yours on this subject did I twist?

With malice? I have no malice against you. I simply think that you are not interested in using logical argument. If you were, you would not have used such a blatant straw man argument regarding my previous post.

I was making no statements about the nature of our economy, no hints at hidden conspiracies controlling our economics. I was stating the *simple fact* that you cannot get certain jobs -- public or private sector -- without an advanced education.

Yes, self-education is possible. You may even be able to scrape by as a self-educated surgeon in some back alley somewhere (you won't be able to get a job at a hospital or clinic). But nobody in their right mind is going to want you cutting into them.

Name calling? What name did I call you? And cut the melodrama and address the issues. "...shall suffice the reality of uneasing truth"? Yeesh.

By the way, a straw man argument, in case you were somehow unfamiliar with it, is when you create a position for someone, then attack the position. For instance, saying "in your statement, did you mean <fill in straw man argument here>? Obviously then you are wrong because <attack straw man here>."

Oh, and thanks for delving into trollishness with your "Scientologist" stuff. That really shows that you are interested in rational discourse.