Liste des Groupes | Revenir à ol advocacy |
-hh wrote:Snipped by chrisv:
chrisv wrote:>>
In the paragraph that I responded-to in my previous post, -highhorse
dishonestly frames the argument, he claims that a reasonable and
correct argument "backfired", and he conjures-up and attacks with shit
which is clearly untrue, like his "clear example of
do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do" nonsense.
>
IOW, nothing but garbage. That's classic -highhorse, when he's
defeated, butthurt, and has got nothing *but* garbage to respond with.
(snipped, unread)
Is anyone fooled by -highhorse's garbage, when it goes unrebutted?Got cite for when you actually did what you snipped out above?
All of us long-timers have seen his MO. When he's wrong, he makesWith citations to world experts such as Schwartz /s
assertions that are clearly false. He denies things which are clearly
true. He trots-out atrocious "logic".
What kind of fool thinks that humping an obviously *stupid* DumFSckWorld experts (see Schwartz) have proven that you're wrong: the paradox of choice is that "more is better" has diminishing returns, such that after a threshhold is reached, the effort to optimize further is overshadowed by the increase in effort to evaluate those more choices.
attack is the path to "victory"? Does anyone here think that
DumFSck's argument, which -highhorse supported, was good?
When will he learn? There's not "too much choice" in *any* market,
and no amount of idiocy from fools who think that they know better
than the market is going to change that.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.