View Single Post
      09-02-2009, 04:10 PM   #25

Drives: :
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: :

iTrader: (0)

Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
On the face of it, I agree with everything you said here except your cutting remark in the parentheses. If you dropped such drivel as that, then your posts might have some merit. Personal attacks are unacceptable and close the mind to accepting what substance may be in your argument.

I'm sorry you have closed your mind to my arguments. I personally find that on the internet as a whole, I have to divide people's posts into sections.

Generally on the internet, parts of people's posts on the internet contain both valid arguments, and other parts contain sarcasm/insults/baiting/etc. It's just the way the internet goes.

I respond on both sides of people's posts.

1) The part of the post that contains valid arguments gets a part of my post that counters those arguments with valid counter-arguments of my own.
2) The part of the post that contains sarcasm/insults/baiting/etc also gets a part of my post that responds with the same. Often I will put a divider line when switching, like this:

If there is nothing of substance in a post, or if the post is completely disingenuous in nature, it only gets the later.

Unfortunately this is the reality of how the internet works a lot of the time. And there is no substitute for learning how to divide and separate out parts of people's posts and respond appropriately to each part. If you allow yourself to be completely distracted by the sarcasm/insults/baiting/etc, you will fail to be able to respond to the valid parts of people's posts, and you will lose arguments.


In the spirit of getting down to the issues, let's get back to the substance of one of the valid points/questions that you had closed your mind to earlier. I think we agree that the dead bill that started this thread currently has no merit because right now TARP money is currently being paid back with up to 15% interest. But what is your response to the following statements?

1) That the money spent saved the free market from massive collapse due to the market's inability to avoid collapse itself.
2) That there is a VALUE of keeping our banking system from collapsing that is just as much a part of the equation as dollar-for-dollar returns.