In turn, your arguments are often directed at a straw man and suffer as often from internal inconsistencies (e.g., double-barrel question that cannot be answered, appeal to authority, etc.). I have detailed these instances the best I could and referred to some sources that can explain the issue further. You don't even bother to verify and only use my words for new, equally baseless, accusations. This looks more like hunting on your part than discussion.
As I said in the previous post, to have a discussion, people should at least agree on the meaning of the words. In my opinion, you misuse both commonly used words (e.g. error, negligence and fraud) and the standard terminology (it was you, remember who brought up the Student distribution and confidence intervals, etc.) I asked you to verify both the former (with dictionaries, attorneys) and the latter (with the texts that I thought could be helpful. You don't bother to bridge the gap buy stopping even think about that for a moment. If you have no respect for what I write and/or me personally --- fine. But then say so once and stop wasting your time and mine, as I respectfully asked you before.
We both have expressed our opinions and arguments in lengthy posts. You think that my arguments are full of holes and I think the same of yours. Clearly, we cannot do anything more for each other, and other people reading this thread can make their own conclusions. Hence the ending of my previous post:
As I said in my previous post, I remain unconvinced by your arguments. My failure is more significant: you appear to have misread almost every word I wrote. I am sorry if I contributed to that unfortunate outcome.
This discussion appears to be less than productive, which is why I asked you in the preceding post: can we respectfully agree to disagree?
You cannot, which is fine: disagree with me disrespectfully if you so chose. This does not change the fact that this discussion has not been even remotely productive for the last few rounds.
This exchange is over: make whatever conclusions, however damning you prefer, but I shall not contribute to it any further.
Perhaps, we'll find something in common on other threads. In the meantime, have a good day.
You have answered everything at length except the question posed to you. e.g. you gave lengthy explanations of what double barrel questions and statistical estimates are, agency problem in PhD surveys but not a word on whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why.
TopQuark said: Regrettably, you find my replies inadequate no matter what they say.
Unfortunately this is bound to happen in a discussion where one party consistently speaks about everything other than the topic at hand (for example, A says “How is the weather today?” and B says “You see the sun rises in the east and sets in the west because the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun and this cycle of revolution takes 365 days to complete.”)
TopQuark said: In turn, your arguments are often directed at a straw man and suffer as often from internal inconsistencies
Are you sure you are referring to me? Coming from somebody who considers it a moral right to run from thread to thread, post to post without providing a shred of evidence and accusing patriotic loyal fellow conservatives of spreading commie propaganda, the statement does not hold any weight.
TopQuark said: I have detailed these instances the best I could and referred to some sources that can explain the issue further
There is only one instance of referring to sources. I was referred to Cook and Campbell, "Treats to Vaidty," 1956; texts on "Research Methods" in post 188 You classify them as valid sources to explain whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why Unfortunately we have not requested you for sources to assist in the writing of a PhD thesis.
TopQuark said: This looks more like hunting on your part than discussion
Right. So you end up at every other thread without a shred of evidence accusing a straw man, also a harmless fellow conservative, and making tall accusations of spreading commie propaganda until you silence them into submission and then you turn around and simply because I engage you into a perfectly civil discussion about your views on the credibility of the rate of unemployment accuse me of hunting you! This is called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque a logical fallacy and a diversionary tactic; an attempt to defend oneself from criticism by turning the critique back. How very conservative of you! What a display of Judeo-Christian morality!
TopQuark said In my opinion, you misuse both commonly used words (e.g. error, negligence and fraud) and the standard terminology (it was you, remember who brought up the Student distribution and confidence intervals, etc.) I asked you to verify both the former (with dictionaries, attorneys) and the latter (with the texts that I thought could be helpful.
In your opinion and as evident in your previous posts, everybody apart from you lack the understanding of any terminology and is stuck at Level 101. Please cure the hangover before it gets the better of you.
TopQuark said This does not change the fact that this discussion has not been even remotely productive for the last few rounds.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this is bound to happen in a discussion where one party consistently speaks about everything other than the topic at hand
TopQuark said: This exchange is over: make whatever conclusions, however damning you prefer, but I shall not contribute to it any further.
Thank you for the exchange. You chose never to answer the question posed simply avoiding the answer at every point in the discussion. While I do not care about your opinion on the level of unemployment, I do care for the fact that you make baseless accusations ad hominem and silence your fellow conservatives into submission. But when the tables are turned on to you and you are asked to substantiate your accusations you choose to throw in your towel and run Let alone provide any evidence, you have not the courage of your convictions to even answer the questions, you so rightfully pose to others.
And you consider yourself a conservative? An upholder of Judeo-Christian morality? Please spare us the shame of a hypocrite addressing himself as a conservative.
TopQuark said: Perhaps, we'll find something in common on other threads
Not a chance. I can never find anything in common with a hypocrite. Sorry
TopQuark said: If you have no respect for what I write and/or me personally --- fine.
I have been perfectly civil to you at every point in this discussion despite the fact that we disagreed on every single statement. While keeping an open mind I engaged you into a discussion and gave you every opportunity to share your views without forcing mine on you, making personal attacks or hurling expletives as we disagreed. After all this you say I showed no respect to what you write and to you personally. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
You have answered everything at length except the question posed to you. e.g. you gave lengthy explanations of what double barrel questions and statistical estimates are, agency problem in PhD surveys but not a word on whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why.
TopQuark said: Regrettably, you find my replies inadequate no matter what they say.
Unfortunately this is bound to happen in a discussion where one party consistently speaks about everything other than the topic at hand (for example, A says “How is the weather today?” and B says “You see the sun rises in the east and sets in the west because the earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the sun and this cycle of revolution takes 365 days to complete.”)
TopQuark said: In turn, your arguments are often directed at a straw man and suffer as often from internal inconsistencies
Are you sure you are referring to me? Coming from somebody who considers it a moral right to run from thread to thread, post to post without providing a shred of evidence and accusing people of spreading commie propaganda, the statement does not hold any weight.
TopQuark said: I have detailed these instances the best I could and referred to some sources that can explain the issue further
There is only one instance of referring to sources. I was referred to Cook and Campbell, "Treats to Vaidty," 1956; texts on "Research Methods" in post 188 You classify them as valid sources to explain whether the figure of unemployment is distorted or not and why. Unfortunately we have not asked you to for sources to assist in the writing of a PhD thesis.
TopQuark said: This looks more like hunting on your part than discussion
Right. So you end up at every other thread without a shred of evidence accusing a straw man, also a harmless fellow conservative, and making tall accusations of spreading commie propaganda until you silence them into submission and then you turn around and simply because I engage you into a perfectly civil discussion about your views on the credibility of the rate of unemployment accuse me of hunting you! This is called Ad Hominem Tu Quoque a logical fallacy and a diversionary tactic; an attempt to defend oneself from criticism by turning the critique back. How very conservative of you! What a display of Judeo-Christian morality!
TopQuark said In my opinion, you misuse both commonly used words (e.g. error, negligence and fraud) and the standard terminology (it was you, remember who brought up the Student distribution and confidence intervals, etc.) I asked you to verify both the former (with dictionaries, attorneys) and the latter (with the texts that I thought could be helpful.
In your opinion and as evident in your previous posts, everybody apart from you lack the understanding of any terminology and is stuck at Level 101. Please cure the hangover before it gets the better of you.
TopQuark said This does not change the fact that this discussion has not been even remotely productive for the last few rounds.
Unfortunately, as I said earlier, this is bound to happen in a discussion where one party consistently speaks about everything other than the topic at hand
TopQuark said: This exchange is over: make whatever conclusions, however damning you prefer, but I shall not contribute to it any further.
Thank you for the exchange. You chose never to answer the question posed simply avoiding the answer at every point in the discussion. While I do not care about your opinion on the level of unemployment, I do care for the fact that you make baseless accusations ad hominem and silence your fellow conservatives into submission. But when the tables are turned on to you and you are asked to substantiate your accusations you choose to throw in your towel and run Let alone provide any evidence, you have not the courage of your convictions to even answer the questions, you so rightfully pose to others.
And you consider yourself a conservative? An upholder of Judeo-Christian morality? Please spare us the shame of a hypocrite addressing himself as a conservative.
TopQuark said: Perhaps, we'll find something in common on other threads
Not a chance. I can never find anything in common with a hypocrite. Sorry
TopQuark said: If you have no respect for what I write and/or me personally --- fine.
I have been perfectly civil to you at every point in this discussion despite the fact that we disagreed on every single statement. While keeping an open mind I engaged you into a discussion and gave you every opportunity to share your views without forcing mine on you, making personal attacks or hurling expletives as we disagreed. After all this you say I showed no respect to what you write and to you personally. Thank you very much. Have a good day.