Yeah, so I’ll just leave this here… (since in the best tradition of correct-line-ism, mention of ‘correct line’ cultism perpetrated the morally-omniscient Aris Katsaris results in… ad hoc penalisation by the aforementioned Islamophonbe and scared “China and Russia will divide and conquer Europe” irrational fearmonger).
Not only are you an economic ignoramus (evidenced by the fact that you had no idea what transitivity of preferences even MEANT until late December 2012) but you’re also as dishonest as the numbskull who is the front-man for Scientology.
If you can’t read English, then remedial language study is indicated: apart from that you’re just some dilettante who thinks that he doesn’t have to read the key literature in ANY discipline before waffling about it (“I haven’t read Coase”… “I haven’t read Rand”… “I haven’t read anything on existentialism”… “Can someone on this forum tell me if intransitive preferences implies irrationality?”).
You’re a living, breathing advertisement for Dunning-Kruger.
Wait—don’t tell me… you aren’t aware of their work. Google it.
Here’s the thing: if I was as dishonest as you are, I would get together 6 mates and drive your ‘net’ Karma to zero in two days. It is so stupidly easy that nobody who’s not a retard thinks it’s worth doing.
And the big problem you face is that I don’t give a toss what number my ‘karma’ winds up at: this is the internet.
I’ve been on the web for a decade longer than you (since the WANK hack, if that means anything to you, which I doubt): I know this stuff back to front. I’ve been dealing with bloviating self-regarding retards like you since you were in middle-school (or the Greek equivalent).
You do NOT want this war: you’re not up to it, as evidenced by the fact that you think that all you need to do outside of your narrow disciplline (programming, no) is bloviate. Intellectual battles are not won or lost by resorting to stupid debating tactics: they are won by the people who do the groundwork in the relevant discipline. You’re a lightweight who does not read core material in disciplines on which you pontificate, which makes you sound like a pompous windbag anywhere other than this site.
You would be better off spending your time masturbating over Harry Potter (which is to literature what L Ron Hubbard is to theology) or hentai… and writing turgid pretentious self-absorbed fan fiction.
You not only made a ludicrous attempt to supposedly shame me by googling previous stuff about me, but your attempt to do so is as much of a failure as everything else you’ve posted—it took me a min to figure out what the hell you were even referring to in regards to “transitive preferences”. You are referring to an Ornery forum discussion where someone else asked that question, and I answered them—not a question I asked others.
Your reading comprehension fails, your google-fu fails, etc, etc...
You also don’t seemingly see a discrepancy between your constant accusations of me supposedly being “dishonest” and yet how I openly admit my levels of ignorance whenever such ignorance may be relevant to a discussion?
Nor do you seemingly see a problem with so easily accusing me of such a serious moral crime as dishonesty, without the slightest shred of evidence. Is this what your moral sense entails, freely making slanderous accusations?
Yeah, so I’ll just leave this here… (since in the best tradition of correct-line-ism, mention of ‘correct line’ cultism perpetrated the morally-omniscient Aris Katsaris results in… ad hoc penalisation by the aforementioned Islamophonbe and scared “China and Russia will divide and conquer Europe” irrational fearmonger).
Not only are you an economic ignoramus (evidenced by the fact that you had no idea what transitivity of preferences even MEANT until late December 2012) but you’re also as dishonest as the numbskull who is the front-man for Scientology.
If you can’t read English, then remedial language study is indicated: apart from that you’re just some dilettante who thinks that he doesn’t have to read the key literature in ANY discipline before waffling about it (“I haven’t read Coase”… “I haven’t read Rand”… “I haven’t read anything on existentialism”… “Can someone on this forum tell me if intransitive preferences implies irrationality?”).
You’re a living, breathing advertisement for Dunning-Kruger.
Wait—don’t tell me… you aren’t aware of their work. Google it.
Here’s the thing: if I was as dishonest as you are, I would get together 6 mates and drive your ‘net’ Karma to zero in two days. It is so stupidly easy that nobody who’s not a retard thinks it’s worth doing.
And the big problem you face is that I don’t give a toss what number my ‘karma’ winds up at: this is the internet.
I’ve been on the web for a decade longer than you (since the WANK hack, if that means anything to you, which I doubt): I know this stuff back to front. I’ve been dealing with bloviating self-regarding retards like you since you were in middle-school (or the Greek equivalent).
You do NOT want this war: you’re not up to it, as evidenced by the fact that you think that all you need to do outside of your narrow disciplline (programming, no) is bloviate. Intellectual battles are not won or lost by resorting to stupid debating tactics: they are won by the people who do the groundwork in the relevant discipline. You’re a lightweight who does not read core material in disciplines on which you pontificate, which makes you sound like a pompous windbag anywhere other than this site.
You would be better off spending your time masturbating over Harry Potter (which is to literature what L Ron Hubbard is to theology) or hentai… and writing turgid pretentious self-absorbed fan fiction.
Ga Muti. (or Ka muti if you prefer a hard gamma).
You not only made a ludicrous attempt to supposedly shame me by googling previous stuff about me, but your attempt to do so is as much of a failure as everything else you’ve posted—it took me a min to figure out what the hell you were even referring to in regards to “transitive preferences”. You are referring to an Ornery forum discussion where someone else asked that question, and I answered them—not a question I asked others.
Your reading comprehension fails, your google-fu fails, etc, etc...
You also don’t seemingly see a discrepancy between your constant accusations of me supposedly being “dishonest” and yet how I openly admit my levels of ignorance whenever such ignorance may be relevant to a discussion?
Nor do you seemingly see a problem with so easily accusing me of such a serious moral crime as dishonesty, without the slightest shred of evidence. Is this what your moral sense entails, freely making slanderous accusations?