He's not old enough to have tried buying beer at a 7-11 at 2:02am.

Whadda you mean, "The cash register says it's after 2?"

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Interesting. To answer b, it's impractical to enforce that a privately owned and operated business put up barricades. Even if the business wants to cooperate with the governor's orders or the mayor's orders, obviously many customers will ignore the barricades and take what they want anyways.  Then we expect the cashier's to scold the customers for that, and not just scan the merch and take the money.  
I'm not sure about the answers to a and c.

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.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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.

Lol, your statements here aren't "less than credible", they are frequently outright bull [BLEEP] you made up just to take a contrarian position.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Have we figured out why our government HATES small business yet? They have successfully tested the blueprint. Look for one of these pandemics every decade to keep small business in check.

---

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

---

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

The article I sourced is Sowell's work, that's why Mikesez has to disagree.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

I would trust Sowell over myself as well, if we're talking economics.  But how about Sowell over Krugman or Sowell over Reich?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

I would trust Sowell over myself as well, if we're talking economics.  But how about Sowell over Krugman or Sowell over Reich?

Yes to the first, absolutely to the second.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I would trust Sowell over myself as well, if we're talking economics.  But how about Sowell over Krugman or Sowell over Reich?

Yes to the first, absolutely to the second.

Wasn't asking you.  It's your turn to put the gag on and get in the cage.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yes to the first, absolutely to the second.

Wasn't asking you.  It's your turn to put the gag on and get in the cage.

Sowell was my source, I'm in this conversation.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes to the first, absolutely to the second.

Wasn't asking you.  It's your turn to put the gag on and get in the cage.

Why do you guys have to be so petty? Insulting each other seems to be a favorite past time.

---

Wasn't asking you.  It's your turn to put the gag on and get in the cage.

Why do you guys have to be so petty? Insulting each other seems to be a favorite past time.

Momma always said "petty is as petty does."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

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. 

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

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.

---

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. 

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.

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 is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

Of course. It could also mean his models are wrong. I don't know enough about economic modeling to really challenge or defend that. It's just an observation. Krugman and Sowell don't really make the same types of claims, though, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

---

Of course. It could also mean his models are wrong. I don't know enough about economic modeling to really challenge or defend that. It's just an observation. Krugman and Sowell don't really make the same types of claims, though, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.

Agreed.  Just pointing that out.  Models are proven effective if they are right more than they are wrong.  But economics, as with any other social science, will always be part art and part science.  You will never have the capacity to effectively measure all the influencing variables.

That being said, Krugman makes specific predictions, while Sowell tends to generalize more. Like his claim that Biden winning will be like the fall of the Roman Empire. Pretty dramatic and not something that will be provable in his lifetime.

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

You do realize that when you evoke Thomas Sowell, you are directly contrasting your knowledge to his. I realize that authority doesn't make a person inherently correct, but choosing Sowell over you is not a difficult choice. Again, not because he is infallible, but because you are not giving any credible evidence to support your claims. You rely on a bunch of thought experiments that always perfectly line up with the position you're defending. You're operating in the ether, while Sowell is a master of acute comparisons. All of this is moot, since I don't remember anyone using Sowell in this argument.

I would trust Sowell over myself as well, if we're talking economics.  But how about Sowell over Krugman or Sowell over Reich?

That's like Brady vs leaf or couch bruh....  lol.

---

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


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.

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?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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?

Does that mean you had trouble understanding it?

---

This is a results-oriented business.  There are no trophies or titles given for "moral victories" or for "winning the draft".  Our record with DC is 37-86.  6-10 is our 2nd best season in 8 years of Caldwell leadership.  These are the FACTS.

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

Does that mean you had trouble understanding it?

Not at all I used Wikipedia.  ?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.