Hi tkc,
As I've written previously, when a person can't face the argument, they will often target the person with whom they are arguing. And this tends to reflect upon them rather than the person they are writing about.
I don't see awk or NW complaining about my scepticism. I have a decent relationship with them both. They both seem to respect or tolerate the fact I share a different opinion and that I am willing to be flexible. And I respect the fact that they have done their own work as well.
It speaks volumes about RC that he cannot deliver a riposte on the subjects under discussion. When he tries, he invariably makes his points by misrepresenting what I've written. Who is going to bother to engage on that basis? You just say - please point to where I wrote what you just said I wrote, and move along. And since they cannot, there's not much more to say.
It is rather sad that he is clearly still bitter about being banished from these parts. But he only keeps proving that he cannot see why he is toxic to a productive conversation. I'm sure he's a perfectly decent bloke. But he always and invariably personalises conversations that should have a life separate from the person posting what they have to say.
His latest defense of partisanship was really quite something. Apparently investors need to be protected from the discussion of risks in case they miss the opportunity that may occur if those risks prove invalid. Okay. Who gets to dictate which risks are valid? Why the optimists of course. Following this logic, it is obvious that only optimism is permitted in an RC world.
So instead of hanging out on iHub where conversation is permitted, I say such a person should post where optimism is the rule. That is the pre-requisite of entry to RC world. If he doesn't want to join Snackman, he should start his own optimism-only board somewhere. I promise not to post there.
But personally, I expect it will be a lonely place.
| 