Welfare support and drug testing

[Akzle]

According to results, yes.

no.

drugs tests generally halve the number of workplace accidents. While I can't claim that this is due to the drugs,

ahuh.

so simply a behavior changes. You generally can't ignore stats like that.

there has been MASSIVE regulation surrounding OSH BS, and fuckall of it has to do with drugs, or drug testing. only a few decades ago it was pretty much 50-50 if you came home from work, now all these "proper" white folk expect that everyone will come home. pah!

The number one being if you smoke a joint, your fucked for 28 days......where as all the executives can smoke P...

corporate types are mostly into heroin, cocaine and valium. it's so chic. it's the poor brown folk in otara who get "goofed" on P. (doesn't matter though because they're not employed) (and meanwhile doctors are handing P/meth out for "mental disorders") and secondarily, if you live right, dope will be out of your system in a few days.

I think you will find that it is more expensive to implement the scheme than the savings made by cutting benefits.

yeah. but that's okay, because they'll be making a lot of money off these asset sales

[mashman]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.
I'm more than happy with post incident testing and the subsequent penalties... testing doesn't prevent the incidents that do happen, hell, people who don't take drugs have incidents. It does not necessarily mean that one follows the other.
I agree that one should be straight (sober and drug free) whilst working, as you say that's common sense... but irrespective of testing, some will just carry on and will remain undetected and incident free.
Why should someone who had a smoke the night before a drugs test (unknowingly) lose their job because they are deemed dangerous according to the laws of thermodynamics? Would you class that as common sense?

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade. Sorry, when we start kicking those at the bottom of the pile, the vast majority of whom are trying to find work, I draw the line.

Meanwhile on topic, drug testing them is probably going to cost more than it saves. The telly mentions $6.5 million of savings after setup and monitoring etc... If 100 of the thousands that are going to be kicked end up in jail, instead of spending $1 million to support these people, we're going to be spending $9 million supporting these people. Kinda make a mockery of the whole "scheme" given the objective of the policy is to save money. The status quo will do less damage in the short and long term... and I fail to see any benefit in pre drugs testing people full stop. It's predicting the future on the basis that drugs = incidents, no ifs ands or buts. Epic fail... in my humble opinion.

[Madness]

Fuck, 41 pages. When do we get to test some drugs?

[Akzle]

Fuck, 41 pages. When do we get to test some drugs?

i have been. since page 2. so far i think the best for my typing is dak. although it takes ten times longer as i read it a dozen times to make sure it makes as much sense in my head as on the page, so uses more battery, which could be argued is bad for the planet.


what's going to be even funnier, is when all these people get drug tested, and one way or another, stay on the benefit. (because it's impossible to manipulate the social welfare system innit.)

then what, whitey, then what?
maybe y'all have to start bagging on the jews. or maoris.

[husaberg]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.
I'm more than happy with post incident testing and the subsequent penalties... testing doesn't prevent the incidents that do happen, hell, people who don't take drugs have incidents. It does not necessarily mean that one follows the other.
I agree that one should be straight (sober and drug free) whilst working, as you say that's common sense... but irrespective of testing, some will just carry on and will remain undetected and incident free.
Why should someone who had a smoke the night before a drugs test (unknowingly) lose their job because they are deemed dangerous according to the laws of thermodynamics? Would you class that as common sense?

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade. Sorry, when we start kicking those at the bottom of the pile, the vast majority of whom are trying to find work, I draw the line.

Meanwhile on topic, drug testing them is probably going to cost more than it saves. The telly mentions $6.5 million of savings after setup and monitoring etc... If 100 of the thousands that are going to be kicked end up in jail, instead of spending $1 million to support these people, we're going to be spending $9 million supporting these people. Kinda make a mockery of the whole "scheme" given the objective of the policy is to save money. The status quo will do less damage in the short and long term... and I fail to see any benefit in pre drugs testing people full stop. It's predicting the future on the basis that drugs = incidents, no ifs ands or buts. Epic fail... in my humble opinion.

Mashy i realise we are never going to agree, but seeing as for the most part you don't disagree on the first bit we will go on o the second.

I certainly aren't bashing beneficiaries..... far from it take the time to read my post ...shit take the time go on , humour me....
Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.
But please read my post again. with an open mind.
What i are saying is that i don't feel society as a whole needs to support people, that make a conscious choice, to forgo what the benefits that are supporting them are for, in order to spend the money designed to support them, when they are unable to be, for whatever reason in paid employment.
These benefits designed solely to support them for, whatever reason that may be. But it isn't designed to fuel their need to take illegal drugs.

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

The rest of your post smacks of a preconceived notion. it's all smoke and mirrors.
Very few people My self included are beneficiaries bashers.
Just as very small amount of people on the benefit are benefit abusers.

You will note that i have not mentioned pensioners, Why because they have contributed to society and i feel if they want to take recreational drugs they can go for it.

[mashman]

Mashy i realise we are never going to agree, but seeing as for the most part you don't disagree on the first bit we will go on o the second.

I certainly aren't bashing beneficiaries..... far from it take the time to read my post ...shit take the time go on , humour me....
Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.
But please read my post again. with an open mind.
What i are saying is that i don't feel society as a whole needs to support people, that make a conscious choice, to forgo what the benefits that are supporting them are for, in order to spend the money designed to support them, when they are unable to be, for whatever reason in paid employment.
These benefits designed solely to support them for, whatever reason that may be. But it isn't designed to fuel their need to take illegal drugs.

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

The rest of your post smacks of a preconceived notion. it's all smoke and mirrors.
Very few people My self included are beneficiaries bashers.
Just as very small amount of people on the benefit are benefit abusers.

You will note that i have not mentioned pensioners, Why because they have contributed to society and i feel if they want to take recreational drugs they can go for it.

Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting? Oh dear. I also understood where you were coming from, primarily because once upon a time not so long ago I thought pretty similarly. then I realised that the jobs just aren't there. I also realised that prices won't come down and even of the benefit rises in line with inflation, there's no way in hell the inflation of every good/service is going to be covered by benefit rise.

I are saying that I disagree about the purpose of the benefit, definitely more so in this day and age. Whilst once it was support for people, there were always those who chose it as a "lifestyle". I have no issue with this given that there aren't enough jobs, let alone well paying jobs... and if the drug habit of the beneficiary is as all powerful as you seem to portray (internetz be a damn good thing for gaining context ), then the benefit ain't anywhere near enough to sustain that habit. Likely a large part of the benefit is the accommodation allowance and lordy lordy rents keep going up. Perhaps a cap on rent rises eh . Anyways, the alternative is leaving people to fend for themselves or die. Some may see that as a viable alternative and if that's the case, can you at least wait until I've set my deckchair up to watch the fallout.

The cost concerns me as it will be us that have to pay the price for it, not the politicians, not the banks etc... us. Which will likely start to squeeze more and more out of work. I do not see the point in trying to financially squeeze those who will go out and get money from an alternative source to fund their entertainment... and especially not to reiterate a message that has been known by every man and his dog since the beginning of forever. Why choose now to go after these people given that this has been going on for decades? Telling the beneficiary what they can and can't spend their money on is like fucking for virginity. Ok, the wage that they have been given. I mean money that we have graciously donates to them, or had donated on our behalf. They will always find a way. They are not stupid. They have less to lose. They can and will do anything if you push too hard and then we all pay for it and it will be the fault of our government and its stupid "policy's" is the worst happens... not the beneficiary.

What preconceived notion?
Not saying you're a beneficiary basher, but this policy is not being put in place to encourage people into work, is it? Lapping it up is tantamount to beneficiary bashing... just like watching someone get their head kicked in makes you just as guilty as the person doing the kickin... but that's just one wa of looking at it
That means there are more people, clean, honest, eager etc... who are looking for work. Why piss in the wind and try to force those who "won't" be able to get a job to the head of the job line? You spoke of common sense before, I'm struggling to see it.

It isn't just a support mechanism any more... and there is a bigger picture to take into account with hundreds of variables.

I ain't judging you or your post sweety. Just stating my view as opposed to your, don't take it so personally .

[avgas]

there has been MASSIVE regulation surrounding OSH BS, and fuckall of it has to do with drugs, or drug testing. only a few decades ago it was pretty much 50-50 if you came home from work, now all these "proper" white folk expect that everyone will come home. pah!

I am going to take your 50/50 with a grain of salt. Unless your talking about the Egyptian Pyramids - death in the world place has been pretty good for last 1000 years. From recall Manapouri only managed to kill off 16 men.
As for the changes saving lives. I am very thankful that they are in place (in some instances)..........and disappointed when they are not enforced and people do die.
I count my lucky stars that common sense prevailed in my father and he handed in his notice with a past employer. He lost some good mates at Pike River. There would have been more deaths there if he waited another month.

Would drugs tests have fixed that? Nah - but mabey (just mabey) they could have busted that arsehole CEO on SOMETHING??!?!?!?! Even if it was a bit of dope.

I work with guys who use drugs, generally never have an issue with them. But then again I have worked with rapists and thieves and never had a problem with them either. I have had problems with problem gamblers, pissheads and drug addicts though.
Seems to bring out the arseholes in people.

[Akzle]

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

that's not very sound fiscal policy. and national is all about fiscal policy.
(note that the word "sound" is notably absent from the second strophe...)

but pray, what about the beneficiaries who meet your criteria, BUT GROW THEIR OWN DOPE, thus not spending your precious tax $ on their want for weed...

[husaberg]

Mashy i realise we are never going to agree, but seeing as for the most part you don't disagree on the first bit we will go on o the second.

I certainly aren't bashing beneficiaries..... far from it take the time to read my post ...shit take the time go on , humour me....
Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.
But please read my post again. with an open mind.
What i are saying is that i don't feel society as a whole needs to support people, that make a conscious choice, to forgo what the benefits that are supporting them are for, in order to spend the money designed to support them, when they are unable to be, for whatever reason in paid employment.
These benefits designed solely to support them for, whatever reason that may be. But it isn't designed to fuel their need to take illegal drugs.

Lastly it doesn't worry me if the net cost of the testing of beneficiaries costs more than it saves, Why? the message needs to permeate to the very small minority of people that seem to think society needs to fuel there unwillingness to take the money designed to support them and instead choose to spend it on recreational drugs.

The rest of your post smacks of a preconceived notion. it's all smoke and mirrors.
Very few people My self included are beneficiaries bashers.
Just as very small amount of people on the benefit are benefit abusers.

You will note that i have not mentioned pensioners, Why because they have contributed to society and i feel if they want to take recreational drugs they can go for it.

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

Rant one

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade. Sorry, when we start kicking those at the bottom of the pile, the vast majority of whom are trying to find work, I draw the line.

rant two

Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting? Oh dear. I also understood where you were coming from,

I are saying that I disagree about the purpose of the benefit, definitely more so in this day and age. Whilst once it was support for people, there were always those who chose it as a "lifestyle". I have no issue with this given that there aren't enough jobs, let alone well paying jobs... and if the drug habit of the beneficiary is as all powerful as you seem to portray (internetz be a damn good thing for gaining context ), then the benefit ain't anywhere near enough to sustain that habit. Likely a large part of the benefit is the accommodation allowance and lordy lordy rents keep going up. Perhaps a cap on rent rises eh . Anyways, the alternative is leaving people to fend for themselves or die. Some may see that as a viable alternative and if that's the case, can you at least wait until I've set my deckchair up to watch the fallout.


What preconceived notion?
Not saying you're a beneficiary basher, but this policy is not being put in place to encourage people into work, is it? Lapping it up is tantamount to beneficiary bashing... just like watching someone get their head kicked in makes you just as guilty as the person doing the kickin... but that's just one wa of looking at it
That means there are more people, clean, honest, eager etc... who are looking for work. Why piss in the wind and try to force those who "won't" be able to get a job to the head of the job line? You spoke of common sense before, I'm struggling to see it.

It isn't just a support mechanism any more... and there is a bigger picture to take into account with hundreds of variables.

I ain't judging you or your post sweety. Just stating my view as opposed to your, don't take it so personally

.

Your kidding me right, please show me my rants,while your at it show me where i said, most beneficiaries are drug abusers.

Ps watching someone get there head kicked in doesn't make you as guilty. but failing to help the person getting kicked when your able to stop it certainly doesn't make you that innocent either..........

Actually why bother its going to happen whether you like it or not.

As for the changes saving lives. I am very thankful that they are in place (in some instances)..........and disappointed when they are not enforced and people do die.
I count my lucky stars that common sense prevailed in my father and he handed in his notice with a past employer. He lost some good mates at Pike River. There would have been more deaths there if he waited another month.

Would drugs tests have fixed that? Nah - but mabey (just mabey) they could have busted that arsehole CEO on SOMETHING??!?!?!?! Even if it was a bit of dope.

The staff at Pike River where regularly drug tested as where the office staff. The systematic failure at Pike River mine has little to do with the CEO but it is all to do with systems and money.
Its all to easy to blame Peter when he was the CEO at the time. But remember he had only been CEO for a very short time and under whose instructions was he operating. Everyone involved has to take responsibility for this disaster. Not that they will mind you.Have a look who owned most of Pike the take a look at who owned most of NZ oil and Gas you might be surprised.........Check out the profits for NZ Oil and Gas.
Check out the Way Solid Energy operated after Pike, with the asset's of Pike, the broken promises the deal done with the receivers and how they act now with the Spring Creek Miners.

It should be noted however that NZ Oil and Gas got their money back from the wind up not like the people that couldn't afford it and the the contractors

[mashman]

Rant one
rant two

Your kidding me right, please show me my rants,while your at it show me where i said, most beneficiaries are drug abusers.

Ps watching someone get there head kicked in doesn't make you as guilty. but failing to help the person getting kicked when your able to stop it certainly doesn't make you that innocent either..........

Actually why bother its going to happen whether you like it or not.

Did I say you were ranting? Did I say that you said that most beneficiaries are drug abusers? I do a great line in buckets of sand.

Are you on a power trip? You sure sound like it. They get to spend the money that is given to them on what they decide to spend it on and not what you want them to spend it on, to the point where you're happy to have the rest of the tax payers covering the potential financial fallout... and all because you don't like what they spend their money on? Or does it go deeper than that? Where you once poor and having dragged yourself out of poverty you resent those who don't put in the effort to do the same? Or are you just hateful of those who don't work to the point where you take some perverse pleasure in the govt exacting revenge on your behalf? I'm curious why you'd like to put people under such pressure?

[husaberg]

Did I say you were ranting?

Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting?

Did I say that you said that most beneficiaries are drug abusers? I do a great line in buckets of sand.


.

and if the drug habit of the beneficiary is as all powerful as you seem to portray (internetz be a damn good thing for gaining context ),

I am not the one ranting here read your own posts ......

I say its reasonable to expect beneficiaries to be drug tested.... you leap to some conclusion and start trolling up utter crap like why stop there give them food parcels take away there cars power house etc.

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working.

Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra and on and on for decade after decade.

I have only a modicum of sympathy for some people. But only those that are unwilling to help themselves and unwilling to help others. Not all of them are beneficiaries either.
I don't waste my time helping those unwilling to help themselves Just as i are not going to waste any more time in a futile attempt to have a resonable balanced discussion with you.

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........I should have listened......
It is however interesting that you think i am on a power trip.. very interesting indeed..

[mashman]

Oi dids read your post... and you thought I was ranting?

The "and you thought I was ranting" was not a pot kettle black, it was in response to you saying

Take a deep breath and exhale if you wish.

I am not the one ranting here read your own posts ......

I say its reasonable to expect beneficiaries to be drug tested.... you leap to some conclusion and start trolling up utter crap like why stop there give them food parcels take away there cars power house etc.

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........

As I've said in the past, people will read me how they read me. Where you see hysterical rant, I see people fuckin with other people's lives. There are quite serious consequences to removing money from the lives of people who don't have that much to start with and if my concern is read as ranting, then as I say, I can't change your perception on that. To that end I say you're wrong about my "attitude" and my frame of mind when typing my responses... but as you have backup, meh, and if others have said that I must be ranting, or whatever variations of, then they are wrong too... but it's entirely your choice to read me as you will. Is asking for an open mind a 1 way street? or do I have to see things from your perspective to be seen as having an open mind?

[husaberg]

I will no doubt get flamed but jeeze.
The field in which i work where we are subject to pre employment, random (and not so random) as well as post incident testing.
The field i work in can be construed as dangerous and life threatening certainly no place for people under the influence of anything.
The industry pays pretty good and is safe if you follow the rules and use common sense.
So i are subject to drug tests (and alcohol), I have no issue with it.

So why should the beneficiaries which are being supported either, in their hunt for employment , sickness. raising of a child or recoveries from an accident etc
have an issue with it. The benefit is not meant to subsidise someones drug habit is it. If they are buying drugs, are there kids going short. Why is there surplus money available to afford what, most people would not consider a necessity.

The "and you thought I was ranting"

You asked me where i showed you where. yet you still can't see it

As I've said in the past, people will read me how they read me. Where you see hysterical rant,I see people fuckin with other people's lives.

Ahhhh ye olde, because it happens to me it should happen to everyone... especially those who don't work because they can't find a job because they receive a payment that allows them to keep on not working......
Why not just give beneficiaries food parcels, a roof over their heads and absolutely no money? What do you think the outcome is going to be? In fact let's take their cars away from them as there is no way in hell that they should be able to afford rego and maintenance. If they have a TV/games console/furniture/expensive clothing/extra pairs of footwear etc... remove it, they shouldn't be able to afford that stuff at all... in fact fuck it, take the house away from them too, give them a container to live in with 2 hours of electricity per day.

The downsides to penny pinching, which in the grand scale of things this most definitely is, is the harm that it will do to people who may well forgo a few "luxuries" to save just enough to have that little bit of fun that makes life bearable.... I know, I know, they shouldn't be having fun at all, they should be at work all day and if they can't make ends meet, they should be doing 2+ jobs... fuck this working for family's shit, if they aren't getting paid enough, they should take it up with their employer. Why should any honest decent citizen care because these people are the dregs of society, not a single human being amongst the lot of them... and it's tough shit if you lose your job and can't get another one, you should have taken out employment insurance etc... ra ra ra ra ra ra

if others have said that I must be ranting, or whatever variations of, then they are wrong too...

Well here again is your posts Can you not see just a little bit of a rant anywhere?

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........I should have listened......

[mashman]

You asked me where i showed you where. yet you still can't see it

Well here again is your posts what do you see

I just highlighted that I thought that you thought I was ranting. I didn't ask you to show me where I was ranting, because I wasn't.

Concern.

I have only a modicum of sympathy for some people. But only those that are unwilling to help themselves and unwilling to help others. Not all of them are beneficiaries either.
I don't waste my time helping those unwilling to help themselves Just as i are not going to waste any more time in a futile attempt to have a resonable balanced discussion with you.

I had a few people pm me about this thread and they are totally right........I should have listened......
It is however interesting that you think i am on a power trip.. very interesting indeed..

I'm with you, to a certain degree, on the sympathy.
I will waste my "time" on those who are unwilling to help themselves (they serve an economic purpose from what I've read)... and by help I mean they only really need money. @balanced discussion. I'm being unreasonable and unbalaned? because I have a different point of view?

The power trip was one option. Odd that you single it out? Amazingly, I know this is unheard of on KB, somethings that are posted have a wee hint of troll and I smell a hint on you, but I ain't sure if that's troll or just plain old shit.

[husaberg]

if others have said that I must be ranting, or whatever variations of, then they are wrong too...

I just highlighted that I thought that you thought I was ranting. I didn't ask you to show me where I was ranting, because I wasn't.

Gee really?

I'm being unreasonable and unbalaned? because I have a different point of view?

Where have i said that. I have said you are ranting, then showed you, I don't recall saying unreasonable and unbalanced?
I have however said your replies smack of preconceived notions of what you think people are saying

The power trip was one option. Odd that you single it out? Amazingly, I know this is unheard of on KB, somethings that are posted have a wee hint of troll and I smell a hint on you, but I ain't sure if that's troll or just plain old shit.

You might have explain what this sentence is relating too....