dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
91

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit

Bit00 to SLD

Premium Member

to SLD

Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

You are typical on many posters on here, passing off opinion and conjecture as fact, and then getting irate when you are expected to actually support your bullshit.

So then these types dodge and evade, trying to redirect the discussion away from their horribly failed logic and argument.

The final result is them trying to get the last post even if it is nothing more than a emoticon or some other lameness.

Feel free to participate when you are ready to support your arguements with something a bit more substantial than emoticons.

Althought I'm sure you will just respond yet again with anything BUT facts that support your argument.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

1 edit

SLD

Premium Member

I really wish I could give you a high-five for a good argument and agree to disagree, but your repetitive argument is too weak to even pass gas over.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

3 edits

Bit00

Premium Member

We are still waiting for some facts from you backing up your conjecture, but I guess we will all be waiting until hell freezes over since you have none.

How about another emoticon, those are always compelling arguments.

It wouldn't be repetitive if you backed up your conjecture when I first asked about it. Your repetitive evasion results in the request for your facts being reptitive.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

Should I repeat that my argument is based on simple logic? Do you understand English?

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit

Bit00

Premium Member

You can present your evidence as to why the poster isn't accurate at any time.

The fact that you endlessly evade it implies that you are simply full of shit.

Now either you have proof that the poster is inaccurate or you don't. Which is it? I don't know how I can ask this question any simpler.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

All he did was link a website to a graph. He made no argument against my logical point. Why do you keep nipping at my heels with someone elses mistaken points? Go get your own ideas and argue them, but make sure you undestand the argument before you keep wasting time.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

Bit00 to SLD

Premium Member

to SLD
Both here

»Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

»Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

You question the validity of the data presented by the poster.

Back it up with your data. If you can't, that is fine, just admit that you can't.
Bit00

Bit00 to SLD

Premium Member

to SLD
So does that mean you can't support your assertion about the poster? Yes? No?

Certainly it would have been easier to present your evidence that the poster was inaccurate instead of 2 pages of evasion.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD to Bit00

Premium Member

to Bit00
Who cares!?! So, I laughed at his source. That is my prerogative. It is still funny.
Now, go get your own argument, but make it with someone else please.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

4 edits

Bit00

Premium Member

So you are full of shit and can't refute the validity of the poster as a source. Now that wasn't so hard was it? You could have admitted this 2 pages ago.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

SLD

Premium Member

Jesus, dude! I'm going to place you on my ignore list if you keep with this ridiculous banter.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

Bit00

Premium Member

Go right ahead. It will save you the trouble of actually having to back up your bullshit with facts.

You tried to discredit his argument by discrediting his source. That is certainly logically sound if you can do it. That is why you should support your assertion that the source is inaccurate...again, if you can do it. I don't think you can which is why you are now engaging in all this evasion.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz to Bit00

Premium Member

to Bit00
The European countries have had small cars because of two simple facts, gasoline is 6 dollars a gallon in many places, and 6.50 a gallon in Germany. And many long established cities have narrow streets that anything larger than a Geo metro would not fit. We have neither. Trying to argue that you want a smaller car from a domestic automaker says you want less for more. Even Bob Lutz said the public only wanted the small cars for the 4 months of the highest gas prices. With America getting fatter by the day, people won't be able to fit into smaller cars at some point if it continues. Not to mention that not everyone is 5"4 or under as in Japan.

And if I remember correctly, the MSRP of one of those Chinese cars would be around $9,995 USD. If Buick can make cars in China cheap enough to sell to their public then you realize this price point is not so far fetched. Now the scary thought is what IF they do make a reliable car? I can imagine everyone will run out and buy them, collapsing domestic production and possibly even Japanese automakers to halt sales in the US. The end result is just another Chinese industry in control and the majority of the job market will become sales. One day leading to a real economic collapse.

Bit00
Premium Member
join:2009-02-19
00000

2 edits

Bit00

Premium Member

Smaller cars have always sold well in the US whether they are Civics, small cross over SUVs or whatever. The TSX is not a "small car", it is the Euro spec Accord. The TSX, Modeo, Fiesta and Kuga are only small cars if you are a tremendous fatass. Europe certainly has micro cars that likely wouldn't do well here but these aren't them.

And if Bob Lutz were such a genius, the company he ran into the ground would still be solvent and if it were just a matter of SUV demand over a couple of months, his company would not have tanked. He is an idiot who refused to acknowledge what every other car company saw coming, increased demand for more fuel efficient and higher quality normal sized vehicles.

Look around, Mazda, VW, Toyota, Honda, Kia, and others all make their US business by concentrating on attractive normal size vehicles while offering a limited number of 'oversize' vehicles like the Land Cruiser and Armada. GM meanwhile sat on their ass building Azteks and other hideous wrecks NO ONE wanted. There was no balance. Only in the last model year has GM finally made some decent cars with their most hopeful lines not coming out until 2010 and 2011.

IOW, GM was in deep trouble long before October of 2008 because they had NO vision. GM and Ford should absolutely still make their great trucks, they are still huge sellers no matter the price of gas but only an idiot builds their entire business around them. GM did just that, and Ford less so. GM paid the price, and Ford is quickly running out of cash.

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail to SLD

Premium Member

to SLD
said by SLD:

Your conclusion is absolutely incorrect about my political support of Obama
That could have happened. The traits you display here, statistically group you with O'Bama supporters, though I concede that it's possible that O'Bama's hooks and your weaknesses didn't make the natural connection.
said by SLD:

thus your other conclusions may be just as incorrect as well.
Well, those odds of my being incorrect about the accuracy of Jess Bachman's data, round down to zero percent, so I wouldn't bet your farm on it.

Now, in your interesting little world,
a pro-Bachman collusion
between the Dept.of Energy, California Berkeley Grad School, established web columnists and hundreds of thousands of other netopians
is so likely,
that you can't resist the need to denounce Bachman's data;
against all of them.

Now you could just take any line item from Bachman's chart, and check it against the budget figures from
»www.whitehouse.gov/omb/b ··· /fy2009/
or
»fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0509.pdf
or
»www.docstoc.com/search/2 ··· filter=1
or
»www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudg ··· wse.html
or
»www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb ··· get.html
or
»publicservice.evendon.co ··· 009M.htm
or
»www.taxpolicycenter.org/ ··· isis.pdf

...unless you believe the conspiracy to protect Jess Bachman's reputation includes the White House, Columbia University and the Dept of the Treasury. I can see where you might, you've had a tread of delusional denial running through your posts.

Now I know what you're thinking.
said by SoundsLikeCarterStClai :

"Them's all just a bunch of web sites with WORDS and stuff in 'em". Word's can mean anythin and nuthin at all! I mean, just read a bunch of my words and you'll see!
With your reoccurring terror
that keeps you from directly addressing any point under discussion,
how could we possibly expect you
to read any of the above sites
and bring something relevant to the table?

Gosh, you might just have a point there.

Maybe if you just took one or two lines from this post and mocked them out of context, you could continue to delude yourself that you're somehow constructively engaged in the debate.

So, are you having Flavoraide with your Birthday Cake this year?

NV

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

2 edits

SLD

Premium Member

Wow...not only going off the deep end here, but putting words in my mouth? "SoundsLikeCarterStClai"? Nice!
At least we know you're a fringie now.
Happen to get paid by the pharmicutical industry to spread your verbal nauseum?

Noah Vail
Oh God please no.
Premium Member
join:2004-12-10
SouthAmerica

Noah Vail

Premium Member

Heeeerrrrsss the Tally.

You addressed NONE of the points in discussion.

You get ZERO Gold Stars and ZERO IQ Points.

Your Score For This Thread is exactly... ZERO.
Care to try your luck again?

We are all astounded at your uncanny ability to COMPLETELY avoid meaningful dialog. It's not every day we see someone embrace fear of debate as fully as you do.

NV
Expand your moderator at work
Noah Vail

1 edit

Noah Vail to Anon

Premium Member

to Anon

Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

said by SLD:

Oh GOD, now you too?!? I already blocked your buddy.
His words might not bother you so much, if there wasn't something in them that found a home in your head.

Like this for example:
said by Bit00:

Wow, I'm surprised you aren't posting in Crayon, still unable to support any portion of your argument closing in to 4 pages of evasion, "I know you are but what am I" logic. Everyone here recognizes that as the clear sign you have no point. You lost with your first post and just embarrassed yourself with the rest.
said by SLD:

Once you address my point instead of bringing in your valueless links,
This is a WEB ENVIRONMENT. If you don't want links to the mounting pile of supporting evidence, what form do you want your proof in? Fax by carrier pigeon? The Evidence God delivering the conclusive proof in Broadway Lights? Stars in heaven rearranged to form pleasing yet non-confrontational pictorials?
said by Bit00:

you'll have my attention. Come to think of it, you've proven that you can't follow a conversation, or a point, since you are soo focused on your links that have nothing to do with my point, that I can't see respponding any further. Buzzz.... you lose again!
This is where I begin to believe you are mentally ill. I have given you clear and unambiguous responses and you blew them off.
At which point then accuse me of giving you no responses at all.

Bachman's been creating these Discretionary Budget Graphics since 2004. I've been following him most of that time.
I've read dozens of columns about his work in reputable web publishers. And past that I've seen hundreds of casual mentions of his work, by people with suggestions, constructive criticisms, accolades and raw praise to offer.

In 4 years of my following Bachman's graph work, you are the first person, I've known, to suggest he is fraudulent. And what evidence of his fraud do you offer? Documented discrepancies between his numbers and the GAO? The DOE highlighting how he misled them?

Not even.

In fact, you haven't even provided a substantial reason for charging Bachman with bald face lying to thousands and thousand of people. You threw out a directed, yet weak innuendo. And you only did it because Bachman's data threatened your position.

You'd trash the character of someone you know nothing about, and for what? Because you're obsessed with winning an argument and don't have what you need to pull it off.

With all candor and honesty, if you continue in this vein; you are a jerk.
said by SLD:

That isn't the same as disproving.
I have precisely disproven your baseless innuendo,

I provided reputable names. I provided links to their testimonials.
YOU GAVE NO RESPONSE TO THEM. A response would have included NAMING MY SOURCE and giving CLEAR, SUBSTANTIAL and UNAMBIGIOUS information that WAS CONCLUSIVE and RELEVANT in showing how the source wasn't authoritative.

You did none of that or you would be able to repost your statements to that effect.

This kind of winning-at-all-cost mentality is everything that's wrong with my country.

If you carry on this crap for one more post, you're not just a jerk.

NV

edit:fixed my decade.

SLD
Premium Member
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA

3 edits

SLD

Premium Member

[Yawn!]
Please stop acting like an #$%$ and go to bed (and possibly a life). I honestly can't read past a skimming over of your crap and it doen't seem to be worthy to read.
BTW, you are still ignoring my basic logical argument and throwing the kitchen sink of anything besides the point. Your stupid graph has nothing to do with it.
BTW, I blocked your boyfriend because he was harrassing me with endless posts about nothing. I'll block you now as well, so don't waste your time - I won't see it.