General

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:46:51 GMT

You are cute. Since the link to my post is only two posts up, I'll wait a bit before reposting it. You let me know when you are ready to debate.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

John James — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:45:32 GMT

lol. So you claim I'm wrong about some unnamed point, that I don't understand the Internet...I ask what it is I allegedly got wrong, and the ball is somehow in my court.

Perhaps a course in logic? I'm pretty sure the onus is on you to actually support your assertions. But of course it's painfully obvious by now that you won't. Because you obviously can't. Because you made it up. You (admittedly) didn't know what you were talking about, and tried to tell me that it was I who was confused.

So now to try and save face you're going to pretend as if there is some onus on me, and that way when I don't dance for you, it means you "win". Perhaps lykos should have been taking lessons from you.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:40:45 GMT

Nope, just this one post I keep referring you to. Anybody can read the thread and see that you have yet to actually restate what I said there. Twice I said I would not engage you further on this conversation, but I'm willing to do that if you can restate what I said so that I know that you even read that post. That you keep not doing that signals to me that you haven't read it nor that you care to. And I don't care to keep typing out the same thing over and over again, so I will just keep pointing you there until you restate it.

The ball is in your court.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

John James — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:38:20 GMT

gotlucky:
There's no need when you have yet to actually attempt to refute my argument.

Wha? You have essentially asserted that there is something I don't understand about the Internet, or that I have gotten something wrong. All I asked was a specific explication of what that is. And you can't give it. If I'm so wrong, tell us all why.

Oh wait. Lemme guess. "It's all here in the thread, man. Anyone can read it."

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:36:14 GMT

And Clayton was referring to this list that you apparently didn't read. Even ICANN doesn't control all the current offical root servers.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:35:13 GMT

There's no need when you have yet to actually attempt to refute my argument.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

John James — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:34:35 GMT

And you still refuse to back up your bare assertions and demonstrate what I have wrong. Gee, I wonder why.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:33:14 GMT

Yet you still refuse to restate my argument.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

John James — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:32:48 GMT

gotlucky:
So instead of restating what I said in this post, you decided to do everything but that. It's fascinating, because I really think you would expend less energy doing that then trying to dodge the issue.

Nice projection! All I've ever asked is for you to actually back up your assertions and demonstrate what I have wrong, yet "instead of doing that", you decide to keep dancing around and pretend there is some onus on me to explain your own posts to you. Gee, I wonder why.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:30:05 GMT

So instead of restating what I said in this post, you decided to do everything but that. It's fascinating, because I really think you would expend less energy doing that then trying to dodge the issue.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

John James — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 03:47:52 GMT

gotlucky:
what's incredibly obvious is that my position has been refined as I did more research.

lol is that what that is. You mean you realized you didn't know what you were talking about, and that your claims didn't actually agree with the posititon you were taking so you finally realized you needed to shift away and stop spouting them and instead start spouting new things that contradict the things you were orginially saying.

I have to assume this is also why you have been so apprehensive to actually address anything I've actually said, out of fear you might say something else that disagrees with your position (that you are evidently so intellectually shaky on), so instead you just elect to use an easy analogy to explain DNS, and then assert that it debunks everything/ or even anything I or Stephan Kinsella has said.

And then anytime I specifically ask you to actually demonstrate or even just point out what specifically I or Kinsella have said that is incorrect, you just resort back to a simple "hey it's all here in the thread man. Anyone can read it."

It's quite obvious it is you who has little understanding and/or a severely lacking grasp of the concepts being discussed here, so you've simply (and wisely) decided to stop putting your foot in your mouth and resorted simply playing the role of sidekick troll. (While projecting your own lack of understanding of the situation onto me, of course.)

I honestly wouldn't even be surprised if you ran off to Clayton or your old lady lykos in private to get some much needed moral support for your bruised ego. "Hey Auto, have you been in the forum lately? JJ's at it again. Have a look at this thread. Man is he wrong or what?!" "Hey Clayton, what do you think JJ's problem is? Is he just crazy or dumb?"

[translation: "Please help me feel better. Tell me I'm right, or at least that my opponent is wrong and stupid. I need to hear it right now."]

I hope they were able to give you the comfort you needed, Lucky, I really do.

Some of my earlier statements are inaccurate, but that doesn't matter.

Oh of course not.

So, what you do is hone in on older, incorrect statements instead of reading my updated arguments.

How the hell was I supposed to know you all of a sudden became an Internet expert in page and a half of thread posts? You make it sound like I went and dug up some obscure pamphlet you authored 35 years ago and used it claim you were a neocon. This was probably less than half a dozen posts of yours ago. In fact you were still defending your ownship of roads crap on the very second post of this page (right before you wised up and started to say less and switched to responding with simple "lol"s). It's not exactly unfathomable that you would un-realizingly contradict yourself. I mean, you did put forth some pretty ridiculous claims in the first place...is it so out of the question that someone who came up with that parade analogy would say something that conflicted with something else he said, without realizing it? Gotta play the odds here.

gotlucky:
What you could do is actually restate, in your own words, what my arguments were in that post I linked to. You have yet to actually demonstrate that you even read that post.

I could say virtually the exact same thing to you. You have done nothing to demonstrate what it is I have said that is wrong, you have done nothing to refute virtually anything I've said. All you've done is make assertions and then claim "the proof is in the thread, man. Anyone can read it."

tl;dr:

Again, if you could actually demonstrate what is wrong about anything I've said, you would have happily done so already. But obviously you can't, so you haven't. But you can't leave it at that either, and simply bow out once you recognized you didn't know what you were talking about. That would be "letting the other guy win...get the best of you". Can't let that happen. Then the bully wins! Can't show any weakness!" It may be wise to find a new friend. I think your current one is rubbing off on you.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:28:11 GMT

[split from Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com]

JJ, what's incredibly obvious is that my position has been refined as I did more research. What's also incredibly obvious is that while people like Marko and Graham were able to understand this (even if they were swayed by Clayton instead), you cannot see this. Some of my earlier statements are inaccurate, but that doesn't matter. What matters are the refined statements from my increased understanding.

So, what you do is hone in on older, incorrect statements instead of reading my updated arguments. I don't know if you do this because you don't see that my arguments have changed slightly, or if you do this because you are determined to be correct without understanding what others are actually saying.

What you could do is actually restate, in your own words, what my arguments were in that post I linked to. You have yet to actually demonstrate that you even read that post.

Re: What's wrong with the mainstream media?

mustang19 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 06:04:09 GMT

Where is the mention of the increase? All I saw was reports of "climate events".

If you didn't read the page or the "Key trend" columns, I can't help you.

Oh does it? Then why do people like you allege we haven't seen such a thing?

Did I allege that we haven't seen increases in inflation due to QE? Nope. Just that there are other factors which could have played an even larger part in commodities.

...didn't you just tell me that all prices tend to rise when you increase the money supply? Which is it?

Not "all". I don't how much affect QE had on commidities, but other factors were at least as important.

Re: What's wrong with the mainstream media?

John James — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:29:56 GMT

mustang19:
The part where it went into how weather was a "huge" factor, in its own words, and listed the various climate events.

And? I don't think I ever heard anyone make the claim that "climate events" don't happen.

Hey, ignore empirical evidence. If you want to know whether climate events are increasing, there's the sources I gave. If you think the IPCC is a conspiracy full of Jew lies, well, great.

Not necessarily Jews, but plenty of bureaucrats and lobbiests for sure. Do you even know who most of those people are? Plenty of chapters of the IPCC don't include a single scientist.

And apparently your defintion of "empirical evidence" is different than mine. See I don't consider "'speculation' lifted from a popular magazine", "climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine", and weather data from monitoring stations that don't even exist, to be "empirical evidence."

Evidently, you and the IPCC do. (Indeed, it's included in their papers as part of the basis for their assertions.)

The point is the increase.

Where is the mention of the increase? All I saw was reports of "climate events".

Yes, which tends to happen when you print money.

Oh does it? Then why do people like you allege we haven't seen such a thing?

mustang19:
What evidence? You've presented links to random papers that have almost no relevance to your claims, and articles that are either from discredited sources or don't support your statements at all.
At all? Sure. Okay. Moving on.

lol. Can't actually provide real support for your actual claims can you.

I'm actually a little surprised you thought just linking to a bunch of random stuff would fool anyone here, but then again, like I've said, I'm beginning to realize I probably mistook what is quite possibly sheer ignorance and ineptitude for actual trolling the whole time you've been here.

Because it was a convenient way to show that commodity prices fell after positive (inflationary) monetary shock announcements like QE.

...didn't you just tell me that all prices tend to rise when you increase the money supply? Which is it?

Re: What's wrong with the mainstream media?

mustang19 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 05:08:41 GMT

While we're on this, I don't mean to advocate QE. It might have been great for the US but it trashed a lot of emerging economies. I was just amused by Schiff's way of dismissing worsening harvest conditions as "oh, droughts happen all the time."