tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post5395777430470428457..comments2023-04-03T19:10:54.088-04:00Comments on Critiques Of Libertarianism: Review Of Michael Shermer's The Mind Of The MarketMike Hubenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-73015901739271256812008-02-16T16:16:00.000-05:002008-02-16T16:16:00.000-05:00Wherein John-John, now totally infantilized, decid...Wherein John-John, now totally infantilized, decides that by airing a demonstrably stupid statement, detached from reality and history, for the 17th time, will now engender any reader without life enough to have read this far, will somehow impress said reader, who will have miraculously glided over his past follies. Witness:<BR/><BR/><B>'Lowering prices to drive out competitors isn't a very effective mechanism for the creation of monopoly since, in the end, there is an endless supply of upstart competitors and the would-be monopolist can only sell at below market rents for so long before he has to recoup his investment.'</B><BR/><BR/>Wherein Mr. Hand again babbles, distorts, and flat out lies, because he has no ability to cohere an argument:<BR/><BR/><B>'A couple of times during this excruciatingly long screed, cosmo falls back on "income inequality" as a failsafe retort to Shermer's position on this issue or that issue. Shermer argues that economies are not zero sum? Well, says cosmo, what about income inequality? Shermer argues that the overall standard of living is better today than ever before...well, says cosmo, what about income inequality? Cosmo suggests that present-day income disparities are directly correlated to the "happiness" of a population, irrespective of how much better off they are relative to the people of times past. Cosmo provides no support for this contention, but it doesn't stop him from asking if its "really that difficult to understand.".</B><BR/><BR/>This inarticulate and distorted babble thus falling perfectly into Mike Huben's prior iterated claim that 'Look, it's obvious that his every attempt to claim intellectual dominance is based on feeble rhetorical fallacies. He's compensating for something embarassing, though his arguments are embarassing enough. He adopts Humpty Dumpty's position on the meaning of the word dichotomization, and expects us to take him seriously?'<BR/><BR/>Yet, John blithely does not even care that his Pavlovian responses have lost any vitae.<BR/><BR/>Totally lost and defeated in arguments of substance, several paragraphs of misdirected and silly ad hominem follow, admixed with ample displays of bias and bigotry, and John has to again show his utter inability to have an original thought, muttering, 'Memo to cosmo: Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand and a self-described libertarian,' clueless to the possibility that people can claim what they are till hell feezes, but their actions speak louder than their words. Of course, from a wannabe intellectual-cum- masturbatory schizophrenic troll, not any more is expected.<BR/><BR/>Thus, shorn of any claims to intellect, John sits and waits, as hours pass before he can muster another feeble response- will it be simple inanity or nasty deceit? In a rare moment of daring, John says, let it be both. So he types, as the girls giggle at his clammy hands:Cosmoeticahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018993247605381258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-27192941611265900362008-02-15T22:00:00.000-05:002008-02-15T22:00:00.000-05:00Oh, and cosmo, while I fervently look forward to b...Oh, and cosmo, while I fervently look forward to being the subject of your treatise on Internet "sciolism", I have a nagging suspicion that "glory" is a promise that your "various essays" will fall far short of delivering.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-19135128052526791922008-02-15T21:22:00.000-05:002008-02-15T21:22:00.000-05:00Ok. Continuing...In keeping with cosmo's tenuous g...Ok. Continuing...<BR/><BR/>In keeping with cosmo's tenuous grasp of economic history, he goes on to display an equally lacking knowledge on the subject of antitrust. Witness this ridiculous sentence:<BR/><BR/>"Alcoa lowered prices below its competitors so they would be forced out of business, so that Alcoa could have a monopoly and gouge its customers."<BR/><BR/>Lowering prices to drive out competitors isn't a very effective mechanism for the creation of monopoly since, in the end, there is an endless supply of upstart competitors and the would-be monopolist can only sell at below market rents for so long before he has to recoup his investment. As for Alcoa, its competitive edge was guaranteed not by selling cheap alumninum, but by a state-sanctioned monopoly in the form of a patent on the smelting process. Natural monopolies, like cable or electric companies, enjoy a similar competitive edge which has nothing to do with driving competitors out of business, but by the fact that there are no competitors to begin with. Why cosmo brought up drug dealers as exemplary of monopoly is beyond me. I guess he confused the personally addictive qualities of the product with the number of suppliers. The latter is far more determinative of price than the former. But hey, when cosmo talks about things he knows nothing about, cosmo listens.<BR/><BR/>Cosmo goes on to give us some inevitable Microsoft and Walmart bashing, which is so nonsubstantive it hardly merits comment. (IE sucks!! Firefox RULES! Walmart treats its workers like they are in sweatshops, and it needs to be charged with RICOH (RICO?) violations and anti-trust lawsuits!!) Its all too easy to roll your eyes at these tired platitudes, especialy the last, given what we know about cosmo's grasp of antitrust. Nevertheless, I can't help but wonder what cosmo's theory is on why the feds would aggresively go after Microsoft but leave Wal-Mart alone.<BR/><BR/>Cosmo goes on to attack Shermer for his criticisms of "path dependency" - providing us with such rock-solid rebuttals as this: "Ask anyone who's worked in the retail market about customer brand loyalty, and Ivy Towered Academic refutations of such manifest truths can produce only chuckles." Does cosmo, in fact, "ask anyone"? Well, no.<BR/><BR/>A couple of times during this excruciatingly long screed, cosmo falls back on "income inequality" as a failsafe retort to Shermer's position on this issue or that issue. Shermer argues that economies are not zero sum? Well, says cosmo, what about income inequality? Shermer argues that the overall standard of living is better today than ever before...well, says cosmo, what about income inequality? Cosmo suggests that present-day income disparities are directly correlated to the "happiness" of a population, irrespective of how much better off they are relative to the people of times past. Cosmo provides no support for this contention, but it doesn't stop him from asking if its "really that difficult to understand."<BR/><BR/>Then we are in for some more boring corporation bashing, in which cosmo, as someone "well versed in the ins and outs of corporate philosophy" (ha ha. In other words, workin for the man), illuminates for us his take on the fundamentals of the corporate ethos: they steal, cheat, blah blah blah right up until right before the point that they get caught. Now, Cosmo here must really work for some scoundrels - because he's apparently been a witness to the forging of signatures, bribing of public officials, and accounting fraud. Putting aside the question of what in the world this has to do with Shermer's libertarianism, how is cosmo privy to all these shenanigans without being complicit in them? In truth, I suspect that even if such activity were prevalent in whichever company passes cosmo $29,500.00 per year, he wouldn't have a very good view of it from his 1st floor cubicle.<BR/><BR/>Before I close, I'll say a couple of words about cosmo's "rebuttal" to my last post - which wasn't much more substantive than anything else he's mustered of late. I'm surprised that cosmo didn't ignore my attack on his wildly stupid assertion that Greenspan was a Keynesian -- especially after providing him a link that might give him some help. Memo to cosmo: Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand and a self-described libertarian. The Federal Reserve is not the braintrust of John Maynard Keynes, and central banks were pretty sparse in the era of Adam Smith as commodity money reigned supreme. Your problem, cosmo, is that you don't know enough about free-markets to discuss them competently. Your inane assertion that "any intervention by the government in the so-called free market, utterly renders Smithian ect. a dinosaur." Adam Smith was not an anarchist, as far as I'm aware, and didn't take issue with the fact that governmental authority is, at some level, necessary for markets to work. You need government to enforce contracts, enforce rights in property, and guard against force and fraud, regulate monopolies (real ones, not fake ones like "Wal-Mart"). In some instances, government needs to raise or lower interest rates (though many libertarians would prefer to go back to the gold standard). The point is that "intervention" by government in a market economy is necessary to sustain the market in the first place - the only real question is the locus of intervention. And to try and argue that these interventions somehow render Adam Smith's laissez-faire philosophy obsolete can ONLY be argued by someone who doesn't know the first thing about Smith, Keynes, or "free-markets" - and is pretty sure that nobody who stumbles upon this appalling dissertation will either.<BR/><BR/>More than enough for now. Anyone want to take any bets on whether or not I can run cosmo up to 100 posts before his head explodes?johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-50560046482572129112008-02-14T09:14:00.000-05:002008-02-14T09:14:00.000-05:00Nearly 80 posts, and not a single one from Two-Fac...Nearly 80 posts, and not a single one from Two-Face with an honest question.<BR/><BR/>Back in days of yore (2/3/08) Mike wrote this:<BR/><BR/><B>Dan (and others): what we have here in John is simply a sophist in the modern sense.<BR/><BR/>No matter what you write, if it isn't exactly the way he wants it said, with exactly the definitions he claims are relevant, you are "articulating both the obvious and unintentionally reiterating your complete and utter lack of knowledge".<BR/><BR/>If you use different vocabulary in an attempt to explain, it's an opportunity for him to complain that you are supplanting and conflating and "simply DON'T KNOW the first thing about either".<BR/><BR/>If you disagree with him, "you have no business pretending to write about political theory".<BR/><BR/>Indeed, there is only one way to grapple with such diseased rhetorical pomposity: ridicule it.<BR/><BR/>Look, it's obvious that his every attempt to claim intellectual dominance is based on feeble rhetorical fallacies. He's compensating for something embarassing, though his arguments are embarassing enough. He adopts Humpty Dumpty's position on the meaning of the word dichotomization, and expects us to take him seriously?<BR/><BR/>You'll also notice that he doesn't stand behind his arguments enough to reveal his real identity. All he deserves at this point is a good horse laugh.</B><BR/><BR/>Keeping that in mind, look at how utterly correct he was, and how utterly Pavlovian John and his schizoid others have been:<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>In keeping with cosmo's equivocation between capitalism and communism</I><BR/><BR/>Not a single equivocation between the two. And earlier John jimself chides me for supposedly dichotomizing the two. Which is it? Mixing the two, delineating clearly, or....? John cannot decide, for schizophrenia reigns.<BR/>To wit, after more Pavlovian babble in an attempt to distort:<BR/><BR/><I>He does himself one better by lamenting the decline in "buying power" (purchasing power?) of the last 25 years, yet celebrates the economic benefits (cosmo doesn't specify what they are)</I><BR/><BR/>Again ignoring simple defintions gleaned from Noah Webster and cohorts, he seems lost that the words buy and purchase can mean the same thing, i.e.- are synonyms. Yet, this causes so much confusion as he needs to parenthesize, to imply to the reader dumber than he that there was some sort of distinction that reader missed and John picked up on, when there was none. Only by lies and distortions as this can John even attempt to 'look serious'.<BR/><BR/><I>attributable to the ascendancy of unionization over the last 150 years - which is, so says economic historian cosmo, responsible for his free weekends and forty hour work weeks. Overtime legislation is a product of the FLSA, passed in 1938; and, as far as I know, plenty of people still work on the weekends - including our dwindling band of union members. Union membership has been on a steady decline over the course of the last three decades in the private sector (8% or so, at 1930's levels), so its not surprising that Shermer or anyone else would choose to ignore it.</I><BR/><BR/>Making vast assumptions and ignoring history, John then tries to marginalize Labor's effects, trying to portray workplace regulations as the product of enlightened gov't rather than the political pressure of interest groups like unions, and then descends into typical Right Wing drivel of the sort which undergirds every insane post he has made. Next...<BR/><BR/><I>Cosmo's also upset that markets encourage discrimination (one of his VERY few accurate observations) because discrimination is ipso facto amoral. Why? Who the hell knows.</I><BR/><BR/>One of the few true gems where John de facto admits he is, in the very least, amoral, and at worst, a sociopath, which his trolling and cyberstalking bear out. We then get further exhibits of John's utter idiocy, such as:<BR/><BR/><I>Alan Greenspan was a "devout Keynesian". (that's a good one).</I><BR/><BR/>Which shows that John has never had an original thought in his multiple lives, for any intervention by the government in the so-called free market, utterly renders Smithian ec a dinosaur, and Keynes a man prescient, ahead of his time.<BR/><BR/><I>a Scottish economist who died over a century before Keynes was even born.</I><BR/><BR/>Where John finally recognizes the timeframe wherein Smith lived, rather than his earlier bizarre claims of that being within the last six decades (see above).<BR/><BR/>Then more inane drivel, and an attempt to claim yet another lance in his bloated side did not hurt, and reveal him as the schizoid fool he is, not to mention utterly proving Mike Huben correct in his earlier claim of John's sophism- as a disingenuous person; wherein he ends his post again revealuing he does not think for himself, by his inability to deal with morals and ethics (which a sophistic sociopath, naturally, would have issues with).<BR/><BR/>But, John pseudonymously will have his bit of glory when his rants are used as illustrations in my varied essays on early Internet sciolism. This a joy that even Mr. Hand cannot gibe him, try though he may.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13996385190041625619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-43155791177752935842008-02-13T23:18:00.000-05:002008-02-13T23:18:00.000-05:00As we proceed...In keeping with cosmo's equivocati...As we proceed...<BR/><BR/>In keeping with cosmo's equivocation between capitalism and communism, he goes on to chide Shermer for discussing the failures of communism - yet not recognizing the abject failure of its couterpart, "pure capitalism" - something our resident economist and historian cosmo here attributes to spawning The Great Depression. Now, the various "causes" of the Great Depression have been the subject of debate for several decades. Today, most economists accept the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression#Monetarist_explanations" REL="nofollow">monetarist</A> explanation of the roots of this economic crisis, which had alot more with Federal Reserve's horrific monetary policy than with a lack of Federal minimum wages or overtime laws. Only the ignorant left operates under the illusion that the Depression of the 30's is attributable to unregulated markets or a lack of unsustainable ponzi schemes like Social Security or Medicare. Yet, in keeping with the deluded confidence that only someone who doesn't know any better could sustain, cosmo calls Shermer the "evangelist" for apparently not making these points in his book. What points Shermer DID make on the issues cosmo is raising here.. well, hard to know what they are exactly, because cosmo doesn't say. At this stage, we are really in sort of amateur cosmo political rant mode. The level of sophistication befitting a guy with an associates degree in history from a community college.<BR/><BR/>But not before doling out yet another perplexing inconsistency. Earlier I noted how, in back-to-back paragraphs, cosmo criticized Shermer for describing human nature as both too self-absorbed AND too altruistic. He does himself one better by lamenting the decline in "buying power" (purchasing power?) of the last 25 years, yet celebrates the economic benefits (cosmo doesn't specify what they are) attributable to the ascendancy of unionization over the last 150 years - which is, so says economic historian cosmo, responsible for his free weekends and forty hour work weeks. Overtime legislation is a product of the FLSA, passed in 1938; and, as far as I know, plenty of people still work on the weekends - including our dwindling band of union members. Union membership has been on a steady decline over the course of the last three decades in the private sector (8% or so, at 1930's levels), so its not surprising that Shermer or anyone else would choose to ignore it. Cosmo's also upset that markets encourage discrimination (one of his VERY few accurate observations) because discrimination is ipso facto amoral. Why? Who the hell knows.<BR/><BR/>All this is but a prelude to some of the really ridiculous fodder. Among them are the claims that my IMac, Ipod, flatscreen and cameraphone owe themselves not to free enterprise, but to taxpayer supported R&D. Good to know. Alan Greenspan was a "devout Keynesian". (that's a <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan#Greenspan_and_Objectivism" REL="nofollow">good one</A>). A totally bizarre comparison between Adam Smith and Keynes - in which cosmo makes an amateur forray into economic history, and reveals that he doesn't have the slightest clue as to the difference between a Keynesian and a monetarist, as if either were relevant in the context of Adam Smith, a Scottish economist who died over a century before Keynes was even born. But even that isn't as poorly thought out (or perplexing) as cosmo's contention that our crappy airline system (one of the U.S.'s most highly unionized industries) is a result of the Reagan administration firing the PATCO air-traffic controllers over 25 years ago. More, please!<BR/><BR/>I'll leave it at that for now. It's hard to know how to respond to cosmo's virtually unintelligible rebuttal to my last post, since he didn't really addres anything I said. The closest to comprehensibility I got was yet another definition pulled from webster.com, revealing that (surprise) cosmo is blissfully unaware of the vast abundance of varying literature to be found in the contemporary, superfluous philosophical debate over the distinction between morals and ethics. <BR/><BR/>All I can say in response is this: Cosmo, you are an amazing and incredible internet debater of whom cyberhistorians will write books and sing songs. Now, take off the catcher's mask, change out of your week old, skid-mark infested fruit-of-the-loom skivies, get out of your parent's basement and soak in some daylight, my man.<BR/><BR/>To be continued. ;-)johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-886811712609038372008-02-13T08:59:00.000-05:002008-02-13T08:59:00.000-05:00Now John tries, after 76 posts, to change his tack...Now John tries, after 76 posts, to change his tack.<BR/><BR/>After being reduced to utter babble, he is integrating the Geoff side.<BR/><BR/>And this is the best he can do: cosmo's arbitrary distinction between "morality" and "ethics".<BR/><BR/>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary<BR/><BR/>1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law -the manner of punishment is arbitrary-2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority -an arbitrary government- b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power -protection from arbitrary arrest and detention-3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something -an arbitrary standard- -take any arbitrary positive number- -arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee- b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will -when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan-<BR/><BR/>This, even though the two words are distinguished by that imposed from without, and that from within, one vis religion and one via personal humanism.<BR/><BR/>He laso tries to imply that I do not back up statements, although he has made dozens of posts trying to unravel prior one I backed up, again switching gears, after a several day hiatus to emotionally recover from his battering. And, with repeated displays of reading incomprehension, John thinks anything he says re: reading a book or not has credibility. <BR/><BR/>As the Roadrunner says, 'Beep-beep!'<BR/><BR/>Is it a or b? And of course, if I state Shermer said he owned a red car when he was 19, I am not going to 'defend' such a statement, since it is neither here nor there to the argument whether Shermer is lying or not. Similarly, any sports fan will understand the Pirates-Yankees analogy, which ends: 'how the 1960s World Series, won by the Pittsburgh Pirates over the New York Yankees, in seven games, could have happened, since the Yankees dominated the series in every category, except wins.' comes a paragraph after 'As example, when making a point, Shermer too often falls back on naked statistics- a dangerous tack since any accountant will tell you that numbers are easier to train than dogs. This is why, especially in the blogosphere, one sees so many sciolists linking to studies whose supposedly ‘hard’ numbers support their view, even if the linkers’ numbers are both true and oppositional. Shermer also falls back on too many logical fallacies, the most abundant of which is the Appeal To Authority. Even more so than relying on statistics, when one cannot rationally cohere an argument in one’s own words, you know the argument is in trouble. Furthermore, many of the examples Shermer cites are based upon Academic presuppositions and not real world verities.'<BR/>Like the car, there is no need to question the use of stats, since they are in abundance. The point was not any individual stat, but the tack of swamping a reader with stats.<BR/><BR/>These are the points of reading folk like John willfully ignore.<BR/><BR/>So, yet another way to embarrass himself, waiting for the emergence of Jim, like the Alien chest-burster. <BR/><BR/>Time ticks away as John's facial tics increase.Cosmoeticahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018993247605381258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-53042145125835232152008-02-12T23:05:00.000-05:002008-02-12T23:05:00.000-05:00Actually, Mike deserves props for reminding us of ...Actually, Mike deserves props for reminding us of what inspired the thread in the first place: Cosmo's "review." I'm also sure that cosmo appreciates being tagged in the ring.<BR/><BR/>Although, I can't say that the "central theme" - as summarized in the excerpt cited by Mike - is something to like or dislike. Again, I haven't read the book, and am thus in a poor position to defend Shermer on the merits. Yet, judging by the review, I suspect that cosmo didn't read it either. (I know, for instance, that he never read, "The Bell Curve," though he implies that he did early on). Actually, that's the silliest part of the "prologue" - Cosmo's contention that Shermer's book reminds him of 10 other books he's never read and is pretty sure that the 3 or 4 people reading his take on Shermer haven't read either.<BR/><BR/>To begin, the entire screed reminds me of an Andrew Sullivan's "Poser Alert" - a recognition periodically given to authors of prose that stands out for its pretension, vanity and really bad writing designed to look like profundity. Mike has already pointed out the poor editing. That aside, it's funny to see him accuse Shermer's book of being too long - at the inception of this grueling, seventy-five HUNDRED word book "review."<BR/><BR/>For another, the "criticisms," if you can call them that, seem to have less to do with the reasoning employed in Shermer's book than cosmo's trouble with Shermer's libertarian tendencies. Cosmo accuses Shermer early on of being "out of his element" in writing a book about politics. Shermer fails "repeatedly" to "link economics to the sciences." Cosmo's example? Shermer too often employs the use of statistics. Now, everyone is aware of the truth underlying Disraeli's concept of "lies, damned lies, and statistics," but that, without more, is an empty criticism. Cosmo apparently diapproved of the points Shermer was trying to prove (whatever those may be) but was incapable (or too lazy) to articulate specific statistical fallacies. If its true that Shermer would not know why the Pirates beat the Yankees in the 1960 World Series, cosmo draws no examples from the book as to why that may be. <BR/><BR/>Cosmo doesn't like Shermer invocation of the concept of "morality" in describing markets, at least in light of cosmo's arbitrary distinction between "morality" and "ethics" (such amateur philosophising gives you away as a sophomore immediately, cosmo). It's hard for me to know how and it what context, however, Shermer conflates economics with morality, because cosmo doesn't bother to say. On the one hand, Shermer is a deluded devotee of the concept of man as "homo-economicus," and hence fails to recognize that not all participants in the economy pursue their own selfish interests. On the other, Shermer is "wrongheaded" in his claim that there is a 10,000:1 ratio of instances of altruism to instances of blatant selfishness manifested in violent criminality. But hey, the punchline is that man is "indifferent" - a concept cosmo doesn't define, much less explain why it is so significant in the final analysis. From this fine analysis, cosmo figures his four readers should be fairly convinced that Shermer is a free market "evangelist" who sees the world in black-and-white. Wow. I'm convinced.<BR/><BR/>More later...johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-85163411585384573862008-02-11T09:01:00.000-05:002008-02-11T09:01:00.000-05:00Mike,I'm not trolling but for the sake of staying ...Mike,<BR/><BR/>I'm not trolling but for the sake of staying I'll try to cease my negativity.<BR/><BR/>GeoffGeoffrey Macombhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08823758754905272154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-61408868521924156822008-02-10T20:52:00.000-05:002008-02-10T20:52:00.000-05:00Mike: It's funny, but in everything from the mau-m...Mike: It's funny, but in everything from the mau-mau style at first to his reversal of the first letters in the appellations, John utterly proves my point, and with his on-again, off-again Geoff act, he does too, always chiming in perfectly with the expected responses.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, folk like John/Geoff, are so blindered by their own sill grandiosity, that they do not realize that there are thousands of deluded folk like him out there, who use the same 'Na-na, stick out the tongue, and give a raspberry tactic, only to immediately assume the 'other demeanor/personality' which congratulates the puerile half on how sane and rational they are, even though no other thinking being does.<BR/><BR/>Just look at how utterly Pavlovian John's/Geoff's replies have been, and the more I stare him down the more agitate and frustrated he gets.<BR/><BR/>The lesson you, Mike, should learn, is never have pity on these sciolistic sophists. Mock them ceaselesssly. My wife was once on a Sylvia Plath e-list, and got cyber-stalked by a Finnish girl who we believe ended up killing herself, as several other people emailed us in regards to her stalking them.<BR/><BR/>Of course, like John/Geoff, this deluded girl also assumed personalities and claimed she was other people. But, their urges to lash out are like facial tics, and even applying a prosthetic cannot hide it.<BR/><BR/>Thus, I'm sure, in Pavlovian fashion, Geoff/John/Jim/Mr. Hand, will make a few more appearances....unless I am using reverse psychology, and goading him into silence.<BR/><BR/>The precipice awaits the deluded one.<BR/><BR/>I say, push until they do a Wile E. Coyote.Cosmoeticahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018993247605381258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-59836349035093063572008-02-10T20:34:00.000-05:002008-02-10T20:34:00.000-05:00By the way, John/Geoff, you should end your trolli...By the way, John/Geoff, you should end your trolling. You're coming very close to being disemvowelled.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-66456820017986726962008-02-10T20:30:00.000-05:002008-02-10T20:30:00.000-05:00Geoff, if somebody wants to know something about w...Geoff, if somebody wants to know something about what I think, they can simply ask.<BR/><BR/>I liked Dan's review quite a lot: enough that I added it to my site. I don't praise new entries a lot: I prefer people make up their own minds without my endorsements.<BR/><BR/>And I liked this central theme:<BR/><BR/>"In this regard, The Mind Of The Market is a weird amalgam of Libertarian canards (Shermer's political bias and shilling was evident before page 5, although it took page 90, or a third into his 261 page book to admit the manifest) and bleeding heart fallacies, a sort of pseudo-philosophy, not pseudo-science, although one might term it a quasi-scientific book."<BR/><BR/>IMHO, Dan supported that theme quite well.<BR/><BR/>One thing that I particularly liked was that Dan captured the conflicted feelings of people like ourselves who admire Shermer for his skepticism yet are amazed that he buys into that market-worshipping load of libertarian bollocks.Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-28318197763328106102008-02-10T19:30:00.000-05:002008-02-10T19:30:00.000-05:00I honestly couldn't give two sh*ts if he thinks I'...I honestly couldn't give two sh*ts if he thinks I'm you, the pope, or Cindy Lauper, all I want him to realize is that despite his illusions of grandeur and his proclamations of intellectual superiority he is in fact a hack. H-A-C-K! I believe that for some reason he actually thinks his writing is good and his articles are interesting. It just frustrates me to no end when people are blind to their own flaws. Call me Simon Cowell but this man sucks!<BR/><BR/>GeoffGeoffrey Macombhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08823758754905272154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-20159307990795849932008-02-10T18:43:00.000-05:002008-02-10T18:43:00.000-05:00James is a nice guy. Mike isn't. Not that I have...James is a nice guy. Mike isn't. Not that I have a problem with that.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately Geoff, I like your idea of poking fun of cosmo's "review" in lieu of this this inanity. Unfortunately however, I think cosmo is going to relegate every one of his responses from this point forward to an accusation (in one form of another) of how you are my alter ego.<BR/><BR/>Short of chlorpromazine and a heavy dose of electroshock therapy, I think we are all stuck with it.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-36893652976682139592008-02-10T18:30:00.000-05:002008-02-10T18:30:00.000-05:00dan,If you think John and I have the same writing ...dan,<BR/><BR/>If you think John and I have the same writing style you're either blind, illiterate or dumb, and for some reason I'm leaning towards dumb. Admit it man, you are your own one man circus show. You don't need any help with making yourself look like a fool. It's entertaining sure, however I feel as though this whole thread has gotten off track. So I say we get back to your poorly written and edited review. <BR/><BR/>Now I just want to point out to you, Dan, that Mike and James, who in my short observation here are very friendly, intelligent chaps, hadn't even really had anything nice to say about it. Sure they skirted around the negative comments to save your feelings but I could not find even one directly positive thing from either of them. <BR/><BR/>That should tell you something. <BR/><BR/>GeoffGeoffrey Macombhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08823758754905272154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-84519782126446734072008-02-10T18:01:00.000-05:002008-02-10T18:01:00.000-05:00Oliver has fish for breakfast, usually, when he is...Oliver has fish for breakfast, usually, when he isn't on acid and staring into the sun wishing he was me.<BR/><BR/>(Dosmo/Can soaks his head in a tub of icewater to stop the voices in his head) <BR/><BR/>-When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept, for there were no more domains to conquer.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-32686208427680365832008-02-10T14:17:00.000-05:002008-02-10T14:17:00.000-05:0066 posts and he's been reduced to multiple persona...66 posts and he's been reduced to multiple personalities and Pavlovian mimicry. <BR/><BR/>As the commercial says....PRICELESS!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13996385190041625619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-25372521954950818692008-02-10T13:53:00.000-05:002008-02-10T13:53:00.000-05:00Cosmo, is incoherence a defense mechanism?Cosmo, is incoherence a defense mechanism?johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-90052341509037280002008-02-09T19:50:00.000-05:002008-02-09T19:50:00.000-05:00Geoff:"And 'more than two' can start with 2.1, if ...Geoff:<BR/><BR/>"And 'more than two' can start with 2.1, if you are using fractions."<BR/><BR/>HA HA!! You didn't say that. You said that "'more than two' starts with three." See, that's what we super-duper internet debaters call an "assertion."<BR/><BR/><B>And you typed 'Cosmo, can't "more than two" start with 4 if you are ascending(or 0 if you are decending)in multiples of 2?' My quote was in reply to your parsing. Now, say 'reply'.<BR/><BR/>So, Jim has arrived. I've succeeded in splitting the atom of your neuron.<BR/><BR/>But where's John?</B>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13996385190041625619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-56883341509103556262008-02-08T20:16:00.000-05:002008-02-08T20:16:00.000-05:00Here is my impression of cosmo:"And 'more than two...Here is my impression of cosmo:<BR/><BR/>"And 'more than two' can start with 2.1, if you are using fractions."<BR/><BR/>HA HA!! You didn't say that. You said that "'more than two' starts with three." See, that's what we super-duper internet debaters call an "assertion."<BR/><BR/>as·ser·tion:<BR/><BR/>Pronunciation[uh-sur-shuhn]<BR/>–noun 1. a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason: a mere assertion; an unwarranted assertion. <BR/>2. an act of asserting.<BR/><BR/>You display of a first grade reading and math comprehesion. Read a dictionary before you embarrass yourself. Scioloists of cyberspace...bear witness to my logic...Cyberhistorians will celebrate me!!! You have been found out...You are really Mike!! You are really James! Your name is Mames/Jike!!<BR/><BR/>ummm. Bannanas...johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-54309463234348842942008-02-08T19:29:00.000-05:002008-02-08T19:29:00.000-05:00John: 'Cosmo, can't "more than two" start with 4 i...John: <BR/><BR/>'Cosmo, can't "more than two" start with 4 if you are ascending(or 0 if you are decending)in multiples of 2?'<BR/><BR/>Translation: 'D'oh!'<BR/><BR/>And 'more than two' can start with 2.1, if you are using fractions. Sort of like how John progressed from John to John + Mr. Hand to Geoff.<BR/><BR/>....John looking in a mirror, feverishly thumbing a dictionary for a retort and wondering how he was found out....'D'oh!....Cosmoeticahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018993247605381258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-22081242351467068102008-02-08T18:33:00.000-05:002008-02-08T18:33:00.000-05:00See Jeff, what did I tell you?Cosmo, can't "more t...See Jeff, what did I tell you?<BR/><BR/>Cosmo, can't "more than two" start with 4 if you are ascending(or 0 if you are decending)in multiples of 2?johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-58726348996452412382008-02-08T17:31:00.000-05:002008-02-08T17:31:00.000-05:00'Is that right cosmo? Does "more than two" start w...'Is that right cosmo? Does "more than two" start with the number three?'<BR/><BR/><B>Yes. This will give you a headstart on your next personae when you tire of Geoff, or he of you, in between the banana and your sticky keyboard.</B>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13996385190041625619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-37840144737204324552008-02-08T16:43:00.000-05:002008-02-08T16:43:00.000-05:00I really REALLY did plan to stop picking on cosmo,...I really REALLY did plan to stop picking on cosmo, but he riddles every post with so many gems that I couldn't resist.<BR/><BR/>Cosmo: "...'more than two' starts with three. Again, it's called reading."<BR/><BR/>Is that right cosmo? Does "more than two" start with the number three? Is your "reading" as good as your math?johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-50872156099120521442008-02-08T16:09:00.000-05:002008-02-08T16:09:00.000-05:00Gohn/Jeoff:Do you really think your morphing back ...Gohn/Jeoff:<BR/><BR/>Do you really think your morphing back to the other side and continuing your logorrhetic mishmash of nonsense is a winner?<BR/><BR/>'Cosmo: One cannot have an extreme without a mean, just as North is pointless w/o a South. If one speaks of 'extremes' there is logically at least one mean. Two extremes plus one mean equals a minimum of three reference points. The prefix di- in dichotomy means two. Therefore, I in no way, shape nor form implied nor directly stated a dichotomy.<BR/><BR/>Translation: When I spoke of "two" things i really meant three. Two is not the same as three. Therefore, there is no "dichotomy."<BR/><BR/>In other words, there is no "dichotomy" between a genius like me and a intellectual plebe like cosmo, because there are average people like Geoff who fall in the middle. Great "logic," cosmo. Give me more.<BR/><BR/><B> No, I actually spoke of more than two things, there was no specific, although 'more than two' starts with three. Again, it's called reading. Had you controlled your schizophrenia well enough in grade school you would have passed basic grammar. But you and You fall nowhere in the middle, save for a rubber room. And still not a single comment from either of you one that shows a hint of intelligence. And no need to declare victory. You didn't even show up for the rumble.<BR/><BR/>But, don't worry, the banana still works.</B>Cosmoeticahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10018993247605381258noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8381613.post-44856143924658092652008-02-07T22:26:00.000-05:002008-02-07T22:26:00.000-05:00Actually, I cant resist upon re-reading this nonse...Actually, I cant resist upon re-reading this nonsense at poking a little fun at it:<BR/><BR/>Cosmo: One cannot have an extreme without a mean, just as North is pointless w/o a South. If one speaks of 'extremes' there is logically at least one mean. Two extremes plus one mean equals a minimum of three reference points. The prefix di- in dichotomy means two. Therefore, I in no way, shape nor form implied nor directly stated a dichotomy.<BR/><BR/>Translation: When I spoke of "two" things i really meant three. Two is not the same as three. Therefore, there is no "dichotomy."<BR/><BR/>In other words, there is no "dichotomy" between a genius like me and a intellectual plebe like cosmo, because there are average people like Geoff who fall in the middle. Great "logic," cosmo. Give me more.johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14003060172306899388noreply@blogger.com