Back in February we had a thread titled "Five million Germans out
of work" where I posted that approximately 150,000 jobs needed
to be created each month in the USA to keep up with population
growth. Both Juliana Holm and Frank Matthews forced their
ignorance upon us and claimed that this number needed to be
radically reduced due to deaths and retirements. I waited until I
saw another news article that proved my original premise. Here is
a BBC article from today on the subject of the job creation figures
from March (for the USA). Note that the article states "Many
economists estimate that about 200,000 jobs need to be created
each month simply to keep employment stable, given population
growth." So if anything, my original figure was too low.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4401171.stm

And here is a Money/CNN background article:

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

And back to the subject of the original post, here is a BBC article
on the extremely weak German economy and unemployment:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4397701.stm

If you will look back at the posts dumb shit I simply asked if you were
claiming that 150,000 were entering the work force each month or that
150,000 new jobs were needed. Here is your silly statement.

"Here's your homework assignment:
take the number of people entering the workforce during dubya's first
reign (150,000 x 48 months) and subtract from it the number of jobs
created "

You will note that you simply claimed that 150,000 were entering the
work force. That in no way would drive a requirement that 150,000 jobs
needed to be created. If you would simply learn to state your argument
clearly you might not have such problems.


spamfree wrote:

    > Back in February we had a thread titled "Five million Germans out
    > of work" where I posted that approximately 150,000 jobs needed
    > to be created each month in the USA to keep up with population
    > growth. Both Juliana Holm and Frank Matthews forced their
    > ignorance upon us and claimed that this number needed to be
    > radically reduced due to deaths and retirements. I waited until I
    > saw another news article that proved my original premise. Here is
    > a BBC article from today on the subject of the job creation figures
    > from March (for the USA). Note that the article states "Many
    > economists estimate that about 200,000 jobs need to be created
    > each month simply to keep employment stable, given population
    > growth." So if anything, my original figure was too low.
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4401171.stm
    >
    > And here is a Money/CNN background article:
    >
    > http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
    >
    > And back to the subject of the original post, here is a BBC article
    > on the extremely weak German economy and unemployment:
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4397701.stm
    >
    >

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:52:22 GMT, "spamfree" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >Back in February we had a thread titled "Five million Germans out
    >of work" where I posted that approximately 150,000 jobs needed
    >to be created each month in the USA to keep up with population
    >growth. Both Juliana Holm and Frank Matthews forced their
    >ignorance upon us and claimed that this number needed to be
    >radically reduced due to deaths and retirements. I waited until I
    >saw another news article that proved my original premise. Here is
    >a BBC article from today on the subject of the job creation figures
    >from March (for the USA). Note that the article states "Many
    >economists estimate that about 200,000 jobs need to be created
    >each month simply to keep employment stable, given population
    >growth." So if anything, my original figure was too low.
    >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4401171.stm
    >And here is a Money/CNN background article:
    >http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
    >And back to the subject of the original post, here is a BBC article
    >on the extremely weak German economy and unemployment:
    >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4397701.stm

Most people would forget a petty usenet argument after a few days, but
it appears to have really pissed you off.

Well done JH and Frank! You have gotten a superb reaction!
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

"spamfree" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] k.net...

    > Back in February we had a thread titled "Five million
    > Germans out of work" where I posted that [...] Both
    > Juliana Holm and Frank Matthews [...] claimed that
    > [...] I waited until I saw another news article that
    > proved my original premise. Here is a BBC article

<snip>

You take USENET _way_ too seriously.

Richard

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:

    > On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:52:22 GMT, "spamfree" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Back in February we had a thread titled "Five million Germans out
    >>of work" where I posted that approximately 150,000 jobs needed
    >>to be created each month in the USA to keep up with population
    >>growth. Both Juliana Holm and Frank Matthews forced their
    >>ignorance upon us and claimed that this number needed to be
    >>radically reduced due to deaths and retirements. I waited until I
    >>saw another news article that proved my original premise. Here is
    >>a BBC article from today on the subject of the job creation figures
    >
    >>from March (for the USA). Note that the article states "Many
    >
    >>economists estimate that about 200,000 jobs need to be created
    >>each month simply to keep employment stable, given population
    >>growth." So if anything, my original figure was too low.
    >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4401171.stm
    >>And here is a Money/CNN background article:
    >>http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
    >>And back to the subject of the original post, here is a BBC article
    >>on the extremely weak German economy and unemployment:
    >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4397701.stm
    >
    >
    > Most people would forget a petty usenet argument after a few days, but
    > it appears to have really pissed you off.
    >
    > Well done JH and Frank! You have gotten a superb reaction!




The strange thing is that we weren't really disagreeing with him just
with the justification that he was using for his argument. I suppose he
really cannot abide disagreement of any kind. Ah well since he hides
his identity he cannot be much of a problem.

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
    >
    > Most people would forget a petty usenet argument after a few days, but
    > it appears to have really pissed you off.
    >
    > Well done JH and Frank! You have gotten a superb reaction!

Sounds like the OP of this thread would be a fit mate for
the silly woman on one of my music groups who keeps
threatening to sue her fellow-posters for libel, when the
flame wars heat up and the name calling begins! Sometimes
folks CAN get rather nasty, but hey, what does it matter how
someone you've never met (and aren't likely to) "speaks" to
you on a Usenet newsgoup? (If one's "integrity" is THAT
insecure, one has a far more serious problem, totally
unconnected with the internet!)

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

    > If you will look back at the posts dumb shit I simply asked if you were
    > claiming that 150,000 were entering the work force each month or that
    > 150,000 new jobs were needed. Here is your silly statement.


Lol...don't you feel "special" to be singled out so, Frank?

    :-)

--
Best
Greg

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:52:22 GMT, "spamfree" <[email protected]>
wrote:

    |Back in February we had a thread titled "Five million Germans out
    |of work" where I posted that approximately 150,000 jobs needed
    |to be created each month in the USA to keep up with population
    |growth. Both Juliana Holm and Frank Matthews forced their
    |ignorance upon us and claimed that this number needed to be
    |radically reduced due to deaths and retirements. I waited until I
    |saw another news article that proved my original premise.

Hi

You may be wrong - you may be right - I honestly couldn't care less
here in Oz.

But I may be able to help by directing you to a more suitable
newsgroup. Try:

alt.nerd.obsessive

It sounds like it was created just for you.


Cheers, Alan, Australia