ContraryGuy on February 06, 2011, 09:53:41 am
Just out of curiosity how did you arrive at a count of three?  Is there somewhere one can go to find out this information about others. 

Mostly Google searches with name variations and such. I'm good at it; Google is my bitch.

To satisfy your curiosity, its a lot more than three.  But I am trying to be good.  My problem is I just can't resist poking when I should be quiet.

I just counted superheros (Superman, Batman and Captain America), so that might not match the lists from which you were banned. Anyway, have fun, say what you want, disagree if you want, but hopefully try not to be Contrary;)




Its so nice to be recognized for my work.  :-)

Holt on February 08, 2011, 09:40:31 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

GlennWatson on February 09, 2011, 08:26:57 pm
Who is OP?

KBCraig on February 10, 2011, 02:42:34 am
Who is OP?

A common forum shorthand reference to the "original poster", the one who started the current thread. In this case, Sandy.

quadibloc on February 10, 2011, 07:26:24 am
A common forum shorthand reference to the "original poster", the one who started the current thread. In this case, Sandy.
Still, confusion was understandable. OP is not a name; it is a noun that takes the definite article. "I can sum up the OP's post..." is the normal form, and might have been more likely to be recognized.

Still, for people not familiar with the abbreviations like LOL, IANAL, HTH, and the like, this one could easily be mistaken for, say, "operator".

SandySandfort on February 10, 2011, 05:58:37 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

No you can't; failed again! I guess this is the leitmotif of your life--failure and frustration. Here, let me tell you what my post actually meant, in one sentence:

"If you only have bald opinions without evidentiary or reasoned argument, talking to me is a waste of both our times."

So, since you have never put forth a well reasoned and documented argument, yes, don't talk to me or rather, talk all you want, I won't waste my time listening. I am plonking you with CG. Of course, just as with CG, I will happily read anything you have written that a more thoughtful poster has quoted and undoubted demolished with facts and reasoning. Live in darkness.

ContraryGuy on February 12, 2011, 12:25:45 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

No you can't; failed again! I guess this is the leitmotif of your life--failure and frustration. Here, let me tell you what my post actually meant, in one sentence:

"If you only have bald opinions without evidentiary or reasoned argument, talking to me is a waste of both our times."

So, since you have never put forth a well reasoned and documented argument, yes, don't talk to me or rather, talk all you want, I won't waste my time listening. I am plonking you with CG. Of course, just as with CG, I will happily read anything you have written that a more thoughtful poster has quoted and undoubted demolished with facts and reasoning. Live in darkness.

Is it really Holt and I who are in darkness?  Or are we the ones being pilloried for lighting candles?

"For it is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness"

ContraryGuy on February 12, 2011, 12:29:02 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

Hi Holt, welcome to Reality.  While I agree with you, trying to convince Sandy that his Utopian society only works in small doses is a Sisyphean task.

But, since am a helpful guy, I do want to help Sandy et al. succeed.  So just call me Sisyphus.

Plane on February 12, 2011, 10:01:35 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

Hi Holt, welcome to Reality.  While I agree with you, trying to convince Sandy that his Utopian society only works in small doses is a Sisyphean task.

But, since am a helpful guy, I do want to help Sandy et al. succeed.  So just call me Sisyphus.

Thought experiments can be important , because they can lead to real experiments.

If AnCap is thouroughly thought out and its principals well laid out for participants before the start this might help the chances of success, quibbleing is in service to the goal .

Once the real experience is undertaken the guide of the thought experiments will loose relivance and corrections from learing the results of real experiments will matter more.

I kinda hope that a frounteir in space is not totally necessacery to the success of an AnCap society, I would like it better if the comics prediction of a worldwide dictatorship does not come to pass.

If the general population of the Earth becomes gradually more sophisticated will we reach a point at which most of us can be self governed?

I like the idea , it is worth a try.

J Thomas on February 12, 2011, 10:53:21 pm
I can sum up OP's post in one sentence.

"If you do not share my ideological beliefs do not talk to me."

Hi Holt, welcome to Reality.  While I agree with you, trying to convince Sandy that his Utopian society only works in small doses is a Sisyphean task.

Reality?

It looks to me like Sandy has basicly an axiomatic system. If everything works the way he says it ought to, it cannot fail because he has it defined to succeed. So say there's a real attempt at an AnCap society that does fail. He could point to something about its failure to show it was not a real AnCap society, a No True Scotsman situation.

This false certainty gives him the strength to push toward what he wants. Can there be a real society that approximates his ideals? I don't know. How would anybody know? Three hundred years ago a lot of people believed that democracy was impossible, but they were wrong. Does democracy solve all the problems its early proponents claimed it would? No. But it does better than kings.

He thinks he knows. You think you know. Why would anybody think you have a handle on Reality, on the Truth? Sandy's beliefs give him hope and the conviction that a better day is coming. If he stopped believing what he believes and accepted your beliefs instead, what would it get him? I'm not ready to choose a religion, but if it was a choice between Sandy's religion and your religion, I'd pick his. The hope of something better, versus the belief that we're stuck -- what benefit is there to believing your way? Because it's the Truth? That has not been demonstrated.

Some AnCap believers' ideas seem naive to me. Like I think I've seen a claim that AnCap societies will be composed of people who individually choose to avoid banks and Ponzi schemes because they will be individually smart enough to know better, and therefore those things will not cause business cycles. Maybe I made up that interpretation from other things people say and nobody actually made that claim. But still I can imagine an AnCap society might be workable, and if it winds up with banks and business cycles it can still be workable. Or they might find a way to avoid that. I can't expect AnCap enthusiasts to solve every problem ahead of time. That would be like expecting a computer programmer to come up with a paper description of a program that worked perfectly without testing. You start with a vision of what you want, and you build specs, and you revise the specs when you see they don't work. That's where AnCap is now, they're building preliminary specs.

If you have an argument why the program can't work, you could explain it. "The final user will have to make ten thousand choices through the user interface for each transaction." "Your algorithm requires a division by zero right here, and here's why it has to be zero." "The problem is NP-hard and on current hardware can be solved only for N=20 but you require a solution for N=200,000."

Sometimes it's possible to find gotchas that prove the program cannot ever work. And sometimes in that case it's still possible to get a program that does something worthwhile. But I don't see that you've described a gotcha. Your objections so far have been yes-buts. You might be right that large AnCap societies are impossible, but you haven't given any indication that you can back up that opinion.

mellyrn on February 13, 2011, 07:27:08 am
I can sum up Holt and CG's position in one sentence:

"I can't be bothered to mount a real argument when it's so much easier to skewer a straw-man version spun out of the straw of my own uninformed imagination."

terry_freeman on February 13, 2011, 06:50:07 pm
What Mellyrn said; nail on the head.

It is the statists who are dreamers. After thousands of years of failure, they still claim that the State can better manage a) the money supply ( in spite of evidence showing that State interventions cause and exacerbate "business" cycles. ), b) better manage defense - in spite of obviously having caused more wholesale carnage than could ever be attributed to private actors, and c) better education, in spite of considerable evidence to the contrary. I could go on at great length.

What are the recent experiments in removal of "traffic controls" but an admission that the State has failed to provide traffic safety? No State in all the world, until these removal-of-controls experiments, managed to create roads which are as safe and effective as those which are not controlled by the State.


ShireSilver on February 15, 2011, 08:01:02 am
What are the recent experiments in removal of "traffic controls" but an admission that the State has failed to provide traffic safety? No State in all the world, until these removal-of-controls experiments, managed to create roads which are as safe and effective as those which are not controlled by the State.

[This is from memory from a few years ago.]

In the Twin Cities (Minnesota), they have a traffic management system that attempts to reduce traffic jams by using stoplights on entrance ramps. They are pretty universally reviled, and a state legislator managed to get a law passed requiring a study be done. They planned a two week study where the lights would be turned off.

On the first day, traffic was way worse than normal. There were more accidents.

On the second day, traffic was about like it normally was under the control of the lights.

On the third day, the traffic was better than it had been in a long time.

On the fourth day, the traffic management center realized they needed to end the study as quickly as possible. It was becoming very apparent that they would all lose their jobs.

In the end, a few of the lights were removed permanently, and the management was "modified". They reduced it a little bit, but managed to keep their jobs by convincing enough legislators that they were still needed somehow.

spudit on February 23, 2011, 01:07:50 pm
Mel Brooks as the governor in Blazing Saddles,

"Gentlemen this is serious, we have to protect our phoney-baloney jobs here."
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

 

anything