"A discussion about the significance of the data sets would be useful but you prefer to dictate, not discuss."
I've discussed it at length. Search SI for my posts using the term "MOPE" ? You'll find plenty, many of which have proven prescient in other issues, such as the obvious probability of Crimea proving a precursor to and springboard for Russian expansionism in the Middle East...
If you don't want to read all my posts discussing MOPE in many contexts... start here, which provides links to others considering the same thing: Message 29904356
MOPE originally meant "management of performance expectations"... lying to people about what they should expect, to induce them to behave as they will when that is what they (wrongly) expect. It was openly discussed as that in policy circles, for a while... but, try to find those conversations, now ?
You'd hardly be the only person who's not heard of this issue, before parroting it, and being called on it...
Always telling when people actively fostering bogosity respond to being challenged, when they are called out, by claiming a challenge means they're being "dictated to" ? I did not require you to write any misleading posts. I can't force you to be honest. I'm not assuming you're being deliberately dishonest rather than defensive of a (fraud based) policy you don't comprehend. I merely pointed it out when you posted what you did. You don't have any right which I'm violating, that allows you to do that... and avoid the rebuttal and its consequences ? But, in logic, the claim you're making that my pointing it out... somehow abuses you... mostly serves as a tacit admission of your error.
The only thing I "dictate" to anyone... is that I am going to express my opinion... and I'm not going to be limited in my expression by others attempts to suppress my expression... by whatever means. You are welcome to compete, if you can.
If the issue were that you'd simply accepted and reposted others inputs without being properly critical... I'd tend to accept that... but it appears not to correlate with the response, thus far, that has you continuing to post in a way that's intentionally misleading... in the same way as before... either making up data points that don't exist... or ignoring the ones that do.
There is no reason I can see to negotiate the acceptability of a dishonest presentation... or to excuse it... which is not just referring to yours. A chart which doesn't differentiate between its presentation of the data, and its projections based on something other than data (which doesn't exist yet)... is in itself misleading. By reposting it... with only an apology for it when challenged... you also own that aspect of it.
Otherwise, I'll be happy to have you add yourself to the list of ignominious posters who've been called out for similar misrepresentations in the past. I tend not to ignore people... because I don't have an issue with any need to avoid being challenged by others, even what I recognize as worthy of being ignored. Your errors and expression of opinions doesn't disrupt my view of or my expectations of the world... in a way that requires I shrink from them. So, go ahead and stick your head in the sand, instead of looking in a mirror... if that's what makes you feel better. It won't matter to me, either way.
"It appears you do not accept either the projections or even the data from sites such as the US Fed, US EIA or the IEA."
I don't accept anyone's data uncritically. Why would you ? And, particularly, why would you when they're admitted liars, known to have an agenda, who should be expected to have a bias, or support others, after having proven themselves less than accurate or reliable reporters in the past ? Data... are not facts. Data... are inordinately susceptible to manipulation... and that's a practice that has been made routine, today... as a matter of official policy.
The Fed, in particular, is not remotely close to being a reliable source for anything, rather than a central source generating and defending dishonesty, deceit, and corruption that expands from the center, now occupied by the most corrupt among corrupt bankers, to infect everything else. If you do not understand that most U.S. government policy, today, is based on lying to manipulate people into desired behaviors... that's a "head in the sand" view that's quite far detached from reality.
They've discussed it openly... and you'd do well to be informed...
Policy based on lies is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean lies don't work, sometimes... if just means that the more lies you tell, the more detached from reality policy becomes, the aggregate becoming a bigger lie over time, requires that eventually, "the bigger they are, the farther they fall".
That you're a labeled a wild-eyed "radical" for suggesting "honesty is the best policy" in banking... pretty well defines everything you need to know about the "trust" industry, today... and, the source of the corruption of the markets they've fostered. |
