Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!qantel!lll-lcc!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Poor People
Message-ID: <1096@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 15:03:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: kontron.1096
Posted: Mon Sep 29 15:03:03 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Oct-86 02:09:53 EDT
References: <910@gilbbs.UUCP> <975@hou2g.UUCP> <1033@gilbbs.UUCP> <1085@kontron.UUCP> <1041@gilbbs.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 140

> In article <1085@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >In article <1033@gilbbs.UUCP> (Thomas J. Keller) writes:
> > [much irrelevent text deleted to save space - tjk]
> > >    Face it.  "Libertarian" is a synonym for "cynical, self-righteous, self-
> > >    satisfied, self-centered greedy bastard".
> > > 
> > > tom keller					"She's alive, ALIVE!"
> > 
> > Tom is still upset because I suggested that the reason he can't find a
> > job he's willing to take is because he won't live Sonoma County.  Of
> > course, he's collecting disability, but trying to get a job.  If he's
> > disabled, he can't work.  And if he can work, he shouldn't be collecting
> > disability.  Everyone now understand why Tom is so concerned that everyone
> > be sympathetic to those who can work and don't want to?
> 
>    Cramer, *HOW DARE YOU*?????   I corresponded with you private and attempted
> to explain my situation to you.  Had I wished to discuss the matter with the
> entire net, I would have posted to the net.  You had absolutely *NO* right to
> bring my personal comments to you into the public arena!
> 

You want our sympathy.  You want our money.  What you say in any context
is relevant.

>    Compounding the issue is the sleazy manner in which you take what I told
> you out of context, *AND* mis-represent most of what I said as well.  I am
> not going to bore the net with the details of my personal problems, as I
> am sure most of these filk aren't interested.  I do wish to clear up one
> issue, however:
> 
>    I am officially certified as disabled, for reasons that are none of your
> business.  I collect SSI disability benefits as a result of this certification.

Of course it's not any of our business.  We might be able to judge whether
you are disabled, or just plain lazy.

> While people with your limited intellectual capabilities may not be able to
> comprehend such an issue, the SSI regulations recognize that there is much
> positive benefit for both the recipient *AND* the government in encouraging
> recipients to attempt "Working in Spite of Your Disability" (quotation from
> SSI brochure on program of same name).  Thus, recipients are permitted to
> work for a certain length of time as an experiment, to see if they can cope
> with the problems of working despite their disabilities, without losing
> eligibility for disability benefits.
> 
>    I have held one job under that program.  It didn't work out (again, the
> reasons are none of your business).  I want very much to try another time.

Why didn't it work out?  Physical disability?  That would be a very valid
reason.  Or is it your incredible temper tantrums (which the net gets to
see a lot of) makes it impossible for you to hold a job?

> I would *LIKE* to earn my own keep, as much for pride sake as to improve my
> living conditions.  Fortunately, the SSI administration is willing to encourage
> my search.  Unlike insensitive, narrow minded jackass 'libertarians', many
> people realize that a disabled person may not be able to re-locate for a
> job (particularly an entry-level job in a strange area), and that many jobs
> are simply not viable for such people.  Thus disabled persons are not placed
> in a "take *ANY* job that comes along, regardless of location, nature or
> pay scale" situation.
> 

Especially, "pay scale".  You told me you were offered a job programming in
CP/M for $800/month.  That sounds very low -- but maybe that's all your
experience is worth.

>    Cramer, I specifically pointed out to you 3 reasons why I could *NOT*
> relocate to the Silicon Valley area.  You conveniently ignored all 3, and
> mis-represented my position as "won't" relocate.  As you are *NOT* an MD nor
> a licensed psychotherapist, I do not consider you qualified to judge the
> merits of my reaons.  Furthermore, you blatantly imply that I am defrauding

Of course.  Let's not discuss the merits of your reasons.  We could judge
for ourselves then.

> the government by accepting disability benefits, despite the fact that you 
> are completely unfamiliar with the regulations or rationale behind the
> disability system, and thouroughly unaware of the nature and scope of my
> particular disabilities (for the record, the things I did discuss with you
> didn't cover half of the problems).
> 
Or maybe you are defrauding a potential employer when you assert that you
want a job, and are capable of doing a job.  Are you disabled?  It's 
possible -- but you have been complaining about having to move and how
much you hate Santa Clara County -- this sounds like a matter of choice,
not a matter of disability.

>    Finally, through innuendo, you imply that I am not working because I have
> chosen not to.  Much as I never thought I would say something like this, 
> Cramer, I sincerely hope that someone comes along to injure you along the
> lines of my injuries, such that you cannot work.  I would dearly love to see
> you squirm.
> 

Oh?  So "you cannot work"?  Then why are bitching and moaning in net.jobs
that you can't find a job?  Maybe you are legitimately disabled, and most
employers are unable to accommodate your disability.  That's unfortunate.
But it's hardly an indication that employers are peculiar for not giving
you the kind of job you want.

>    I wish to point out to all readers that my comments about 'libertarians' are
> gross generalizations, which I have held since long before I became disabled
> and unemployed.  My comments and views regarding 'libertarians' have
> absolutely *NOTHING* to do with Mr. Cramer, or anything he has said to or about
> me, or about poor people in general.  I would note that his sensitivity to
> my comments is, for me, indicative that I have struck a nerve, and further that
> in my opinion, Mr. Cramer does in fact personify most of what I consider to
> be reprehensible and unsavory about 'libertarians'.
> 

Your temper tantrums on the net in the past have indicated a serious
emotional disturbance.  In the past, I have made sincere, genuine attempts
to be of help.  You explained several months back in e-mail that you were
having trouble finding a job.  I made several useful suggestions, and the
responses were all excuses why you couldn't.  I'm tired of your bitching
and moaning about things you either CAN'T change, or WON'T change.

>    In closing, let me explain why I made this posting, in light of my recent
> announcement of temporary retirement from net participation.  A friend
> wrote me a letter and pointed out Mr. Cramer's article to me, so I read it.
> After many hours of deliberation (and, frankly, a lot of cussing, fuming and
> screaming...my poor housemate had to take her daughter and leave the house for
> two hours), I finally determined that I had to make this posting.  My

I see why you can't hold a job.  Someone says something you don't like
and fly off the handle so badly that the people you live with have to leave?
If anyone was considering hiring you before, seeing BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION
what a childish temper you have should have stopped them from considering
it.

> retirement still stands, though I will monitor this newsgroup for a short
> while to see what, if any, excuses Mr. Cramer can make for his irresponsible,
> unethical and highly offensive behaviour.
> 
> tom keller					"She's alive, ALIVE!"

I think it's time for you to look for psychological help.  I'm just amazed
how irrational you can be.

Clayton E. Cramer