Tommaso-
Alright smarty-pants, I'll take you on. In response to a comment by Paul, I made what I think was a reasonably cogent argument that investing in common stocks was a breed apart from gambling. He responded in a way that did not at all address the points I had made. Moreover, as best I could discern, his post contained no real defense of his position. He made one point that was was largely untrue IMO, and I pointed that out. Under these circumstances I think my comment that his post was devoid of ideas I could address was correct. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out where he did effectively defend his position.
<<That seems to be the situation with most of the posts by other people that you read. The question then arises, why do you bother to address these non-existent ideas>>
False claim, bub- a fair reading of my responses on SI would show that the overwhelming majority of my posts are not critical of other posters in any way. As for the ones I do criticize for lack of ideas- well am I wrong? If so, kindly make your case- I am always open to being proven wrong, if you are up to the task. Otherwise, stop your slander and bellyaching. As to why I bother to address what I consider to false concepts posted by others on SI, my reasons are in part as follows. People sometimes make erroneous statements about issues that are of some import to me. I challenge them- and rarely do I find a considered rebuttal. Like you, most prefer simply to insult rather than deal with an intellectual challenge.
<<Your own ideas certainly exist--and indeed they are shared by millions of people. Millions of people have some kind of weird configuration of neurons in their heads right now, a kind of Y2K glitch built into their brains.>>
Instead of heaping insults on me, why not engage your intellect- I have no evidence that you in fact have one, so that may be the reason you don't engage it- and demonstrate where my argument is wrong. I am happy to debate a variety of issues on SI. You seem to be referring to my discussion with rrman on the Mohan thread, so if you agree with him, why not defend his position in a way that he showed himself utterly incapable of doing? But I'm sure doling out insults is easier than going through the work of defending a position!
In general, my sense of SI is that overall posts have become less intelligent in the past year and a half. If my sense is correct, that is regrettable, but perhaps not all that unexpected as SI appeals to a wider audience. You have seen fit to insult me, but have not even attempted to dispute any of my claims. As such, I find you fit in quite well with the "dumbing down" of SI.
Larry
P.S. Don't bother responding to this post unless you have something intelligent to say. I'm getting rather tired of dealing with morons.
P.P.S. Referring to my series of posts with rrman on Mohan, I will quote from one private reply I received when I thanked him for some comments he made about my posts in response to the ravings of rrman:
"Think nothing of it. I had bit my lip long enough and felt it was appropriate to lend my support. I thought your comments were exactly what I would have said if faced with similar inane comments. Oh well.....in the words of that brilliant writer and lecturer Eddy, "whatever blows your skirt up". Did I get that right? Gad...I really have to remember that one."
Enjoy your company with the likes of rrman and eddie! |
