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

On 2025-01-24, 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 2025-01-22, 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.

>
Let's reset.

I quite understand why you want to reset. Having to defend so many
falsehoods would indeed be time consuming. But please do so.

I posted a link to the wikipedia article that shows Mr. Trump
ranked last amongst US presidents.
>
You didn't address the rankings, you just claimed all historians
are registered democrats so their rankings are not meaningful.
>
You clearly didn't read the page which describes the methodology
of the surveys (which attempted to balance political ideology of
the respondants).

Yes, we can talk about that once you handle your current backlog of
other claims.

In the meantime though, could you give me a pointer to the exact survey
you base your comments on?  I couldn't find it among the many on the Wikipedia
page. The best match I could find:
1. Wasn't done of historians
2. Absolutely had no "set of consistent and concrete criteria." (Asked for a
single number).
3. Made no attempt to balance ideology (used a straight average of
all respondents including the very heavily outnumbered Republicans.)

That doesn't match most of your criteria; surely that couldn't be the
survey you're talking about?

Why don't you, first, elaborate on exactly why you think that
ranking Mr. Trump last is incorrect -- based on the actual
criteria, not some personal assumptions about ideology of the
respondents?
>
You clearly don't understand the use of Hyperbole in argument
if you're focused on a throwaway comment related to the frequency
of Mr. Trump's incoherent utterances and namecalling.  Which may not
be every other word, but could likely be every other sentence.

It wasn't a throwaway comment. It was a direct response to my request
for "data and cogent rebuttal".  If your best cogent rebuttal has to
be a statement that not even you believe is true, your argument has problems!

Since you refined your estimate to every other sentence, I assume you
have the evidence to back that up?  If you're in need of large amounts
of unscripted Trump talk, I might suggest the transcript of the Joe
Rogan podcast.  I await your count of namecalling with great curiosity!

Chris