Re: Pearls Before Swine: Uncle Is Not Good With Money

On 2025-01-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:

On 2025-01-22, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:

On 2025-01-21, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:

>

You seem to live in a very different world than I do, Scott.

>
You seem to live in a fantasy world.

>
Please supply your facts and cogent arguments for this. I gave my
reason; you did not dispute it at all, providing no evidence.
>

Please supply your data and cogent rebuttal about namecalling.

>
Pretty much every sentence out of the mouth of your pathetic
felon hero is calling someone a name.

>
THIS is what you consider "evaluating the data" and providing a
"cogent rebuttal"??? WOW!

>
I have no desire or interest in attempting to persuade _you_
of anything.
>
But, if you must, start here:
>
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nicknames_used_by_Donald_Trump

Interesting debating tactics. You make a blatantly false statement. Then
when someone calls you on it, with concrete objections, you respond by
ignoring and completely snipping their response, and pretend you are defending
your statement by introducing facts that weren't even in question (as
would have been obvious if you had included their objections)!!!

The issue is not whether Trump calls names, it's the frequency with
which he does. You claim "pretty much every sentence".  I view that as
a blatant falsehood. Please back up your point with data and cogent
rebuttal.

Perhaps you can elighten us on how the voting registration of
the handful of historians your survey included affects their
professionalism with respect to history.   What evidence do
you have that their political affiliation colors their
work?   It is actually ironic that you can support Mr. Trump
with all his myriad faults, blatent lies and poor behavior
and can condemn people you don't know and have never met simply
based on their occupation.
>
Have you looked at the data underlying the aforementioned
wiki page?  Have you any examples from that data that support
your assertion that the historians that registered as
democrats have let their political affiliation affect their
ratings in the Presidential Surveys?  For all you know,
all the historians that participated in that poll could have been
registered republicans. 
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
>
  "The scholarly rankings focus on presidential achievements,
   leadership qualities, failures, and faults"
>
Given those criteria, there seems little chance that Mr. Trump can
rank high on the list, even if only only considers his actions on
January 6, regardless of the political affiliation of those who
provided the rankings.

An interesting discussion that I'll be happy to talk about, but after
we finish the topics at hand. Perhaps you forget: *you* changed the
topics.  I had been the one talking about the Wikipedia article and
*you* decided you wanted to talk about something else and snipped all
discussions about Wikipedia articles.

You made at least 5 false statements in your previous post that I
called you on. Let's finish those off first before changing the topic
again.

Chris