dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
27
share rss forum feed


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

1 edit
reply to Noah Vail

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

Ooohhh... a diagramed version. Here is what I found:

"WallStats.com is the home of 28 year-old creative wizard Jess Bachman."

Now that's a source I can trust! And it's for sale! LOL!!!


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
Dig deeper, in their FAQ they state what their sources are.

»www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

Plus favorable quotes from NPR, OpenCongress.org, Silvan, NASA Mission Director Madden of the GSFC, US Joint Systems Command, etc.

quote:
The figures used to create the graph come directly from the President's official budget request and the comptroller of the Department of Defense. The Intelligence budget figures are estimates from globalsecurity.org.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Well, I'm sure that "creative wizard" Jess Bachman got all the math right, and he is a perfect source of informational opinion to backup your arguments. Me, I prefer something a bit more established.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
Well, if you have contradicting data disproving its accuracy, we would love to see it.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Look, Googling for data during a debate and posting the first link you find isn't going to impress anyone. If you don't know much, just stand back and read what is stated by those with education.

Good night.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
So you have nothing, that is what I figured.
--
POKE 65495,1


Noah Vail
Son made my Avatar
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Bright House
reply to SLD
said by SLD:

Look, Googling for data during a debate and posting the first link you find isn't going to impress anyone. If you don't know much, just stand back and read what is stated by those with education.Good night.
If I had to defend your position, I'd run away too, after running my mouth.

Jess Bachman's extrapolation of government data caught the attention of Boingboing which ran an interview with him in 2006 over his project and then again in 2008.

His discretionary spending graphs have been enlarged and featured on the halls of US government installations such as The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Even though you feel you can judge the validity of US Budgetary data better than the US Department of Energy, I'm afraid you're just too far removed from reality to pull that off.

Any maybe you believe the Boingboing columnist has been snookered for 2 years running, along with tens of thousands of digg users and (CASN) at the University of California Berkeley Graduate School of Education who've offered it as a portion of their education curriculum.

Given the what else you've offered here as debate, I can see you glorifying your personal opinion as being more authoritative than all of the above. Such a disconnection between evidence and belief also tells me that you must have been a strong O'Bama supporter before the election.

NV
--
In my perfect religion, a giant hole appears and sucks up all the lousy people.
I call it the Crapture.


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Your conclusion is absolutely incorrect about my political support of Obama, thus your other conclusions may be just as incorrect as well.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
Fallacy of hasty generalization.
--
POKE 65495,1


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
reply to Noah Vail


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply to Bit00
Thank you for making my point.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

2 edits
...and that was what, that you didn't have one?

If you are going to claim that the information provided was incorrect and you have data supporting this claim, by all means, provide it. Dodging the expectations that you support your contentions with data is not "a point".
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
My point is (and was) based on pure logic. Logic is, in itself, inherently correct. If you wish to disprove logic by Wikipedia-surfing, you won't get very far.

lesopp

join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
reply to SLD
said by SLD:

Well, I'm sure that "creative wizard" Jess Bachman got all the math right
As did the 25 year old car czar that stole money from the Indiana pension fund and handed it over to the UAW


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

2 edits
reply to SLD
LOL. Uh huh. Your logic is laughable. It doesn't take Wikipedia to recognize that and I've gotten far enough to show you as full of it.

I have asked quite a few times now if you have proof backing up your assertion that the information was wrong and as many times as I have asked, you have evaded.

So I will ask yet again if you can back up your conjecture with fact. Continuing to evade the question just reaffirms that you are full of it.

Show us your evidence that the data shown in the poster if factually incorrect.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Again, that data has no bearing on my point, thus I have no interest in arguing it. Though it made for a good laugh, and it exemplifies the lack of knowledge coming from you two.

If you insist on having the last word (or multiple posts in your situation), please do.


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
That is what I figured, you have no point. You are full of shit and can't back up your conjecture.
--
POKE 65495,1


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

2 edits
Keep trolling... you are obviously too bullheaded to read my posts and understand the logic behind my point. When you finish highschool, come on back!


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
When you are ready to support your conjecture with actual facts, come on back!
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
[Yawn]


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
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.

--
POKE 65495,1


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

1 edit
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
join:2009-02-19
00000

3 edits
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.

--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
Should I repeat that my argument is based on simple logic? Do you understand English?


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit
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.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
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
join:2009-02-19
00000
reply 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.
--
POKE 65495,1


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000
reply 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.
--
POKE 65495,1


SLD
Premium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA
reply 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
join:2009-02-19
00000

4 edits
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.

--
POKE 65495,1