@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
1. There was no link of any kind in the posts of Thomas to which I was replying. You are simply wrong on that point.
But, I didn't say he provided a link. I said he provided a SOURCE. Which he did. So it's fair to say that I was, in fact, correct.
Accuracy matters... you should respond to what people say, and not what you THINK they said.
Quote:2. One can find almost anything on the internet, and I don't think that links to obviously biased sources "proves" anything - no matter who does it.
The words 'obviously biased' totally screw that sentence up for you. I mean, you were
almost able to make it through with a perfectly valid comment, but had to go and blow it there at the end. Because - as I'm sure you don't need me to tell you - character assassination on your part doesn't change or challenge factual arguments on their part.
I could simply refer to you as 'obviously biased' and discount every single thing you say, without bothering to engage or respond to any of it, all while constantly insulting and demeaning you; would you consider that to be a valid way to treat what you have to say? To contribute? I doubt it. So why do you so cavalierly do so to others?
A lot of my links are to the
National Review, by the way. I agree that they have an obvious bias, but that doesn't stop them from being correct a lot of the time. Can you not display similar equanimity?
Quote:3. I have lived a long time and done many things that do indeed often leave me with some implied credit - whether deserved or undeserverd is another question. In contrast you are rather young and have far less experience or the credit (deserved or undeserved) that often goes with it. I haven't raised these points because I haven't ever thought they added anything significant to the conversation. However now that you have done so we should also considfer your relative ignorasnce and inexperience.
Allow me to educate you on something: on the internet, in the virtual realm of thought and idea exchange, your previous experience and the things you have or haven't done or said in real life mean
absolutely nothing. They are for the most part immaterial, and when they are not, they are unverifiable. You cannot rely upon such an inflated view of your own importance to create or carry arguments for you, because none of that matters one whit to anyone here - in terms of whether or not your political and economic arguments are convincing to those who read them.
And you should expect to be challenged and questioned on them. Do you think that you are a wise sage, who gets a free pass on such things? I assure you that your constant tendency to state things that are perfectly and completely false - not matters of opinion, but factual falsehoods - gave the lie to that concept long ago.
In terms of discussions of policy, politics and economics on the internet, I think it's fair to say that I have
far more experience than you do. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell you what the right way to steer a naval ship would be, because I haven't the foggiest clue about that. However, you seem to feel that your real-life experiences do indeed give you authority in areas totally unconnected to them, and that's a complete mistake.
Try it, as a thought experiment, if nothing else: pretend that you actually had to prove things to others, if you wanted them to believe what you said was true, instead of simply living by assertion. I think you would quickly find the quality of your argumentation (and the results) would improve tremendously.
Cycloptichorn
