mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/29/85)
Lines marked with an odd number of '>' are those of Baba; the rest are mine. >>>>>I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given >>>>>by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed >>>>>libertarian several weeks earlier. >>>> >>>> 1) Rather than seeming to recall, why doesn't Baba give us a concrete >>>>example? >>> >>>Quite simply, spar doesn't have enough disk space to archive more than a >>>couple of weeks worth of news. Both your article and the one it put >>>me in mind of are lost under the rainbow. If you would care to mail >>>me a copy of your article, I'll be happy to tell you which example >>>I was referring to. >> >>Wonderful! Baba makes an assertion which he cannot substantiate, and the >>truth of which I question, and then asks him that I send him the proof. If >>I knew of an article which proved his accusation, I wouldn't have challenged >>it in the first place. I find his request extremely bizarre! > >If you would take the time to read my postings before replying, you might >notice a few little things that seem to escape your attention. Like the >fact that I was requesting a copy of *YOUR* article. If you would take the time to think before making your demands, you might see how bizarre they are. I KNOW that you were requesting one of MY articles, but let's examine your request. 1. You claim that I attacked an argument as straw-man when it had been used by someone calling himself 'libertarian'. 2. I doubt it, and ask for a concrete example. 3. You ask me to send an example. If I don't know anything about the alleged example, other than that it is alleged as an example, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH ARTICLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?!? Let alone where to find it! As I said: BIZARRE!!! >(In the referenced article, I caught Dan'l in yet another attempt at libel.) Baba, I NEVER attempt libel. I may wrongly accuse someone of something, but only because, in the context of the knowledge that I have, they appear to have done what I accuse them of. When I am reasonably shown to be wrong (about persons or otherwise), I publicly admit error (and, where called for, apologize). You have (deliberately or otherwise) libelled me. >>Well, since I appear to have screwed up badly here, I apologize. Of course, >>the alternative would be to stoop to your level, and simply drop-out of >>the argument rather than concede error. > >Which argument do you claim I dropped out of "rather than concede error"? Case in point: You asserted that free market conditions could be such that economic growth was necessary to attain full employment. I pointed out that demand for labor and supply of labor were both functions of wage rates, and that in a Free Economy workers and employers would bid wages up or down until full employment was attained, without there necessarily being any growth in the economy. In our arguments over inflation and unemployment, you pointed out ONE genuine flaw in what I said; specifically, you noted that a general rise in prices could be brought about by a major supply-shock, AND I PUBLICLY ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT. At every other point you simply dropped out of the argument. >How many people do you think you are going to move to anything but contempt >with your cheap innuendoes? Again you libel me. I never engage in ennuendo (cheap or otherwise); I state my points (insulting or otherwise) OPENLY, so they are readily subject to examination. You're the one who uses innuendo (YES, I CAN supply EXAMPLES), altho you also insult openly. > You had 'em snowed with your economic jargon >for a while, Dan'l, but you are now making a fool of yourself. I've repeatedly offered to explain ANY jargon that I use, and (in fact) have actually done so at times (case in point: explaining that 'full employment' refers to a state where there is no frictional unemployment (I have also, by implication, explained what frictional unemployment is)). I use economic jargon in discussing economics for the same reason that you might use computer jargon in a discussion of computers or mathematical jargon in a discussion of mathematics or electronic jargon in a discussion of electronics et cetera. If I made some absurd pronouncements about combinatorics (in net.math), chances are that I wouldn't understand the jargon used in the responses; if opponents offerred to explain their jargon, I'd have no basis for complaint. People writing in net.politics(|.theory) have made some absurd pronouncements about economics; I have offerred to explain my jargon. Back later, DKMcK
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (05/01/85)
Lines marked with an odd number of '>' are DKMcK; the rest are mine. (Isn't this incredible?) >>>>>>I seem to recall that one of the examples of ludicrous straw men given >>>>>>by DKMcK was in fact a proposition put forward by a self-proclaimed >>>>>>libertarian several weeks earlier. >>>>> >>>>> 1) Rather than seeming to recall, why doesn't Baba give us a concrete >>>>>example? >>>> >>>>Quite simply, spar doesn't have enough disk space to archive more than a >>>>couple of weeks worth of news... ...If you would care to mail >>>>me a copy of your article, I'll be happy to tell you which example >>>>I was referring to. >>> >>>Wonderful! Baba makes an assertion which he cannot substantiate, and the >>>truth of which I question, and then asks him that I send him the proof. If >>>I knew of an article which proved his accusation, I wouldn't have challenged >>>it in the first place. I find his request extremely bizarre! >> >>If you would take the time to read my postings before replying, you might >>notice a few little things that seem to escape your attention. Like the >>fact that I was requesting a copy of *YOUR* article. > > If you would take the time to think before making your demands, you might > see how bizarre they are. I KNOW that you were requesting one of MY > articles, but let's examine your request. > 1. You claim that I attacked an argument as straw-man when it had been > used by someone calling himself 'libertarian'. > 2. I doubt it, and ask for a concrete example. > 3. You ask me to send an example. > If I don't know anything about the alleged example, other than that it is > alleged as an example, HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHICH ARTICLE YOU'RE > TALKING ABOUT?!? Let alone where to find it! As I said: BIZARRE!!! We have no fewer than 6 levels of quotation up there (quite an achievement). There was another, but you edited it out iterations ago, that being an excerpt from alice!jj's article, "Regarding Libertarians and the Argumentations thereof", with message ID 3594@alice.UUCP. In it jj referred to the previous article of yours concerning those rhetorical scarecrows. Unfortunately, he did not post his article as a "followup" in the news system, so I cannot tell you how to find your article on your machine. I don't think it should really be that difficult if your postings are archived anywhere. Tell you what: If you've posted multiple articles dealing with straw-man arguments directed against libertarians, you could mail them *all* to me. But finish reading this one first. > >Which argument do you claim I dropped out of "rather than concede error"? > > Case in point: You asserted that free market conditions could be such that > economic growth was necessary to attain full employment. I pointed out that > demand for labor and supply of labor were both functions of wage rates, and > that in a Free Economy workers and employers would bid wages up or down until > full employment was attained, without there necessarily being any growth in > the economy. Your reply, in this case, came about a month after the article of mine that it referenced (this was, you will recall, around the time that Larry Cipriani reported that you were unavoidably detained by homework and exams), and although I wrote a response to it as an exercise, I decided that it was "old news" and left it sitting around. If you'd like to read it, send me your net mail address (I know ratex doesn't work). It at least contains more than personal abuse. > In our arguments over inflation and unemployment, you pointed out ONE > genuine flaw in what I said; specifically, you noted that a general rise in > prices could be brought about by a major supply-shock, AND I PUBLICLY > ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE RIGHT. At every other point you simply dropped out of > the argument. The last statement is simply untrue. On March 3 I posted an article entitled: "Inflation -- Back from B'ba -- to Dan'l again", which referenced message ID 911 on ratex, and which raised further questions about your thesis that a "free economy" with competitive currencies was inflation-proof. I never saw a response. So either my article never reached ratex, or your article never reached spar. Or you didn't reply. But the first two possibilities are the most likely, on usenet. Mail and news get lost pretty often, at least in this part of the net. And I don't think our area is unique. To get back to the matter at hand, if you were unaware of the fundamentally unreliable nature of usenet, perhaps you saw an article in which someone attacked an alleged libertarian argument. Perhaps that argument had in fact been made in an article that never reached your site. Perhaps you therefore *assumed* the alleged libertarian argument to be a straw man. Sheer speculation, of course, but please be aware that silence carries no information on usenet. Baba