Supreme Court could take guns case

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

Since I grew up about three decades after anyone that went to college stopped using expressions like "anal retentive" it never really was much of an issue.

Common usage
Conversationally, the term is often used to describe a person deemed to be overly obsessed with minor details. Its roots are said to be from Sigmund Freud.

The term is often used in a derogatory sense to describe a person with such attention to detail that the obsession becomes an annoyance to others, and can be carried out to the detriment of the so-called anal-retentive person.


Origins
In the psychology of Freud, the anal stage is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development. This is a time when an infant's attention moves from oral stimulation to anal stimulation (including the bowels and bladder), usually synchronous with learning to control their excretory functions, a time of toilet training. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period of time may develop "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control. Those whose anal characteristics continue into later life are said to be "anal retentive" personality types.


Oh but it most definitly is an issue, Joe. Ya say the term is antiquated? Well even if they are an old pair o' shoes, they still fit...and you're wearin em!

[joepole]

That's seriously what you're going to go with? A cut & paste job from Wikipedia that doesn't actually refute anything?

"Often used' doesn't make it right. The word "irregardless" qualifies as "often used." So does "Daylight Savings Time." Neither of those are correct, either.

>Oh but it most definitly is an issue, Joe. Ya say the term is antiquated? Well even if they are an old pair o' shoes, they still fit...and you're wearin em!

They don't fit, Freud is almost completely discredited; especially B.S. like "anal retentive." Like I said, you might as well tell me my humors are out of balance or my chakra needs tuning.

There's a simple solution: Stop saying stuff that is wrong and I can't correct you.

[Al Swearengen]

That's seriously what you're going to go with? A cut & paste job from Wikipedia that doesn't actually refute anything?

I didn't use it to refute anything, I used it to support my contention that your fixation with minutia is annoyin to me and probably everyone else ya interact with...and it drove that point home quite nicely! Besides, the term isn't as outdated as ya say...it's still in the vernacular, as in "Joe is quite anal about everything".

They don't fit, Freud is almost completely discredited; especially B.S. like "anal retentive."

Ha! You're doin it again, and ya dont even realize it...you're completely oblivious to it! Ya just proved my point...the damn shoes fit and you're wearin em! Face it Joe, you're anal, and it's apparent to everyone butt you (pardon the pun)! You're like a guy with halitosis who insists his breath isn't foul since he himself can't smell it. And "Freud is almost completely discredited"... really Dr. Pole? I dont think you're qualified to make that pronouncement. But hey, whatever....knock yourself out.

[joepole]

Anyone that can read is qualified to make that pronouncement.

What was that deal you were talking about earlier? Selectively ignoring direct questions? Does you have anything to offer besides nonsensical, grammatically flaccid ad hominem arguments? Some more false statements about crime would at least be a little more interesting to read.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Morpheus is fighting Neo ....................

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by joepole

Selectively ignoring direct questions?

You mean like when I directly questioned your source for the number of offspring produced by physicians versus the number produced by felons?

[rhertz]

I dunno. I asked him if he had a gun and he whipped out a 44 magnum! Be careful guys!

[joepole]

>You mean like when I directly questioned your source for the number of offspring produced by physicians versus the number produced by felons?
Read that one on the toilet and didn't respond.

I'm at the office now so I don't have access to the book from which I acquired that factoid, so I'll have to post it tonight. The link between lack of education, crime, and birth rate isn't exactly a secret.

Take this, for example, from the CDC. A high school dropout has twice the birthrate of a woman. The number are even more disparate among men. The accidental pregnancy rate among women with IQs over 125 is almost 0.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by joepole

>You mean like when I directly questioned your source for the number of offspring produced by physicians versus the number produced by felons?
Read that one on the toilet and didn't respond.

I'm at the office now so I don't have access to the book from which I acquired that factoid, so I'll have to post it tonight. The link between lack of education, crime, and birth rate isn't exactly a secret.

Take this, for example, from the CDC. A high school dropout has twice the birthrate of a woman. The number are even more disparate among men. The accidental pregnancy rate among women with IQs over 125 is almost 0.

Hey I hear ya Joe, and I said I agreed with you in spirit. I just thought it curious that you picked physicians specifically.

[Morpheus]

Hey Joe, here is part of the abstract from the link you provided.

Results—Birth rates differ considerably by educational attainment. In 1994
women with 0–8 years of education had the highest birth rates overall, while those who started but did not complete college had the lowest. For women 30–39 years of age, however, those with college degrees had the highest rates. Among women aged 25 years and older, unmarried women with less education have much higher birth rates than unmarried women who attended school longer. Conversely, rates for college educated married women are much higher than those of less educated women. For college-educated women, low first birth rates for women in their twenties and high rates for women in their thirties point to the continuing trend of delayed childbearing.

[joepole]

I think it was actually worded as "people with 16+ years of education," which doctors obviously are.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by joepole

I think it was actually worded as "people with 16+ years of education," which doctors obviously are.

Well it would seem, from the source you provided, that it depends on many other factors, including race, age, and marital status. Whew! That's a lot of variables. It looks like, from studying the charts, that married people with 16+ years of education have lots of children. They just have them later. Just remember the old saying. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by Morpheus

Well it would seem, from the source you provided, that it depends on many other factors, including race, age, and marital status. Whew! That's a lot of variables. It looks like, from studying the charts, that married people with 16+ years of education have lots of children. They just have them later. Just remember the old saying. There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

You are one motor boating son of a gun.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics now Joepole has to do his homework

[Al Swearengen]

Originally Posted by joepole

Does you have anything to offer besides nonsensical, grammatically flaccid ad hominem arguments?

"Grammatically flaccid"? "Does I"? No, I doesn't! Now please go away.

[joepole]

I tried writing "Al style" but that was all my fingers would let me do.