Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 28 May 2001 13:54:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
Although I have not read all of this I find this very unproductive. I am
happy to be called "disruptive" if it means questioning those who make
unsubstantiated remarks. I am sure those who make unsubstantiated remarks
are happy that you are creating a smokescreen to get them off the hook -
perhaps that was your intention?
I will not indulge your childishness below by replying to it further – as
that may well turn out to be disruptive. ;-)
Scott A
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I started twitching spastically 2/3 of the way through this. Scott, in ten
> years on the net, actively participating in conversations with all kinds of
> people with all kinds of beliefs, from all over the world, I have never, ever,
> met anyone as annoying as you. I hate Larry's cheap "critical thinker" jabs at
> you...I really do...but you are such the annoying twit sometimes that I just
> don't even get what makes you tick. But I'm better now.
>
> Anyway, I figured you'd like to know that you were able to reach out 3000 miles
> and seriously push someone's button. At least I assume that's why you act like
> this.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > > > > > > This is a classic tragedy of the commons problem. Whoever most insanely
> > > > > > > exploits the commons "wins",
> > > > >
> > > > > > Welcome to the planet earth Larry.
>
> This is either irony expressed at the fact that this is how things work all
> over, or a stupid and snide comment meant as an attack. If you have even the
> slightest interest in productive conversation (thought I think that you
> probably do not) you should be careful about such comments.
>
> > > > > What is that supposed to mean, exactly?
>
> As is typical, he refuses to answer.
>
> > > > > I've been here all along and have
> > > > > been quite aware of this class of problem inasmuch as it points out a major
> > > > > failing in the concept of public ownership.
> > > >
> > > > Explain please.
>
> What kind of a comment is this? Explain what?
>
> > > Explain the tragedy of the commons? Your cite referenced it, I assumed you
> > > are familiar with it.
> >
> > Not my point - but never mind.
>
> Because there was no point at all? I'd guess this is just a false distracter
> trying to keep the argument going unproductively.
>
> > > > > > > What exactly WOULD you do about overfishing? What is your concrete • proposal
> > > > > > > to address it? Owning the fish isn't practical, is it? What is?
>
> Hahahaha! Aren't you talking to Scott? He doesn't _have_ any concrete
> proposals...for anything. He simply will not address the point of the thread.
> All he will do is make asinine comments like
>
> > > > > > I think you are cherry picking points from my post rather than
> > > > > > jutifying your
> > > > > > past "arguments" and claims. I shall humour you.
>
> As if that had anything at all to do with what Larry said. It is clear to me
> that Scott is participating in this thread solely as a disruptive influence.
> Larry, please stop. You won't make this anything productive as long as you
> respond to him. If you can't engage others (I would personally be interested
> to read more of Chris Tracey's comments on this) because of Scott's disruptive
> influence, then he's won. There is just no way around it. His sense of
> responsibility won't censor his disruption. I assume that Todd won't. So it's
> decided -- all you can do is flail and seethe, and that's not worth your time.
>
> Now, we get something sort of like a proposal from Scott, but it shows more
> problems than solutions, so it would be tough to actually call it _his_
> solution:
>
> > > > > > The eu operates a quota system were fishing is concerned. There are strict
> > > > > > limits on both the number of fishing licenses a country can have (although
> > > > > > fishermen can, and do, sell them overseas) and the amount of fish it can • land.
> > > > > > The problem with the system is that the freemarketers (fishermen) have no
> > > > > > respect for the law or the resource they are exploiting.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they are breaking laws they are not freemarketeers, unless the laws are
> > > > > unjust.
> > > >
> > > > Explain please.
> > >
> > > Explain the notion that a person engaged in stealing is not a free
> > > marketeer? Seems obvious to me. Maybe you're not as familiar with property
> > > rights???
> >
> > A good start Larry, but I do doubt your notion free marketeers do not break
> > laws.
>
> Free marketeers don't exist where they are regulated by laws beyond those that
> instruct property rights.
>
> > Further, what gives them the right to decide laws are "unjust"?
>
> Their mind. God. The same thing that gives you the right to decide that a law
> is unjust...or do you feel that you don't have that "right?"
>
> > > > > In short, the system isn't working, then, but doing more of the same will
> > > > > work?
> > > >
> > > > Did I say that? No.
>
> Yes. In essence, by responding to a request for what you propose with this
> information, it strongly suggested that you thought it was the appropriate
> solution. Further you said that this plan with more enforcement was the best
> solution. The only thing confusing is that you pointed out the host of
> problems that suggest why it is not a good solution.
>
> > Anyhow, what is your altermative.
>
> He is specifically and clearly admitting that the traditional LP stance on this
> issues is impractical, so he's querying for other suggestions. He's not even
> arguing with you.
>
> > You should make yourself clear then Larry. Deliberate misrepresentation of
> > an argument – very libertarian.
>
> When I read crap like this it brings out the worst in me. Usually, the idea of
> seeing teeth shattering into someone's mouth is highly unappealing.
>
> > > it's your turn to explain your proposal rather than
> > > taking pot shots.
> >
> > I think I already have Larry.
>
> You haven't explained dick. Cut the retarded posturing.
>
> > > I know that's a bit harder but I want to play your role
> > > for a while.
> >
> > You can start by explaining yourself then Larry.
>
> Ha! Broken-record boy meets anti-memory boy.
>
> > > What IS your alternative? Current exactly as it is? Some expansion or change?
> >
> > Read my most Larry.
>
> Uh huh. Right.
>
> > > > > Please elaborate on what exactly you mean by "enforced more". How do
> > > > > you propose that be accomplished?
> > > >
> > > > By "enforced more", I mean the law should be enforced more. The
> > > > freemarketeers should be trusted less.
> > >
> > > Better enforcement?
> >
> > Now you are getting it.
> >
> > > How does that work exactly?
> >
> > The law is enforced.
>
> Wait...now I get it. Anger at this Scott entity is silly on my part. (Now I'm
> much, much better.) Until just this very second, reading this exchange above
> for the second time, I hadn't realized that we're working with the newest
> generation of the Eliza program. Knowing that you are an artificial entity on
> the other end of this net connection explains everything.
>
> 1) Actual conversation is almost impossible for The Scott.
> 2) The Scott is quite handy at digging up web citations.
> 3) Requests for clarification of The Scott's comments are met with confusion.
> 4) The Scott is proficient at a narrow set of tasks (like hawking LEGO on eBay)
> 5) Advocating the obeying of rules without thought or question is The Scott's
> norm.
> 6) Mindless socialism probably is a valid approach for a colony of neural net
> software.
> 7) The Scott will sometimes answer yes/no questions but will not elaborate.
> 8) Some terms are learned from The Scott's opponents and adopted in a quirky
> way. (eg squirming)
> 9) Appeals to fringe authority power The Scott's arguments because it can't
> tell the difference between reality and fiction.
>
> > > What exactly would you do?
> > > Put an enforcement officer on each boat?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > > Count catches?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Confiscate boats
> > > that didn't have permits?
> >
> > I expect that happens anyway.
> >
> > > Elaborate.
>
> See point seven above.
>
> > You are squirming again. Explain yourself. Show us why you think the 2500
> > economists were wrong.
>
> See point nine above. Also, there are other economists who advocate free
> market solutions...so why don't you simply accept their claims?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> (To anyone who wishes to chastise me for the unproductive nature of this post,
> save it. I know it wasn't needed for you, I just snapped and needed to get it
> off my chest. It was a selfish act on my part and I carefully made sure that
> while it isn't exactly appropriate, it is in accord with the T&C as expressed
> at http://www.lugnet.com/admin/terms/agreement .)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| I started twitching spastically 2/3 of the way through this. Scott, in ten years on the net, actively participating in conversations with all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs, from all over the world, I have never, ever, met anyone as (...) (23 years ago, 28-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
