Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(11-28-2020, 06:01 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2020, 05:54 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]Does that mean you had trouble understanding it?

Not at all I used Wikipedia.  ?

(11-28-2020, 12:21 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2020, 11:20 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]The article I sourced is Sowell's work, that's why Mikesez has to disagree.

Dude, I have looked through this thread 3 times, and I can't find an article you linked. 

(11-27-2020, 12:10 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I would trust Sowell over myself as well, if we're talking economics.  But how about Sowell over Krugman or Sowell over Reich?

I am admittedly weak in the study of economics, and have said as much before. I am not sure who has the better theories, but I have seen Krugman and Reich be repeatedly wrong about many of their predictions. Sowell, on the other hand, makes sense to me because he is not predicting as much as he is analyzing. Maybe you could post some examples of him making terrible economic predictions.

(11-28-2020, 05:25 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-28-2020, 12:37 PM)NeptuneBeachBum Wrote: [ -> ]Economics is the study of statistics, not pure math; therefore, economic models are probabilities, not certainties.  Experts will be frequently wrong with their predictions, particularly with complex issues.  However, that doesn't mean their models are wrong.  If you're holding pocket Aces against 2-7 off-suit, you will still lose 12.5% of the time.  Obviously, that does not mean its wrong that pocket aces are still the best starting hand to have in Texas Hold 'Em.

This reply is so Mikesez I was mildly surprised when I saw it written by Neptune.  Mark are you still denying you are Samuel?

(11-27-2020, 09:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-26-2020, 11:27 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Yesterday you said and I quote "...that mandate didn't last very long."  Today you admit "I'm not sure about the answers to a and c."  Does this help you understand why some here occasionally find your statements to be less than credible?  

Why is it impractical for Walmart to erect a barrier?  Ball parks have barriers forcing patrons to enter/exit in certain patterns.  Likewise movie theaters and airports.  You can't even leave an amusement park without going through the gift shop!  Haven't you ever seen a mall storefront boarded off during remodeling?  If it was maintained in some states while non-essential stores were closed (and it was), then obviously it wasn't an impractical task.  

Apparently you're unfamiliar with bar code technology in point of sale systems.  Deactivate or NA the merchandise code and the cashier can't do a thing.

Yes, point of sale systems are regularly modified.  Most often because an item is "on sale" one week but not the next week.  They also modify them for the regularly scheduled tax holidays.  But they get months to prepare for both of those.  These emergency orders have them only a day or two to prepare, typically.

Some here find my statements to be less than credible because I sometimes speak against the Gospel according to Thomas Sowell.  People don't like it when you go at their religion and it causes them to hate everything you say.

But in this specific case it's silly. I have a vague idea that some states or cities tried to force walmart to partially shut down, and it didn't last very long.  It would be nice if I could tell you places and dates, but not having them doesn't make my memory wrong.  You could prove me wrong if you looked at every jurisdiction that tried this, and showed that they are still enforcing it.  But if one of them tried and quit, I'm right.

And why are we arguing about this anyways? Do you think this partial shutdown of walmart is a good idea that should be done throughout the US? I don't.

(11-30-2020, 11:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2020, 09:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, point of sale systems are regularly modified.  Most often because an item is "on sale" one week but not the next week.  They also modify them for the regularly scheduled tax holidays.  But they get months to prepare for both of those.  These emergency orders have them only a day or two to prepare, typically.

Some here find my statements to be less than credible because I sometimes speak against the Gospel according to Thomas Sowell.  People don't like it when you go at their religion and it causes them to hate everything you say.

But in this specific case it's silly. I have a vague idea that some states or cities tried to force walmart to partially shut down, and it didn't last very long.  It would be nice if I could tell you places and dates, but not having them doesn't make my memory wrong.  You could prove me wrong if you looked at every jurisdiction that tried this, and showed that they are still enforcing it.  But if one of them tried and quit, I'm right.

And why are we arguing about this anyways? Do you think this partial shutdown of walmart is a good idea that should be done throughout the US? I don't.

Only a day or two to change availability codes.....oh my!   Where will Walmart ever find the resources?  Plus you said it was impractical.  But wait!  It some states it was done.  How can this be?   

LOL.  Your credibility (or more accurately, lack thereof) has nothing to do with Sowell and everything to do with your statements that are frequently unsupported by factual evidence.

So in this discussion you've gone from stating it happened, to saying you don't know if it happened and now to a "vague idea" that some states may have tried to make it happen.  Why would anyone still be enforcing it now after non-essential stores have been allowed to re-open?

Have you already forgotten what the thread is all about?  The discussion was about the rich getting richer during the pandemic.
The partial shutdown of Walmart, Target, etc. was a great idea.  Why should corporate giants be allowed to prosper while the lesser suffer?  All jurisdictions that required stores selling non-essential merchandise to temporarily close, should have prevented other stores from selling similar items during the same time period.  If the furniture store can't open, then Walmart shouldn't be allowed to sell furniture, simply because they also sell groceries.

(11-30-2020, 11:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-27-2020, 09:15 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, point of sale systems are regularly modified.  Most often because an item is "on sale" one week but not the next week.  They also modify them for the regularly scheduled tax holidays.  But they get months to prepare for both of those.  These emergency orders have them only a day or two to prepare, typically.

Some here find my statements to be less than credible because I sometimes speak against the Gospel according to Thomas Sowell.  People don't like it when you go at their religion and it causes them to hate everything you say.

But in this specific case it's silly. I have a vague idea that some states or cities tried to force walmart to partially shut down, and it didn't last very long.  It would be nice if I could tell you places and dates, but not having them doesn't make my memory wrong.  You could prove me wrong if you looked at every jurisdiction that tried this, and showed that they are still enforcing it.  But if one of them tried and quit, I'm right.

And why are we arguing about this anyways? Do you think this partial shutdown of walmart is a good idea that should be done throughout the US? I don't.

Only a day or two to change availability codes.....oh my!   Where will Walmart ever find the resources?  Plus you said it was impractical.  But wait!  It some states it was done.  How can this be?   

LOL.  Your credibility (or more accurately, lack thereof) has nothing to do with Sowell and everything to do with your statements that are frequently unsupported by factual evidence.

So in this discussion you've gone from stating it happened, to saying you don't know if it happened and now to a "vague idea" that some states may have tried to make it happen.  Why would anyone still be enforcing it now after non-essential stores have been allowed to re-open?

Have you already forgotten what the thread is all about?  The discussion was about the rich getting richer during the pandemic.
The partial shutdown of Walmart, Target, etc. was a great idea.  Why should corporate giants be allowed to prosper while the lesser suffer?  All jurisdictions that required stores selling non-essential merchandise to temporarily close, should have prevented other stores from selling similar items during the same time period.  If the furniture store can't open, then Walmart shouldn't be allowed to sell furniture, simply because they also sell groceries.

(12-01-2020, 12:14 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2020, 11:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Only a day or two to change availability codes.....oh my!   Where will Walmart ever find the resources?  Plus you said it was impractical.  But wait!  It some states it was done.  How can this be?   

LOL.  Your credibility (or more accurately, lack thereof) has nothing to do with Sowell and everything to do with your statements that are frequently unsupported by factual evidence.

So in this discussion you've gone from stating it happened, to saying you don't know if it happened and now to a "vague idea" that some states may have tried to make it happen.  Why would anyone still be enforcing it now after non-essential stores have been allowed to re-open?

Have you already forgotten what the thread is all about?  The discussion was about the rich getting richer during the pandemic.
The partial shutdown of Walmart, Target, etc. was a great idea.  Why should corporate giants be allowed to prosper while the lesser suffer?  All jurisdictions that required stores selling non-essential merchandise to temporarily close, should have prevented other stores from selling similar items during the same time period.  If the furniture store can't open, then Walmart shouldn't be allowed to sell furniture, simply because they also sell groceries.

Your last paragraph is solid truth. Here at my local walmart, the only store of its kind in my county, there were several areas blocked off to consumers due to being considered nonessential. One example is seeds for gardens being blocked for purchase raised the alarm for annual gardeners and had people trying to start gardens in panic mode because they couldn't find produce in the stores. Forget about riots over blm, people here were going to riot because they couldn't buy seeds and other essential items.

(12-01-2020, 12:38 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2020, 12:14 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Your last paragraph is solid truth. Here at my local walmart, the only store of its kind in my county, there were several areas blocked off to consumers due to being considered nonessential. One example is seeds for gardens being blocked for purchase raised the alarm for annual gardeners and had people trying to start gardens in panic mode because they couldn't find produce in the stores. Forget about riots over blm, people here were going to riot because they couldn't buy seeds and other essential items.

Is it still that way where you are?

(12-01-2020, 12:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(11-30-2020, 11:12 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Only a day or two to change availability codes.....oh my!   Where will Walmart ever find the resources?  Plus you said it was impractical.  But wait!  It some states it was done.  How can this be?   

LOL.  Your credibility (or more accurately, lack thereof) has nothing to do with Sowell and everything to do with your statements that are frequently unsupported by factual evidence.

So in this discussion you've gone from stating it happened, to saying you don't know if it happened and now to a "vague idea" that some states may have tried to make it happen.  Why would anyone still be enforcing it now after non-essential stores have been allowed to re-open?

Have you already forgotten what the thread is all about?  The discussion was about the rich getting richer during the pandemic.
The partial shutdown of Walmart, Target, etc. was a great idea.  Why should corporate giants be allowed to prosper while the lesser suffer?  All jurisdictions that required stores selling non-essential merchandise to temporarily close, should have prevented other stores from selling similar items during the same time period.  If the furniture store can't open, then Walmart shouldn't be allowed to sell furniture, simply because they also sell groceries.

Can you name the places and dates where these Walmarts were partially shut down?  Yes, in Vermont all Walmart, Cosco, etc non-essential areas were shut down March 23rd - May 18th.  Americus already told you about the stores in North Carolina.  Do you need to know about other states as well?

Can you tell us if they're still partially shut down, and if not, why?  No, of course not.  They all re-opened when other stores selling exclusively non-essential merchandise were allowed to re-open.
Or are your ideas of this also vague?  I never represent as fact anything about which I am uncertain.  

Those questions are rhetorical. Don't answer them.  Oops, too late.
I agree it's only fair to try to prevent Walmart for selling furniture, if furniture stores are shut down. I never disagreed.   LOL.  You absolutely disagreed.  Here's the quote from your own post on the 27th "Do you think this partial shutdown of walmart is a good idea that should be done throughout the US? I don't."   That's not what you're trying to discuss though. You're trying to discuss me, and regardless of if I want to hear that or not, no one else does.  Just trying to help you climb out of a negative rating.  Friendly advice.....if you want to be taken seriously, stop contradicting yourself, be less argumentative and don't express your opinion or a vague recollection as fact.

My work here is done.  Sneakers out.

(12-02-2020, 10:10 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-01-2020, 12:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Can you name the places and dates where these Walmarts were partially shut down?  Yes, in Vermont all Walmart, Cosco, etc non-essential areas were shut down March 23rd - May 18th.  Americus already told you about the stores in North Carolina.  Do you need to know about other states as well?

Can you tell us if they're still partially shut down, and if not, why?  No, of course not.  They all re-opened when other stores selling exclusively non-essential merchandise were allowed to re-open.
Or are your ideas of this also vague?  I never represent as fact anything about which I am uncertain.  

Those questions are rhetorical. Don't answer them.  Oops, too late.
I agree it's only fair to try to prevent Walmart for selling furniture, if furniture stores are shut down. I never disagreed.   LOL.  You absolutely disagreed.  Here's the quote from your own post on the 27th "Do you think this partial shutdown of walmart is a good idea that should be done throughout the US? I don't."   That's not what you're trying to discuss though. You're trying to discuss me, and regardless of if I want to hear that or not, no one else does.  Just trying to help you climb out of a negative rating.  Friendly advice.....if you want to be taken seriously, stop contradicting yourself, be less argumentative and don't express your opinion or a vague recollection as fact.

My work here is done.  Sneakers out.

(12-03-2020, 08:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it was ever a good idea to shut down sales of furniture, clothing, etc. It wasn't a good idea to shut down those small businesses that only sell those items, and it wasn't a good idea to partially barricade costco and walmart.  Enforcing limited occupancy, temperature checks at the door, and social distancing within the store, those were all better ideas. 
So I'm not contradicting myself.
And then we have your accusation that I made a statement of fact when I was actually uncertain about the thing. This is an interesting accusation. It hinges on what I meant by the verb "try" and on your ability to correctly perceive my tone or mood in this wall of text. 
Normal people don't try to nail down definitions that tightly, outside of a court of law, and normal people understand that they might miss someone's mood or tone in an internet forum.
All y'all are assuming I'm saying something else, when Im not. You, copycat, and FSG are all practicing a subconscious form of self-deception known as bulverism here in this thread.
I'm not asking you to stop, cuz I don't want to ruin your fun, but I am asking to recognize what you're doing.
It's not normal, and it's not necessary.

(12-03-2020, 09:44 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 08:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it was ever a good idea to shut down sales of furniture, clothing, etc. It wasn't a good idea to shut down those small businesses that only sell those items, and it wasn't a good idea to partially barricade costco and walmart.  Enforcing limited occupancy, temperature checks at the door, and social distancing within the store, those were all better ideas. 
So I'm not contradicting myself.
And then we have your accusation that I made a statement of fact when I was actually uncertain about the thing. This is an interesting accusation. It hinges on what I meant by the verb "try" and on your ability to correctly perceive my tone or mood in this wall of text. 
Normal people don't try to nail down definitions that tightly, outside of a court of law, and normal people understand that they might miss someone's mood or tone in an internet forum.
All y'all are assuming I'm saying something else, when Im not. You, copycat, and FSG are all practicing a subconscious form of self-deception known as bulverism here in this thread.
I'm not asking you to stop, cuz I don't want to ruin your fun, but I am asking to recognize what you're doing.
It's not normal, and it's not necessary.

When dealing with a double talking weasel it's always necessary to decipher the intent of his manipulatory speech since history shows that none of his words can be taken at face value.

(12-03-2020, 11:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 09:44 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]When dealing with a double talking weasel it's always necessary to decipher the intent of his manipulatory speech since history shows that none of his words can be taken at face value.

That's Bulverism.
Weasels can be right about stuff.  And you could be mistaken about whether or not I'm a weasel in the first place.
In order to have a productive dialogue, you have to assume that your dialogue partner has good intentions and be generous in your interpretation of his words. Interpret them as "strong man" rather than "straw man" arguments. 
But I'm pretty sure you're not here for productive dialogue and that's fine.

(12-03-2020, 11:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 11:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]That's Bulverism.
Weasels can be right about stuff.  And you could be mistaken about whether or not I'm a weasel in the first place.
In order to have a productive dialogue, you have to assume that your dialogue partner has good intentions and be generous in your interpretation of his words. Interpret them as "strong man" rather than "straw man" arguments. 
But I'm pretty sure you're not here for productive dialogue and that's fine.

It's fine, I'm used to your bull [BLEEP] ism. I don't always think you're wrong, I just know that you're disingenuous.

(12-03-2020, 12:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 11:39 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It's fine, I'm used to your bull [BLEEP] ism. I don't always think you're wrong, I just know that you're disingenuous.

You never agree with me unless I agree with you first.  You're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with the rest of us.  You do always think I'm wrong.
When a person has significantly more aptitude and education than most of his conversation partners, he must choose to pretend to have less, and get accused of being disingenuous, or be candid about the depth and breadth of his knowledge, and get accused of talking down to people. Both of us have graduate degrees. So both of us have this problem. I choose the first approach, you choose the second. Your approach of talking down to people works for you because you do it with so much spite and so much disregard for them as people that observers find it funny, though the targets of your ire rarely do.
Anyhow, sneakers actually accused me of pretending to know more than I actually know, not less.
So I don't think you've diagnosed the problem.

(12-03-2020, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 12:26 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You never agree with me unless I agree with you first.  You're not being honest with yourself and you're not being honest with the rest of us.  You do always think I'm wrong.
When a person has significantly more aptitude and education than most of his conversation partners, he must choose to pretend to have less, and get accused of being disingenuous, or be candid about the depth and breadth of his knowledge, and get accused of talking down to people. Both of us have graduate degrees. So both of us have this problem. I choose the first approach, you choose the second. Your approach of talking down to people works for you because you do it with so much spite and so much disregard for them as people that observers find it funny, though the targets of your ire rarely do.
Anyhow, sneakers actually accused me of pretending to know more than I actually know, not less.
So I don't think you've diagnosed the problem.

Or he could, you know, just be himself and not put on or put off airs to make others perceive of him as he is not. You know, genuine rather than disingenuous. Bless your heart.

(12-03-2020, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 02:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Or he could, you know, just be himself and not put on or put off airs to make others perceive of him as he is not. You know, genuine rather than disingenuous. Bless your heart.

I could do that, yes.  But it would go against my motives.
Your way is to dunk on people and get positive rep points from third parties. I don't actually care if I get positive rep points, I just didn't like negative.  And I don't want anyone to feel bad, whether they agree with me or not.  
My motive is to help people agree to disagree and respect each other, in these divisive times.  So I'm going to ask questions rather than bash people.  That's why we are always butting heads.  You are coaling up a big ol train of hate, and I'm trying to detail it.

(12-03-2020, 04:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I could do that, yes.  But it would go against my motives.
Your way is to dunk on people and get positive rep points from third parties. I don't actually care if I get positive rep points, I just didn't like negative.  And I don't want anyone to feel bad, whether they agree with me or not.  
My motive is to help people agree to disagree and respect each other, in these divisive times.  So I'm going to ask questions rather than bash people.  That's why we are always butting heads.  You are coaling up a big ol train of hate, and I'm trying to detail it.

Aaaaaand we're back to reputation. Again. My way is to simply talk about what's interesting to me, yours is to compete to prove how oh so brilliant you are. Since you didn't get the upvotes you wanted to validate your self image you now have framed (in your mind anyway) our interactions so that you are the peak of nobility and I am the big evil meanie. Because for some reason I'm the guy you want as your measuring stick. Yet you yourself just admitted that you are motivated to NOT be your genuine self, so...disingenuous you are and remain, and that's why we butt heads.

(12-03-2020, 08:25 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]And then we have your accusation that I made a statement of fact when I was actually uncertain about the thing. This is an interesting accusation. It hinges on what I meant by the verb "try" and on your ability to correctly perceive my tone or mood in this wall of text. 
Normal people don't try to nail down definitions that tightly, outside of a court of law, and normal people understand that they might miss someone's mood or tone in an internet forum.
All y'all are assuming I'm saying something else, when Im not. You, copycat, and FSG are all practicing a subconscious form of self-deception known as bulverism here in this thread.
I'm not asking you to stop, cuz I don't want to ruin your fun, but I am asking to recognize what you're doing.
It's not normal, and it's not necessary.

(12-03-2020, 04:52 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-03-2020, 03:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]  You are coaling up a big ol train of hate, and I'm trying to detail it.

 My way is to simply talk about what's interesting to me, yours is to compete to prove how oh so brilliant you are.