Message 24375594
You- yes you, were talking about me, in reply to the post above. Then you, yes you, came here to "discuss" things.
I'm not a bit defensive about my positions. I already told you, assume you are correct. I don't expect to be correct on economics. It's not my area. I'm not embarrassed to be wrong about it- I can't be an expert on everything. But what I am right about is my first paragraph. I'm not trying to "deflect" your counter arguments, and my ideas in this area are of very little importance to me, but I think you (might), eventually, be able to see why a "discussion" prompted by the message you responded to, might be considered a bit of a subterfuge. Is it possible that you really weren't being personal, even though you replied to a nasty post with speculation about me and quickly trotted over here, after (how did you put it) YEARS, in order to speak to me? Sure. Maybe you are clean and pure as the driven snow. I can't see in your heart, nor do I want to. But the evidence is against you- most of your posts here, and your post there. And don't fool yourself. This has nothing to do with my feelings about the substance of your claims. I'm sure you're more correct on economics than I am. You've always been very knowledgeable on that topic- that's not what this is about.
I can't tell if you are embarrassed at being caught out, and are this just very defensive about this yourself, and are using the "attack is the best defense" stratagem, of if you genuinely don't get why discussing someone elsewhere the way you did might be objectionable. I really don't think my response to your behavior on the other thread, and my suspicions, are that odd. People generally like to be talked TO rather than about, and most people have a certain reticence to "discuss" things in a friendly way with people who are engaged in a nasty conversation elsewhere about them. Just in case you didn't know that. |
