"Come on man, "archaic insult" "getting stuck" "bottom rungs" "not keeping up" "remain relevant" "those in our country being left behind". Yeah, I'm sure you're

"Come on man, "archaic insult" "getting stuck" "bottom rungs" "not keeping up" "remain relevant" "those in our country being left behind". Yeah, I'm sure you're talking about techies working at internet startups there LOL." First: "Archaic insult" was in reference to the word itself, which, as I was saying, is something I've only ever heard as such. (Hence, the Monty Burns example). That was not a value statement; that was basically my saying this: "I've only ever heard the word used as X, therefore, I was surprised to hear it used as Y." Second, in reference to "getting stuck," "left behind," etc., those are economic facts, not value judgments. Unemployment and underemployment are serious issues in our country. You seem to think I am looking down on the unemployed or underemployed, for whatever reason, and that is where the misinterpretation seems to begin. My intent is just the opposite, in fact. I am suggesting that we have some interesting technologies capable of providing skills and training to those having a hard time finding steady or reliable work. (FWIW - I am not talking specifically, or even necessarily, about computer skills -- though that seems to be the strawman you're making of my post here). I am not making value judgments about blue collar workers, about oil field roustabouts, or about any of the categories of workers you're talking about. I am specifically talking about the underemployed, which is what I originally thought the word "roustabout" was being used to reference in this case. As mentioned, I stood corrected on "roustabout." Somehow you're reading condescension or insult into what I'm saying, and once again, all I can say is that that was not the intent. I am not sure what more I can say. You're reading something into my posts that simply isn't there. "You may not like being called out, but it doesn't mean I was misinterpreting or reading into." Now you're just being dickish for no particular reason. I've gone to great lengths to explain my intent, and you seem insistent on misreading me. If I'm saying something you find stupid, great, that's life. I'm bound to say things others find wrong, and every now and then, I'm bound to say things others like. I'd like to think most of us here are like that. On the balance, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Evidently you don't. Fine. Nevertheless, I would suggest this: not everything is an argument. Not everything is a matter of "getting called out," or "winning," etc. I am honestly scratching my head at where you're getting all this from what I've been saying. But I'll give up on trying to explain myself further.