MennoNet.com

This evening my wife and I spent a couple of interesting hours with lesterb and his charming wife.
Very worthwhile and enjoyable.

silentreader wrote:This evening my wife and I spent a couple of interesting hours with lesterb and his charming wife.
Very worthwhile and enjoyable.

We enjoyed it as well. It's always nice to put a face to people.

lesterb wrote:

silentreader wrote:This evening my wife and I spent a couple of interesting hours with lesterb and his charming wife.
Very worthwhile and enjoyable.

We enjoyed it as well. It's always nice to put a face to people.

Especially if they don't have one of their own

silentreader wrote:

lesterb wrote:

silentreader wrote:This evening my wife and I spent a couple of interesting hours with lesterb and his charming wife.
Very worthwhile and enjoyable.

We enjoyed it as well. It's always nice to put a face to people.

Especially if they don't have one of their own

"groan" icon.

Met Signtist and Appleman at a Tim Horton's last night. Thanks to Signtist for making that happen.

Amazing what all comes up when you get three philosophers together around some Tim Horton's coffee.

I was sitting outside in my father-in-law's van trying to decide if that sophisticated looking guy wandering around inside watching the parking lot was really Signtist or not. Didn't want to make a fool out of myself by introducing myself to a total stranger. So I finally sent him a text to see if he was him.

He was.

I was sure I knew him, but it's been almost five years, and then I only saw him for a few minutes in a hospital corridor (my sister was down the hall on her death bed, so I probably was somewhat distracted).

Of course Signtist and I are somewhat amateurs at philosophy, but when Appleman got there, things really started rolling. We solved the US presidential election problems in no time flat. If I told you what we spent the greater percentage of our time on, you probably wouldn't believe me anyhow, so I'll refrain from that subject.

Anyway, to make a short story longer, we had a great time together. At least I did. Signtist looked sort of tired by the end. But he was still going strong with Appleman in the parking lot when I left, so maybe it was just me.

lesterb wrote: Of course Signtist and I are somewhat amateurs at philosophy, but when Appleman got there, things really started rolling. We solved the US presidential election problems in no time flat.

Can we look forward to your Op-Ed in the NYTimes anytime soon? They have been trying to figure out what went wrong ever since about 10:00 EDT November 8th.

lesterb wrote: If I told you what we spent the greater percentage of our time on, you probably wouldn't believe me anyhow, so I'll refrain from that subject.

That's not nice.... Please don't tease us like that. Sniff..Sniff..

lesterb wrote:Met Signtist and Appleman at a Tim Horton's last night. Thanks to Signtist for making that happen.

Amazing what all comes up when you get three philosophers together around some Tim Horton's coffee.

I was sitting outside in my father-in-law's van trying to decide if that sophisticated looking guy wandering around inside watching the parking lot was really Signtist or not. Didn't want to make a fool out of myself by introducing myself to a total stranger. So I finally sent him a text to see if he was him.

He was.

I was sure I knew him, but it's been almost five years, and then I only saw him for a few minutes in a hospital corridor (my sister was down the hall on her death bed, so I probably was somewhat distracted).

Of course Signtist and I are somewhat amateurs at philosophy, but when Appleman got there, things really started rolling. We solved the US presidential election problems in no time flat. If I told you what we spent the greater percentage of our time on, you probably wouldn't believe me anyhow, so I'll refrain from that subject.

Anyway, to make a short story longer, we had a great time together. At least I did. Signtist looked sort of tired by the end. But he was still going strong with Appleman in the parking lot when I left, so maybe it was just me.

Never considered myself a philosopher or sophisticated. Tired, yes. Youn'uns will do that to you. But a little fresh air seemed to cure that. We basically discussed the drama surrounding a particular kitchen reno. And yes, I enjoyed myself thouroughly. As to the bold part, let's just say if you would have asked me what I supposed we would discuss, this would not have been on the list. And when my wife asked, "What did you talk about?" and I answered truthfully, she says, "What!? With them!!!!!!?????"

ken_sylvania wrote: Can we look forward to your Op-Ed in the NYTimes anytime soon? They have been trying to figure out what went wrong ever since about 10:00 EDT November 8th.

That shouldn't be that hard to figure out. They are overlooking the truth because it's too simple. There were a core group of voters, maybe 5% or so, who answered the polls with the answer they knew was status quo. But when voting time rolled around they went by their heart instead.

There were also some voters who came out of the woodwork, I suppose. I'd have to sit down and do some calculations, but how much greater was the error of the polls than the standard deviation that they state as part of every poll? You know -- this poll is accurate to within 5%, 19 times out of 20, or whatever they usually say.

Signtist wrote:when my wife asked, "What did you talk about?" and I answered truthfully, she says, "What!? With them!!!!!!?????"

Wives...

They always want to know what we talked about. When you try to get it together, it just doesn't sound as interesting as it was the first time around. Sort a standard response might be, "You spent two hours together land just talked about that?"

Sort of deflating.

lesterb wrote:

ken_sylvania wrote: Can we look forward to your Op-Ed in the NYTimes anytime soon? They have been trying to figure out what went wrong ever since about 10:00 EDT November 8th.

That shouldn't be that hard to figure out. They are overlooking the truth because it's too simple. There were a core group of voters, maybe 5% or so, who answered the polls with the answer they knew was status quo. But when voting time rolled around they went by their heart instead.

There were also some voters who came out of the woodwork, I suppose. I'd have to sit down and do some calculations, but how much greater was the error of the polls than the standard deviation that they state as part of every poll? You know -- this poll is accurate to within 5%, 19 times out of 20, or whatever they usually say.

Right. I don't have any data to back me up on this, but I have to wonder if the blue-collar workers likely to be attracted to Trump's message would be less likely to be willing to take the time to answer the pollster's questions. I probably fit the Trump votor profile pretty well (except for the fact that I don't vote), and it's a rare day that I'd be willing to take the time to answer the questions some pollster might call me with. I'm curious if that attitude is more common among certain demographics.