The Smallest Minority

To me, the deliciously ironic part is that if Sen. Hussein loses the election due to racism, it will be due to the racism OF THE DEMOCRAT LEFT.

Don't Marxists usually precipitate a Big Crisis, in order to push their way forward and tell us they're going to save Teh Dayz?
If they don't create the actual crisis (the Democrat-run Fannie Mae got the Crisis-Collapse Ball rolling), at a minimum they use it to to advantage - and that's when the Lefty pre-fabricated shock-troops hit the streets and start the big "Fair-Whatever Anti-Whatever" rallies. Sorta like the "Will Demonstrate for Money" crowd that flits around, talking points in hand, claiming to support the cause-du-jour.

Alright, I've read through all of the posts on your take on the current economic situation and nowhere can I find any serious reflection as to how the philosophy regarding the free market helped to cause this. It's always someone else's fault or the fault of the "other side's" ideology...never your own.

It's a lot of finger pointing at the left and strange, hyper inflated accusations of Marxism. Honestly, Kevin (and others here), as sharp as all of you are, you lose me when I see a paranoia that rivals conspiracy theorists with no real basis in reality. You are very focused on the problems of government to the complete exclusion of the problems that an unrestricted market brings.

We are not going to become a Marxist or a Socialist country and the left, who has many interests in corporate America, is not going to go down that path. Barack Obama, should he win, is not going to bring about a nanny state and all of the other ridiculous premonitions that I have read on here over the last few months. It's quite an overreaction and really lacks a width of vision to truly fix many of these problems. When you have fixated hardened beliefs, as you do, it's hard to break out of that and see real solutions.

Remember, the free market is run by men and they have demonstrated quite clearly that the last part of Rousseau Philosophy of Man was accurate.

Okay, let's follow the chain of events here.

1. The Democrats enact a plan to underwrite Fannie Mae et al, which will allow them to be far less choosy about who they lend money to. This is done because of the Socialist belief that "everybody should be able to buy a house".

2. Fannie Mae's advisors, knowing now that none of their mistakes matter, go hog wild.

3. Republicans (including McCain himself) call for reform of government backing for Fannie Mae. They are shouted down by Democrats who are either making a killing themselves or have friends who are. No reform takes place.

4. The entire system collapses, putting lots of people out of their homes and damn near triggering an economic crisis.

Markadelphia, Fannie Mae is Socialism in a nutshell. It seems like a good idea at first, but then everybody jumps on board, the system collapses and then everybody suffers. The fact that you can a) ignore this and b) claim that Fannie Mae is somehow the fault of Republicans and/or the free market is just amazing. Truly, we do not live in the same world.

You know, sometimes I wish I'd gone to college and gotten the brain chip, if only so I could understand how you come to your conclusions.

As for Obama's nanny-state...no, it won't be finalized under him, but since he's already promised to abandon Iraq, gut the military (you did see that rather revealing YouTube video, right?) and push harder for socialized medicine than any President in modern history, I don't feel like giving him the chance.

And you're right, the left does have many interests in corporate America. If you'd read Liberal Fascism you'd know why. It's much easier to regulate and control a small number of huge companies than a huge number of small ones. And some big businessmen will actually collude with this in the hopes that they will become the government's pet rather than their competitor. I've often said that big businesses can be capitalism's worst enemies; that's certainly true in this case. Just because a big business does it doesn't mean that it's "free market", especially when the government is involved.

Viridian: doesn't always work. I went to college, but I got a real degree (engineering) and they somehow neglected to chip us in that end of things. (What I like to refer to as "the reality based community".)

"Alright, I've read through all of the posts on your take on the current economic situation and nowhere can I find any serious reflection as to how the philosophy regarding the free market helped to cause this. It's always someone else's fault or the fault of the "other side's" ideology...never your own."

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, I can't stand it.

Markadelphia, are you EVER going to learn how to think rationally?

Look at what this little excerpt reveals about what you do instead of thinking rationally. You have, as is your usual practice, jumped to the conclusion that the problems of the "current economic situation" simply must be a fault of "our" ideology. You then perform what a physics student (i.e. a person who studies reality) would call a "dry lab": you begin with your conclusion, then you cull anything that doesn't agree with that conclusion, and finally you pronounce yourself correct, and believe it, because you are left with nothing that says you're wrong.

We have tried for months, and long, dreary, frustrating months they were, to get you to think rationally instead, to reason from facts to conclusions. You here have given clear and unmistakable evidence that you do not even understand the concept.

So I'm gonna teach you a tiny bit of economics 101. And I'm doing you a big favor in that I'm typing really slowly so you'll have every opportunity to get it.

Let's suppose that you have some money you want to save for your own use in the future. You could put it in a box under your bed, or you could (wait for it) invest it. You could hand it over to someone else who would use it for a while and then return, not just what you handed over, but even more than you handed over. That extra that you would get back in the future is called PROFIT. I presume you understand this. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in believing you are not stupid enough to invest in a goddamned shoebox.

Now, what does that person, or that company, do who uses your money for a while before giving it back? Some of them invest it further by handing it over to someone else, making a bigger profit from the use of your money than you will. The difference between the extra that they get back and the extra that you get back is their profit.

You following this? You would not invest in them if you did not expect a profit in return, and they would not invest further if they did not expect a profit in return. PROFIT IS THE MOTIVE. THIS SYSTEM IS CALLED "CAPITALISM", AFTER THE "CAPTITAL" THAT IS INVESTED.

Now comes the gubmint for a first level of regulation. It is burdensome, but not horribly so. It has to do with "truth in lending" and such, meaning that if someone would take your money for a while, they must disclose what they would do with it, they must tell the truth, and they must be accurate and timely in their accounting of it. Without this first level of regulation, the system is known as "laissez faire", which is French for "let do". It is the shorthand name for, as the dictionary says, "Of, relating to, or being an economy devoid of government interference."

You still following this? Now, let this through your ideological armor: WE DO NOT NOW HAVE, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD, ANYTHING RESEMBLING LAISSEZ-FAIR CAPITALISM IN THIS COUNTRY FOR ABOUT TWO CENTURIES.

Some of these companies who invest other people's money do so by investing in houses, literally other people's houses. They loan money to people to buy houses, and the loan is secured by the house. It's a type of investement called a "MORTGAGE". It is a contract between the mortgagee (the company who invests money) and the mortgagor (the person who wants the house) which says that the money will be repaid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee or the mortgagee will kick the mortgagor out, claim the house, and try to sell it to recover the investment.

Now, if you were to invest money in mortgages (which you, as a private citizen, can do), you would be careful to hand your money over only to people whom you believe would be very likely to pay that money back, at a profit to you. RIGHT? Well, this profit motive is the same for mortgage companies who invest in mortgages. People ask for loans to buy houses, and the mortgage companies choose whom to loan money to based on their expectations of being paid back, i.e. on the credit risk of the individual applicant.

They do so per the gubmint rules under this first level of regulation. This is capitalism, and it works. Been there, done that. I paid off my mortgage and I now own my house free and clear.

Now comes the gubmint for a second level of regulation. The gubmint says (and of course, I am putting this in my own words), "If you are going to loan money to people so they can buy houses, then you are going to loan some people money to buy houses without regard to their credit risk, i.e. without regard to whether or not you expect them to be ABLE to pay it back. We are forcing you to do this because this way, people will have houses who would not otherwise have them, and we think this is a social purpose that it is proper for us to require you to fulfill."

Now, THINK, AT LEAST FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE, DUDE. The gubmint requires the mortgage companies to make what both sides know are very bad investments. Thus, the reason for making such investments is not the expectation of realizing a profit, and in fact the expectation is that many, if not most, of such investments will realize a loss. (Wait for it ...) This is not capitalism, dude, it is socialism. The investment is made for a social purpose that is mandated by the gubmint, is without regard to issues of profit and loss, and is not the free choice of the lending entity involved.

Read that last paragraph again and again until it sinks in.

OK, now, re-read Kevin's post again. It's quiz time, teacher. What political party was in control of Congress, and which party did the President belong to, when this was mandated by Congress and signed into law by the President? WHO'S IDEA WAS THIS? Which party predicted the current mess would happen if the regulations weren't fixed? Which President has tried to get Congress to fix it? Which party has opposed fixing it before the roof caved in?

Now, try it again. Don't simply assume that we must be wrong and that you're gonna look 'til you find a way to show it. Show us, just ONCE, that you can gather facts, look at all the facts, and reason from them to a conclusion. Here's a hint, teacher. If your explanation does not account for all the facts, then it is neither complete nor correct.

nowhere can I find any serious reflection as to how the philosophy regarding the free market helped to cause this.

Because anyone (including Kevin) who would reflect "seriously" on this understands that there's no connection between free market philosophy and what caused "this".

You're asking for a evolutionary biologist to give you a nuanced view of Intelligent Design.
A chemist to demonstate the Philosophers Stone and explain transmuting lead to gold via chemical reactions.
A physicist to prove the existence of phlogiston.
A physician to defend bloodletting to cure all maladies.

In fact, this is a perfect example of the sort of thing that we've attacked as being against the natural order, and you've defended. Such a S-CHIP. A system worried about "Fairness" above all. Not fairness of opportunity, but fairness of outcome.

The ways that the mortgage crisis resembles the free market are tangential and mostly meaningless.
You've been the one defending these programs. You, not us.
You can't then turn around and ask us how our failure of imagination is indicted here.

Not and pretend to be anything but an ignorant partisan.

DJ: Wow.

Nice primer. Too bad he won't take notes, or pass the test.

Somehow it's our fault when he fails.

Mark,

If we had a true free market (which I am defining for the moment as a complete lack of administrative regulation outside of "don't rip people off"), the financial markets would be so different as to be completely unrecognizable.

People who don't work in the business have no earthly idea of how utterly the product space of the capital markets is determined and dictated by government regulations.

(Have I mentioned the Accredited Investor laws on this blog? I must have, I despise them so.)

For example, if I wanted to set up my very own trading market for some good, I would need enough lawyers to fill a swimming pool. This is why, in a time of incredible free-flowing information, we have so few cash-based predictive markets: because the law is so onerous.

To expand on DJ's dissertation, the government essentially created two entities to purchase mortgages from lenders - again, pretty much without consideration of risk - and the government implied that if anything should happen, those loans would be guaranteed with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. So lending institutions could loan money out to bad credit risks (with a little up-front cash for themselves figured in) and then the government would buy most of those loans, meaning the banks would realize a profit pretty much immediately, without too much risk.

And the government didn't oversee those loans! It didn't look to see just how many loans the lending institutions were making! Oh no! Needy people were getting into the American Dream, their own homes! This. Was. A. Good. Thing!

Of course, not-so needy people were getting into homes they really couldn't afford because bigger loans meant extra profit for the lenders, and everybody loves a profit!

Government removed, or at least mitigated the risk of lending money. Government provided low interest rates to make borrowing look more attractive. Vast sums of money were spent by home builders on vast tracts of land and huge amounts of building materials, and there was much rejoicing! (Yeaaaa!) And many, many, many homes were built.

And here we run into Father Guido Sarducci's Five-Minute University course on Economics: Supply-and-Demand.

Lots of houses, not so many buyers anymore.

Plus, the interest rates started going up (as they always do) and all those Adjustable Rate Mortgages (invented so that people with less-than-stellar credit could "qualify" for a home loan) started going up.

And suddenly, a lot of people can't make their mortgage payments, and default. More houses go on the (already glutted) market. More supply. Less demand. Equally suddenly the house the mortage lender thought was worth $3.2 million when it loaned the entire amount plus 1.3% to the borrower is on the market with an appraisal value of $750,000 - and the previous home owner had an interest-only ARM loan, so the entire $3.2 million is still outstanding.

Oops.

Government regulation created the environment, Markadelphia, capitalism didn't. And it was government regulation with a social purpose - to put "the disadvantaged" into their own homes.

Without those regulations, "the disadvantages" wouldn't have gotten those loans. The non-disadvantaged wouldn't have gotten the loans that every lending institution was advertising on every radio station in the country because the government was (supposedly) absorbing the risk.

And now, to quote a rather (in)famous theologian, "The chickens. . . have come home . . . to ROOST!"

So obviously it must be the fault of Big Banking, right?

As I said, I'm not letting the lenders off the hook here. Greed has its place in this, but greed has its place in lassez faire Capitalism. And so does RISK. Risk mitigates greed.

And the "reality-based" community once again proves that it doesn't grasp simple human nature.

"The majority of left-wing blogs are absolutely loving the financial crisis."

I believe that's known as "hyperbole".

It's actually a minority, and it isn't "the financial crisis" they're loving, it's the idea that their candidates can ride the crisis into elective office.

But then, I suspect you understood that and were just making the point. And it's a valid one.

I disagree Kevin. I don't think it was hyperbole at all, assuming we understand hyperbole as an intentional exaggeration that is supposed to be understood as such.

If someone were to post a comment that stated "The majority of gun bloggers are absolutely loving the [latest public shooting] so that they can advocate handing guns out to children," I don't think you or any of us would take it as hyperbole—we would demand that the person saying that cite links to any gun bloggers rejoicing over the shootings, and ask them to show us where we were advocating just handing out guns to people.

That comment is making a claim that is expected to be taken at face value. People who don't actually read any lefty blogs will be disgusted by the news that they are actually ecstatic about the crisis, just like people who don't actually read any gun blogs would be disgusted by the news that we were overjoyed at the recent massacre.

In both cases, it would be bullshit.

Guav, it probably wasn't mean to be taken as fact or to be construed as an actual indicator of most leftist perspectives.

And, in fact, I could take it another way which would, entirely, be factual, which is that most blogs, left OR right, ARE enjoying it in that it provides something to write about, to read about, and to generally feel angry or happy about.

You've overthinking this.

Viridian, your list of events is not the only reason why all of this happened. The repeal of Glass Stegal, CFMA, and the Responsible Lending Act of 2003 all play parts in this mess. There is blame everywhere.

Greed was a big motivating factor as well. With many rules out of the way and Washington asleep, the people in these industries engaged in very unsavory practices.

The people of this country are also to blame for wanting a ton of crap for nothing. This same attitude carried over in various industries in this country and the result was massive amounts of debt based on, what amounts to, the selling of nothing.

"he's already promised to abandon Iraq"

False. There will be a fairly substantial force left in the country. And, if you want to fight Al Qaeda, we need to go where they are going which is Pakistan.

"gut the military"

False. I put the link up here recently with his 12 page plan on our military. I can put it up again if you like. It's on his web site.

"harder for socialized medicine"

False. Again, read his plan. Not mandatory, not universal, choice of insurers.

"Just because a big business does it doesn't mean that it's "free market", especially when the government is involved."

Good point and I agree somewhat but really it's the government that is the bitch in this situation and big business is in charge. They really have been for quite some time. We are in the Age of Corporatism.

In what way was it "an unrestricted market"?? It was a directed market, and Fannie Mae had regulators - who were threatened (external) or bought off (internal).

"The gubmint requires the mortgage companies to make what both sides know are very bad investments."

But that is not the ONLY reason why these loans happened, DJ. C'mon, seriously. They had filled their quotas and then some when they went hog wild to loan to everyone and their weird cousin. I'm sure you will be happy to know that I agree with President Bush when he said that "Wall Street got drunk and now they have a hangover."

You are very myopic in reasoning as to why these things happened. You have reached a conclusion based completely on confirmation bias. It has to be regulation. It has to be! Your assessment of me sounds more like a description of yourself.

I, on the other hand, believe that there is blame to go all around. Bill Clinton repealed Glass Stegall. The people of this country wanted to buy as much as they could without having the money to pay for it and lenders were eager to make profit. Washington looks the other way. In many ways, it was a perfect storm of idiocy.

The wave of de-regulation began under Reagan and has continued quite strongly for the last 28 years. I hope that you will at least agree that many barriers have been released in the last ten years, the three that I mention above are classic examples. These are part of the reason why we are having problems now...not the only reason...but part of it.

The lack of oversight has now caused too much oversight. I think the corporate welfare we are currently engaged in is nauseating. We are basically paying for the greed of morons let loose by a government that fell asleep in performing the most basic of tasks.

But would not bailing them out have caused? I can say with a great deal of humility that I don't know. Can you?

I wasn't overthinking it, I simply asked for examples. There aren't any, because nobody is "absolutely loving" it.

Bloggers on both sides are writing about it, because it's news, to state that they are "absolutely loving" it is something entirely different. It's absurd.

Kevin and the other gun bloggers I read are writing about it, but if I ever saw anyone say "gun bloggers are absolutely loving the financial crisis" I'd question that as well. I'd ask who they were talking about and want specific examples.

It's intentionally worded to cast the subject in a bad light—"Leftists are rejoicing over the financial crisis, what ghouls!"

It's inaccurate and dishonest.

You are very myopic in reasoning as to why these things happened. You have reached a conclusion based completely on confirmation bias.

The ironic irony of this ironic statement is, ironically enough, further ironic proof that irony is truely, the most pure humor.

The wave of de-regulation began under Reagan and has continued quite strongly for the last 28 years. I hope that you will at least agree that many barriers have been released in the last ten years, the three that I mention above are classic examples. These are part of the reason why we are having problems now...not the only reason...but part of it.

Sherman! Set the wayback machine to September, 2007!

Golly gee, Mr. Peabody, are we going back to cheat for the Patriots?

No, Sherman, we're going to go see when Markadelphia first cited this, was proven incredibly wrong, and was unable to, in any way, rethink his talking points!

Mark: I site as an example the FCC, once a powerful entity. Since deregulation by Reagan in the 1980s, it's only purpose these days is to monitor wardrobe malfunctions. Turn on any "news" channel and you will see what I am talking about.

Who was that umasked man?:
15 seconds of Google.
15 seconds.
FCC Budget of $278,092,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2003
FCC Budget of $280,798,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2004
FCC Budget of $292,958,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2005
FCC Budget of $304,057,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2006
FCC Budget of $302,542,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2007
FCC Budget of $313,000,000 Proposed for Fiscal Year 2008
Another 30 seconds finds:
$99.6 million in fiscal 1989 to $185.2 million in fiscal 1995
99.6 million, FY 89. 313 million in FY 08.

And now, Sherman! Set the GoFoward Machine to 2009, where we'll see Markadelphia repeating the same discredited propaganda!
But Mr. Peabody! Then you'll be dog-goned just like Markadelphia's points!
Quite, Sherman, quite.

Didn't understand a thing, did you, boy?

Alright, TEACHER, here's a pair of quizzes for you.

First quiz:

Question 1: How does making mortgage loans only to people who are likely to repay them result in a crisis of cash flow (i.e. a lack of liquidity), leading to a crisis of confidence, within the lending sector of the economy?

Question 2: How does making mortgage loans to people who are not likely to repay them result in liquidity, income, and a glut of confidence in the lending sector of the economy?

Explain your answers thoroughly, carefully, and rationally.

Second quiz:

Spend some days on this one. If you respond to it within four days, then you have not even attempted to do it justice. This will require you to work, to do some actual research, in order to answer intelligently.

We are concerned here with the people involved in the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (hereinafter CRA77), which is what led to the present bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and subsequent actions taken or not taken by members of Congress and/or the President to either fix or ignore the act. We are not concerned with those who stood on the sidelines and stood mute, rather we are concerned with those who spoke up and those who tried to do something or to prevent something being done. In short, go for the meat and ignore the lice.

The first set of tasks are to identify by name and by political party ...

Task 1: ... those in Congress who proposed CRA77.

Task 2: ... those in Congress who supported CRA77 and voted for it.

Task 3: ... those in Congress who opposed CRA77 and voted against it.

Task 4: ... the President who signed CRA77 into law.

Task 5: ... those in Congress who have tried to warn Congress of the bad economic side effects of CRA77.

Task 6: ... those in Congress who have tried to convince Congress to ignore the warnings of the bad side effects of CRA77.

Task 7: ... the President who has tried to warn Congress for years, even many times this year, of the bad economic side effects of CRA77.

Task 8: ... those in Congress who, even this very day, still try to convince Congress to ignore the warnings of the bad side effects of CRA77.

Task 9: ... those in Congress who, even this very day, still try to convince the public that the bad side effects of CRA77 are just scare tactics of the opposition.

The final set of tasks are to analyze the results.

Task 10: Analyze the results in terms of which party, on balance, proposed, supported, and passed CRA77.

Task 11: Analyze the results in terms of which party, on balance, opposed and did not support CRA77.

Task 12: Analyze the results in terms of which party, on balance, has refused to recognize and/or admit the need for reform of CRA77 to prevent the current crisis.

Task 13: Analyze the results in terms of which party, on balance, has warned Congress of the need for reform of CRA77 to prevent the current crisis.

Do your analysis by the goddamned numbers. If you cannot express it in numbers, then it isn't science, it isn't engineering, and it most goddamned certainly isn't analysis, it is just opinion, and I don't have the slightest interest in your goddamned opinions on the matter. I'm interested only in your ability to find and analyze these facts.

Now, why should you take these quizzes? It's simple, really. Taking them, honestly and carefully, would take you down the path toward the significance and credibility that you crave but cannot achieve, while ignoring them, refusing them, or trashing them would take you down the opposite path toward the lack of credibility and contempt you have earned.

You don't have to get it right, teacher, you just have to try.

Well, do you accept the challenge?

And leave out the goddamned clichés, willya?

A study of CRA loans shows that CRA loans constituted only 23% of all loans and 9.2% of high-cost loans, CRA loans were twice as likely to be retained in the originating bank’s portfolio than loans made by other institution, and CRA loans were less likely to be foreclosed upon than other loans. I am guessing that there has to be a whole lot more to this crisis than just CRA77. This probably didn't help?

Unix, you know as well as I that budget doesn't mean shit. The FCC is about as weak as one small boy with polio in the face of merger after merger. They have pretty much sit back and let a small handful of companies run our media...companies I might add that one would be pretty hard pressed to find a Marxist on any of their boards.

I did enjoy the Jay Ward reference, though. It brought me a good laugh and several fond memories :)

DJ, I will get to you quizzes later tonight. Just to let you know, my initial reaction was not to answer them at all because of the insulting, personal tone.

But then I happened to get a phone call from a friend of mine who works in the lending business, read him what you wrote, he conferenced in his dad, who started Dain Rauscher and spends most of his days (aged 73 now) being a cheerleader at the office, and we got to talking about all of it. I admit that foreign policy, not economic matters, are more of my strong suit so I have asked them to educate me a little more.

Be back later...

"DJ, I will get to you quizzes later tonight. Just to let you know, my initial reaction was not to answer them at all because of the insulting, personal tone."

Horseshit.

You don't need an excuse to ignore anything; it's one of your four standard responses. When you are asked a question or are asked to support your blitherings with verifiable facts and an analysis thereof, you nearly always respond in one of four ways. They are:

1) The "I can't hear you" response. You behave as if the request was not made, or that you never read it. This seems to be your favorite.

2) The "What's the point" response. You complain that it is pointless to respond because you won't be believed anyway. One often finds this on a playground during third grade recess.

3) The "I'm not alone" response. You state your opinion, and then you point to the writings of other people who share your opinion, as if the request were about votes instead of (wait for it ...) verifiable facts, logic, and reasoned thought.

4) The "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response. You simply try to change the subject.

Now, you appear to be setting the stage, yet again, for #3.

I'm not interested in their responses, abilities, or opinions, nor am I interested in your opinions. I'm interested in your response, your abilities, and your analysis.

I'm not quizzing them, teacher. I'm quizzing YOU.

Now, are you gonna try to validate your own opinion of yourself, or are you, yet again, gonna validate our opinions of you?

you know as well as I that budget doesn't mean shit.

Bullshit.
If the budget is, as you say, irrelevant, why does it keep going up? Could it be that government programs keep getting bigger and bigger with less and less effect, as we keep telling you? Unless you're one of the unlucky ones to draw the ire of a huge (and as you say, nothing-else-to-do-bureacracy?)
300 million dollars. How many Frosts do you think that'll pay for? How many whatever else's that you say we're just tossing away and that you don't care about?.

What I know is that's 300 million to people doing a job. 300 million not being not taken from us. 300 million doing *something*.
You're the one saying it's total wasted effort.

The FCC is about as weak as one small boy with polio in the face of merger after merger.
I hope you don't teach English. Look up "mixed metaphor".

Weak is arguable. But they *are* bigger than they were. You know, growing. Costing more.
And with that extra cost, they're doing something. What?

Oh, you think

*sigh*. Sorry, Kevin. I did preview. I promise.

I really did. .

"I'm interested in your response, your abilities, and your analysis."

I really don't think you are. I've given you plenty of information in all of these areas and you respond with your usual insane amount of bluster, myopic view of the world, and personal attacks on me..which, btw, proves that there is at least some truth to my views.

In addition, the questions (once again Hannitized...do you guys really know ANY other way?) you have put to me would lead me to the conclusion, the one that you came to based on your extremely narrow minded ideology, that it is, in fact, the fault of the Democrats and regulation that have put us in this mess. This is the only answer and to say otherwise is blashpeme! So why should I bother to write them out? We both already know the answers, given the limitations of the questions. You're not teaching me anything. Give me a little more motivation, other than me looking like a "fool," which I really don't care about, and I might answer them.

Ask me in a broader context of how CRA loans jibe with the Responsible Lending Act of 2003. How did that affect state regulations? That would be a broader question and an answer I might be willing to give.

Make no mistake...your points are well taken. I'm certain they are part of the problem we have today. But the totality of the problem? No. I'm also interested in your comments on Guav's numbers...especially in light of your accusations that I avoid facts. Were they, then, 23 percent of the problem?

As far as my two friends in the financial industry go, I don't purport to be an expert on everything. I don't have a pre-fabricated answer (government bad) to everything like you do. In fact, most times I think the answer changes with time, reflection, and critical thinking. Hmm...you're probably not going to like that last line at all. Ah well...

I'll be the first to admit that economics is not my strong suit so I learn from people that do know more about it. Have you spent your life in finance and lending? I know I haven't. They have, though, and I really don't think you will like what they had to say.

So that's a #3 response, is it?

Adam:

Yep.

(with a bit of #2 in there, as well)

Yeaaah... I meant to put in #2. Then I hit submit and realized it was the wrong number.

Ah well :)

"I don't have a pre-fabricated answer"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Seriously, this is an act, right? Kevin's alter ego? Where are the cameras?

Adam and Unix, actually if you re-read my response you will see that I did answer his long list of tasks.

And I really don't mind being categorized in yet another 'Dance Like A Monkey' simple minded and wonderfully framed construct.

Russell, please review the following:

Group Serving Bias
Tajfel's Ingroup Bias
Outgroup Homegeneity Bias
Groupthink

No, you didn't answer his question. You don't answer questions. The only way you ever have been able to address anything finite is to either ignore it or to pose more questions to try and off any sort of intellectual effort onto someone else.

DJ,

Your analysis is spot on.

"... and personal attacks on me..which, btw, proves that there is at least some truth to my views."

The level of heat you sense in my comments is due to my continued exasperation with you, and does not constitute proof of anything except, perhaps, that you are exasperating. It does demonstrate, quite well, how abysmally little you understand of logical thinking.

"So why should I bother to write them out? We both already know the answers, given the limitations of the questions. You're not teaching me anything. Give me a little more motivation, other than me looking like a "fool," which I really don't care about, and I might answer them."

Standard response #2.

"Make no mistake...your points are well taken. "

They are not points, they are requests for you to dig for facts and analyze them.

"Adam and Unix, actually if you re-read my response you will see that I did answer his long list of tasks."

Actually, I've missed one, folks. His standard response #5 is to blither and blather, to slather on one turgid catch-phrase, slogan, and cliché after another, and then declare, later, "I answered your question."

Think what this response says about you, that he might expect you to actually believe him.

So, teacher, are you gonna take the quiz or not?

"Your analysis is spot on."

Thanks, Russell.

I'll go much further, too. In this comment thread, you have seen a gestalt of Markadelphia. He is a stereotype, a classical example of a person with a particular personality disorder. He wants desperately to be "one of the guys," to join in on intellectual discussions and be accepted as a deep thinker, a person who really has a handle on the truth.

His problem is that he runs head first into two brick walls: 1) he is not an intellectual deep thinker, rather he is an intellectual cripple who not only does not understand logic and rational thought, he does not understand the need for or benefits of logic and rational thought; and, 2) his ego cannot withstand the trauma of admitting error. So, he commits error after error as he dances his way around admitting error. The cliche is that he digs the hole he is in ever deeper, piling the dirt back upon his own head, all the while never admitting that the hole exists. He is a caricature right out of Monty Python. The abyss that yawns before him, which he dare not look into, is that he cannot ever admit or correct any significant error or the whole edifice of his self-esteem will come crashing down upon him.

Markadelphia, while I'm on a roll, here, I'm gonna (wait for it again ...) analyze this statement of yours:

"Adam and Unix, actually if you re-read my response you will see that I did answer his long list of tasks."

Tasks 1 through 9 were to "identify by name and by political party" certain members of Congress and certain Presidents. Tasks 10 through 13 were to "analyze the results", and I was specific that I wanted an analysis "by the goddamned numbers."

So, we're gonna look at your statements, paragraph by paragraph, in order, and see if you came up with lists of people and party affiliations, and see it you came up with any analysis of those lists. Any such "answer" of yours had to have occurred in the comments you made between my statement of the quiz and your statement to Adam and Unix-Jedi.

Your first comment, found here, is a response to Unix-Jedi, not to me.

Your entire comment, found here, is simply that you will "be back later".

Then we have six paragraphs found here.

"I really don't think you are. I've given you plenty of information in all of these areas and you respond with your usual insane amount of bluster, myopic view of the world, and personal attacks on me..which, btw, proves that there is at least some truth to my views."

No lists, no analysis of the lists, and so no answer.

"In addition, the questions (once again Hannitized...do you guys really know ANY other way?) you have put to me would lead me to the conclusion, the one that you came to based on your extremely narrow minded ideology, that it is, in fact, the fault of the Democrats and regulation that have put us in this mess. This is the only answer and to say otherwise is blashpeme! So why should I bother to write them out? We both already know the answers, given the limitations of the questions. You're not teaching me anything. Give me a little more motivation, other than me looking like a "fool," which I really don't care about, and I might answer them."

No lists, no analysis of the lists, and so no answer.

"Ask me in a broader context of how CRA loans jibe with the Responsible Lending Act of 2003. How did that affect state regulations? That would be a broader question and an answer I might be willing to give."

No lists, no analysis of the lists, and so no answer.

"Make no mistake...your points are well taken. I'm certain they are part of the problem we have today. But the totality of the problem? No. I'm also interested in your comments on Guav's numbers...especially in light of your accusations that I avoid facts. Were they, then, 23 percent of the problem?"

No lists, no analysis of the lists, and so no answer.

"As far as my two friends in the financial industry go, I don't purport to be an expert on everything. I don't have a pre-fabricated answer (government bad) to everything like you do. In fact, most times I think the answer changes with time, reflection, and critical thinking. Hmm...you're probably not going to like that last line at all. Ah well..."

No lists, no analysis of the lists, and so no answer.

"I'll be the first to admit that economics is not my strong suit so I learn from people that do know more about it. Have you spent your life in finance and lending? I know I haven't. They have, though, and I really don't think you will like what they had to say."

No lists, no analysis of the lists, and so no answer.

That's IT, teacher. You never even tried.

Now, there are only two possibilities here. They are, that: 1) you are so abysmally stupid that you actually believe you have taken the quiz, that you have actually identified the people and party affiliations requested therein and analyzed them, and that other people ought to be able to see that; and, 2) you are so fundamentally dishonest that you would lie to all of us with a (virtual) straight face.

One or the other of these assertions is true, teacher. Which do you wish us to believe?

Do you still not understand why you are held in such contempt here?

I'll be the first to admit that economics is not my strong suit

That comes as absolutely no surprise to those of us who've been paying attention, sophist.

Mark, I'm going to do you a bit of a favor.

I'm going to tell you a story about what we call "intellectual honesty."

This story takes place only a week ago, in a comments section on... well, here.

It involves LabRat and I having a pretty reasonable discussion back and forth, and then with Billy interjecting with a statement of principle and some probably unnecessary expletives.

It's a short story, too. See, here's what happened: Billy stated a fundament he believed in. I attacked him pointlessly, stupidly, and then challenged him without intellectual grounds, without evidence, and pretty much without much of a direction. He called me on it.

I waited awhile before starting to respond. Then I stopped. Then I read his response. Then I read his first posts. Then I read his actual blog (as Kevin suggested).

Now here's the part you're going to have trouble with, the part we call intellectual honesty:

I realized that I was more interested in "winning" an argument than I was in truth, validity, or reason. I realized I shared the exact same fundamental view as Billy, regardless of my discussions on what I'd call pragmatic reality (unlike Billy, I do not exercise my principles beyond philosophical debate - mine are more like "interests"), and I called myself on it. I did not sheepishly say, "Ooh, you might have been right on this and this," and then pretend to ignore the rest. Read my words there.

You see, what I AM interested in is, as I've said, truth, validity, and reason. If I don't even find MYSELF agreeing with what I'm saying, or if someone points out to me flaws in my thinking or that I'm just being an ass, I find where that problem is and I correct it. Because, quite frankly, I don't want to be held in contempt here. I'd rather be the misinformed, quick-to-respond-without-actually-reading-things idiot who makes an honest attempt to understand and to put rationality instead of rationalization behind an argument than the ivory tower, "anything you say is biased" idiot.

Mark, anytime your entire argumentative approach can be classified into numeric points and people can just start pointing to them anytime you're blathering, you might want to start wondering if the problem is YOU.

DJ, might be of interest to you:
So basically, the cause of our current crisis is...the government? Wow. I find myself wishing more and more that I was on the right side of the aisle. Things would be so much simpler...having the same answer to everything.

Which, by the way, he posted about 24 hours after your challenge, and after he'd appeared to have accepted it:
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 ... posted by Markadelphia at 3:30 PM

I commented and provided the link to the actual whole comment. He didn't, for some reason. And one to your challenge.

"They are not points, they are requests for you to dig for facts and analyze them."

"So, teacher, are you gonna take the quiz or not?"

But DJ, I've already dug through this stuff. Long before you even asked me the questions.I've looked into all of the questions you made and found pretty much the same things Guav did, although I will say I think that the CRA loan recipients were a fine example of a large part of this problem-people who wanted something for nothing and did not take responsibility for themselves. The population of the United States bears much of the blame in this one. It's an issue of societal decay based on too much extrinsic motivation.

Your goal, as you stated above, was to get me to think rationally. Or to learn something, right? Well, I learned that you think that regulation and the Democrats are responsible for the current mess. The answer to your task list is the Democratic Party. The answer to both of your questions before that is that high risk loans, forced by affirmative action regulation, caused the current financial crisis and that if loans were just given to people who could pay them back, everything would be fine.

I've moved beyond what you requested and am looking for an answer that has more width of vision. Your quiz has about as much width as an anorexic girl. You have your view and that's fine. It is very narrow minded and Guav has more or less proved you wrong. Give him kudos and give me none and attack me some more personally-I really don't care.

"He wants desperately to be "one of the guys"

Not really. Unlike you, I don't spend my days in a giant echo chamber beating up on the lone conservative. I like to debate. I learn from debate. I have no desire nor do I take any sort of comfort from hearing the same liberal point of view over and over again. I've taken a lot of things away from all of these conversations that have made me more knowledgeable and more well rounded. Again, width of vision:)

"he is not an intellectual deep thinker...his ego cannot withstand the trauma of admitting error.."

Based on your dogmatic view of the world and what you write here, DJ, I think this is a more accurate description of yourself. I could be wrong, though. Your assessment of me is most certainly is wrong.

"there are only two possibilities here"

Again, the lack of scope...ah well. This does illustrate a fundamental difference between "liberals" and "conservatives"

"I realized that I was more interested in "winning" an argument"

Actually, I find myself hoping these days that I am wrong. And I guess I need to state, again, that I don't think DJ is wrong...just short sighted. I completely understand the information he is trying to convey to me, know the answers he is leading me to, and still believe it tells only part of the story.

"you might want to start wondering if the problem is YOU."

Actually, I wonder that all the time. It's called being reflective. Your comment shows that you were reflective about a debate recently. I guess I'd like to see some reflection from DJ on his own ideology and its faults. I'm not going to hold my breath.

Unix, I wish I could be a right winger. There are very simple, efficient answers to just about everything. At the end of the day, though, I can't because I am too intellectually honest. One of the biggest faults of the left (and me) is the over analysis of every possible angle. At times, it leads to paralysis. It would be nice to say that CRA loans were the cause and people were idiots but it goes beyond that.

I can't, in good conscience, accept the answers to DJ's quiz as being any sort of complete analysis of the problem.

Mark, nobody here is going to be reflective about their own views in relation to you until you start showing an actual willingness to evaluate the statements they make, your own statements, and to answer questions you are asked.

You. Have. Not. Answered. The. Questions.

But DJ, I've already dug through this stuff. Long before you even asked me the questions.

Then answering the challenge you agreed to would be easy. (See, that's analysis. "If he'd done it, he'd have no problem replying to DJ. Thus, he's not done it.)

But you already admitted your first step was to ask someone else. That's not, by itself, bad. It is when you're declaring that you'd done the research yourself as you often do.... But can't back it up with concrete, factual examples, analysis, and numbers.
You can't then admit that, then expect us to believe that you knew it cold.

Don't hide behind Guav - had you known that you'd have said it. Guav's capable of thinking and analyzing on his own. You've never demonstrated that. Linking to opinion articles is the best you've ever done.

I like to debate. I learn from debate.
...
I can't because I am too intellectually honest.

Pick one. You can't stand by both.

There are very simple, efficient answers to just about everything.
Yet, again, you're wrong, and being dishonest either intentionally or through ignorance.

And you have the audacity to talk about "intellectual honesty". You didn't even link to DJ while ridiculing him.

It would be nice to say that CRA loans were the cause

Then tell us what the problem was, since you've already done the work.

Adam:
You. Have. Not. Answered. The. Questions.

Patience. He never will. You have to consider you write for other people who can analyze. Or, in the best case, for Markadelphia to get an epiphany. So far he's shown himself utterly incapable of the smallest change in opinion, much less the largest.

"Pick one. You can't stand by both."

Really, who says? You? Yeah, I'll get on that right away...not.

"Then tell us what the problem was, since you've already done the work."

I already have. Re-read what I wrote.

Adam, once again, the answers to the spoon fed right wing radio talking point questions, submitted to me by DJ, are are all the same. It was the Democrats and the fault of loans to low income people, due to government restrictions and quotas, that caused the mess we are currently in. Bush and other Republicans tried to warn us (cue angelic music and golden halos) but, as usual, the evil liberals wouldn't listen.

If you or anyone else think my answers are wrong, that's fine. Show me where I am wrong. Those are the answers I'm giving, which are the ones DJ has wanted me to get to all along in the hopes of making me "think rationally" and "see the light."

In his quiz, DJ said "I'm interested only in your ability to find and analyze these facts."

Facts...within the narrow frame of his questions. See, he's not interested in finding the real cause behind this whole mess...he just wants me to dance like a monkey (answer his questions)or look like a fool (his list of my potential responses)...setting up a win-win for him. It's a tactic that has worked quite well for conservatives in arguing with liberals these last ten years or so. It's not going to work with me.

The best part about this strategy is that no one really pays attention to the severely limited scope of his thought process behind our current economic crisis...everyone's too busy piling on me for...well...basically calling him on his bullshit...

Liberals aren't allowed to call conservatives on their bullshit. It simply isn't done. They should just follow orders and do as their told, right?

I can't because I am too intellectually honest.
...
I already have. Re-read what I wrote.

Then, you're a liar. Because you didn't address any of DJ's points. As usual.
"What was the immediate result of the U-boat deployment in 'Wolfpacks' into the Atlantic in 1942, Mark?"
"You keep saying the submarine is leftist and progressive and that's just nuts!
You keep listening to Rush, and he's a doodyhead!
I'm not going to answer that, it's a 'framed question' and the media is right wing and corporate!
....
I answered those questions and I fully understand the North Atlantic front in WWII!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

But DJ, I've already dug through this stuff.
But you didn't answer him. You're a perpetual Fermat's Last Theorem.

You alluded to someone(s) you know who thinks DJ's an imbecile, and thus, your work is done. *brushes hands*.

Well, no. That's not how it works.

Show me where I am wrong. Those are the answers I'm giving, which are the ones DJ has wanted me to get to all along in the hopes of making me "think rationally" and "see the light."

Those aren't the answers to the questions given.

I'm reminded of Chris Rock, in "Bring the Pain".
"Went back to school, took a course in African History. I gotta get an A just for showing up, right? I'm Black! WRONG.
Cause the only answer I ever learned in school was 'Martin Luther King'.
'Who freed the slaves?'
'Martin Luther King!'
'Who delivered the Gettysburg Address?'
'Martin Luther King!'
'Who was the woman who refused to give up her seat and move to the back of the bus?'
'Oooh, that's hard... are you SURE it was a woman? I know, MARTINA Luther King!' "

We say you can't analyze information and deliver synthesized analysis because you never do, and any challenge to force you to ends up with you getting huffy, refusing to do the work, and insisting that it doesn't, in any way, mean we can't draw the conclusion that you can't/didn't do the work.

Your continual insistence on Martin Luther King - (or Martina Luther King!) doesn't overcome that.

Markadelphia, I laid a very simple trap for you, and you exceeded my expectations. You walked right into it without recognizing it, and your behavior in doing so reveals a very great deal about you. You won't examine your own behavior, so I'm gonna do it for you.

I challenged you to take two simple quizzes. I figured a teacher would understand what a quiz is.

The analysis begins with the simple observation that you didn't have to accept the challenge. You didn't have to take the quizzes. Nothing compelled you to. You could have responded with, "Thanks, but no thanks. I refuse to take your quizzes." The language you might have used is irrelevant, but the simple fact that you did not refuse isn't.

The first quiz involved two simple questions. Each question asked you to explain the mechanism by which a result would arise from actions taken, and each was based on an implied premise. They were trick questions in that the implied premise of each question was false.

The first question asked you to explain how certain bad results would occur if lenders behaved as they are supposed to in a free market, capitalistic economic system. The implied premise was that the described results would happen if the described actions were taken. The premise was false, because the stated lenders' behavior is exactly proper, and is what results in a sound, properly functioning lending system, which is the opposite of the described results.

The second question asked you to explain how certain good results would occur if lenders behaved as they are not supposed to in a free market, capitalistic economic system. The implied premise was that the described results would happen if the stated actions were taken. The premise was false, because the described lenders' behavior is exactly improper, and is what results in an unsound, disfunctional lending system, which is the opposite of the described results.

This was a test of economics, of logic, and of simple reasoning. Anyone who has even the smallest understanding of Economics 101 should have detected the trap instantly, and a proper response would have taken all of one minute to write. That response, correct for both questions, is, "They won't. The question is based on an implied premise that is false."

You did not decline to take the quiz, thereby demonstrating your dismal lack of understanding of the issues involved. This was a GIMME, teacher, and your response was your Standard Response #1. You ignored it. I set the ball on the tee right in front of you and you didn't even see it was there.

Why this is so revealing is because, by not detecting the trap, you were not able to spin your failure in your usual way. You weren't even aware that you failed. The ink is dry, teacher, and it's there for all the world to read.

The second quiz involved a set of tasks to perform. These tasks do not involve any knowledge of economics, rather they are a simple test to find out whether or not you are able and willing to search for and identify certain facts, and then analyze the result. Quite intentionally, doing so cannot be accomplished by a simple, two-minute search via Google. There is no single web site out there which has the results in a neat, tabulated form for you to cut and paste. As I stated, you would have to actually WORK to accomplish these research tasks and it would likely take DAYS to do so. Each task should result in a simple list of names and party affiliations. The analysis is nothing more than to report whether, for each task, there are more blue names or more red names.

We have asked you many, many times over many, many months to support your statements with facts that we can verify, and to reason from those facts. You have declined nearly every time with one or more of your Standard Responses. Facts don't concern you. Logic doesn't phaze you. Reasoning logically from facts is unknown to you. Instead, Beck's Razor sliced you right into the crap pile.

The trap was that this was a perfect opportunity for you to reveal all your typical behaviors, one after another after another. You didn't disappoint.

You began by responding that you would "be back later". That's fine, actually. I stated that the second quiz ought to take you many days to get right. But, no, you were back very shortly. Doing real research and analysis work with facts is just not what you do.

Among your responses was that you might be interested in answering other questions. Golly, teacher, does the student get to write the quiz?

Among your responses was that you might deign to take the quiz if I would properly motivate you to do so. Are you so goddamned important that I should motivate you to spit out your drivel? Are you a poorly trained seal who only regurgitates the party line if someone flips you a fish? Do you think anyone here would want to do that?

The single most important response, the most revealing response, is way beyond the pale. You told other people that, if only they would re-read your remarks, they would see that you in fact did take the quiz, you did perform the list of tasks that I challenged you to perform. You have repeated this assertion many times over.

Now, consider the explicit contradition by which you compound this offense. You might be willing to take the quiz if I would motivate you, but you have already taken it.

Do you have any idea whatever how insulting it is to treat us, explicitly, as if we were just not intelligent enough to understand what you wrote? Goddamn, boy, but you practice raw, unadulterated chutzpah to a degree one seldom sees outside of House Clinton.

DO YOU EXPECT ANYONE TO TREAT YOU WITH ANYTHING BUT CONTEMPT AFTER YOU TREAT THEM IN SUCH A MANNER?

But, you can't admit that your treatment of them was wrong, can you? You can't admit that you lied, even to yourself, can you?

The characterization of you I described yesterday is spot-on. You have demonstrated to us over many months that it is accurate. Here, I have just demonstrated to you that it is accurate.

The point of this exercise was to demonstrate to you that the difficulty you face here is not whether you spin politically left, right, forward, or backward, rather it is that you will not intelligently discuss such issues. The response you get from us is not nearly so much about what you profess to believe as it is to the simple fact that attempting to get you to communicate intelligently is much like trying to push a rope up a pig's ass.

As I have stated many times, you might have something to say that is worth reading, but you will not say it such that it is worth wading through to find out.

The bottom line here is quite simple. Kevin does magnificent work here, if work is the correct word for it. He spends considerable effort on it, his research is meticulous and wide-ranging, and his reasoning is magnificent. He invites intelligent discussion of his essays and he has praised his commenters for their comments. But you know for a fact that you are not among the commenters he has so praised, and I've just shown you why in a way that any of your students ought to understand.

You bring nothing to the discussion except endless complaints that you bring nothing to the discussion. Why do you continue to shit in Kevin's parlor?

Guav:

Sorry for ignoring you earlier.

I thought that either DJ was fulla BS, or was baiting Markadelphia, so I thought I'd wait for Mark to (not) answer and DJ to school him.
Of course, since DJ has fessed up and demonstrated what he was trying to demonstrate, it's easy to say "yeah, yeah, I saw that" - like Mark will, too.
But I, in all honesty, skimmed DJ's first points, thought.. "That's *wrong*. But I figured I'd wait and see what Mark managed to make of it before I said anything.

Skimming your report, it looks interesting. But it is only covering 2006. And it's got some comments that I find.... self-covering.
But that being said.. let me quote their theory:
Our hypothesis is that the CRA, which requires banks to help serve the credit needs of their local communities, including low- and moderate-income (LMI) neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, may have deterred banks from engaging, at least in their local communities, in lending practices that fuel foreclosures.
I'd tell Markadelphia to take notes on what a theory is, and how you'd investigate it, but it's a lost cause.

"But you know for a fact that you are not among the commenters he has so praised"

Well, technically that's not true. While I wouldn't exactly call it praise, he and I do agree wholeheartedly that SSRIs are the cause behind all of the rampage shootings in this country.

And we agree on a few other things as well. I recall several words of encouragement over an old debate regarding minimum wage.

So, as long he allows me to post here, I will. You really should give yourself more credit for challenging me as much as you do. I may not dance like the monkey you want me to be but I certainly have learned a lot.

Not enough.

But I won't kick you out.

Me: "But you know for a fact that you are not among the commenters he has so praised."

You: "Well, technically that's not true."

I would not call Kevin's treatment of you "praise". While he hasn't banned you (yet), he has requested, emphatically and in plain English, that you and he (and I think this quote is accurate) "never darken each other's doors again."

"You really should give yourself more credit for challenging me as much as you do."

You don't have the slightest idea what I think of myself. Save your condescending bullshit for your students.

"I may not dance like the monkey you want me to be..."

I don't want you to dance or to be a monkey. What I want you to do is think rationally instead of just jerking your knees.

"... but I certainly have learned a lot."

Then show it instead of just claiming it.

Have I finally, at long, long, last, caught and held your attention long enough to split your thick skull and push something into it?

I have tried over many, many months to get you to understand a simple, self-evident truth, and to behave accordingly. It is that reality is what it is regardless of what you think about it and regardless of whether or not you like it, which means that any explanation you give for anything must account for ALL the relevant facts, else it is neither correct nor complete. Your continual refusal to admit to reality when it is demonstrated to you, and to argue contrary to the demonstrated facts, will continue to earn you nothing but contempt. Your continual refusal to admit error when it is demonstrated to you will continue to compound that contempt. Your continual treatment of us as idiots will continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper.

The only way you're gonna gain the credibility that you crave is to pull your head out of your ass and earn it. You'll have to show that you actually understand what that means instead of just claiming that you do.

And you can start by apologizing to Adam and Unix-Jedi for lying to them and treating them as if they were idiots when you know they aren't.

When I actually make a rational point or have a ground from which to debate, then I'd say any sort of apology to me is pertinent.

For this particular matter, I've really just been the idiot standing behind DJ and Unix going, "Yeah! You heard us.. I mean them!"

Adam, I don't think you been the idiot standing next to Unix and DJ. If I offended you in someway, I'm sorry. I found your questions and comments to be quite challenging, in this thread and the others. We just see things from a different perspective.

Unix, on the other hand, I would say has been the one piling on the personal insults and vehement vitriol. If anyone should apologize, it should be him. And you as well, DJ. You have to admit I have been a pretty decent guy in the face of the personal insults you have slung at me.

If anyone should apologize, it should be him.

Mark, *I* didn't lie.
And the only apology you'd get is if Kevin thought you deserved one. You certainly have no credibility to demand one (in a thread where you've blatantly lied multiple times.)
Many times I go back and revise my comments to you to ALLOW for the possibility that you're not lying-through-your-teeth. Giving you the benefit of the doubt.

You have to admit I have been a pretty decent guy in the face of the personal insults you have slung at me.
I don't, and I won't. You don't understand how to read and process information.
You've lied throughout this thread, you've behaved in a manner either intentionally or coincidentally (see! giving you the benefit, again!) designed to infuriate and stymie discussion.
DJ has called you one it twice in this thread alone.

That's not being a decent guy. Nor is posting on your site, without relevant links and ridiculing DJ, whilst insinuating that he's not being honest.

I already have. Re-read what I wrote.
Which was a lie. No other spin possible. You lied. You did not do the thing you have staked your reputation upon. That's a lie. "My dog ate my homework."
You did not answer DJ's questions, after you indicated that you would. Now note! I'm not saying you promised to - you didn't. But you indicated that you would.
But it is a blatant, false lie - easily demonstrated here! that you peddle.
Which makes you a liar. That's not a gratuitous insult. It's a description. You. Don't. Tell. The. Truth. This is the latest example of that you cannot be trusted. That's not me being an asshole, that's me looking at the facts before me, noting that in some easily verified cases, you have told falsehoods, and drawing the inevitable conclusion that barring outside confirmation, your unassisted word isn't worth a $3 Bill with Clinton on it.
I suppose it's possible, as you've previously accused Bush of "lying us into war", that you don't know what a lie is. But that, again, doesn't serve you well as proof that you're a good judge of public policy and predicting it's likely results.

If I'm wrong - show me! Cite where you did what you have claimed. Then I'll be wrong, and if I fail to apologize, I'll be untrustworthy.

But as usual, you fail to understand the most BASIC of concepts as to trust, confirmation, and how the Human Animal works. But you assure us that you're a better judge of systems that will work. Now, that's bullshit - and it's built upon the prior revelations. You can't be trusted, you don't understand systems, you blindly follow other people's opinions....

That all ends up with me saying "Your opinion is worthless." Not just for the hell of it, or because you disagree with me. But because it's a proven situation with evidence I can cite.
I know what a theory is, Mark.
Note that I haven't "insulted" Guav, despite the fact that he backed you up?
You might note that Guav has a history here, too. Of thoughtful commentary. Backing his opinion up - as he did there. Funny thing, Guav doesn't get "insulted" and you do.

Funny, that is, if you're serially dishonest and incapable of thinking.

You have to admit I have been a pretty decent guy in the face of the personal insults you have slung at me.

On a third reading, let me also point out Mark, we've repeatedly told you that "good intentions are great, but it's results that matter."

You want a "cookie" for being "decent" (a very arguable contention).
But you haven't performed what you were asked to do, what you indicated you would do, and what you've claimed to have done..
Nevermind your performance, you should be rewarded over DJ and myself because of your intent and "words". (Again, we're ignoring the implied insults, the lies, strawmen, and the libels in our general direction.)
How many times have we told you that that's how you think? How many times have you told us we were wrong?

But now, here again, you claim superiority over at least some of us. Not due to proving your point, or being right. But because you "behaved decently".

By your standards.

Those are the only standards a "right thinking" person would have!

Yes, even in this there's a lot that can be demonstrated with you - in just that one post you've again, reinforced DJ's analysis of your thinking, and damaged your credibility and ability to claim impartiality.

And you don't understand what I'm saying at all here. Just more insults from me. Vitriol. I'd say you just sunk your credibility more.. but if it's findable, it's somewhere below the Marianas Trench.

Well, DJ, I think you have proven that Marky-mark is not only not capable of having a logical, rational discussion, he's also not willing to have one, either.

He is, for lack of a better term, a troll.

U-J: "And you don't understand what I'm saying at all here."

I can almost hear his groupthink chip working overtime on that. Wanna take bets on whether he 1) acts hurt and insulted, 2) ignores this thread, or 3) tosses out more non sequiturs?

I am betting 3 with a dash of 1.

BTW: "but if it's findable, it's somewhere below the Marianas Trench."

Ha! Almost lost a keyboard on that one!

"Unix, on the other hand, I would say has been the one piling on the personal insults and vehement vitriol. If anyone should apologize, it should be him. And you as well, DJ. You have to admit I have been a pretty decent guy in the face of the personal insults you have slung at me."

Goddamn, but you are dense. Perhaps this ought to be called your Standard Response #6: Deliberately missing the point.

It's not about manners, it's about lying. My statement to you was:

"And you can start by apologizing to Adam and Unix-Jedi for lying to them and treating them as if they were idiots when you know they aren't."

You lied to them and then you treated them as idiots by stating that they would see that you were telling the truth if only they would read your words again. Then you repeated the lie over and over again.

As I noted earlier, Beck's Razor sliced you right into the crap pile, didn't it?

This particular statement deserves a comment on its own.

In my unhumble opinion, your rehabilitation cannot begin until you admit the lie and apologize for it.

Well? The ball's in your court, teacher.

What lie am I supposed to admit and apologize for again? I did apologize to Adam.

Oh, was it that I didn't answer your questions the way you wanted me to...I answered them in another way..so that's a lie?

was it that I didn't answer your questions the way you wanted me to

A lie itself.

...I answered them in another way..so that's a lie?

2.

You didn't answer them at all. Neither directly, as you indicated that you would, nor "in any other way". But you said to Adam and me, that you had (a lie), and that we'd not read what you said. (another lie)

You just lied again, Mark.

I explained that quite clearly above, as did DJ.
There's almost no possible way that you can claim this is in any way an innocent misunderstanding.
(Sort of like going to a BLT Church for 20 years and then saying "What? He said that? I can't believe it!)

At this point, you're either (see! again with the credit extension! I've got more out there to you than WaMu had to scammers!) deliberately lying, or are utterly incapable of understanding facts, truth, and logic.
Which would mean that you cannot critically think for yourself. Much less ever be able to 'teach' it.

Deliberate lying, or inability. There's no other option available.

A few days ago, I described Markadelphia thusly:

"His problem is that he runs head first into two brick walls: 1) he is not an intellectual deep thinker, rather he is an intellectual cripple who not only does not understand logic and rational thought, he does not understand the need for or benefits of logic and rational thought; and, 2) his ego cannot withstand the trauma of admitting error. So, he commits error after error as he dances his way around admitting error. The cliche is that he digs the hole he is in ever deeper, piling the dirt back upon his own head, all the while never admitting that the hole exists. He is a caricature right out of Monty Python. The abyss that yawns before him, which he dare not look into, is that he cannot ever admit or correct any significant error or the whole edifice of his self-esteem will come crashing down upon him."

What we have here, ladies and gents, is validation. You are all witnessing it in action.

So, teacher, I can't help but wonder what you might be capable of learning if only you were capable of first unlearning what you have been shown is wrong. You have demonstrated beyond ALL doubt that you simply can't do it.