OT "Rural America" WAS school trips WAS Message for animaux

I'm with you. Long Island has turned into a shlunk hole...unless, you are
fortunate enough to afford to live on the water, in the Hamptons, or most of
the
north shore. Ordinary people do not live well on Long Island. They get by.


I grew up on the South Shore, only advantage was living close enough to Robert
Moses to go to beach often in summer! lol

The general attitude of people raised on LI seems to be that they are somehow
superior to others. There is this sneer that seems to dominate faces of girls
living there. This attitude that somehow they deserve more than anybody else.

I never got it, I hated living around people like that. Which is why, first
chance I got I headed to the midwest. I felt much more at home around "real"
people instead of the plastic ones I grew up around.

Perhaps this only pertains to my part of LI, and that other parts of LI are
different. I don't know, I have no way to know, but I do know I never want to
go back for more than a couple days at a time.

Caryn
Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

My reason for telling you this was because, as I was selling everything my
mother came over and thought I was having a nervous breakdown. Quite the
opposite. I HAD to get off that island.

I kept praying my parents would leave Long Island.

But now Mom has a successful business (she does hypnosis and touch therapy,
with a sideline of performing weddings to people who want something
non-traditional). And Dad won't leave his vet. He takes in foster kittens,
usually ones still needing bottle fed, and his vet helps him out a lot by not
charging him for every visit with those wee ones.

I can't blame them for staying, as I understand their reasons, but part of me
just wishes they'd move anyway! lol

Caryn
Blue Wizard Designs
http://hometown.aol.com/crzy4xst/index.html
Updated: 7/7/03 -- now available Dragon of the Stars
View WIPs at: http://community.webshots.com/user/carynlws (Caryn's UFO's)

At the risk of boring everyone else to tears, here's my response that
you dared me to make:

Caryn, you remarked: "I said that YOUR point was lost because of the
length of your list of definitions, I was not talking about Gillian at
all. And how would you read it if someone told you to 'keep your mouth
shut.' Wouldn't you find it highly offensive?"

To which I'll reply: You were adding, on the back of Gillian's snide
post with your own disparaging remark. I've already explained, I never
said attackingly "keep your mouth shut." Granted, I could have softened
the wording, but it wasn't "polite" for either of you to make fun of my
post in the surly, arrogant way you both did. I was angered at the
hostility. The polite thing to do, if a post is something that
you "yawn" over, is to not say anything (keep your mouth shut). Just
move on, roll your eyes. But you both made it a point to "say something
negative." That is rude, personal, and hurtful.

You didn't say, "Your post was lost in the length." You said you
resented the lecture. I wasn't lecturing anyone. I merely posted, in a
friendly way, definitions. I was being chastised about my feelings
toward polite society. About the definition of etiquette, and values,
and I merely posted the differing definitions, which happened to confirm
my understanding. Not that I'm always triple A on etiquette.

In responding to your apology and explanation, I said, "Well, that
softens my feelings a bit. Thank you."

You then come back with: "I notice you still can't admit that you aren't
on your best behavior either, however. So....don't expect a thank you
from me."

I will admit to being incensed by some of the remarks, but I have tried
to stick to "ideas" rather than attacking a person and resorting to
hostility toward an individual. How polite and sensitive is your former
remark?

You go on to say: " But you and Karen have gone out of your way to try
to make me think that I know absolutely nothing about what a rural area
is . . ."

We can't make you "think" anything. You brought up Akron as a rural
area that is cheaper to live in than a metro area. A few of us pointed
out that was an incorrect assumption. That doesn't make you stupid. I
thought it was uninformed. I also thought it was typical of American
thought process, especially amongst those who live in or near larger
metropolitan areas, or have lived there for long lengths of time.

Then you went on: " . . .harp on something I had said earlier, rather
than realized I'd moved on in the thread."

We weren't talking directly to *you*, we were talking to any number of
people who were clinging to the idea that one could just "move on to
rural America to make ends meet.

Then you said: "This is my original post in which I mentioned Akron, and
I said that I lived near it, not in it, and I just used it as an example
of a lower cost of living than is available in metro areas, not
necessarily the sole example of rural America's costs of living."

Again, Akron is not rural. But you still clinged to the idea that one
could do as I mentioned above. Whether or not it was Akron. You further
state, still trying to defend your original idea: "In Akron, you can
still buy a really really nice house for less than $100K (in fact a
quick peek at realtor.com showed a few 3 bedroom houses for less than
$15K!!!!). Here, you can't get a one room shack for that."

A house in Akron for $15M is a shack, probably in the middle of drug
dens. This was pointed out to you earlier by another poster.

You continue: "Growing one's own food is really not the point, being
able to have affordable housing to stay within a $22K/yr income is. And,
really, rural America has more of that available than major metropolitan
areas do!"

And I'm telling you that may or may not be true, and even if it is
modestly priced (you can purchase a cheap house around here for about
$38M), you would not be able to restore it, or afford to heat it. It
would be a shack. These houses are oft referred to as "handy-man
specials". Often, the walls are pushing out from the basements, the
wiring is inadequate. These houses are one step from condemnation.

You went on: "I never, ever said that people can live on $11K a year.
That is your own vivid imagination attributing something to me that I
never said."

You were chiming into the debate by pointing out that you could live
pretty cheaply in Akron. You were chiming into the side of the debate
that was refuting there is a problem with poverty and the minimum wage.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point of view. It wasn't very
clear to me where you stood because of the depth to which you continued
to allude that one could live more cheaply outside major metro areas.
The truth is, wages are depressed in these areas, so it follows
everything else is in line. Further, many of these areas are rotting.

If you were changing the subject, you didn't make that clear.

You continued: "You refused to admit that such a thing could be true,
because it disagreed with YOUR view of the world. Instead you redefined
"rural" to fit your side of the argument."

No. The truth is, most of those living in metro areas have no idea what
it's like to live in "rural" areas, do not have a grasp of the problems
of rural areas, and have little knowledge about poverty levels in this
country and what that means to our country.

When you said: "Perhaps, you think you weren't, but you and Karen were
both very insulting to anybody who defines rural the way the dictionary
does. You both talked down to Paula, Cheryl and me."

I hardly think that pointing out the error of your thinking is deriding
anyone. I didn't personalize it. Some of you are clinging to the
notion that people are poor because they want to be, don't make
tough choices, and that it's relatively easy for families to just uproot
and go out to rural areas and make a living and feed their family.
That's a myth. People already in rural areas will tell you what a myth
that is. But many of you don't want to hear that because it doesn't fit
into the neat little box of thinking so much of society has lulled
themselves into. I've already stated that I understand there are rural
pockets between large metro areas, but that they aren't cheap to live
in. Again, on minimum wage or at or near the poverty level, you'd be
hard pressed to get a job in these areas.

You skipped right over Paul O'Neil's quote about "idealogues" and said:
" You were rude to me, over and over, and yet are surprised to get it
given back in turn."

If my words have hinted that I was belittling, I apologize. But there
seems to be a fine line about pointing out that a point of view is in
error, and then having someone calling that "rude".

You go on to say: "Riiiiiiiiiiiight, you weren't rude.... You have told
me to "keep my mouth shut", you have told me over and over that I don't
know what I'm talking about, even when I've explained that the things I
have said were only from my experience."

I've already said you mistook that statement. And we're trying to point
out, and I said at least twice, one can't go from a personal experience
and extrapolate that into a policy or fact. Karen C pointed out quite a
few facts. Someone else pointed to other facts. And I pointed out
several times I have been on several fact-finding missions because of my
own personal situations over time. I also live in rural America.

You then continue: "Even in my first mention of Akron, I said it was a
place that one could afford to live in a reasonable manner."

And someone else said that wasn't true unless you wanted to live in the
ghetto.

You went on: "I never said that anyone could live on $11K a year in the
middle of absolutely nowhere. You and Karen decided that is what I said,
and then decided to be as obnoxious as possible in proving me wrong, and
yourselves right."

We weren't just reacting to your posts. There were others. Where does
pointing to fact become obnoxious, but calling our facts "rude" is not?
Why continue the argument when it has been pointed out the argument is a
false assumption? Is it not possible for you to say, "Hey, maybe they
know something I don't?" And it was a diversion from the original topic
of conversation: poverty and the minimum wage. So, one has to make it
clear, in a response, that the topic has been changed, the argument has
been changed. That's a good diversionary tactic and it has been
fruitfully used the past few decades. I was talking about our
unwillingness, in our society, to face the rising poverty levels, the
ridiculous minimum wage, and false assumptions about who the poor
actually are. The mean-spirited attitude toward the poor. The lack of
willingness, by so many, to understand it and contribute to the poor,
those without health insurance, whether through tax dollars or
individual help. I'm arguing against the new mantra of: "Screw the
have-nots."

You continued: "I think if you were treated like that you'd think it was
rude. Heck, you think my kids writing thank you notes via email is rude!"

Well, I don't think writing notes via email on a regular basis - for
gifts received, especially things like weddings, birthdays, showers,
etc. etc., is the right thing to do. You said you also taught them to
sit down and write actual thank you notes. That's a good thing. I
apologize for forgetting to acknowledge that. The "email" remark stuck
with me. It was my personal "land mine".

This is my personal opinion. It troubles me that we in general, as a
society, don't take the time. That we don't know how, or don't think
it's worth the bother. That short cuts are acceptable. That says
something about us as a culture, in my mind. Everything's a short cut,
sound byte answer. You're poor? Lost your job? Tough. You're gonna
have to make tough choices. Not my problem. Go someplace where you
can grow your own food. Go out in the boonies where you can live more
cheaply. You're probably too lazy to go look for a job. Or an
alcoholic. There's plenty of jobs, even if you're over 50. My husband
can't wait to hire those over 50 . . . without ever thinking that this
is not what is happening everywhere, or that everyone is situated in
a position to be able to take those jobs, nor knowing what those jobs
pay. We have lost 2,000,000 jobs since 2000; meanwhile the population
has increased.

You concluded: "BTW, don't do your typical "I'm now going to take the
high road and not respond" thing again...it's too late."

I didn't. But there's something to be said for "the high road".
Dianne

In my humble opinion this has gone on too long and has become too personal.
What you would see if you could see me now would be me wiping away the tears
because I'm definitely bored as I can be with this never ending argument.

I know, I know, I don't have to read it. But it is taking up an inordinate
amount of space and all that assuming is almost funny. To quote a very old,
tired cliché, if you break the word assume into syllables it reads: To
make an "ass out of u and me."

Lucille


"Dianne Lewandowski" wrote in message
...
At the risk of boring everyone else to tears, here's my response that
you dared me to make:

Caryn, you remarked: "I said that YOUR point was lost because of the
length of your list of definitions, I was not talking about Gillian at
all. And how would you read it if someone told you to 'keep your mouth
shut.' Wouldn't you find it highly offensive?"

To which I'll reply: You were adding, on the back of Gillian's snide
post with your own disparaging remark. I've already explained, I never
said attackingly "keep your mouth shut." Granted, I could have softened
the wording, but it wasn't "polite" for either of you to make fun of my
post in the surly, arrogant way you both did. I was angered at the
hostility. The polite thing to do, if a post is something that
you "yawn" over, is to not say anything (keep your mouth shut). Just
move on, roll your eyes. But you both made it a point to "say something
negative." That is rude, personal, and hurtful.

You didn't say, "Your post was lost in the length." You said you
resented the lecture. I wasn't lecturing anyone. I merely posted, in a
friendly way, definitions. I was being chastised about my feelings
toward polite society. About the definition of etiquette, and values,
and I merely posted the differing definitions, which happened to confirm
my understanding. Not that I'm always triple A on etiquette.

In responding to your apology and explanation, I said, "Well, that
softens my feelings a bit. Thank you."

You then come back with: "I notice you still can't admit that you aren't
on your best behavior either, however. So....don't expect a thank you
from me."

I will admit to being incensed by some of the remarks, but I have tried
to stick to "ideas" rather than attacking a person and resorting to
hostility toward an individual. How polite and sensitive is your former
remark?

You go on to say: " But you and Karen have gone out of your way to try
to make me think that I know absolutely nothing about what a rural area
is . . ."

We can't make you "think" anything. You brought up Akron as a rural
area that is cheaper to live in than a metro area. A few of us pointed
out that was an incorrect assumption. That doesn't make you stupid. I
thought it was uninformed. I also thought it was typical of American
thought process, especially amongst those who live in or near larger
metropolitan areas, or have lived there for long lengths of time.

Then you went on: " . . .harp on something I had said earlier, rather
than realized I'd moved on in the thread."

We weren't talking directly to *you*, we were talking to any number of
people who were clinging to the idea that one could just "move on to
rural America to make ends meet.

Then you said: "This is my original post in which I mentioned Akron, and
I said that I lived near it, not in it, and I just used it as an example
of a lower cost of living than is available in metro areas, not
necessarily the sole example of rural America's costs of living."

Again, Akron is not rural. But you still clinged to the idea that one
could do as I mentioned above. Whether or not it was Akron. You further
state, still trying to defend your original idea: "In Akron, you can
still buy a really really nice house for less than $100K (in fact a
quick peek at realtor.com showed a few 3 bedroom houses for less than
$15K!!!!). Here, you can't get a one room shack for that."

A house in Akron for $15M is a shack, probably in the middle of drug
dens. This was pointed out to you earlier by another poster.

You continue: "Growing one's own food is really not the point, being
able to have affordable housing to stay within a $22K/yr income is. And,
really, rural America has more of that available than major metropolitan
areas do!"

And I'm telling you that may or may not be true, and even if it is
modestly priced (you can purchase a cheap house around here for about
$38M), you would not be able to restore it, or afford to heat it. It
would be a shack. These houses are oft referred to as "handy-man
specials". Often, the walls are pushing out from the basements, the
wiring is inadequate. These houses are one step from condemnation.

You went on: "I never, ever said that people can live on $11K a year.
That is your own vivid imagination attributing something to me that I
never said."

You were chiming into the debate by pointing out that you could live
pretty cheaply in Akron. You were chiming into the side of the debate
that was refuting there is a problem with poverty and the minimum wage.
I apologize if I misunderstood your point of view. It wasn't very
clear to me where you stood because of the depth to which you continued
to allude that one could live more cheaply outside major metro areas.
The truth is, wages are depressed in these areas, so it follows
everything else is in line. Further, many of these areas are rotting.

If you were changing the subject, you didn't make that clear.

You continued: "You refused to admit that such a thing could be true,
because it disagreed with YOUR view of the world. Instead you redefined
"rural" to fit your side of the argument."

No. The truth is, most of those living in metro areas have no idea what
it's like to live in "rural" areas, do not have a grasp of the problems
of rural areas, and have little knowledge about poverty levels in this
country and what that means to our country.

When you said: "Perhaps, you think you weren't, but you and Karen were
both very insulting to anybody who defines rural the way the dictionary
does. You both talked down to Paula, Cheryl and me."

I hardly think that pointing out the error of your thinking is deriding
anyone. I didn't personalize it. Some of you are clinging to the
notion that people are poor because they want to be, don't make
tough choices, and that it's relatively easy for families to just uproot
and go out to rural areas and make a living and feed their family.
That's a myth. People already in rural areas will tell you what a myth
that is. But many of you don't want to hear that because it doesn't fit
into the neat little box of thinking so much of society has lulled
themselves into. I've already stated that I understand there are rural
pockets between large metro areas, but that they aren't cheap to live
in. Again, on minimum wage or at or near the poverty level, you'd be
hard pressed to get a job in these areas.

You skipped right over Paul O'Neil's quote about "idealogues" and said:
" You were rude to me, over and over, and yet are surprised to get it
given back in turn."

If my words have hinted that I was belittling, I apologize. But there
seems to be a fine line about pointing out that a point of view is in
error, and then having someone calling that "rude".

You go on to say: "Riiiiiiiiiiiight, you weren't rude.... You have told
me to "keep my mouth shut", you have told me over and over that I don't
know what I'm talking about, even when I've explained that the things I
have said were only from my experience."

I've already said you mistook that statement. And we're trying to point
out, and I said at least twice, one can't go from a personal experience
and extrapolate that into a policy or fact. Karen C pointed out quite a
few facts. Someone else pointed to other facts. And I pointed out
several times I have been on several fact-finding missions because of my
own personal situations over time. I also live in rural America.

You then continue: "Even in my first mention of Akron, I said it was a
place that one could afford to live in a reasonable manner."

And someone else said that wasn't true unless you wanted to live in the
ghetto.

You went on: "I never said that anyone could live on $11K a year in the
middle of absolutely nowhere. You and Karen decided that is what I said,
and then decided to be as obnoxious as possible in proving me wrong, and
yourselves right."

We weren't just reacting to your posts. There were others. Where does
pointing to fact become obnoxious, but calling our facts "rude" is not?
Why continue the argument when it has been pointed out the argument is a
false assumption? Is it not possible for you to say, "Hey, maybe they
know something I don't?" And it was a diversion from the original topic
of conversation: poverty and the minimum wage. So, one has to make it
clear, in a response, that the topic has been changed, the argument has
been changed. That's a good diversionary tactic and it has been
fruitfully used the past few decades. I was talking about our
unwillingness, in our society, to face the rising poverty levels, the
ridiculous minimum wage, and false assumptions about who the poor
actually are. The mean-spirited attitude toward the poor. The lack of
willingness, by so many, to understand it and contribute to the poor,
those without health insurance, whether through tax dollars or
individual help. I'm arguing against the new mantra of: "Screw the
have-nots."

You continued: "I think if you were treated like that you'd think it was
rude. Heck, you think my kids writing thank you notes via email is rude!"

Well, I don't think writing notes via email on a regular basis - for
gifts received, especially things like weddings, birthdays, showers,
etc. etc., is the right thing to do. You said you also taught them to
sit down and write actual thank you notes. That's a good thing. I
apologize for forgetting to acknowledge that. The "email" remark stuck
with me. It was my personal "land mine".

This is my personal opinion. It troubles me that we in general, as a
society, don't take the time. That we don't know how, or don't think
it's worth the bother. That short cuts are acceptable. That says
something about us as a culture, in my mind. Everything's a short cut,
sound byte answer. You're poor? Lost your job? Tough. You're gonna
have to make tough choices. Not my problem. Go someplace where you
can grow your own food. Go out in the boonies where you can live more
cheaply. You're probably too lazy to go look for a job. Or an
alcoholic. There's plenty of jobs, even if you're over 50. My husband
can't wait to hire those over 50 . . . without ever thinking that this
is not what is happening everywhere, or that everyone is situated in
a position to be able to take those jobs, nor knowing what those jobs
pay. We have lost 2,000,000 jobs since 2000; meanwhile the population
has increased.

You concluded: "BTW, don't do your typical "I'm now going to take the
high road and not respond" thing again...it's too late."

I didn't. But there's something to be said for "the high road".
Dianne