Interesting stats

[nosejam]

My post wasn't meant to be about politics/economics (though contained elements of it), was just discussing your use of the word developed. No need to be insulting, constructive criticism please, you didn't even respond to anything in my last post thus letting me carry on in my deluded state when you could have taught me the truth.

[KLL]

My post wasn't meant to be about politics/economics (though contained elements of it), was just discussing your use of the word developed. No need to be insulting, constructive criticism please, you didn't even respond to anything in my last post thus letting me carry on in my deluded state when you could have taught me the truth.

I did post an dictionary entry telling you the meaning of undeveloped in a neconomic context.
If you failed to read that, it aint my fault. And how was my criticism unconstructive? I told you what you lacked and how you could amend that situation and spare us and yourself a lot of hassle.
It was constructive by any mean.

[nosejam]

Ok yes, I'll grant that the idea of reading a book might help, but the other two are so censored and biased that I'll only end up learning what the powers that be intend for me to learn, ie. not the truth.

I'm not denying that from an economic stand-point that those countries are less developed, I'm not deluded enough to argue that; just the use of only using the word developed, I apologise if my pedanticness (yes I see the irony of making up a word at this point) offended anyone.

[KLL]

Ok yes, I'll grant that the idea of reading a book might help, but the other two are so censored and biased that I'll only end up learning what the powers that be intend for me to learn, ie. not the truth.

And books are not censored? LOL
But bias is the reason why you should read more than 1 magazine but several different ones so you can understand everyones standpoint. I for example read the economist eventho i disagree with many of their views. I've got enuogh other magazines that agree with a lot of my views, but there is little point in reading those as well.. i don't need t oread my own oppinion elsewhere do i?


No offence, but your horizon seems very limited at this stage, mostly because you apparantly refuse to broaden it. Change that. read magazines and newspaper even if they are biased and censored. It helps you understand others.

I'm not denying that from an economic stand-point that those countries are less developed, I'm not deluded enough to argue that; just the use of only using the word developed, I apologise if my pedanticness (yes I see the irony of making up a word at this point) offended anyone.

well its your language not mine. Undeveloped is the right term to use, if you don't like it, use antoher langauge.

[nosejam]

I'm just trying to say that it would be me saying I'm better than you, I haven't specified at all, there are many things I'll be better than you at and there will be just as many if not more that you are better than me at.

Its not even your fault though, its the way the English language is used, words don't have their true meanings, pathetic being a great example. So while everyone knows what you mean when you say it and most people will use the same terminology, that's not the point I'm making; it was more a dig at the English language than anythign else.

[KLL]

I'm just trying to say that it would be me saying I'm better than you, I haven't specified at all, there are many things I'll be better than you at and there will be just as many if not more that you are better than me at.

and what does this have to do with anything?

[nosejam]

Its deomnstrating the point of calling something undeveloped, its not specific, while you're probably using it in an economic sense, there will be aspects in which they are more developed.

[KLL]

Its deomnstrating the point of calling something undeveloped, its not specific, while you're probably using it in an economic sense, there will be aspects in which they are more developed.

your jsut doing this for the sake of an argument are you?

[jasonlfunk]

Oh man, look at those hit statistics

[Divine Intervention]

Its deomnstrating the point of calling something undeveloped, its not specific, while you're probably using it in an economic sense, there will be aspects in which they are more developed.

unless they have made significant progress in many various aspects of life such as medicine, culutural, political, social etc etc...then they are not developed. Exisiting as a society with barely any change for thousands of years does not make them "more developed" than the relativly young western civilizations. Sure they have more history etc but in relative terms their progress