Quote:
Originally Posted by Thymeclock
As usual, you will drag in exterraneous crap to try to change the subject, hoping your diversionary tactic will work. It doesn't.
|
That's a really interesting tactic: you accuse the other person of doing what you've been doing all along, so as to distract attention from the fact that you've been doing it.
Quote:
|
Most ordinary people accept dictionary definitions. You don't. That's all there is to it.
|
Sure. Most people are willing to accept authority, instead of actually thinking for themselves.
Quote:
|
To you every economic event is only caused by "supply and demand". You are a 'Johnny one note' who knows no other song.
|
Again, no. It's just that the (fairly small) subset of economic events we've been discussing here are in fact caused by supply & demand - which is not at all surprising, since supply & demand are in fact the principal motivating force of a market economy.
Quote:
|
What I said needs no ad hominem "translation" from you.
|
"Ad hominem"? Now weren't you just complaining about me not accepting your dictionary definitions? Suggest you look up the definition... No, I'll even save you the effort:
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pointing out that you are unwilling/unable to provide data to support your argument doesn't fit the definition, even when I employ sarcasm.
But since we're on the subject of ad hominem attacks, let me point out (as if you didn't know!) that that's exactly what you've been doing all along, as for instance your attempt to portray my comments re rising land prices as evidence of some sort of character flaw - so your nicely-circular argument is that land prices shouldn't matter, since no normal person would ever want to buy such large amounts of land. Then of course you have to follow up with all sorts of personal attacks in support...
Really, is it all that hard to just admit that you're wrong?