Slandering Hans-Hermann Hoppe

liberty student replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 11:18 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

I. Ryan:

Good luck.

Thanks.  That really means a lot to me.

The Rev replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 11:19 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Triple H is actually one of my favorite wrestlers.

Puts the smack down on Keynesians and Real Bills Doctrinairians alike!!!

The Rev

liberty student replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 11:24 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Rooster:

Wrong again, I've read enough from Giles to disagree with your assessment.

That's fine.  Then you're not in the everybody, of course you weren't in the everybody to begin with.

As an aside, you weren't even registered for most of the period I am referring to, but perhaps you were reading and lurking then, hmm?

Rooster:

Now if "everybody" means "everybody that agrees with you" then yes, your fact is correct, and is an excellent use of logic.

I mean everyone who has been active here since Giles arrived.  And yes, there are probably a few people who disagree.  Which means "everyone/everybody" is technically incorrect.  But I really don't care, because I don't think many reasonable posters here would believe that I think I can speak for every single person absolutely.

Now if you don't mind, I think I have indulged you enough seeing as how you added nothing to the discussion about Giles or Hoppe, except to prove that you don't know what I am talking about, which makes your semantic arguments seem small.

Oh, if only I had written "nearly everyone". *sigh*  How will I bear my now infamous standing among my peers [sic]

Rooster replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 11:39 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

liberty student:

I mean everyone who has been active here since Giles arrived.  And yes, there are probably a few people who disagree.  Which means "everyone/everybody" is technically incorrect.  But I really don't care, because I don't think many reasonable posters here would believe that I think I can speak for every single person absolutely.

Now if you don't mind, I think I have indulged you enough seeing as how you added nothing to the discussion about Giles or Hoppe, except to prove that you don't know what I am talking about, which makes your semantic arguments seem small.

Oh, if only I had written "nearly everyone". *sigh*  How will I bear my now infamous standing among my peers [sic]

Sorry, after you had redefined socialism I said I wouldn't interfere with your vocabulary revolution. And now I am interfering with your substantive contributions in this thread. Carry on.

liberty student replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 11:42 AM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Rooster:

Carry on.

Thanks for your permission.  I was hoping you would grant it.

Rooster:

Sorry, after you had redefined socialism I said I wouldn't interfere with your vocabulary revolution.

This is incorrect.  I did not redefine socialism.  You're welcome to start a new discussion on this and I'll engage you, but I think you've thread jacked enough for one day, yes?

Jon Irenicus replied on Sat, Aug 22 2009 4:32 PM | Locked

rated by 0 users

Enough of this boonless topic. This is the last time one of these threads will resolve into personal drama, or else I will revoke any moderation privileges of anyone involved and ban anyone else causing these threads to derail.