'Illegal': Slur or accurate label?

Post #138,410 by lincoln 1/28/04 6:30:17 PM Reply	'Illegal': Slur or accurate label? "It's easy to dismiss someone when you use a disparaging term such as 'illegal immigrant' or 'illegal alien,' " surmised Gonzalez, who oversees the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, an Atlanta-based political action committee. "I can't speak for other immigrant groups," he said, "but on behalf of the Latino community, many people I speak to on a day-to-day basis think it serves to dehumanize the person, makes them less than human. Similar to the way the n-word was used to dehumanize African-Americans." [...] "I don't think so at all," said Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "Mexifornia: A State of Becoming." "It doesn't describe a person in a negative, pejorative way. It means they don't have U.S. citizenship and that they didn't come to the United States in a lawful manner." " 'Illegal' means you came as an immigrant, and broke the law," said Hanson, who founded the classics studies department at Fresno State University "It's a precise term, and not just for Mexicans." D.A. King, founder of the American Resistance Foundation, a Marietta-based group that seeks tougher enforcement of immigration laws, said the term "undocumented workers" is "a politically correct invention to soften the brutal fact that these people are breaking the law." "A good comparison would be to say a bank robber simply made an unauthorized withdrawal," he said. [link\|http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/atlanta_world/0104/28illegal.html\|source] lincoln "Windows XP has so many holes in its security that any reasonable user will conclude it was designed by the same German officer who created the prison compound in "Hogan's Heroes." - Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times [link\|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net\|contact me]
Post #138,414 by deSitter 1/28/04 7:14:31 PM 1/28/04 7:15:02 PM Reply	Proper term is "illegal alien" A "legal alien" is a non-citizen with a green card or valid visa. An "immigrant" is one who legally resides in, and intends to become a citizen of, the country. -drl Edited by deSitter Jan. 28, 2004, 07:15:02 PM EST Expand All History
Post #138,435 by Silverlock 1/28/04 8:38:02 PM Reply	Searching for a slur I don't automatically think of Mexicans when I hear the word "illegals". That's just me though. ----------------------------------------- .sig pending
Post #138,447 by boxley 1/28/04 9:30:24 PM Reply	That is a descriptor not a slur Slurs are demeaning terms, that doesnt demean only define. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #138,457 by orion 1/28/04 10:42:42 PM Reply	You know, there is another word for them that is more descriptive: Criminals. They have, after all, broken the immigration laws. Call them what you want, cannot hide the fact that they are criminals and have broken the law. There are plenty of ways to come into this country legally, no excuse not to use one of those ways. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,494 by inthane-chan 1/29/04 9:25:44 AM Reply	So what do you call somebody who violates an unjust law? Money flows in and out of the U.S. like water, without (significant) restrictions, yet the movement of labor is strongly restricted. This is the kind of situation that lets economic meltdowns like the one that is currently occurring in the IT industry happen. Either restrict the flow of money, or allow unfettered immigration to ANY country in the world. I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."
Post #138,510 by jake123 1/29/04 10:23:10 AM Reply	A couple of nits That would be "unrestricted Emigration to ANY country in the world". Also, that would be up to the countries receiving the immigrants, wouldn't it? --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,520 by CRConrad 1/29/04 10:38:02 AM Reply	Huh?!? Mongreahl Shaqq gets it all wrong: That would be "unrestricted Emigration to ANY country in the world". Why not IMmigration too??? Are you saying that the US (or Canuckistan, for that matter) does not accept an INflow of money?!? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,528 by jake123 1/29/04 10:49:48 AM Reply	Simple If the person is a US citizen leaving the US TO go to another country, they are emigrating from the US. Using the United States as the frame of reference, they are emigrating. If you use the place they are moving to as the frame of reference, they are immigrating. So, if you're in New York, watching them sail past the Statue of Liberty in some human scow, you'd say they are emigrants. Some time later, in (for example) Sri Lanka, someone watching them sail in an the aforementioned human scow would call them immigrants (and probably be holding signs saying "Yankee Go Home" to boot). You can think if it as emigration == uploading people (emigrants), and immigration == downloading people (immigrants). If he wanted to discuss both the inflow and outflow of people, he should have simply used the word "migration", as in "permitting unrestricted migration to and from the US", or to be even more specific considering the context, "permitting unrestricted labour migration to and from the US". However, he was specifically talking about the movement of US labour "to ANY country in the world", which means he's talking about emigration, not immigration. Mind you, the US already has this in certain labour sectors: Mexican fruit pickers in California and Florida already represent an unrestricted flow of seasonal labour over one of their borders. However, it's not strictly speaking legal (though it's entirely possible that the blind eye has been turned for so long that an argument could be made that it is in fact legal due to lack of enforcement). Of course, this leaves the question of how the US would force target countries to accept US immigrants completely open... --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,532 by CRConrad 1/29/04 10:55:17 AM Reply	Ya got it effing backwards, ya numbskull. Inthane was NOT "specifically talking about the movement of US labour 'to ANY country in the world'" -- he was talking about allowing movement of labour INTO the US. But thank you sooo much for explaining the difference between emigration and immigration to me. Are there any other simple words you think I need to know? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,535 by jake123 1/29/04 11:01:51 AM Reply	Here's the quote, dumbass "Either restrict the flow of money, or allow unfettered immigration to ANY country in the world." You can't allow "immigration to ANY country in the world", you can only allow "immigration from ANY country in the world". Of course, in real terms, the US does allow emigration to any country in the world; the problem is getting the countries to actually let them in to work. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,536 by ben_tilly 1/29/04 11:05:13 AM 1/29/04 11:31:22 AM Reply	I wish we did some forcible emigration My list of people that I'd like to see emmigrate includes Ashcroft, Bush, Karl Rove... Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi] Edited by ben_tilly Jan. 29, 2004, 11:31:22 AM EST Expand All History
Post #138,537 by jake123 1/29/04 11:08:35 AM Reply	ObPedanticSpellingNit: emigration <- one m. Gotta keep the grammar/spelling flame alive... thanks for providing the opportunity to do so! ;) --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,543 by orion 1/29/04 11:20:53 AM Reply	Not possible other countries will not want them. :) *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,539 by hnick 1/29/04 11:11:05 AM Reply	FROM any country, and it also works
Post #138,542 by CRConrad 1/29/04 11:19:18 AM Reply	Here's the SIGNIFICANT quote, nitwit: Money flows in and out of the U.S. like water, without (significant) restrictions, yet the movement of labor is strongly restricted. Which way is it that "movement of labor is strongly restricted" in the US, ya think -- out of the country, or _into_ it? (You see any "ENS" rangers patrolling the Rio Grande, trying to keep the gringos IN?!? :-) You can't unilaterally "restrict the [international] flow of money", either; t'would take international regulations. And in that context, yes, you COULD make sure to "allow unfettered immigration to ANY country in the world". [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,541 by inthane-chan 1/29/04 11:15:20 AM Reply	"migration" works best for what I was trying to say. Thanks
Post #138,544 by orion 1/29/04 11:28:04 AM Reply	Still a criminal by definition even if the law is unjust. Got a problem with that law, write to your critter to see if he/she can get it changed. Money flows in and out of the U.S. like water, without (significant) restrictions, yet the movement of labor is strongly restricted. This is the kind of situation that lets economic meltdowns like the one that is currently occurring in the IT industry happen. Money flows in and out of the USA and it is called free trade. Without that, there would be no global economy. Without immigration controls, we would quickly be overflowed by a flood of immigrants and our system would not be able to support them all. Hence the need for limits and control. I agree the IT mess bites. Even if unlimited immigration existed we would still have the IT crisis because salaries are lower in India than they are in the USA. Immigrants would be paid almost the same as native citizens, and Indians can work for under minimum wage, immigrants would not. Illegal aliens on the other hand can work for cheap because they broke the law and the employer knows this and pays them cheaper. If they complain to the government about it, they will get deported so instead they work for $2USD/hr, etc and shut up about it. Either restrict the flow of money, or allow unfettered immigration to ANY country in the world. Not possible to do either without upsetting the checks and balances in place in our government. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,562 by boxley 1/29/04 12:17:36 PM Reply	Criminal? name the statute that makes what we call a illegal alien a criminal. Name one law that sez they cannot have a foot inside of our borders. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #138,622 by orion 1/29/04 2:09:32 PM Reply	Read it for yourself [link\|http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/index.htm\|http://uscis.gov/gra...awsregs/index.htm] About statutes: [link\|http://uscis.gov/graphics/lawsregs/MAKELAW.HTM\|http://uscis.gov/gra...sregs/MAKELAW.HTM] While I am not a lawyer, there does seem to be penalties for illegal entries: [link\|http://uscis.gov/lpBin/lpext.dll/inserts/publaw/publaw-11092/publaw-11441?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm#publaw-sec-46--32-105\|http://uscis.gov/lpB...aw-sec-46--32-105] Try this one: [link\|http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist/456.htm\|http://uscis.gov/gra...legishist/456.htm] Directed the deportation of any alien who entered the United States unlawfully. Catch them and send them back. There it is in black and white. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,643 by boxley 1/29/04 2:27:21 PM Reply	reading for comprehension and profit from your second from the bottom link Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.". you worked for lawyers long enough to understand the difference between criminal and civil. Try to look thru your links and find a criminal charge for being in the US without proper documentation, there isnt one. There is associated charges if you break other criminal laws while here without documentation but of and by itself an alien without proper documentation is not a criminal. If you dont like that law, write your congress critter. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #138,661 by orion 1/29/04 3:08:16 PM Reply	Apparently I was wrong it is a civil charge and not a criminal one. I withdraw my statement. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,674 by Silverlock 1/29/04 3:43:08 PM Reply	I'm proud of ya Norm Takes a man to admit when he is wrong. Well done. ----------------------------------------- .sig pending
Post #138,679 by orion 1/29/04 4:34:16 PM Reply	I should have paid better attention I missed the "civil" part of the statute. My mistake. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,644 by boxley 1/29/04 2:28:14 PM 1/29/04 2:28:35 PM Reply	ignore dupe from your second from the bottom link Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.". you worked for lawyers long enough to understand the difference between criminal and civil. Try to look thru your links and find a criminal charge for being in the US without proper documentation, there isnt one. There is associated charges if you break other criminal laws while here without documentation but of and by itself an alien without proper documentation is not a criminal. If you dont like that law, write your congress critter. thanx, bill same old crap, con artists ripping off fools. Ah, hell, Catholic Church it start off that way. They All do. Jesus probably had three walnut shells one pea, then he's dead and can't be questioned, Gabriel Dupre questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] Edited by boxley Jan. 29, 2004, 02:28:35 PM EST Expand All History
Post #138,586 by inthane-chan 1/29/04 12:50:12 PM Reply	Re: Still a criminal Money flows in and out of the U.S. like water, without (significant) restrictions, yet the movement of labor is strongly restricted. This is the kind of situation that lets economic meltdowns like the one that is currently occurring in the IT industry happen. Money flows in and out of the USA and it is called free trade. Without that, there would be no global economy. You still don't get it. Free trade doesn't WORK unless LABOR has the right to migrate ALONG with capital. If only one can migrate, then it gains an unfair advantage over the other, which is how the current situation came about. I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."
Post #138,625 by orion 1/29/04 2:15:04 PM Reply	You are not getting it Or laws and statues limit the immigration: [link\|http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/legishist/568.htm\|http://uscis.gov/gra...legishist/568.htm] Without limits virtually anyone can gain entry. Oh let's open our borders and let anyone in who wants to come in. Bring in the terrorists, the criminals, the con artists, the third world dictators, let them all move into your neighborhood and let you deal with them. Also watch as there are more people now than jobs, and the USA becomes a third world country and the government goes broke trying to support all the extra people and has to cut out social programs. Jobs are moving overseas because the labor is cheaper over there. I hate it as well but I am powerless to stop it. It happened before with manufactoring and now IT and Engineering and soon Lawyers too. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,629 by deSitter 1/29/04 2:17:41 PM Reply	Re: You are not getting it They are not criminals, they are aliens in the country illegaly - there's an enormous difference. A criminal can be prosecuted and jailed - an illegal alien can only be deported. Yes, they should be deported en masse and with all possible dispatch, but they are not criminals. -drl
Post #138,680 by orion 1/29/04 4:35:59 PM Reply	I got it now it is a violation of civil and not criminal law. Still, yes, they need to be deported. Not sure why they want to enter the country illegally anyway, if they do so they have no rights and will be exploted by companies into working for a lower wage. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,691 by inthane-chan 1/29/04 5:38:08 PM Reply	Nope, you aren't. It's not whether or not they're criminals - it's that you can't call for free trade in one breath and call for closed borders with the next. That's the point you missed. I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."
Post #138,694 by orion 1/29/04 5:55:37 PM Reply	There are no closed boarders they are open, but only legal way are allowed and a certain limit are on those legal ways. Only so many are allowed in legally. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,695 by inthane-chan 1/29/04 6:32:52 PM Reply	Then you still aren't getting it. The point isn't whether or not people can get into this country legally - it's that capital can go where it damn well pleases, and it uses the relatively closed borders to play labor off against itself. That's how we end up with labor cost disparities like the ones between the U.S. and India - not "illegal" immigration. Go read an Econ 101 book, then cross reference it with some Marx. I have a blue sign on my door. It says "If this sign is red, you're moving too fast."
Post #138,718 by orion 1/29/04 9:43:10 PM Reply	No wonder I am not getting it I never studied Marx, never got into Communism. I did get into Economics, and know that India's economy is worse than ours hence a much lower wage. Many countries are like that, Thailand, the Phillipines, Koera, etc. I also know that it has nothing to do with how many immigrants are brought into our country. Doing so would pay them in US Dollars and require a much higher salary. Cheaper to pay them in a different country where the standard of living and economy is lower than the USA's instead of bringing them over here. Capital and labor are not realted, I just do not see a relation there, sorry. If you studied USA economics you would see a division between capital and labor since the Civil War. Of course unions where formed, and all kinds of things happened. The problem is that labor in other countries is cheaper because their economy is lower than ours. So some capital goes to India and other countries to hire cheap labor there. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,720 by jake123 1/29/04 9:57:02 PM Reply	Yeah, capital and labour have no relationship at all. None. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #138,726 by ben_tilly 1/29/04 10:26:39 PM Reply	Um, I don't find that point obvious either The point isn't whether or not people can get into this country legally - it's that capital can go where it damn well pleases, and it uses the relatively closed borders to play labor off against itself. That's how we end up with labor cost disparities like the ones between the U.S. and India - not "illegal" immigration. Go read an Econ 101 book, then cross reference it with some Marx. Let's assume that I have taken Econ 101, and have a passing familiarity with Marx. (Familiarity does not necessarily imply agreement, of course.) Can you please fill in the logic from which regional disparities inevitably should arise from not giving workers the freedom to attempt to travel? I'll agree that open borders can reduce inequities as people move to areas of opportunity (and sometimes swamp said opportunities). But that outcome is not clear to me since you often get a "brain drain" since the best and brightest are most motivated to move since they are most likely to be able to take full advantage of opportunities. Furthermore there are feedback mechanisms which can create sustained inequities even where no barrier to movement exists. For proof I need point no further than the fact that different areas of the USA have significant cost disparities. Compare average incomes in New York City with incomes in the typical small town of your choice. I don't have figures, but wouldn't be surprised to find that it was a factor of 2 or more. Yet this is true despite a relatively homogenous population, shared culture, and no barriers to movement. Now I'll agree that companies like barriers to movement since it allows them to use things like the H1B program to put cheap talent in expensive areas, and to ship exportable production to cheap areas. They also want "free trade" to only mean capital, and not include things like labour and environmental standards. This allows them to drive domestic agendas in directions that the public is against. (See the WTO demonstrations for some unhappiness about this.) But I don't believe that barriers to movement are the primary cause generating the inequalities that we see. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #138,733 by deSitter 1/30/04 1:19:51 AM Reply	Re: Um, I don't find that point obvious either Hmm, it occurs to me that the thermodynamic model of money works here too, with something like a "chemical potential" and "molar number" dual to each other, operating to rearrange labor and captial. -drl
Post #138,826 by ben_tilly 1/30/04 11:21:51 AM Reply	But it isn't a closed system The thermodynamics of closed systems is different than open systems with constant input. Economics is an open system since innovation is constantly creating new forms of economic worth. Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #138,767 by CRConrad 1/30/04 4:48:54 AM Reply	No, let's not. Ben arrogates to himself a presumption he denies others: Let's assume that I have taken Econ 101, and have a passing familiarity with Marx. Why should we assume anything of the kind? [link\|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode\|Christian R. Conrad] (I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.) You know you're doing good work when you get flamed by an idiot. -- [link\|http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/35/34218.html\|Andrew Wittbrodt]
Post #138,770 by deSitter 1/30/04 5:20:33 AM Reply	It's natural Canadian modesty Can't be appreciated by auslanders. -drl
Post #138,776 by orion 1/30/04 6:40:59 AM Reply	I can Econ 101 was Macroeconomics when I took it in college and it was required for an associate's degree. I earned a B in the class. I deduce that other colleges over the world also have it as a requirement. Ben strikes me as a college educated individual, so I deduce that he might have taken Econ 101 in his studies. As far as his experience with Marx, well I never read Marx in any of my studies, but perhaps his studies required him to read Marx or he read it in his leasure. In any case, he is asking what the relationship between capital and labor is using Econ 101 and Marx. Given that while labor may help earn capital, labor can be contracted out to the lowest bidder and need not be part of the organization that earns capital. Only a small part of capital can be used to pay labor, while the home organization has the Lion's Share of capital. This has happened before with moving manufactoring to other countries where labor is cheaper. Wal-Mart does this, giving huge capital amounts to their HQ in Arkansas. Perhaps a Finnish company with offices in the USA and India moves capital back to Finland, perhaps they make cell phones and the USA office sells them in the USA and the Indian office does the tech support help desk and has a factory that makes them? Then by ITC's definition of labor being related to capital, Finland needs to open up its borders to let more workers into their country because capital is moving there. Ignoring the fact that it does not matter where labor happens, as labor can be done virtually anywhere on the globe. *"Lady I only speak two languages, English and Bad English!" - Corbin Dallas "The Fifth Element"*
Post #138,778 by hnick 1/30/04 7:19:17 AM Reply	OT: arrogates I checked dictionary.com (not that I don't trust you.) ar\ufffdro\ufffdgate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-gt) tr.v. ar\ufffdro\ufffdgat\ufffded, ar\ufffdro\ufffdgat\ufffding, ar\ufffdro\ufffdgates 1. To take or claim for oneself without right; appropriate: Presidents who have arrogated the power of Congress to declare war. See Synonyms at appropriate. 2. To ascribe on behalf of another in an unwarranted manner. I kinda like the example they gave... I said it was OT, didn't I?
Post #138,823 by ben_tilly 1/30/04 11:20:04 AM Reply	Then don't, his choice. If inthane wants to quiz me until he is satisfied that my claim is likely true first, that is his choice. But since I actually have done what is claimed, it likely will save time all around for him to start off assuming that I have the basic background that I claim. He also may remember me talking about economics in a way which suggests basic familiarity, although not true expertise. (Several other people who have been involved with IWETHEY understand economics far better than I do.) Incidentally Econ 101 at the university that I took it at was basic micro-economics. As for why I didn't give you that luxury before, I've had more than a few experiences with people who flame Creationists at the drop of a hat but, when push comes to shove, don't really understand evolution or the historical cases for (and against) it. Therefore I don't find that a good assumption to make on that topic. So I didn't make it in your case. And you chose to get upset rather than demonstrate that the assumption would be warranted. And you have since chosen to bring the incident up every so often. You know, there is something hypocritical about getting ticked off at me for not giving you the benefit of the doubt, while simultaneously doing nothing that might convince me that my doubt was unwarranted... Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Welcome to IWETHEY!