Magox Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 1. Don't get caught up in the "abrasive" characterization. I told you, I enjoy it. Dispassionate people end up being the best to debate with. 2. Characterizing someone a certain way, then substantiating your characterization with your own opinion, effectively transitions what could be objective fact, into a perjorative. Your "ill-informed" and "sorely lacking" commentary is then followed by an opinion of why you think that is the case. You're claims are meritless. Baseless. Without standing. But they're cute. Factually, you are wrong about the WH's stance on Mitt Romney. You can say otherwise until you're [insert color here] in the face. You're simply incorrect. And if I didn't know first hand that you're incorrect (which I do), what you use to substantiate your thesis demonstrates even further that you're incorrect. I've stated twice now that the polls, and "independent this, independent that," et cetera language that you use as "subtantiation" is problematic...and why. You respond with another declarative and then an ad hominem (please see the discussion above as to why your statements are classified that was). Therefore: Your entire post is a red herring and argumentum ad populum. You haven't addressed my point in either of my previous posts concerning the fallacy in your reasoning. Your posts follow this formula, described presently: Pronoun, declarative statment (no support), declarative statement (no support), ad hominem, logical fallacy, conclusion. Then you anxiously await a cogent response to it. And I'm still watching you behave in this way. 2. Thank you for providing your opinion by answering my two questions. Unfortunately, you ignored the entire rest of that post. I read your post twice, and though I respect the points that you raise and your opinion on the phenomena, I don't agree with you and I'll renew my points. Res ipsa loquitur. So I see you are taking the "Na Na Ni boo boo, I can't hear you" approach.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Holy Christ. This is why I usually limit myself to "you're an idiot". It's completely accurate, and so much easier than trying to squeze water from some of you stones.
3rdnlng Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Much respect for your even-handedness. I didn't vote for the current administration. I found Ron Paul to be refreshing and politically sensible so that's where my support was. Even did the "write-in" thing because I thought McCain was unsatisfactory as well. This year, not so sure. My brother is a speech-writer (therefore between him and his colleagues, I have a nice ear to what's going on in the WH politically - but of course that's no match for a Quinnipiac poll and declarative statements - ). I'm an LA on the Hill. My perspective has changed for those reasons...but I still call a spade a spade. I'm definitely more independent that I once was. I used to look at things very matter-of-factly and without contours or nuance (like some here). I've realized that I was missing things as a result. So I'll debate the other side and debate for sides that I traditionally don't agree with - because I'm trying to appreciate nuance. For what it's worth. Not going to "the link." I've lurked here for three years. I remember Scooby's BMW, the board crash, NeverGiveUp coming and going, Tim Graham and that fiasco, Owen Schmitt needing to be the choice in the second or third round because he would be the best thing since Carwell Gardner, etc. I also have seen how people have substituted that link as legitimate links to news reports, stats and info, etc. I'm the newbie...but I did my reconnaissance. Aw shucks, that was just a welcome to the board kind of thing. If you've been lurking for 3 years then you've wasted some people's time trying to help you with the "lay of the land". For that you truly are an assmudgeon.
Magox Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Holy Christ. This is why I usually limit myself to "you're an idiot". It's completely accurate, and so much easier than trying to squeze water from some of you stones. Oh Please, You're just jealous You aren't in the middle of this cluster!@#$
3rdnlng Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Holy Christ. This is why I usually limit myself to "you're an idiot". It's completely accurate, and so much easier than trying to squeze water from some of you stones. Well, at least you got the "e" out.
DC Tom Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Oh Please, You're just jealous You aren't in the middle of this cluster!@#$ I'm hardly ignorant on markets and finance. But when you get going, even I know enough to shut up and learn.
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I've lurked here for three years. I remember Scooby's BMW, the board crash, NeverGiveUp coming and going, Tim Graham and that fiasco, Owen Schmitt needing to be the choice in the second or third round because he would be the best thing since Carwell Gardner, etc. I also have seen how people have substituted that link as legitimate links to news reports, stats and info, etc. I'm the newbie...but I did my reconnaissance. No you've lurked there for three years. You have not wandered over here. You mention nothing of conversations from here you remember. And can I be the first here to tell you..... Just shut the !@#$ up alreay!! Cute enough for you?
Juror#8 Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 So I see you are taking the "Na Na Ni boo boo, I can't hear you" approach. Is that how characterize calling you out for your platitudes, non-speak, and your otherwise skillfully avoiding my points addressed to you? Or is that how you characterize me indicating that I respect your points on oil-markets, but disagree with you for the reasons that I enumerated in two or three posts?
Magox Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 This is the real America. Yes, and there is no place for you here.
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Yes, and there is no place for you here. I'm still trying to figure out why he's still hanging around. I thought he'd have headed to the safety of France a long time ago.
Magox Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Is that how characterize calling you out for your platitudes, non-speak, and your otherwise skillfully avoiding my points addressed to you? Or is that how you characterize me indicating that I respect your points on oil-markets, but disagree with you for the reasons that I enumerated in two or three posts? Excuse me for saying this, but every time I read one of your posts I can't help but think of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyLwXhqlWU
Adam Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) Yes, and there is no place for you here. Actually, there is, since I have lost 36 lbs! I'm still trying to figure out why he's still hanging around. I thought he'd have headed to the safety of France a long time ago. While "Love it or leave it" sounds all well and good, the response "no" shuts that down quite nicely. I do like it here, but not pointing out flaws is 100% unpatriotic. Everything has been dumbed down to republican and democrat. Neither sheeple party serves the country, just themselves. Edited October 13, 2011 by Adam
Magox Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 Actually, there is, since I have lost 36 lbs! While "Love it or leave it" sounds all well and good, the response "no" shuts that down quite nicely. I do like it here, but not pointing out flaws is 100% unpatriotic. Everything has been dumbed down to republican and democrat. Neither sheeple party serves the country, just themselves. You could be given four legs and you still wouldn't be able to make a stand.
3rdnlng Posted October 13, 2011 Author Posted October 13, 2011 Let's give Juror Number 8 a chance to prove his assertion that he has lurked here for 3 years and ask him some questions that he can't easily find the answer to. I'll start off with a few: 1. Who is Hedd's romantic interest? 2. Who has taken the place of a poster (who is no longer a member) as the stupidest person on this board? What city does he live in? Name the former member. 3. What was Pasta Joe's previous avatar? You could be given four legs and you still wouldn't be able to make a stand. Quit picking on old "Yesbut".
Juror#8 Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 No you've lurked there for three years. You have not wandered over here. You mention nothing of conversations from here you remember. And can I be the first here to tell you..... Just shut the !@#$ up alreay!! Cute enough for you? 1. I've lurked on this board - always in the main forum though. 2. Your spelling is pathetic; that's unacceptable for as few words as you used. 3. Can I call you "cupcake"? That's cute, and it's consistent with your pretty name and cheerful personality. 4. Good afternoon. Excuse me for saying this, but every time I read one of your posts I can't help but think of youtube.com/watch?v=eUyLwXhqlWU Didn't watch it. But I'll give you an "A" for effort.
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 1. I've lurked on this board - always in the main forum though. 2. Your spelling is pathetic; that's unacceptable for as few words as you used. 3. Can I call you "cupcake"? That's cute, and it's consistent with your pretty name and cheerful personality. 4. Good afternoon. Then you have not lurked "here". "Here" is a very different place. I missed one letter and my spelling is pathetic? And it's unacceptable? What are you, my fifth grade teacher? You can call me whatever blows your skirt up. Have at it.
Juror#8 Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) What is your take on the CRA of the Carter years and its subsequent expansion during the Clinton years? Do you believe that without the act there would have been no bubble to burst in the housing market? I'll admit to not being that familiar. I do know that the Act was calculated to help impoverished families secure credit for mortgages. I don't believe that it mandated bad or risky lending practices, rather it was a way to faciliate home-ownership in lower income communities and amongst those who may not otherwise consider owning a home in order to avoid a protracted or near-adversarial application process. Generally, I'm not enthusiastic about making a private company alter business practices to accommodate the under-represented. There are certain instances where I can understand the impetus (See: Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US) and certain select cases. Outside of that though, not really that thrilled about government involvement purely private commercial matters. I hope that I'm referencing the correct "CRA." That is the only one that I'm familiar with and, admittedly, I don't know it that well. Then you have not lurked "here". "Here" is a very different place. I missed one letter and my spelling is pathetic? And it's unacceptable? What are you, my fifth grade teacher? You can call me whatever blows your skirt up. Have at it. Thank you cupcake. How about you scoot that period within those quotations? As your teacher, I'm preparing you for "life." I wouldn't want you to not be successful securing that culinary gig at McDonalds, IHOP, or whatever you aspire to, just because of a little oversight with your punctuation. Carry on Chef Cupcake. Edited October 13, 2011 by Juror#8
Chef Jim Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 I'll admit to not being that familiar. I do know that the Act was calculated to help impoverished families secure credit for mortgages. I don't believe that it mandated bad or risky lending practices, rather it was a way to faciliate home-ownership in lower income communities and amongst those who may not otherwise consider owning a home in order to avoid a protracted or near-adversarial application process. Generally, I'm not enthusiastic about making a private company alter business practices to accommodate the under-represented. There are certain instances where I can understand the impetus (See: Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. US) and certain select cases. Outside of that though, not really that thrilled about government involvement purely private commercial matters. I hope that I'm referencing the correct "CRA." That is the only one that I'm familiar with and, admittedly, I don't know it that well. Thank you cupcake. How about you scoot that period within those quotations? As your teacher, I'm preparing you for "life." I wouldn't want you to not be successful securing that culinary gig at McDonalds, IHOP, or whatever you aspire to, just because of a little oversight with your punctuation. Carry on Chef Cupcake. I bet you really feel like a fool now don't you.
/dev/null Posted October 13, 2011 Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) 3. Can I call you "cupcake"? That's cute, and it's consistent with your pretty name and cheerful personality. No, but he can call you Betty. And Betty when he calls you, you can call him Al Edited October 13, 2011 by /dev/null
Recommended Posts