(After 24hrs not visible, one must assume: DNPed - i.e. censored.)
Subtitle: Yep. Admittedly strong; kindly allow me to explain.
-=*=-
1. Troll. Not the Old Norse[1], but the Internet one[2]. Possibly the best description is the "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt" one[3].
Pаul Mоrrella: "No, the current cycle began, when you so rudely attempted to pick on people, whose only crime was to express their freedom, and write something you did not agree 100% with. That the 'facts' used where less than obvious (mostly just plain wrong), only showed you up, for the bully you are."
Me (1): this is an opinion forum, in an alleged democracy. Neither rudeness nor bullying comes into it; I report and/or give opinion based on cited references, let the cards fall as they may and the reader is free to decide. However, when it comes to unprovoked and utter rudeness, Pаul Mоrrella 'takes the cake' - Oh, always only IMHO!
Me (2): like a lot'a Pаul's stuff, the quote from him above is all unadorned, unjustified - and IMHO unjustifiable - assertion ("'facts' used where less than obvious", "mostly just plain wrong"). In fact, he makes many'o this sort'a unsubstantiated allegations (like his attempted disputation of murder for oil), but when challenged, he simply squibs it.
Well, saying something just doesn't make it so, see [3] again.
What Pаul's statement proves, though, is that he was a lurker[4]. The above statement from Pаul was made on June 28, fully 39 days (we are now up to day 45) after his 1st appearance. And that 1st appearance was a full-frontal assault directed at me. No such thing as a 'pardon me,' just guns blazing. In other words: demonstrated malice aforethought.
That ort'a be enough to prove 'troll,' but just in case, I intimated exactly as much not once but twice; no objection (I'm talking about valid objection) has been raised. Sooo, QED, I'd say.
Me (3): if I've said it once, I've said it a squillion times (poetic licence); this from my 'core- and non-core lies_1927:' I try to substantiate anything that I think may be regarded as contentious with reputable, checkable quotes and/or links. Anybody is free, at any time, to contest whatever I say. Just so long as they front with reputable, checkable quotes of their own - since if someone wished to doubt my words, they'd better be ready to back-up that doubt in quite a serious way. Anything less, daaarlings, is rubbishy 'troll.'
Before we move on to 'lies,' this: as in [3], unsubstantiated assertions just don't 'cut it.' Pаul cited a link to some old, superseded stuff, and when I pointed that out - silence (what's about sham links, eh Pаul?) He then proceeded to muddy the waters with his three bites of the M3 cherry. Anyone seeking an alternative to Pаul's M3 obscuration could try this professional-level explanation, a 'snip:'
«And even worse, if the money supply grows fast enough, it provides the liquidity required for the runaway growth of asset bubbles, like the stock market in 2000. And, some would argue, like the U.S. real-estate or credit markets now.»
[moneycentral.msn/Jubak's Journal/Fed kills a key inflation gauge]
And, I would argue - have argued - that too much 'easy money' could lie at the heart of local house- and stock-price bubbles, with the notable exception of Costello's 'helping hand' contribution to the appr. 150% house-price rises recently experienced here in Aus.
-=*=-
2. Liar. Yep, a bit more serious. My back-up follows:
Let's take Pаul's "A tax cut is the equivalent of a pay rise." Apart from offering this little 'gem' as part-argument coupled to this toadally® contradictory statement: "Thus this allows the gearing to operate at higher monetary levels," (even further muddying the waters), Pаul later had the hide to write: "A tax cut is equivalent to a pay rise. If you understood economics, you would know this" - after I had shown that the wages share is falling, just as the tax-take is rising. (Q: How does this illustrate a tax-cut? A: It doesn't, rather the reverse.) But don't take my word for this, see John Pratt on May 17, 2007 - 6:53am:
«According to the national accounts, between 1996 and 2006 the wages share of gross domestic product fell from 56 per cent to 54 per cent, while corporate profits rose from 23 per cent to 28 per cent. That is equal to about $40 a week if wages had maintained their mid-1990s share of national income.
But, worse for the battlers, the federal tax burden has increased from 23.3 to 25 per cent of GDP in the same period.»
[Kenneth Davidson Smoke and mirrors hide funding facts]
Facit: if the wages-share is going down, while the tax-share is going up, there is no effective 'tax-cut,' and certainly not during the previous period of house-price inflation, as the Davidson quote shows. Some may have the tax-bite lessened from what was planned (i.e. from 1/1/'07); that lessening is fiddling at the margins. But much more importantly, any cut to the tax-rate would work exactly opposite to increasing any negative gearing advantage. (Negative gearing means writing-off losses against taxable income; lowering the tax-rate lowers the tax write-off). Even if a tax-cut some-when may be a pay rise somewhere, it is not applicable to this dialogue. IMHO, Pаul's 'argument' is economic gibberish.
Pаul's insisting on his "A tax cut is equivalent to a pay rise" is not just wrong, not just part of the pushed paradigm propaganda, but is (IMHO!) deliberately misleading. See lie[5].
-=*end*=-
PS From Pаul's 'headless horseman' post: "Nice to see you have the courage of your convictions. Asked to put something forward apart from criticism, and......"
Pаul, given that you yourself have been asked to supply explanations/substantiations, not just by me but also by Craig Rowley ('PSA deals and democracy,') & Bob Wall ('Details?', 'Reminder') - note that Bob felt he had to repeat his requests, and that your meagre responses (when any at all) were anything but fulsome, you are hardly in any position to demand some response from me, let alone sneer at me for not kowtowing to you.
In particular, Pаul, you have singularly failed to justify your attempted, alleged negation of 'murder for oil.' Never heard of "Put up or shut up?"
Perhaps now, you will get something useful to do, eh?
PPS WD's 'moderation' role in this saga is also to be questioned, especially in the light of MK's banning me from a thread(!?) - merely for seeking to defend myself from this disgusting and predatory, lying troll. Hardly an edifying sight, hmmm? As if PM was the only 'can of worms?' Not; there's the CP/ER one as well - so much then, for 'civil discourse.' And the greedastrophe® grows ever closer, ever more unavoidable...
Ref(s):
[1] troll1 n. (in Scandinavian folklore) fabulous being, esp. a giant or dwarf dwelling in a cave. [Old Norse] [POD]
[2] Troll (Internet)
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding.
[3] Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt [someone]. Trolling is deliberate violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces. It necessarily involves a value judgement made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgement 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent.)
[4] lurk verb [no obj., with adverbial of place] (of a person or animal) be or remain hidden so as to wait in ambush for someone or something: a ruthless killer still lurked in the darkness. n (of an unpleasant quality) be present in a latent or barely discernible state, although still presenting a threat: fear lurks beneath the surface | [as adj.] (lurking) he lives with a lurking fear of exposure as a fraud.
n [no obj.] read communications on an electronic network without making one's presence known.
noun Austral. informal a profitable stratagem; a dodge or scheme: you'll soon learn the lurks and perks. from British English slang lurk method of fraud.
DERIVATIVES
lurker noun.
ORIGIN Middle English: perhaps from lour + the frequentative suffix -k (as in talk). [Oxford Pop-up]
[5] lie2 —n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. —v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive. give the lie to show the falsity of (a supposition etc.). [Old English] [POD]
No comments:
Post a Comment