Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
A. Who's Larry?
|
The Larry Davis Experience, who intiate this thread, and who I warned in my first responsive post (which preceded Ty's) NOT to use the term "misleading" because it would piss people off and confuse things.
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
(If you are now telling me that you were not taking up Ty's argument, then you should point out the clear indication of segue that I missed. Maybe I did. That's why you guys doing the double-team can get confusing. "No, no, that was Ty's point - I changed focus 3.52 posts ago.")
|
You were reading and quoting from Ty's post. My points (which I think were fairly clear from reading _my_ posts, including the ones before his posts) were that: (a) this is no more"misleading" than any usual budget politicking, but (b) its a b.s. trick which I don't believe is justified by good accounting practices, but instead (c) was done by the Admin. to make the number look smaller for the purposes of election year politics.
My conversation with you was premised on amazement at your apparent belief that omitting those costs was not only "s.o.p" -- but was entirely justified because the Admin. is honestly freaking clueless on the issue to the point that they can't even estimate a budget two years out -- but will give us numbers post-November, 2004. (Plus, I was irked by your "I don't disagree with you on substance re budget. But you all suck b/c you're mean to club re Sharpton." response earlier.)
To avoid such confusion in the future, you might wish to read my posts as continuations of MY earlier posts, and as an ongoing debate with the person on the other side -- unless I quote from Ty or elsewhere to make it clear that I'm talking about the same thing.
That is how I keep you, club, and Hank straight.
AG, Ty and I (and Gattigap and LDE) are all distinctive voices who certainly don't agree on everything.
S_A_M
