Poor ole Observer

[johnhp]

• Tweet

It seems i was right on target when i stated he was not a detective.  Poor ole Yawninganus (that's the new screen name, right?) keeps reposting a claim that was later amended (see below).  i think you better get back to the case of the purloined Payday.  Reading is not your strong suit.  Hey, have Wendy explain it to you.


Given that you are allegedly a detective, how could you have missed Vell correcting himself?

But I will be surprised if I'm wrong about this one. There was a kerfuffle over his PhD because he was less than honest in what he told the U of C. Whether that led to him getting booted, I am not 100% certain but that is what I recall reading.

Are you that shitty a detective or are you just that much of a liar?

[Velleity]

It seems i was right on target when i stated he was not a detective.  Poor ole Yawninganus (that's the new screen name, right?) keeps reposting a claim that was later amended (see below).  i think you better get back to the case of the purloined Payday.  Reading is not your strong suit.  Hey, have Wendy explain it to you.


Given that you are allegedly a detective, how could you have missed Vell correcting himself?

Are you that shitty a detective or are you just that much of a liar?

Apparently it doesn't require much intelligence. He posts according to an overly simplistic, paint by the numbers ideological formula. He probably has something similar to guide him in his business.

[johnhp]

He probably has something similar to guide him in his business.

Yeah....but i am actually shocked they let him near the hot oil....

[IM2]

Yeah....but i am actually shocked they let him near the hot oil....

They don't. He only handles dry goods.

[Observer]

Apparently it doesn't require much intelligence. He posts according to an overly simplistic, paint by the numbers ideological formula. He probably has something similar to guide him in his business.

You made a statement. You were unable to provide any evidence to support that statement. John's ravings aside, you STILL have provided no evidence to support that statement.

You do understand what evidence is, don't you, Vel?

Didn't you get like an hour or so of that in law school?

[Velleity]

You made a statement. You were unable to provide any evidence to support that statement. John's ravings aside, you STILL have provided no evidence to support that statement.

You do understand what evidence is, don't you, Vel?

Didn't you get like an hour or so of that in law school?

I made a reasonably objective argument for my conclusion. I made the only argument that I know of that wouldn't require one to argue that the University of Chicago tolerates resume fraud.

So is it your contention that the University of Chicago tolerates resume fraud?

It may tolerate it for all I know but I seriously doubt it. I have been to the University of Chicago many times. It's a fantastic institution. Have you ever even been there? Have you even heard about it before it was brought up in reference to Arthur Laffer, fraud extraordinaire? Or are you just knee jerk apologizing again, because you believe that Laffer is a fellow "conservative" hack?

You're engaging in that "proof" thing we've talked about so many times. For my standards I only need to make a reasonably objective argument. Since you're always making frivolous arguments, like this one your trying to make, it's clear you don't understand what a reasonably objective argument is let alone what constitutes evidence.

[johnhp]

You made a statement. You were unable to provide any evidence to support that statement. John's ravings aside, you STILL have provided no evidence to support that statement.

You do understand what evidence is, don't you, Vel?

Didn't you get like an hour or so of that in law school?

The fry station getting boring.  He amended his remarks the next day to say that Laffer committed resume fraud, which was clearly demonstrated in the evidence offered by both Vell and matilda.  Vell clearly stated that he may have misstated the case about the firing.

[Velleity]

The fry station getting boring.  He amended his remarks the next day to say that Laffer committed resume fraud, which was clearly demonstrated in the evidence offered by both Vell and matilda.  Vell clearly stated that he may have misstated the case about the firing.

Not that you're wrong, but let's get this straight. Unlike our "conservative" friends I have an affinity for the truth.

I made my original statement based on recollection of my studies 30 years ago. My statement was an indirect quote but I'm fairly certain it was very close to what I had read from legitimate sources.

Observer's statement about "evidence" is idiotic because my recollection of my studies, for which I earned a Bachelors degree in the subject, is evidence. It might not be very convincing evidence, but it is most definitely evidence.

My problem, being the honest person that I am, is that it does happen sometimes that my recollection fails me, so when I walked my statement back a little it was based on my humility with respect to my memory, which is usually very good. But I am getting a little older so I acknowledge the possibility that I could have been wrong. I'm only human.

Further I was kind of amazed that a Google search revealed nothing, other than the fact that Laffer was named as a profession about a year before he was awarded a PhD. The sources that showed that were also evidence, and the fact that he was named as a professor without a PhD is more than enough to support a conclusion that it is likely that Laffer did something fraudulent to acquire that designation.

I still had no direct evidence. I had circumstantial evidence. The moran Camplaigner thinks there is something wrong with circumstantial evidence but there isn't. There's only something wrong with the moran Camplaigner.

Anyway a friend of mine pointed out Stigler to me, and then Matilda awkwardly pointed to a web site and somehow tried to argue that her verbatum confirmation of my information proved me wrong.

These people are mental midgets, John. We're arguing with morans.

[johnhp]

Not that you're wrong, but let's get this straight. Unlike our "conservative" friends I have an affinity for the truth.

I made my original statement based on recollection of my studies 30 years ago. My statement was an indirect quote but I'm fairly certain it was very close to what I had read from legitimate sources.

But, in fact, you did amend your statement the next day and stated that you may have misspoken about the firing.  That is being open to an error and being corrected.  From my recollection the only thing you maintained with certainty as a claim was the issue of Laffer's less than honest presentation of his credentials.  And, Matilda's post confirmed your post.

I still had no direct evidence. I had circumstantial evidence. The moran Camplaigner thinks there is something wrong with circumstantial evidence but there isn't. There's only something wrong with the moran Camplaigner.

You had circumstantial evidence that something was amiss.  Usually, the university appointment to someone without a PhD is lecturer.  Leffer was associate or assistant prof, something like this?  As far as i know, not a position given to someone at the U of C without the doctorate having been officially awarded.

With regard to Robert, well, he is just a porn addicted moron, at least that is what A## is suggesting. 

Anyway a friend of mine pointed out Stigler to me, and then Matilda awkwardly pointed to a web site and somehow tried to argue that her verbatum confirmation of my information proved me wrong.

Well Matilda is an idiot.

These people are mental midgets, John. We're arguing with morans.

i prefer, for them, the term "feeble-mindedness".  But potato/potahhhhto....

[Observer]

I made a reasonably objective argument for my conclusion. I made the only argument that I know of that wouldn't require one to argue that the University of Chicago tolerates resume fraud.

So is it your contention that the University of Chicago tolerates resume fraud?

Nope.

It is my contention that you have no evidence to support your claim that Laffer was "kicked out" of the University of Chicago, for fraud or anything else.

[Observer]

Unlike our "conservative" friends I have an affinity for the truth.

You have provided no evidence to support that, either.

In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

[Velleity]

You have provided no evidence to support that, either.

In fact, there is a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

Yeah yeah. I suck. 

Do you have anything that's actually relevant to add to the subject, or are you just here to do your usual sad ad hominem nonsense?

[Observer]

Yeah yeah. I suck. 

I didn't say that, but I'll take you word for it.

Do you have anything that's actually relevant to add to the subject, or are you just here to do your usual sad ad hominem nonsense?

You made a statement. I refuted it.

How is that not relevant, and just as importantly, why are you misusing "ad hominem" again?

I'll tell you what I have noticed, Vel. Get you off by yourself and you are actually a reasonably pleasant, rational, although somewhat misguided, human being.

When you get around your "Friends", you become very much like a stray dog who gets incorporated into a pack. You adopt the pack mentality. You feed off the anger, fear and ignorance of those around you. You lose the ability to think independently.

That is not really all that unusual. You see it in gangs and mobs all the time. Still, it is unfortunate.

[johnhp]

Nope.

It is my contention that you have no evidence to support your claim that Laffer was "kicked out" of the University of Chicago, for fraud or anything else.

Then, it is a good thing he stated he may have been mistaken about Laffer being booted.

[johnhp]

You made a statement. I refuted it.

Don't you mean refudiated?