Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Jim Jones
Participant[quote=SkyRanchOwner]NEW Smokin deals at Sky Ranch for Eaglepointe homes:
1. EaglePointe Model Home, Plan 2, Fully furnished and upgraded!!
$799,990, 4177 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100009996-6125_Castilla_St_Santee_CA_920712. EaglePointe, Plan 2X, top of the hill, on backside, with approximately 1 acre of land (includes slopes in land measurement)
$699,990, 4168 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100023268-7270_Ocotillo_St_Santee_CA_92071%5B/quote%5DI think everyone here would like to thank your for the shameless plug on these two properties.
Just curious, how much more effort would it have taken to use real photos of the properties? Also did you not think people would notice that the photos were the same for the two different locations?
If you are in fact a Realtor you are clearly not smart enough to understand that consumers have a brain and do use it.
Participant[quote=SkyRanchOwner]NEW Smokin deals at Sky Ranch for Eaglepointe homes:
1. EaglePointe Model Home, Plan 2, Fully furnished and upgraded!!
$799,990, 4177 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100009996-6125_Castilla_St_Santee_CA_920712. EaglePointe, Plan 2X, top of the hill, on backside, with approximately 1 acre of land (includes slopes in land measurement)
$699,990, 4168 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100023268-7270_Ocotillo_St_Santee_CA_92071%5B/quote%5DI think everyone here would like to thank your for the shameless plug on these two properties.
Just curious, how much more effort would it have taken to use real photos of the properties? Also did you not think people would notice that the photos were the same for the two different locations?
If you are in fact a Realtor you are clearly not smart enough to understand that consumers have a brain and do use it.
Participant[quote=SkyRanchOwner]NEW Smokin deals at Sky Ranch for Eaglepointe homes:
1. EaglePointe Model Home, Plan 2, Fully furnished and upgraded!!
$799,990, 4177 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100009996-6125_Castilla_St_Santee_CA_920712. EaglePointe, Plan 2X, top of the hill, on backside, with approximately 1 acre of land (includes slopes in land measurement)
$699,990, 4168 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100023268-7270_Ocotillo_St_Santee_CA_92071%5B/quote%5DI think everyone here would like to thank your for the shameless plug on these two properties.
Just curious, how much more effort would it have taken to use real photos of the properties? Also did you not think people would notice that the photos were the same for the two different locations?
If you are in fact a Realtor you are clearly not smart enough to understand that consumers have a brain and do use it.
Participant[quote=SkyRanchOwner]NEW Smokin deals at Sky Ranch for Eaglepointe homes:
1. EaglePointe Model Home, Plan 2, Fully furnished and upgraded!!
$799,990, 4177 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100009996-6125_Castilla_St_Santee_CA_920712. EaglePointe, Plan 2X, top of the hill, on backside, with approximately 1 acre of land (includes slopes in land measurement)
$699,990, 4168 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100023268-7270_Ocotillo_St_Santee_CA_92071%5B/quote%5DI think everyone here would like to thank your for the shameless plug on these two properties.
Just curious, how much more effort would it have taken to use real photos of the properties? Also did you not think people would notice that the photos were the same for the two different locations?
If you are in fact a Realtor you are clearly not smart enough to understand that consumers have a brain and do use it.
Participant[quote=SkyRanchOwner]NEW Smokin deals at Sky Ranch for Eaglepointe homes:
1. EaglePointe Model Home, Plan 2, Fully furnished and upgraded!!
$799,990, 4177 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100009996-6125_Castilla_St_Santee_CA_920712. EaglePointe, Plan 2X, top of the hill, on backside, with approximately 1 acre of land (includes slopes in land measurement)
$699,990, 4168 sq. ft., 5 bed / 5 bath, 3 car garage
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100023268-7270_Ocotillo_St_Santee_CA_92071%5B/quote%5DI think everyone here would like to thank your for the shameless plug on these two properties.
Just curious, how much more effort would it have taken to use real photos of the properties? Also did you not think people would notice that the photos were the same for the two different locations?
If you are in fact a Realtor you are clearly not smart enough to understand that consumers have a brain and do use it.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.[/quote]Nitpick away. 😉
Yes, as a consumer of the oil industry, I’m farther removed from the oil industry; so I have more leeway to criticize the oil industry than a government employee or contractor criticizing the hand that feeds.[/quote]
Brian,
Your attitude is exactly why the US in the the current position with a unresponsive and largely corrupt bureaucracy. If you are not watching and criticizing the oil industry and the government employees or contractors regulating it you have failed in your duty as a citizen just as many of us have. A large portion of this country thinks the same way you do. This is why people why have the government we do.
This country is governed at the will of the citizenship and should reflect the will of the people at all times, not just in times of crisis. Remember Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who is responsible for watching the watchmen? Why it is us.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.[/quote]Nitpick away. 😉
Yes, as a consumer of the oil industry, I’m farther removed from the oil industry; so I have more leeway to criticize the oil industry than a government employee or contractor criticizing the hand that feeds.[/quote]
Brian,
Your attitude is exactly why the US in the the current position with a unresponsive and largely corrupt bureaucracy. If you are not watching and criticizing the oil industry and the government employees or contractors regulating it you have failed in your duty as a citizen just as many of us have. A large portion of this country thinks the same way you do. This is why people why have the government we do.
This country is governed at the will of the citizenship and should reflect the will of the people at all times, not just in times of crisis. Remember Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who is responsible for watching the watchmen? Why it is us.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.[/quote]Nitpick away. 😉
Yes, as a consumer of the oil industry, I’m farther removed from the oil industry; so I have more leeway to criticize the oil industry than a government employee or contractor criticizing the hand that feeds.[/quote]
Brian,
Your attitude is exactly why the US in the the current position with a unresponsive and largely corrupt bureaucracy. If you are not watching and criticizing the oil industry and the government employees or contractors regulating it you have failed in your duty as a citizen just as many of us have. A large portion of this country thinks the same way you do. This is why people why have the government we do.
This country is governed at the will of the citizenship and should reflect the will of the people at all times, not just in times of crisis. Remember Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who is responsible for watching the watchmen? Why it is us.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.[/quote]Nitpick away. 😉
Yes, as a consumer of the oil industry, I’m farther removed from the oil industry; so I have more leeway to criticize the oil industry than a government employee or contractor criticizing the hand that feeds.[/quote]
Brian,
Your attitude is exactly why the US in the the current position with a unresponsive and largely corrupt bureaucracy. If you are not watching and criticizing the oil industry and the government employees or contractors regulating it you have failed in your duty as a citizen just as many of us have. A large portion of this country thinks the same way you do. This is why people why have the government we do.
This country is governed at the will of the citizenship and should reflect the will of the people at all times, not just in times of crisis. Remember Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who is responsible for watching the watchmen? Why it is us.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
Well, strictly speaking, you are a consumer of the oil industry, not an employee. But I’m nitpicking for nitpicking’s sake. I like to blame it on the nuns who beat me at the orphanage.[/quote]Nitpick away. 😉
Yes, as a consumer of the oil industry, I’m farther removed from the oil industry; so I have more leeway to criticize the oil industry than a government employee or contractor criticizing the hand that feeds.[/quote]
Brian,
Your attitude is exactly why the US in the the current position with a unresponsive and largely corrupt bureaucracy. If you are not watching and criticizing the oil industry and the government employees or contractors regulating it you have failed in your duty as a citizen just as many of us have. A large portion of this country thinks the same way you do. This is why people why have the government we do.
This country is governed at the will of the citizenship and should reflect the will of the people at all times, not just in times of crisis. Remember Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who is responsible for watching the watchmen? Why it is us.
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.
I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.
Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.
Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.
Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]
Brian,
Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.
[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]
For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.
Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.
[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.
I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.
Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.
Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.
Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]
Brian,
Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.
[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]
For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.
Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.
[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.
I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.
Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.
Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.
Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]
Brian,
Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.
[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]
For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.
Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.
[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]
Participant[quote=briansd1]
Jim Jones, consider the facts Allan enumerated above.
I was specifically addressing the post made by Allan who, on this thread, warned me to be precise and that words have meanings.
Did Obama’s supposed lack of a “national energy program”, and “the difficulties in permitting, approvals and loan guarantees” in “the private nuke sector” contribute to THIS disaster in the Gulf? Consider the facts Allan pointed to and their contribution to THIS gulf disaster.
Remember, Allan is the one who suggested that I should not use the word “drilling” to refer to the oil industry in general because drilling is not cementing.
Are we talking big picture policy or meanings of words?[/quote]
Brian,
Stop trying to use straw man logic to support your position when it lacks logic in order to attempt to undermine my statement. My remarks had nothing to do with the wider energy policy of any presidential administration. Instead I wanted you fully recognize that THE RIG IN THE GULF WAS CERTIFIED BY A DEPARTMENT RAN BY AN OBAMA POLITICAL APPOINTEE.
[quote=allan from fallbrook]Allan, since you are so much for technically assigning blame where blame is due, Bush/Cheney relaxing the rules contributed to the lack of safety and THIS Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster.[/quote]
For once your language was precise in that you say that Bush/Chaney only “contributed” to the relaxing the of the rules. What you fail to admit/realize or digest is that the Obama appointee actively continued to operate under those same rules which your found so reprehensible.
Brian, I believe that you are a semi-productive poster on this board but think you could do well to follow eavesdropper’s statement below and avoid staying locked into the orthodoxy in which you currently reside. Your preference to only analyze facts which support your idea of what is “right” is why your are presently facing criticism from members on this board.
[quote=eavesdropper]There are many on this forum who are in the practice of carefully considering situations from a number of angles, and who realize that there will always be some bit of contradiction in our philosophies. We approach these questions critically, working through a number of scenarios, refining as we go, until we arrive at a rational conclusion. We will change our philosophies if that becomes necessary. Unfortunately, most people these days seem to prefer changing the facts of a situation instead.[/quote]
-
AuthorPosts
