Please list your thoughts here, rather than disrupting the threads with personal opinions concerning myself.
Please list your thoughts here, rather than disrupting the threads with personal opinions concerning myself.
There are many of us, myself included, who tend to get into one on one debates on threads…
More often than not, these create a lot of noise, and little signal… And are uninteresting for the rest of the audience… Rarely will minds be changed in a rapid fire pissing match of a debate… Most of the time folks will just scroll though. It is also fairly easy to wander off onto some subpoint which is entirely relevant to the debate, but is not terribly relevant to the greater topic.
I am trying to restrain myself from rapid fire debates – wait 30 minutes or so to assemble thoughts into a set of points that would be coherent if you read it out of context by itself, and make sure that I relate what I am saying back to the topic at hand. Don’t know if it does any good or even if I am succeeding or failing to restrain myself, but that is my thought on the matter…
I’ve had other beefs with you, but they have been addressed and have not been a problem of late…
Hmmm…point taken about about continuing with a conversation that has gone off-topic. I think the dynamic is usually that someone else goes off-topic, says something interesting, then I get involved in a different discussion. I will be mindful of this. We also have mods, usually present on the threads involved who could intervene or PM me or something. I am not deliberately hijacking threads or anything or do not bear all the responsibility here - I am a user, not a mod - you can’t expect an average user to automatically understand all this - and yes I have read the bloody forum rules…nor is all the responsibility for this stuff with the user, but the mods too I think.
Yes, this is not the issue I don’t think,- it’s continuing to talk off-topic really, I don’t think I’m incoherent really. I would say that it takes 2 to tango though and I’m obviously talking to somebody else - I’m not giving a bloody soliloquy am I?
Yes- we’re OK - no probs
Lol- this thread better not get too long - or I’m complaining to the mods OK?
Nothing is wrong with Al Kafir, I love how he is and he should not be concern about people their opinion, because “opinion are like”.
It’s just great that you are here sir, your one of the witnesses of the new internet.
Thank you, kind Sir…you are a scholar and a gentleman…
really appreciate your kind words…thanks mate.
What’s wrong with Al Kafir and what should he do in your opinion?
There’s plenty wrong, but that’s fine.
On a forum like this one members should sooner or later figure who they want to engage and avoid the rest.
In my example, I figured out (after this topic) that for me the optimal strategy for engaging Al Kafir is to bust his initial argument and not engage further because he quickly resorts to trolling, has poor understanding of most things discussed here and has no coherent position on key issues (which makes it even easier to troll because he can troll twice in the same topic from mutually contradicting viewpoints).
I see no problem with his participation and have no suggestion for either him or the mods. If I cared I’d advise him to take it easy on himself here and spend a month or two at mises.org, but I truly don’t.
That might be true but how do you measure it? - It is really a personal opinion isn’t it? (“Likes” are almost meaningless). My view is that the tangents in the discussions sometimes become more interesting than the original posts - the question about how that frequent occurrence should be handled in a single-threaded forum structure like this is difficult - it looks like an automated, AI-controlled branching forum structure is needed - there’s another topic!
I don’t think there is - and that is fine too!
I never use this acronym (and it is the only irritation I get from @Al_Kafir because he uses it too much) but - LOL! You are not serious are you? The only thing I have seen you do is resort to the equivalent of three word slogans as though they were a mantra from on high! You smear others by labelling them as having a “religion” about their strongly held beliefs but you have your own “Taxation is Theft” religion!
Good - at least that seems to me to be consistent with the religion that you appear to have . .
I think @Al_Kafir has made a lot of the posts here more interesting as far as I have seen so far . .
Regards and a Good Day to all!
-Is the link to a 6 mth old thread the best supporting evidence you can find - it appears you weren’t even arguing against “my” arguments, but the one’s put forward in a book by an author. I’m not going to read all 49 posts though.
Let’s say you “busted” my initial argument about economics 6 mths ago, I’m not sure what you would have demonstrated anyway - apart from you beat me in an argument “once” in your specialist subject, that on much more that 1 occassion clearly stated is not my area at all. I was only just recently openly asking someone to simplify the effects of “deflattion” - so the claim that I have a “poor understanding” of “most things” is clearly un-substantiated and restricted to “Economics”.
If this is an example of how you “bust my arguments”, then no wonder you feel its a winning strategy.
Trolling implies intent, I do not troll". If this is un-substantiated then it could variously be described somewhere between a mere assertion and a personal attack (no flags here… )
Again this would appear restricted to Economics in the case you are making - all the above applies again.
I 100% definitely do not do this…simple as. Please give any example you can find on the forum. As I said I haven’t read all those posts in the thread you made, but I would be surprised if I was arguing from a position of ignorance and in a contradictory manner.
Come on, we can all trawl through the last 6 mths of posts and find “some” dirt on each other - its more about repeatedly doing something, not searching out the best example you can find to support your case.
Come on, be honest - I spank your arse all the time…
We have diametrically opposed fundamental philosophical principles, so anything based on these things - like this, we are never going to agree upon. We both end up talking at cross purposes. This is what irks me a lot - there is a helluva lot of right/left political arguments going on that always end up at the same point…this point…the recognition that our differences are more fundamental and opposite. All conversations of this sort are doomed to be fruitless and end up as “white noise”. We should be looking at ways to compromise and try to find a middle road that would actually satisfy the majority of both camps.
It’s the Absolutist/Stoic conflict - a dead end - you’re an apple and I’m an orange, arguing about things built on these basic precepts is totally unproductive and this is a point I have made a number of times.
You just hit the nail on the head…this is exactly the dynamic from my perspective.
It used to be worse! I recognised this issue myself and thought it might sound a bit daft - others thought I was taking the piss or something - I wasn’t.
I think I start using it almost as punctuation, so I endeavoured to stop doing it, but it appears to be creeping back.
Point taken, no worries, I’m on it.
What irks me is being labelled “statist” etc all the time, without any kind of justification, even when you are arguing to de-centralise it!
Thanks for your input Philip, i really appreciate your comments…
The “What happens to existing sites” question thread would have been quite useful to a lot of new MaidSAFE users had it not devolved into a long pissing match about UFO’s and the like…
Tangents are fine - but post them as a new thread in off topic… When a useful OP has hundred of irrelevant posts, it becomes useless for what it was intended for…
Most the time it doesn’t get that bad though… That was probably the worst example, and eventually it was moderated down.
Would you like to go through that thread and actually ascribe blame where it belongs…we seem to be raking over some very old coals here tbh
That is fine and users bear some responsibility to monitor themselves and read the forum guidelines. What are the mods for? This whole area of reasoning is apportioning total blame on the user - the user that has read the forum guidelines, monitors themselves and adapts their behaviour by taking on board legitimate criticisms etc. I have been doing this for some time and very openly and honestly. There is a shifting of mod responsibilities to the user, which causes distress for those who are only engaged in what is an interesting conversation for them
The thinking appears to be that it is best to not move posts to off-topic, and very often they themselves are involved in the off-topic discussion.
What is happening is that when people are having constructive and interesting conversations it is deemed acceptable to interrupt publicly with shouts of “boring”, applauded by the very people who should be doing the opposite, or simply removing the off-topic comments to a new thread - a user cannot do this and it is not their responsibility if they didn’t even start the off-topic conversation - the Creator of the bloody project was!
I was also in the same off topic conversation with 2 mods…go figure.
The posts should have been removed to off-topic after the they notice it, not continue it , then start with the ascribing blame and public humiliation after a while…this is not the way to do things.
No I don’t think it does either- certainly with me it will be about whatever aspect off-topic converstion interested me- I’m not exactly deliberately jumping all over the place to disrupt a thread - I am interested in interesting conversations - so shoot me!
Thanks for the input.
“In this sense, economics is dead as a science” - is hysterically funny - that economists have always thought “Economics” is a SCIENCE! It was NEVER a science! - it has ALWAYS much more resembled VOODOO than anything else . . give me break, a science, pfft!
Hmm, that’s exactly what the article claims about Economics as a science:
It should not be a surprise that economics has finally become irrelevant after decades of uncalled-for mathematizing and formal modeling based on outrageous assumptions. This perverse kind of pseudo-economic analysis had it coming, really. One cannot calculate maxima for the social world; it is, as Mises showed almost a century ago, impossible. If mathematical economics is finally dead, then that is above all else an improvement.
You’re probably mixing up this mathematical economics with classical economics.
The object of study is the messy and sometimes ambiguous social world, but this does not require that the science is also messy and ambiguous. On the contrary, economics is unparalleled in its ability to provide proper and illuminating understanding of how the economy works. It is neither messy nor ambiguous. It brings clarity to the processes that make out the market.
If you disagree, tell me what science or method do you use when making decisions related to economizing? Astrophysics? Climate science?
Erm…can we keep this on-topic guys as it’s not fair to other users who wish to contribute- especially Booooooring…old Economics. :
Actually, I worked it out myself… well Seneca did most…it never crossed my mind to do what he suggested, it wasn’t an available option to me. I was pissing all over everybody and I thought they were pissing on me…I’m wondering why don’t the mods do something, feeling like I’m not doing anything wrong, just talking, when the answer was there all along…so the answer to the thread is:
He hasn’t properly familiarized himself with all the add-on things and their “purposes”: because they don’t interest him. He has been a bit remiss and has a tendency to blow a fuse when things do not compute…similar to Aspergers really…no idea if that’s what it is…but its what its like for me.
I’m somewhat new here but I find @Al_Kafir’s tangents and deviations both refreshing and amusing. Stirring up chaos where ever he treads. As long as he continues to make clear logical arguments I not at all bothered. The only issue I see is all the bulk information added to topics that generally makes it progressively more tedious to sift through and find relevant data. I like to be thorough when I read through threads, but when I encounter something off topic I either find myself caught up, or a degree more dismissive than I would otherwise be. Sometimes even skipping past valid and relevant posts of anyone who engaged in the off-topic discussion only to find that someone further down the thread responded to an on-topic post by a previously off topic participant (again, my browser is weird. I doesn’t nest replies). Does that make any sense? I like to think that I have a keen eye, but sometimes I get lazy and just start skipping shit based on author. Especially when I’m drunk and toasted like I will be when I simultaneously try to watch naked and afraid XL all the while perusing through the forum. Seriously Al-Kafir I enjoy your antics but try to keep them to single a paragraph. Otherwise you risk overloading the server…Just f@ckin wit cha! Keep up the good work!