[From Bill Williams 31 January 2004 1:32 PM CST]
[From Kenny Kitzke (2004.01.31)]
<Rick Marken (2004.01.29.2150)>
<I was not baiting, Kenny. I was showing, by example, how to insult the
way you do. You forgot to quote what you said to me, to which my
comment was a reply. You said "Or, perhaps you fail to understand what the conventional economists claim, making yourself out
to be a fool?">
Rickster, I did not call you a fool. Do you know what "perhaps" means in my quote? I provided an alternate opinion to your
stated belief that conventional economists see it wrong when they claim that investment drives income. That your claim might be
invalid. You have not convinced me. And, if so, you would be the fool and not them. I do not claim to know who is a fool, but
someone is apparently wrong who should know better.
And, my guess is that your data and your understanding of what the conventional economists mean according to your paraphrase
and generalization has led you to make an invalid claim. But, I don't know that for certain. So, I just ask questions to try to clarify
your claim. Like I asked you to give me a specific quote from a notable conventional economist that says what you say they
believe. I thought real scientists liked testing their conclusions? I am still waiting for the quote that is the basis of your generalized
# Kenny, I want to take you to task for your use of language. When you use the # "generalized" the way you do in the passage above what you do, in effect, is
# to invert the proper meaning of the term. Generalized in its proper useage
# means (and pardon me for using upper case letters to emphasize it) WITHOUT
# EXCEPTION. However, as you apply this fine word to what Rick is doing, you
# destroy the word's proper meaning by implying that TO GENERALIZE is to
# treat the truth carelessly. Bruce Nevin can correct me if I am mistaken
# in this regard, however, in my perception you are creating a confusion by
# the way you have applied the word.
# My criticism of his inappropreate use of language aside, I must again give
# thanks to Kenny for his contribution to the discussion. Even an imp trained # in the most rigorous school in which "credentialled economists become agents
# who are exceedingly difficult to deal with may experience difficulties # attempting to confuse an underlying ignorant class when they are so ignorant
# to begin with. And, I hope you won't mind if I point out that it makes our
# task just that much more difficult if the uncredentialized take it upon
# themselves to do our work for us. How are the authorized imps going to # "pounce" upon their rightful victims if you keep them stirred up?
Airline Transport Rating #523602727
PS. Since Bill Powers has complained about my wearing a signboard advertising that I hold a Ph.D in econmics, I have decided that it would be best if I assume my alternative identity as a comercial pilot.