Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (2242)	6/17/2003 9:06:00 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

I gather this is about Rollcast, not Bill. We all know Bill makes sweeping generalizations about books on the basis of reviews and on posts on the basis of one or two lines. And that he and I have fun with that. No doubt, he'll recall more than one occasion in which I've done something similar. As for RC, he claimed Krugman was fibbing. Fine. Back it up. If he has a place in a column in which he considers that Krugman lied, tell me what he considers to be the lie and give me a url so I can read the original text and the context. If he wishes to take one of the columns cited in that url and work up a response out of that, fine. Let's get it on. My own guess is that I will find that it's not fibbing that bothers RC but (1) he disagrees with Krugman, (2) Krugman was wrong about some prediction, or (3) Krugman used a bit of hyperbole to make his point. Or all of the above. If RC just wishes to say he "believes" Krugman lies without any evidence for that, that's also fine. So long as he admits that. If you wish to do RC's homework for him, that would work. Then we can simply drop RC out of the conversation, point to some text in one of K's columns in which you think he lied, offer the url for the original, and off we go.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (2242)	6/17/2003 5:20:48 PM
From: Rollcast...	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793914

but when you are presented with a site that purports to fact-check Paul Krugman, you refuse to read it at all, and tell RC "Looks like you are cribbing from someone else's work". It's called citation, John. Maybe the site did a bang-up job of fact-checking Krugman. How do you know it didn't if you won't bother to even read some of it? This is one of the key methods of the "flailing cockroach" style of debate. If unable to counter - 1)dishonestly parse in order to 2)change topic so one can 3)accuse poster of lacking "nuance", displaying "bad form", "cribbing" etc... It is a quite simple form of rationalization. Particularly for someone has already rationalized their own status as an uber member of the ruling elite. ;)