Deinonychus antirrhopus

Not to mention that, first, it was 100%!! Something that was trumpeted by Saddam, and repeated, often w/ no caveat, by our own media. (Remember what the head of CNN admitted?)

Second, that maybe, just maybe, there is a difference between a police state watching who you vote for, and what we're trying to create over there.

I post there some times and generally like the board, but I will admit there are a few nutjobs that post, as well as some people who are so partisan as to forget basic human decency. The same goes for boards like DU that lean to the right. As much as I don't like Bush or most people involved in his administration, or most of what they have done, I try to never stoop to such a level.

Brian wrote:
As much as I don't like Bush or most people involved in his administration, or most of what they have done, I try to never stoop to such a level.

I felt the same way regarding CLinton. He was sleazy, but he did do some things right and I was willing to give him credit when he did. It seems that some of the ardent Bush-haters, who are legion at the DU, are consumed with pathological hatred. Unfortunately places like DU allow its participants to reinforce each others' hatred.

Warning: Don't spend too much time over there. You have to come up for positive air at least every hour or so.

I think you're taking it too far, DaveL.

Dave's taking it too far? That's hilarious. Dave's being kind. DU is populated by loons.

Thanks for keeping inflammatory comments out of this discussion, Robin.

Thanks for the post today Dave, I was out of the office all day and when I got home, had to cook dinner. I thought the posting streak of at least one post a day this month was going to be broken.

Ah, Brian, your "Steve is an idiot" personality was more interesting.

Brian there is a very large contingent at DU that I find quite distasteful. They tend to rule that roost.

Seriously, got there and start making some pro-market arguments sometime and watch how fast you get your ass banned.

Robin, as I explained, that wasn't me. I think it was a friend who was screwing with me when I went down the hall and left this window open.

Steve, I don't think people are anti-market. There are a few extremists, to use a new term, there, but they don't constitute the majority.

Correction: "I don't think those people are anti-market.

Correction: "I don't think those people are anti-market."

Brian,

My students give me better excuses. And DU is anti-market by the actions of its administrators.

Well, to be honest, Robin, I'm not sure exactly what happened. But what I described above is my best guess, as there are people in and out of my room all day.

Now, what administrative actions are you talking about?

Brian,

Find out, go make pro-market posts. You'll see.

Brian,

You say you're not "Steve is an idiot." Which means some person just happens to come into your room, sees this window open, and proceeds, over SEVERAL DIFFERENT POSTINGS to post this REPEATEDLY.

Well, IF that were true, it'd be very simple for you to disprove, as I've said before. You say, just as "Steve is an idiot" does, that Steve is wrong. But SIAI refuses to indicate where Steve is wrong.

You have the opportunity, posting as Brian, to say, "Steve, this is where you are wrong. Your argument about X is wrong because...."

You refuse to do this, instead saying inane things like "It's better if Steve figures it out for himself." Well, I'm not Steve, and I don't know where he's wrong, so WHY DON'T YOU TELL ME?

Otherwise, why should we believe this incredibly lame idea that some other person is going to come into your room and write messages on SOMEBODY ELSE's BLOG?

Well, since that's happened, I haven't left these windows open when I'm not here. I've been careful about that.

As for where your wrong, take a look at one your longwinded responses to one of Krugman's pieces, where you take one paragraph and try to nail him for something but fail.

As for where your wrong, take a look at one your longwinded responses to one of Krugman's pieces, where you take one paragraph and try to nail him for something but fail.

Such as....?

You know you can post a link to posts I make. Click on the time of the post and it'll take your to a page and the address bar in your browser will have the address to that specfic post.

Brian,

This will be my last response to you, at least in this persona, because you are a liar.

Why? Simple.

You claim that you left your window open, and some person came in and posted at Steve's blog as SIAI.

I MIGHT buy that if it occurred once. But it occurred, over at least three postings, over 6 days, at various hours. Sorry, but that doesn't fit your own description of what happened.

Or need I remind you: "I think it was a friend who was screwing with me when I went down the hall and left this window open."

Second, I won't respond because you're an idiot. And that's not ad hominem, that's simple truth. I AM NOT STEVE. If you can't take the time to tell another READER what Steve said wrong, that's bad enough. If you can't take the time to TELL THAT IT'S ANOTHER READER IN THE FIRST PLACE, then you're truly idiotic.

Most of all, however, is that you're so intent on reinforcing your own prejudices that, in your post, you refer to my taking one paragraph of Krugman's and shooting holes at it. It would help IF I HAD EVER DONE THAT! Hate to break it to you, Brian, but I'm not posting to this blog, and I don't comment on Krugman's original stuff. I leave that to people who actually KNOW economics.

So, at this point, you are simply a troll, and I will happily ignore you.

Buh-bye!

Take, for instance, your post about Krugman and electricity.

"I MIGHT buy that if it occurred once. But it occurred, over at least three postings, over 6 days, at various hours. Sorry, but that doesn't fit your own description of what happened."

I'm in school, and if you remember correctly, you'll realize that classes are at odd hours and that people don't get as much sleep as they need.

"Second, I won't respond because you're an idiot. And that's not ad hominem, that's simple truth. I AM NOT STEVE. If you can't take the time to tell another READER what Steve said wrong, that's bad enough. If you can't take the time to TELL THAT IT'S ANOTHER READER IN THE FIRST PLACE, then you're truly idiotic."

It was an honest mistake. I'm sorry. Calm down.

"Most of all, however, is that you're so intent on reinforcing your own prejudices that, in your post, you refer to my taking one paragraph of Krugman's and shooting holes at it. It would help IF I HAD EVER DONE THAT! Hate to break it to you, Brian, but I'm not posting to this blog, and I don't comment on Krugman's original stuff. I leave that to people who actually KNOW economics."

I have two responses. The first is that, like I noted above, I'm sorry. And here's the second: whatever you say.

"So, at this point, you are simply a troll, and I will happily ignore you."

Ha!

Correction: "you're," not "your."

Take, for instance, your post about Krugman and electricity.

You still haven't 'splained how Steve was wrong.

Can you? If not, how do you know he's wrong? BTW, claiming you can but won't is insufficient; if you don't present evidence to back your claims, there is no reason for a thinking person to believe them.

Crawford,

We have all been asking for that. The truth of the matter is Brian has nothing to back up his statements. So he makes vague references to my being wrong, and then says it'll be good for people to find the errors on their own.

I guess in a sense he is being consistent. Like Krugman he isn't giving out all the details.

Steve and Crawford, you could explore the fact that Krugman was just examining the claim made by some people and assuming that was true. You could also consider the possibility that he used a word commonly used to describe one thing even if it's not the best choice. And so on.

But that would require not trying to find something - anything at all - to nail Krugman on, so I guess that's out of the question.

Gee, Brian are you saying that Krugman didn't actually read the stuff he says he did, and references in his column! How shocking!

It is amusing how Brian's "explanations" actually imply worse for Krugman. You might get the impression that Brian doesn't have a clue what he is talking about...

What are you talking about, Robin?

Okay, that was the lamest reply yet. Are we sure this isn't the debunkers poster known as Mark?

Hey, DaveL! When are you going to start posting some more stuff to D.U.M.B.? I miss the opportunity to find out what's going on over there w/o having to wade through it myself.

As to the replies, might I suggest that, at this point, it truly has reached the point of wrestling the pig in the mud, where only the pig is getting any enjoyment out of this?

Just a thought....

Dean,

My tolerance for stupidity has decreased, so I only look at DU when something newsworthy has happened to see their twisted reactions.

Ad far as wrestling the pig, look at the comments section on this post of Steve's:

http://www.steveverdon.com/cgi-bin/mov/mt-tb.cgi/601

I sometimes thing Steve should change his name to Sysiphus.

Emergency Payday Loans - Emergency Cash