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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (26624)	8/16/2006 8:35:01 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541385

are a lot worse, at times, than "shrill" and "flappy" Euterpe and Dale did a better job than I did of describing the iffiness of Krugman. are a lot worse, at times, than "shrill" and "flappy" LOL. Let me tell you how I came up with that word--it was the only one that came to mind. I struggle sometimes to find words, quite often actually, too often. My memory just doesn't retrieve them easily anymore. I picture something I'm trying to express, I know there's a word for it, but it just doesn't come. The only word that came was "flappy." I was picturing him at the podium flapping his arms chicken style. So I looked it up in the dictionary to find out if it was even a word and found, to my surprise, that it was. Here's what Webster had to say. c : to flutter ineffectively 3 : to talk foolishly and persistently I considered a parenthetical apology for my word use but when Webster somewhat validated it I let it go hoping it would work well enough. I still don't know what the perfect word would have been. It's the substance of what he has to say; not his personality that matters. It's not personality. It's ideas. I often find his points, and his delivery of those points, airheaded, scattered, disjointed, dim, unrealistic, unsupported, agenda driven. (Those are all the words I'm able to retrieve on that subject right now. No perfect word in that batch, either. <g>) The package comes across "ranty," all of which to me conveys that we're in or near moonbat territory. Krugman has displayed IMO a touch of Bush Derangement Syndrome, which automatically discredits what someone says. We don't take nutty sounding people seriously, at least I don't. That doesn't mean that they aren't right in what they say, but it sure taints credibility. I'm not so down on Krugman that I've written him off. I didn't say he had crossed the threshold. But I dismiss any individual piece that has those characteristics. Anything that he writes that comes across as more professorial, I consider.