Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Chris Buckley Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written Subject: Re: Pearls Before Swine: Uncle Is Not Good With Money Date: 24 Jan 2025 21:09:19 GMT Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <%q9jP.50906$G93a.23994@fx05.iad> X-Trace: individual.net Fo6mgWQcWzF4nSWqXFRYuwuNldCF2Ya65mAlIErqtAwmQvOR5B Cancel-Lock: sha1:5J9lSUctD0u8j9mggb2xDOToy4g= sha256:qZbtZ2PSUMwpobMlWhrcMw9p1q8eDZkfxzMNU7OwmZc= User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Bytes: 4004 On 2025-01-24, Scott Lurndal wrote: > Chris Buckley writes: >>On 2025-01-22, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>> Chris Buckley writes: >>>>On 2025-01-22, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> Chris Buckley writes: >>>>>>On 2025-01-21, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>You seem to live in a very different world than I do, Scott. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to live in a fantasy world. >>>> >>>>Please supply your facts and cogent arguments for this. I gave my >>>>reason; you did not dispute it at all, providing no evidence. > > Let's reset. I quite understand why you want to reset. Having to defend so many falsehoods would indeed be time consuming. But please do so. > I posted a link to the wikipedia article that shows Mr. Trump > ranked last amongst US presidents. > > You didn't address the rankings, you just claimed all historians > are registered democrats so their rankings are not meaningful. > > You clearly didn't read the page which describes the methodology > of the surveys (which attempted to balance political ideology of > the respondants). Yes, we can talk about that once you handle your current backlog of other claims. In the meantime though, could you give me a pointer to the exact survey you base your comments on? I couldn't find it among the many on the Wikipedia page. The best match I could find: 1. Wasn't done of historians 2. Absolutely had no "set of consistent and concrete criteria." (Asked for a single number). 3. Made no attempt to balance ideology (used a straight average of all respondents including the very heavily outnumbered Republicans.) That doesn't match most of your criteria; surely that couldn't be the survey you're talking about? > Why don't you, first, elaborate on exactly why you think that > ranking Mr. Trump last is incorrect -- based on the actual > criteria, not some personal assumptions about ideology of the > respondents? > > You clearly don't understand the use of Hyperbole in argument > if you're focused on a throwaway comment related to the frequency > of Mr. Trump's incoherent utterances and namecalling. Which may not > be every other word, but could likely be every other sentence. It wasn't a throwaway comment. It was a direct response to my request for "data and cogent rebuttal". If your best cogent rebuttal has to be a statement that not even you believe is true, your argument has problems! Since you refined your estimate to every other sentence, I assume you have the evidence to back that up? If you're in need of large amounts of unscripted Trump talk, I might suggest the transcript of the Joe Rogan podcast. I await your count of namecalling with great curiosity! Chris