#OccupyWallStreet

[RTFirefly]

@RTFirefly

Your reply to Mr. S. (post 868) is decidedly cite-free.

Oh, beg pardon - you did come up with a cite for your 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 breakdown:

[QUOTE=Scylla]
memory from some continuing Ed that i took ten years ago
[/QUOTE]

My bad.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

You are getting creepy again.

‘Again’? That’s not possible!

Poster Scylla attests, in post #893, that I have not been present in this thread.

So who are you going to believe - Scylla, or yourself?

[Scylla]

“Again” as in like a year or so ago, when you followed me from thread to thread doing this shit.

[Merijeek]

@Scylla

“Again” as in like a year or so ago, when you followed me from thread to thread doing this shit.

Yeah, why can’t you just spew bullshit and then write another one of your little stories in peace? Really, those make up for everything!

Poor little misunderstood artiste.

-Joe

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

“Again” as in like a year or so ago, when you followed me from thread to thread doing this shit.

Ah, making more shit up, I see.

Or, should I say, cite?

And now, of course, I’m following you from thread to, ummm, further down in the same thread? Dear me, how creepy!

You know, if you don’t want me commenting on your posts in this thread, there’s a real simple solution. I bet even a lower life-form like you can figure it out.

In the meantime, another simple solution, which I highly recommend, would be to either provide cites for nontrivial assertions, or stop including unsubstantiated factoids in your posts that just happen to bolster your arguments - or would do so, if they were actually true.

That’s really nothing but standard Doper practice.

[Scylla]

Before you were bitching at me about cites I didn’t provide, which it turns out I did provide (I gave two links)

Now you are bitching at me about cites that you didn’t
Ask for, and nobody asked for.

Bitching at me for not providing something you didn’t ask for is not standard doper practice. It’s pretty much just being an asshole or a troll. You are both.

[Scylla]

And you didn’t even bother to read the thread. My memory was not a cite.
I provided two distinct links, but you didn’t even fucking bother to check before you started your bitching at me.
I think you owe me an apology, you incompetant twit.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

Before you were bitching at me about cites I didn’t provide, which it turns out I did provide (I gave two links)

Not sure what you mean by ‘before,’ but about the only thing you provided a cite for, when we were wrangling earlier, was that some change in the law actually happened.

The question of whether it made any difference at all was what you couldn’t be bothered to back up, despite being repeatedly asked.

Now you are bitching at me about cites that you didn’t
Ask for, and nobody asked for.

See posts 393, 408, 413, 416…

Bitching at me for not providing something you didn’t ask for is not standard doper practice. It’s pretty much just being an asshole or a troll. You are both.

Even though this is the Pit, we’re engaging in debate here. Namecalling is a legitimate adjunct to logic and evidence in this forum, but even in the Pit, it’s no substitute for it.

[Scylla]

Listen Asshole, I provided two cites to reports on socioeconomic mobility. Elucidator asked for a cite earlier, I provided two (somebody else provided one as well.). Svin and I then discussed it.

Now you show your trolling retarded ass in here half a dozen pages later and accuse me of not providing a cite. You’re a douchebag. Go back and read the thread do you know what you are talking about.

Then you bitch at me for not providing cites for unspecified things that neither you nor anybody else asked for.

If you’re not trolling on purpose, you are doing a damn fine imitation of it.

Prick

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

My memory was not a cite.

OK, I’ll downgrade it from ‘really fucking lousy cite’ to ‘not a cite.’

Consider it done.

I provided two distinct links, but you didn’t even fucking bother to check before you started your bitching at me.

Actually, I did.

A couple of links to 56 pages of PDFs, without a clue as to what in them supports your argument, is not a meaningful cite.

It’s not my role in the debate to go on a fishing expedition for your cite. If there’s something in those 56 pages that supports your argument, give me a page number, and which paragraph. Wouldn’t hurt to quote the particular words that allegedly back you up.

Otherwise, what’s likely to happen is that after combing 56 pages for something that might tangentially appear to support your point, I’ve got to explain to you why it doesn’t do the job, and then you can tell me, ‘oh, that’s not the part I meant, I really was talking about the next chapter…’ and it’s back to the fishing expedition.

And next time, you can cite, without further particulars, the Federal budget for FY 2010, or something equally voluminous. And from then on we ‘debate’ by throwing links to extremely large documents back and forth.

Yeah, that makes sense.

I think you owe me an apology, you incompetant twit.

In Bizarro-world, maybe.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

Listen Asshole, I provided two cites to reports on socioeconomic mobility. Elucidator asked for a cite earlier, I provided two (somebody else provided one as well.).

No, you did not provide a cite. In post 819, you provided a link to a document. You alleged that something in the document supported your bullshit claim.

That’s not a cite. There’s no specificity. I could just as well provide a link to a basic economics text and say, “this refutes your arguments.” It almost certainly would in there somewhere, given your arguments, but it would be rather meaningless until I spelled out chapter and verse.

Svin and I then discussed it.

And in the discussion, do you provide a more specific pointer?

That would be a negatory.

Now you show your trolling retarded ass in here half a dozen pages later and accuse me of not providing a cite.

Noncite: post 819. That would be on p. 17 of the thread.

My post pointing out the absence of any substantiation: post 881. That would be on page 18.

Try learning to count. It’s a bad skill to be lacking, in a discussion of finance and economics.

[elucidator]

@Scylla

This is a whole field of study, but here’s a start:

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP%20American%20Dream%20Report.pdf

And:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/Hertz_MobilityAnalysis.pdf
If you read those both, I think you will agree that I did a reasonable job of explaining the general gist of some of the current thinking on the subject.

Good reading and a subject I’d imagine you care about . If you have questions on the meaning of some of the terms or issues, let me know and I’ll do my best to clarify.

Have fun.

This is my new favorite Scylla cite. One of these days, I’m gonna ask for a cite, and he’ll give me the URL for Google and say “Its in there. Go for it!”

[gonzomax]

@elucidator

This is my new favorite Scylla cite. One of these days, I’m gonna ask for a cite, and he’ll give me the URL for Google and say “Its in there. Go for it!”

Of course from the Brooking Institute . Right wing backed and funded organizations that buttress the thinking of those who are righty believers.

[gonzomax]

FAIR

In preemption. Brookings is called a left site by the right, but it is not.

[RTFirefly]

@gonzomax

FAIR — Page 1436 — FAIR is the national progressive media watchdog group, challenging corporate media bias, spin and misinformation.
In preemption. Brookings is called a left site by the right, but it is not.

Kinda like “even the liberal” Washington Post, New Republic, etc.

[marshmallow]

Demint started the recession.

[RedFury]

Apropos of…well, nothing really. Guess I just want to play with cites:

Social Inequality in America: 2009 income gap in the US highest on record

**Figures released Tuesday by the US Census Bureau reveal sharply worsening conditions for tens of millions of Americans under the impact of the economic crisis and the accumulation of vast wealth by a relative handful.

Some of the figures, for particular states and regions, are simply staggering. Michigan residents experienced a 6.2 percent decrease in median income in the course of one year, from 2008 to 2009, while Illinois has suffered a 24 percent increase in poverty in the past decade. More than 36 percent of Detroit’s population officially lives in poverty.

Overall, the 2009 American Community Survey reveals that median household income fell in the US nearly 3 percent between 2008 and 2009, from $51,726 to $50,221. This was the second consecutive year in which household incomes dropped. Median income declined in 34 states, and increased only in sparsely populated North Dakota.

“Thirty-one states saw increases in both the number and percentage of people in poverty between 2008 and 2009,” reported the Census Bureau in a press release. “No state had a statistically significant decline in either the number in poverty or the poverty rate.”

National median income is down 4 percent from its peak when the recession officially began in December 2007. Last year alone, noted the Washington Post, accounted for $1,500 of that average loss.

The Associated Press, based on an analysis of the Census Bureau numbers, reports that the income gap between the rich and the poor “grew last year to its widest amount on record as young adults and children in particular struggled to stay afloat in the recession.” The US also has the greatest income disparity among the advanced capitalist countries.

The proportion of Americans living in extreme poverty, defined as half the derisory official poverty line, or $10,977 for a family of four, rose from 5.7 percent in 2008 to 6.3 percent last year, an 11 percent increase in the number of people living in dire circumstances in one year. The 2009 figure was the highest level since the US government began tracking the very poor in 1975. To the everlasting shame of the American political establishment, the District of Columbia, home to the US government, has the highest proportion of residents living in extreme poverty of any state or district, 10.7 percent.

The top 20 percent of the population, those making more than $100,000 a year, took in nearly 50 percent of all income generated in the US in 2009, while the 44 million people living below the poverty line received only 3.4 percent. “That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968”**

highlight mine.

But since those are '09 stats I am sure things have gotten much better…surely all those OWS commie bums know that. Right? Right?

[Scylla]

@RTFirefly

No, you did not provide a cite. In post 819, you provided a link to a document. You alleged that something in the document supported your bullshit claim.

So, first you said nobody asked me for a cite. When you find out they did, you claim I didn’t provide one. When I insist I did you find a claim to my memory and act like that’s my cite. Finally, when it’s pointed out to you that I provided two links as a cite, what do you? You claim they are not cites.
Way to move the bar. Yeah, sure. You’re not trolling.

Fucking dipshit.

[RTFirefly]

@Scylla

Way to move the bar.

Nice try, but that’s one I moved many years ago. I’ve been pretty adamant for most of my time on this board that that shit won’t fly.

The reasons why are so simple that even you might be able to understand them.

1. Person A cites some long document in support of his position.

2. Person B takes the bait, reads through A’s document in search of something that backs A’s claim.

3. Eventually B finds something that seems to fit the bill.

4. Based on what he found, B rebuts A’s claim.

5. A says, “how could you be so stupid as to believe I was claiming that passage as support for my position? I was referring to something completely different in that document!”

Essentially, B has to come up with the best possible argument for A’s position, based on a wave of A’s hand at a long document, then B has to come up with his own argument.

He’s put himself in the position of having to argue both sides, while A sits idly by - and when he’s done, A is in a position to simply dismiss B’s best construction of A’s argument out of hand, which also leaves B’s rebuttal stranded.

A game for suckers.

Fucking dipshit.

Hey, this thread isn’t about your hobbies.

[elucidator]

Still, if he’s going to cite studies from the Center for American Progress, there’s the chance he may inadvertently read it. Or he may read out of sheer spite. That works, too.