Deflation =====> Your NYC RE apt price goes down! ericho69 et.al. DaBulls.

what does krugman know about economics that ericho did not learn on yahoo finace?

I cringe when I hear japan comparisons.

http://www.aei.org/outlook/27568

I don't know, this flies in the face of MMAfia's dollar implosion theory. Is he out from his bunker yet?

It is, in essence, what I told MMAfia last I engaged with him: monetarism is dead, and an increase in the money supply is not necessarily inflationary. Poor Peter Schiff; the only one left who invites him on TV is Larry Kudlow, who is becoming a bit of an embarrassment along with the rest of CNBC.

there will be major inflation on necessities (food), deflation on luxuries (8's on cpw)

gas prices are creeping up again, just in time for summer. but we're still generally deflationary.

w67tstreet,
You are such a clown. I didn't know there's a new circus opened on west 67th street.
You ridicule me for posting links and here you are the past 2-3 days posting nothing but links yourself. Hypocrite!

So, gold is less than 3% from the all time highs and Commodity prices across the board is up big the last 6 months, money supply is out of control and here you are posting some whack job talking about no inflation. Have a look at the CRB index you fool!

so paul krugman is "some whack job?" and you're a genius?

Krugman have his own political agenda.
No mention of Oil or Gold prices? Why not? How bout the CRB? ohh...that's not important...

There's no substance in that article.

And don't give me that NYT writers know what they are talking about. Who was that buffoon writer in NYT that is caught up in the subprime mess? Again, FOLLOW THE DATA and not the WRITERS!

"what does krugman know about economics that ericho did not learn on yahoo finace?"

Only goes to show what a complete moron you are.
I post charts and data from all segments of the markets. What do you provide? Do you even know what the CRB index is? Try Google.

tell me more about krugman. how about that nobel prize? more whack job crap?

its hard to declare inflation our of control when credit is contracting, unemployment is rising, debts are sky high and wages are not rising! The inflation we will see will be a consequence of policy actions taken to stem this crisis, why people dont see this is beyond me! It will crimp growth, squeeze margins, and squeeze consumers wallets.

And is he one of the 90% of economist that believe the economy is in the path of a recovery this year?
Okay, i might be a bit off by calling him a whack job..but that article have no substance. Plain and simple. He's not addressing any of the data points that is happening today. I would love to hear his argument on why GOLD is 3% from the all time highs or the bloodline (oil) of the global economy is trading at a 7 month high.

lets see what happens as gas prices continue to rise...

cc, we had hugely high gas prices last year and still not much in the way of overall inflation. i don't think the connection is casual. although it is of course the icing on the cake for people who are already stretched so horribly.

my question is if gas continues to rise, how quickly will overall demand go down? as i have noted many times, i am convinced that it is damn close to impossible to put through prices increases in this climate. i just don't think most businesses have the nerve; no one wants to do anything to reduce demand even further.

CC,
Can we agree that higher commodity prices are inflationary? The CRB have been trending up the last 6 months. If you agree, then there's no argument. Now, Will it translate to hyperinflation? That's a whole different story.

can we agree that you've never run a business, dealt with customers, vendors, boards of directors, other stake holders and made pricing decisions? there is a large world beyond finance where these types of decisions have to be made and the consequences dealt with. real prices don't just go up---somebody has to decide to raise them and deal with the possibility that sales may go down, that their competitors may absorb increases in the search for market share.

cc, you'll want to take a look at the vehicle miles driven chart in the CR month of may thread. stunning collapse.

CC,
ahh..is that an attempt to say yes. Jezz.
You guys are full of it.

"can we agree that you've never run a business, dealt with customers, vendors, boards of directors, other stake holders and made pricing decisions?"

It don't matter if i ever ran a business or not. Are consumers not subject to inflationary pressure? How do you think high gas prices are currently derived?

interesting.

as an example of what i'm trying to say: suppose you're running a major trucking company; relatively high fixed costs due to truck leases, union labor deals....demand is off i.e. a lot of trucks sitting empty going nowhere. you have three or four competitors in your area all in the same boat as you....who's gonna try to pass through those diesel fuel price increases first?

Before i answer your question, can you answer mine first?
You continuous attempt to avoid it makes it bloody obvious what the answer is.

Home ownership is supportive of American family values.
The question has nothing to do with deflation, inflation, commodities or the like. Those subjects are just distractions from the real question of safety, security, and value for the American family. At any given point we may be in a point of excess inflation or deflation or rising or declining commodities or unemployment or a war, etc. The average American can not predict these things - heck, the average policy maker can't predict these things. But a home is a solid foundation for the American family and the American family is the foundation of our society.

buying a home also decreases mobility, which can be key in times of high unemployment. family values are quite apparent in many of the European countries that have high rental rates. no casuality at all.

eircho, do you realize that part of commodity prices are driven but strenght/ weakness of the currency that they are traded in ?

DaBulls, yes, but "a home" doesn't have to be owned, and in many cases shouldn't be. All that "extending the benefits of home ownership to all" crap has been pretty much refuted. If a family's stability is founded on who owns the place they live, they're in tough shape.

Daballz... does pitting home owners vs. renters an American Virtue?

last time I chked, black ownership, segregation, little girlz dying of home abortions and gay not being allowed to marry were "American" values... NYC r mostly renters... yep I'm stabbing people left and right as I walk on 67th street......

and richo69 not so richo69, pls don't be one of those people that bought a place and never ever ever ever look at a comp sale in your own bldg... so you can tell me how inflationary NYC RE is in the next 5 years.... on our anniversary you can post the latest comp.... I'll even chart it for you ....

w67thstreet, those are awful things to say. Ownership of blacks, little girls dying of abortions, stabbing people? What kind of human being are you?

He really is a sweetie. Not to speak for him, but the things he mentioned have all represented "American values", so saying home-ownership per se is too, isn't saying much. Things change.

I agree, west67th is a sweetie, a very ironic one. He is also a moralist, a culture critic, and a funny guy. Maybe if you stick around a bit more you'll learn how to appreciate his unique sense of humor.

w67thstreet wasn't giving his personal opinion but saying what the country was like at one time...also he's very, very funny so anything he posts is excusable.

Really now, he is funny so it is ok to talk about hate, murder and other wretched things as if they are good things? Or is it the opposite and he is saying those are bad things and they are on parallel with similarly bad home ownership? I find it hard to make a case that home ownership is immoral: it might not be right for you or for someone else or even for a large group of people based on various circumstances, but how can it equate to slavery or abortion of little girls? According to the three of you, simply because he has a reputation for being funny those things are ok to dumb down or throw around like they are of no consequence. Time for some introspection.

make it four....west 67th is the man, pure and simple.

Analogizing <> equating.

These racist, violent, and misogynist believes are disappointing. I'm even surprised they are discussed on a real estate forum so casually.

ah...thought police...so quick to judge with no information. and, by the way, its beliefs not believes. and yes that was sarcastic and no doubt belittling.

He was just questioning the common idea of "american values." There are people defend things like, say, having guns in the house as part of these values and forget about them when it comes to giving people their true rights, like inheriting a wealth that your gay partner of 50 years has left you. He was saying that "american values" is a relative concept that needs revisiting. People that likes John Stewart seems to think so too, and it seems that he has quite an audience...

people that like...the autotranslation in my head never quite got the fact that people is plural in english!

Ok, once again, and I hate to get too didactic...He is AGAINST racism and AGAINST violence that's why he posted that. Do you understand this dear trembler???

Against racism, against violence. How does that tie to home ownership? He belittles racism and violence by offering an analogy to home ownership. Home ownership may not be the right choice for some or a majority of people, but how are they immoral like racism and violence? That is the problem with the statement he made.

trembling, w67th is not what you think he is. his post was exactly antithetical to what you think it was. he was pointing out that americans have long held out as ideals things that are abhorrent.

he is a minority, he adores his wife and admits she may be the superior in the relationship, and is a doting and delightful father. he was pointing out that violence does NOT stem from renting.

if you wish a venue for your anger, you should have a look at dabulls.

btw, i liked your post on the public housing thread about the ills that have befallen our society and their relationship, or lack thereof, to welfare quite a bit. made me reconsider. but grow a sense of irony. because you need to know when to be offended, and when not.

It disturbs me how so many would defend a pro racist, murderer and violence as a good person just because they are message board buddies.

Sickening people here.

I'm with you trembling. These are some life scums.

oh no...the village idiot has reemerged.

and i think that creating a system that judges people by whether or not they own a mcmansion is abhorrent, although clearly not as much so as racism and violence. but that was the not-so-subtle point that our friend was trying to make.

ericho once again, you don't have the faintest idea of what are u talking about!

I'm sure w67th can come back on to this discussion, since he started it, and clarify his comments. Even the Supreme Court nominee is clarifying her statement that she would be a better judge than a white man because she isn't a white man.
With respect to him being a minority, I had no idea he is a minority (by the way, "minorities" are in the majority in aggregate in NYC), and I don't know if that makes his statements better or worse, but actually to me it doesn't and shouldn't matter.
Lastly, as for anger toward Dabulls - like I myself said, owning and renting may make sense for different people. It didn't appear that Dabulls was doing anything other than supporting home ownership. I don't own a house, it works for me. My parents own a house, that worked for them and it worked for me and my siblings when growing up. My grandmother doesn't own a house and that made sense for her. There doesn't seem to be any morality in owning or renting so I can't have anger toward Dabulls just because he supports ownership. Murder, slavery, - another story.

no dabulls was equating home ownership with a superior form of society. and that would be EXTREMELY classist, and racist as well because home ownership rates are lower among the minorities. if your home ownership rate is lower, do you have lesser family values?

i think you protest too much. and as for w67th, why bother when you have good friends to cover your back? he's probably at the park with his young kids.

trembling...i apologize for saying w67th can post anything because he's funny...but i do agree with mimi and ar...w67th was stating what America was like at one time.

I'm having trouble with your first paragraph.

Perhaps I'm not understanding some unstated history on Dabulls or family values, or some code words or unsaid implications.

As for w67th, if you want to take credit for his statements, perhaps you should set boundaries.

trembling
about 3 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
I am going to agree with onthebyte and drdrd that my comment was tongue in cheek and facetious. Thank you kylewest for pointing out that my comment, on the 30th day of the month, was the stupidest comment of the month. I'm sure you are a nice guy, helpful, intelligent, but the joke, well, is on you.
On to more important things.

i think you need to get over yourself. or go away. or both.

Home ownership is supportive of American family values

what do you not get? how can anyone say that home ownership is in any way equated to family values? particularly in NYC, where we don't exactly get out the push mower to keep up the lawn and swill G&Ts with our neighbors on the weekends over some barbie? but anywhere, that is an obnoxious thing to say.

family values have much more meaning than that. and that IS a classist and racist thing to say, overtly and without a hint of irony. if you don't get that, i'm not surprised you didn't get the point of w67th's post.

i would never dream of taking CREDIT for w67th's statements. he's way too clever. but i'll cover his back, and that's the boundary i'm setting.

trembling- you are another retard who does not understand the subtleties of human communication... Analogy, metaphor, sacarsm, etc. Look up these terms, put a few more brain cells to work, and maybe, just maybe you'll be able to follow the discussion.

AR, he said American Values, not Family Values. That's why west67th got into politics in his comment. A lot of big mistakes have been made in the name of American Values, like overthrowing democratic governments, starting some pretty stupid wars, etc. It is as like when there are not good reasons to do something, the establishment calls for the American Values card. (hold the horses, I love America, it saved the world from Hitler, it's the most inventive country, etc, but when it gets righteous it begins to smell bad-think Bush era) I think that instead of saying that homeowning is part of American Values we could say it's part of the american culture, as it is in France, to give an example. It is absolutely true that families love to own. I love to own mine. But this fact doesn't belong to the moral field. It belongs to the culture & economics one.

So West34 and Columbia - you attack people personally rather than the arguments themselves.

Why did everyone so quickly become anti-American, this country shouldn't be apologizing for a value-based system and the right for people to make lives better for their children? We fought for rights many times starting against property taxes by the Brits.

mimi, i was talking about the comment by dabulls, not w67th.

and i agree that there is nothing wrong with wanting to own. as you so rightly put it, this should not be a moral question. it should be a social and cultural one.

but, i have to think that we'd be in a better place if we could just accept other people's decisions more readily. i have no interest in buying right now, but i think your ideas about Harlem are both intriguing and compelling. i think spinnaker may have kicked some booty in his recent purchase. and i can totally understand Ali's desire to put a wall or two occasionally between her and her husband. but are these values and do they need to be extrapolated? and do i have lesser family values because i choose to rent? absolutely not.

trembling, let me try again. Someone made a logical point using a simile and you missed it. In fact, you accused the poster of being exactly what he was condemning. So how can we debate anything with you? You are a moron. Leave the discussing to the smart kids.

I can't take anyone seriously who trots out "American family values". What does that even mean?

AR, sorry, I was also talking about dabulls comment, but for some reason I thought he was talking about american values, not american family values.

I disagree West34. Someone made a comment about supporting home ownership which is hardly a moralistic subject. Someone then made a "simile" about repugnant, immoral, actions like little girls getting abortions, slavery and violence. Home ownership may be something that isn't right for certain or a large group of people (heck, I'll even let you say it isn't right for anyone though I disagree) but there is no way to create a simile between immoral activities and another activity without implicating the other activity as potentially immoral. Perhaps you should reconsider your apologistic appeasement as it pertains to West 67ths statements and then next think about the depth of your critical thinking abilities before criticizing my intelligence.

trembling, numerous people seem to have gotten the intent of w67th's post. do you not get it, or is it that you don't wish to back down? he was VILIFYING racism, sexism, violence. "there is no way to create a simile between immoral activities and another activity without implicating the other activity as potentially immoral." wtf? nice try.

and no, dabulls said homeownership basically promotes family values. you haven't responded to the notion that perhaps that is more than a bit racist? and other ists?

I don't quite see home ownership as racist, or family values as racist. I'll think about it, but it seems as if there was some prior discussion on this topic pre-dating the original posting because Dabulls name is in the headline, and I am just not aware of that context that you may be familiar with.

And so maybe Dabulls will return and clarify, but I saw it as a real estate sales pitch, (though a pretty bad one, who is the target audience?. And if that is all it is, because really I never saw any racial words in the posting or mentions of white or black or minorities etc., then I have serious trouble equating home ownership with racism, sexism, abortion, violence. Yes, I get that w67 says that racism, sexism, hurting young girls are bad. But if you equate something not bad with something bad then you are minimizing the implications of what is bad. That is the problem, desensitizing the bad to further another agenda. Again, I am not aware of what discussions predated this posting.

here's the deal you moron...anything that west 67th st says or does is right...everything you say or do is wrong. very simple

trembling, just because someone doesn't come out and say this is assholic doesn't mean it is not. i don't give a rat's ass what the name is. you tell me that ownership is superior in a family-values sense i'll say racism and classism. and that may take some independent thought, but i'm up for it. how about women need to stay at home because it's better for the kids? is there any overt statement there? sexism?

and it is awful, telling people that they need to value themselves according to the possessions they might acquire. literally foul and a large part of our current problems. homelessness, unemployment, suicide, depression, divorce. these are all things appreciably increased by our country's "ownership society."

No need to say more.
Who else agrees with columbiacounty on this dictum?

Hmmmm, I'm sure w67th has said stuff I disagree with (as has everyone,) but can't think of any off-hand. You I don't know about. Don't like taking a binary approach. Doesn't bode well, though.

How on God's Green Earth does owning an apartment equal racism? Aboutready are you one of those Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda types?

that's what's great about SE...the posts flow in different directions..

debgovert, i guess you didn't read the analysis. ownership is apple pie and the american way and a way to support family values? you don't think that those who are unable to buy might not resent that characterization? and you don't think that minorities are more unable to buy generally, therefor dabulls commentary might have been racist?

but, of course, when you reduce it to the "owning an apartment equals racism" it sound different. but it the issue walks like a duck...

AR said the remark from dabulls "owning is part of the american family values" is racist. Understand now?

I'm going to bet Deb doesn't understand it still.
and tembling, I agree with CC on that dictum, and the same goes for AR.
I have yet to run into anything I disagree with, from AR to CC to West67th

and since none of them have called me out for my abusive name calling, I appreciate them even more.

hey...me too

aboutready you sound bitter.
My parents and my husbands parents were both of very modest means. Mine were immigrants, my husbands were the working poor. But my husband and I found each other as both coming from aspirational families. Neither could have imagined owning an apartment. We are white.
So you assume that black people are resentful, that suggesting owning is intended to keep minorities out because fewer minorities can own today. Hardly. The only racist belief is that minorities shouldn't try to advance or shouldn't try to make money, have the good life or own their own destiny.
I've encountered your type before, but your attitude does nothing for minorities and you'll never recognize it. Hopefully minorities will realize that the coddlers like you do nothing for their advancement. Minorities want the same that anyone else does in this country.

aboutready, you've been the promiment poster here, do you support columbiacounty's dictum or are you open minded?

looks like upperwestrenter got it precisely right. gotta get the pacing here before you chime in ... otherwise you just make yourself look foolish. oh well.

bitter, how so?

i am white. i am the first person in my family to graduate from high school. i graduated from Yale. and i don't assume that black people are resentful, you are the person to add the "black" comment. i am saying that implying that the american way necessitates home ownership is racist. and if you can't see that you're blind.

aboutready, you were talking about racism but when I say black people you act all surprised.
Nice try.

trembling, what do you think?

and many of us tend to go ballistic these days, you'd have to spend some time around here to know why. i sometimes go off the deep end, which doesn't make me proud. and cc isn't always as correct as he might be. but he's a good thread presence, and someone who's opinion i value. so just like in "real" life, i'll make allowances for those i care for.

debgovert, maybe that's because my point was that it wasn't merely racism, it was classism.

but good try.

oh, and where i was acting all surprised? do point that out. because it's not shining through. i didn't add the black element at all, racism is racism it doesn't differentiate between black or hispanic or whatever.

deb, what board are you reading?? Do us a favor and re-read this, carefully this time. Perhaps you have to read slower?
Give it another try, then wait before typing.
my folks taught me something, think before you speak

AR, ignore Deb, she's found her bone and won't let go.

Keep it up deb, I'm always looking for another whipping boy on this board.

Your Yale education might be enough for you to look down on and talk down about minorities, but it won't work with me.
You specifically said, "and you don't think that minorities are more unable to buy generally, therefor dabulls commentary might have been racist?"
And in fact, my original statement specifically and only addressed racism which is an absurd claim, "How on God's Green Earth does owning an apartment equal racism?"
Nothing about classism when I posted or in your responses to me, so good try to you for trying to go back on your prior position.

deb, i would love a world in which all people were equally capable of buying. and i mentioned classism at the very beginning.

to quote, "no dabulls was equating home ownership with a superior form of society. and that would be EXTREMELY classist, and racist as well because home ownership rates are lower among the minorities. if your home ownership rate is lower, do you have lesser family values?" about three hours ago.

sweets, if you want to swim with the sharks, maybe you should at least read the entries?

and in case my thoughts weren't clear, this is aimed at Deb...please help me understand your beef Deb

No need to rent or buy, you can still be homeless and connected on the internet, like most of the people posting here are

By PHRED DVORAK

SAN FRANCISCO -- Like most San Franciscans, Charles Pitts is wired. Mr. Pitts, who is 37 years old, has accounts on Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. He runs an Internet forum on Yahoo, reads news online and keeps in touch with friends via email. The tough part is managing this digital lifestyle from his residence under a highway bridge.

"You don't need a TV. You don't need a radio. You don't even need a newspaper," says Mr. Pitts, an aspiring poet in a purple cap and yellow fleece jacket, who says he has been homeless for two years. "But you need the Internet."

Mr. Pitts's experience shows how deeply computers and the Internet have permeated society. A few years ago, some people were worrying that a "digital divide" would separate technology haves and have-nots. The poorest lack the means to buy computers and Web access. Still, in America today, even people without street addresses feel compelled to have Internet addresses.
Homeless and Online

View Slideshow
[SB124362943678067395]
Brian L. Frank for The Wall Street Journal

Skip Schreiber goes online in his van, which is also his home, in San Francisco's Bayview district.

New York City has put 42 computers in five of the nine shelters it operates and plans to wire the other four this year. Roughly half of another 190 shelters in the city offer computer access. The executive director of a San Francisco nonprofit group, Central City Hospitality House, estimates that half the visitors to its new eight-computer drop-in center are homeless; demand for computer time is so great that users are limited to 30 minutes.

Shelter attendants say the number of laptop-toting overnight visitors, while small, is growing. SF Homeless, a two-year-old Internet forum, has 140 members. It posts schedules for public-housing meetings and news from similar groups in New Mexico, Arizona and Connecticut. And it has a blog with online polls about shelter life.

Cheap computers and free Internet access fuel the phenomenon. So does an increasingly computer-savvy population. Many job and housing applications must be submitted online. Some homeless advocates say the economic downturn is pushing more of the wired middle class on to the streets.

Aspiring computer programmer Paul Weston, 29, says his Macintosh PowerBook has been a "lifeboat" since he was laid off from his job as a hotel clerk in December and moved to a shelter. Sitting in a Whole Foods store with free wireless access, Mr. Weston searches for work and writes a computer program he hopes to sell eventually. He has emailed city officials to press for better shelter conditions.

Lisa Stringer, who runs a program that teaches job and computer skills to homeless and low-income residents, says some students who can't even read or write save money to buy computers at Goodwill. "It's really a symbol in today's society of being OK and connected," she says. She sometimes urges homeless students to put off buying laptops until their living situations stabilize.

Staying wired on the streets takes determination. Electricity and Internet access can be hard to come by. Threats, including rain and theft, are a problem.

Robert Livingston, 49, has carried his Asus netbook everywhere since losing his apartment in December. A meticulous man who spends some of his $59 monthly welfare check on haircuts, Mr. Livingston says he quit a security-guard job late last year, then couldn't find another when the economy tanked.

When he realized he would be homeless, Mr. Livingston bought a sturdy backpack to store his gear, a padlock for his footlocker at the shelter and a $25 annual premium Flickr account to display the digital photos he takes.

One recent morning, Mr. Livingston sat in a cafe that sometimes lets customers tap its wireless connection, and shows off his personal home page, featuring links for Chinese-language lessons.

Mr. Livingston says his computer helps him feel more connected and human. "It's frightening to be homeless," he says. "When I'm on here, I'm equal to everybody else."
[Charles Pitts]

Charles Pitts

For Skip Schreiber, 64, an amateur philosopher with wispy white hair who lives in a van, power is the biggest challenge to staying wired. Mr. Schreiber tended heating and ventilation systems before work-related stress and depression sidelined him around 15 years ago, he says.

For his 60th birthday, he dipped into his monthly disability check to buy a laptop, connected it to his car battery, and taught himself to use it. "I liked the concept of the Internet," says Mr. Schreiber, "this unlimited source of opinion and thought."

Mr. Schreiber later switched to a Mac because it uses less juice. He keeps the fan and wireless antenna off when possible and cools the laptop by putting it on a damp washcloth. He says that by using such tricks, he can keep the laptop battery going for 16 hours, if he avoids videos.

In the van, stacked with toolboxes, electric gear and bedding, Mr. Schreiber shows the contents of his laptop, including the complete California legal code and files on thinkers from Thomas Aquinas to the psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Mr. Schreiber says writings about human behavior and motivation help make sense of what has happened to him.

"No one creates themselves as a homeless person," he says. "We make the choices we can with what we're offered."

Michael Ross creates his own electricity, with a gas generator perched outside his yellow-and-blue tent. For a year, Mr. Ross has stood guard at a parking lot for construction equipment, under a deal with the owner. Mr. Ross figures he has been homeless for about 15 years, surviving on his Army pension.

Inside the tent, the taciturn 50-year-old has an HP laptop with a 17-inch screen and 320 gigabytes of data storage, as well as four extra hard drives that can hold another 1,000 gigabytes, the equivalent of 200 DVDs. Mr. Ross loves movies. He rents some from Netflix and Blockbuster online and downloads others over an Ethernet connection at the San Francisco public library.

One evening recently, Mr. Ross lay down on his sleeping bag and watched an X-Men cartoon on the laptop, listening through headphones over the roar of the generator. When he travels downtown, he takes all the gear with him for safekeeping. His backpack bulges with cords and bubble-wrapped electronic gadgets. Mr. Ross says he doesn't notice the weight.

Mr. Pitts, the poet who lives under a bridge, keeps a mental list of spots to charge batteries and go online, including a deserted corner of a downtown train station and wired cafes whose owners don't mind long stays and lots of bags.

When he was evicted from his apartment two years ago, Mr. Pitts says, "I thought: My existence and my life don't stop because I don't have a place to live."

He bought a Toshiba laptop. When it died, he bought a used Dell. Last month, that one expired, too, with a cracked screen. Now he checks email and posts to his Internet forum on homeless issues, from computers at libraries, college campuses and a laptop stashed behind the counter of a coffee shop by a friend.

Before the Dalai Lama visited a soup kitchen here a month ago, Mr. Pitts researched the Buddhist leader on Wikipedia and copied the text onto his iPod, to read in bed under the bridge. "I'm under my blanket, under a tarp, reading Dalai Lama this, Dalai Lama that," he says.

Mr. Pitts expects to soon scrape up the money for another computer. He figures he can get one for less than $200.

upperwestrenter...this forum is for everyone..not only people you agree with....

julia, where did i say it was for only people i agree with?
I think I asked deb to clarify what her beef is...correct?

And earlier I said I haven't disagreed with AR, W67 or CC...I did not say, "and everyone else should not bother posting"

So I'll give you a second to re-read and then let me know if you've decided to make an enemy of me

thanks

Point out the run on sentence upperwestrenter?

aboutready, again nice try, your conversation with me cited racism, not classism.

I suspect with upperwestrenter he's just a jerk, not much brains.
I suspect with you, you are a ultraliberal Jane Fonda type, but you are smart enough that you are trying to use diversion and other tricks with me. It isn't working, but I give you credit for having a good brain.

jane fonda type? you mean smart, rich and sexy? that's a compliment in my book.

Julia, i don't think upperwest was trying for limiting involvement. have a good read about the racism issue. kind of harsh. still looking for your one bedroom, and now i think you should stay put in the rental one more year and go for the jr4. we can do it!!! yes we can!!

desalee, i saw that article earlier today. being who i am i couldn't quite decide whether to cry over their plight, or cheer for their dexterity. for many discussed in this article, i think the latter is ok. but it was striking how many of the interviewees were among the long-time homeless. i really don't think we want to deal with the issue generally.

Oddly, DeSalee, that is an excellent example against aboutready's classism. Even the homeless can and do aspire to more and they aren't looking for aboutready's handouts and sympathies that get them nowhere.

"Nothing about classism when I posted or in your responses to me, so good try to you for trying to go back on your prior position."

But my main point was to clarify your issue with AR...but I'll let that go

Deb, I suspect you're a stubborn bitch with a chip on your shoulder, but hey, nothing wrong with that!
Keep it up, I'm enjoying myself

so...deb, i assume we can safely assume that you are not a jane fonda type? what type would that make you?

upperwestrenter, you are too inconsequential for me to spend much time thinking about. At least aboutready has a real point of view on something and a brain. Not that she'll ever get why she's belittling people, but at least her heart is in the right place.

Jane Fonda type is an anti-American, pro-Communist traitor. I don't have to be much to at least not be that.

deb...perhaps you meant any time....a little problem with language? so...now AR has graduated to having a brain (perhaps in the wrong place?) but a heart that is in the right place? where, pray tell, is her brain located then?

and Deb, one more thing, in AR's very first posts about dabulls comments, she refers to racism AND classism, and she didn't have a conversation with you, so much as you went after her, most likely because of the chip on your shoulder, i previously referenced.

I may be a jerk, but at least I take the time to read the posts before deciding to go on the attack