Life imitating art? Part 2

[ccbatson]

Well, upon reflection, it is again eerie to draw parallels between our current state of affairs under the Obama administration and the progressive decline of the fictional collectivist society represented in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". Industries being forced into slavery, or taken over outright (nationalized) and the castigation, by the state, of individual liberty and its' expression wherever it appears. Pretend capitalists (second handers) replacing true individualist/capitalists and failing miserably in the attempt.

So, where are we heading in this context? Is Atlas going to shrug? Is he already? Will we start over like a Phoenix rising from the ashes (as in John Galt's utopian capitalist enclave coming out of hiding)...vis a vis a landslide political reversal towards conservatism in 2010 and 2012? Could this painful process have been avoided, or was it inevitable at some point (and when was that tipping point)? Will conservatives of the recent past find themselves in the position of Dagney Taggert, desperately trying in vain to save that which can't be saved?

[rb336]

you love your absurdist fiction, don't you bats?

[ccbatson]

Circumstances have changed and progressed dramatically for the worse along this continuum. Or hadn't you noticed?

[ccbatson]

Unemployment at 9.4%, 2 trillion in annual debt, hyperinflation on its' way....yep, nothing to see here.

[rb336]

Unemployment at 9.4%, 2 trillion in annual debt, hyperinflation on its' way....yep, nothing to see here.

all due to the collapse of an unchecked market in hedge funds, credit default swaps, etc., brought about by psycho market fundamentalists

[ccbatson]

I was here, you chose to ignore me when I was critical of Bush's spending (many, many times).

Hyperinflation? keep an eye on the interest rates, then energy prices, the rest follow like dominos.

[Detroitej72]

all due to the collapse of an unchecked market in hedge funds, credit default swaps, etc., brought about by psycho market fundamentalists

Once again right wingers fail to acknowledge that their beloved system caused this crisis.

Wake up people.

[Lorax]

Ayn Rand was a fascist. People who believe such batcrap are also fascists. Period.

[Jimaz]

Embarrassing the right wing, one post at a time, relentlessly. Priceless.

[ccbatson]

Credit defaults/derivative/subprime loans...all the Frankenstein monster built by liberals.

Rand fascist? A more absurd and incorrect allegation has never been uttered.

[rb336]

Credit defaults/derivative/subprime loans...all the Frankenstein monster built by liberals.

no, all definitively the children of the Chicago School/ market fundamentalists /deregulation pushers of the right

[Lorax]

Credit defaults/derivative/subprime loans...all the Frankenstein monster built by liberals.

Rand fascist? A more absurd and incorrect allegation has never been uttered.

Wrong again, these financial mechanisms were created and promoted by fascist neocons. No regulation or rules, just endless gambling with people's pension funds, retirement accounts, etc. Brought to you courtesy of the right wingnuts on crack:

Phill Gramm
Carl Lindner
Richard Mellon Scaife
George Tush
Dick Cheney
The Saudi Royal Family
Carlyle Group
All major US Banks
Neal Bush
John McCain
Charles Keating
Kenneth Lay...dead
Knute GinGrinch
Tom Delay
Mitt Romney
Henry Paulson
Hedge Funds created by Republicans


and dozens more too numerous to mention, though a good bug spray would help.

Oh, and Ayn Rand was a fascist in reality, though like most shape-shifting repugnicans, they love to role play as it suits them. Just look at the Bush Crime Family- "compassionate conservatives".....yeah, right.

[ccbatson]

Lorax...I have made the argument for the true origins of the debacle by the left too many times to reiterate (without so much as an iota of effective counter argument).

You don't know what Fascism, or objectivism is, so how can you profess to label Ayn Rand as fascist?

[rb336]

Lorax...I have made the argument for the true origins of the debacle by the left too many times to reiterate (without so much as an iota of effective counter argument).

You don't know what Fascism, or objectivism is, so how can you profess to label Ayn Rand as fascist?

1) your arguments have been thoroughly rebuffed by several of us with links to CONSERVATIVE economists who debunk your claims

2) your notion of fascism has been debunked by numerous references and links to the definitive definition of fascism from the very people who created it.

Rand was not a corporatist or a fascist (synonymous terms according to those who invented fascism) any more than Karl Marx was a Marxist. the followers of their writings, however, are another story

[ccbatson]

1. Consensus with bias and duress is not fact (or science)...and you should know that.

And then you go on to agree with what I just said Rb...why not just respond with the correct answer in the first place?

[Lorax]

Lorax...I have made the argument for the true origins of the debacle by the left too many times to reiterate (without so much as an iota of effective counter argument).

You don't know what Fascism, or objectivism is, so how can you profess to label Ayn Rand as fascist?

Because unlike you, I have actually read Rand's writings.

Any other conclusion than her being a closeted fascist would be intellectually dishonest.

The problem with everyone on the right, is they can so easily slip in and out of their role playing fantasies, acting much like right wing shape shifters. Whatever label they fancy to fit their belief system around the issue of the moment serves them well.

Problem is, it's not only intellectually dishonest, but psychopathic as well.

Case in point, Brush Lintball today said the 88 year old right wing freak job who shot up the Holocaust Museum two days ago was really a liberal.

He went on to say that Obama's people were thrilled to have this happen to use it as an excuse to further denigrate the right wing- "kick them while they're down" in so many words.

While that may be an incidental pleasure, it certainly wasn't policy in the White House to endorse such activity, which Lintball was implying.

More shape shifting from the Grand Poobah of the Repugnican Reich.

Tush/Cheney/Blair did this with the shape-shifting reasoning for going into Iraq, every reason under the sun except the truth.

[rb336]

1. Consensus with bias and duress is not fact (or science)...and you should know that.

And then you go on to agree with what I just said Rb...why not just respond with the correct answer in the first place?

1) consensus is a huge part of science, and you keep claiming, with absolutely zero evidence, that it is coerced or biased in GW (while continuing to promote things that were clearly funded by the fossil fuel industry as not being biased) . are you now saying all those conservative economists were coerced into making statements contradictory to your dogma?

2) I agreed to something that has no relation to your #1, so it is not in any way contradictory

[oladub]

Lorax, Unlike you, I have not extensively read Ayn Rand except for the first 95% of Atlas Shrugged many years ago. Maybe you could explain how Ayn Rand is a 'fascist'. Her heroes in Atlas Shrugged included an inventor, Hank Reardon, who owned a corporation derived from his invention a la Ford, or Gates. However, his opposition was composed of his corporate competitors and their government bureaucrat allies who colluded to promote their own respective interests. I understand those action as corporatism (economic fascism); the primary building block and central part of 'fascism'. That would make Hank Reardon's opponents the corporatists - not Hank Reardon. It was sort of like when our government colluded with huge banks and dumped hundreds of billions of dollars on them instead of allowing their honest competitors to pick up the pieces. Bush and senators (ahem) who supported this legislation acted as corporatists. I digress.

Anyway, in light of the corporatist (economic fascist) activities perpetrated by Hank Reardon's enemies against him, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Hank Reardon was the 'fascist' rather than his enemies based on your reading Ayn Rand?

[rb336]

[quote=oladub;31484]Lorax, Unlike you, I have not extensively read Ayn Rand except for the first 95% of Atlas Shrugged many years ago. Maybe you could explain how Ayn Rand is a 'fascist'. Her heroes in Atlas Shrugged included an inventor, Hank Reardon, who owned a corporation derived from his invention a la Ford [quote]

of course, Ford was fairly supportive of the fascists, as were IBM, GM, GE and other US companies and captalists too numerous to count

[ccbatson]

There we go Rb...the key flaw in your logic...consensus has no part in determining fact, or science. If you don't understand this, you are utterly unfamiliar with objectivism as a subject...or utterly incapable of comprehending it.

The Chicago school had nothing to do with subprimes and derivatives other than to cope with the liberal mess that they were forced to deal with.

[Lorax]

Lorax, Unlike you, I have not extensively read Ayn Rand except for the first 95% of Atlas Shrugged many years ago. Maybe you could explain how Ayn Rand is a 'fascist'. Her heroes in Atlas Shrugged included an inventor, Hank Reardon, who owned a corporation derived from his invention a la Ford, or Gates. However, his opposition was composed of his corporate competitors and their government bureaucrat allies who colluded to promote their own respective interests. I understand those action as corporatism (economic fascism); the primary building block and central part of 'fascism'. That would make Hank Reardon's opponents the corporatists - not Hank Reardon. It was sort of like when our government colluded with huge banks and dumped hundreds of billions of dollars on them instead of allowing their honest competitors to pick up the pieces. Bush and senators (ahem) who supported this legislation acted as corporatists. I digress.

Anyway, in light of the corporatist (economic fascist) activities perpetrated by Hank Reardon's enemies against him, how do you arrive at the conclusion that Hank Reardon was the 'fascist' rather than his enemies based on your reading Ayn Rand?


I never said Reardon was the fascist, I said Ayn Rand was the fascist. She ended up showing her true colors, as all shape shifting republicans do. It has been a while since I read her, but my conclusion was this derivative of fascism/republicanism known as libertarianism is yet another attempt to hide the most aggregious dogma of the 'faith' in favor of some variation on the theme.

This is the problem with the right in general.

Lefties are real, dull, and earnest.

Rightwingers are conflicted as to the fringe of their society, and end up being labeled moderate, or even center-right republicans.

Libertarians are no different than most center-right republicans, with the big difference of wanting pot legalized, and the removal of moral and legal consequences for sleeping with underage girls.

And that came from a life-long libertarian, not me.

[oladub]

No, you never said that Reardon was a fascist but you presented yourself as knowing something about what Ayn Rand wrote. I was hoping that you would shine some light on who the fascists were in Atlas Shrugged and why they were fascists but you didn't.

Stranger than your take on Ayn Rand is your take on libertarianism. Libertarianism is the opposite of authoritarianism rather than liberalism. At least you have inferred where you are comfortable on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum. The most libertarian presidential candidate in the last election was Mike Gravel, a Democrat. I wouldn't call him a fascist.
Why Democrats kicked Gravel out of their debates (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YK_QR0w0ks&feature=related)

[Stosh]

Here's my take on Reardon. These days he'd be an innovator in alternative energy. And he's being squashed by the powers that be that have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo... namely the Republican party, the Ms. Moose in Alaska, and the oil oligarchy in the Middle East.

Also being squashed by people like CC, Luddites of energy. You considering yourself a producer is laughable.

How's THAT for a freakish parallel, Rand-bot?

[oladub]

Here's my take on Reardon. These days he'd be an innovator in alternative energy. And he's being squashed by the powers that be that have a vested interest in the continuation of the status quo... namely the Republican party, the Ms. Moose in Alaska, and the oil oligarchy in the Middle East.

Also being squashed by people like CC, Luddites of energy. You considering yourself a producer is laughable.

How's THAT for a freakish parallel, Rand-bot?

Not sure who you are addressing that considered themselves a producer. Leaving that note of strangeness aside, I did like your take on Reardon being an innovator in alternative energy although I would extend my criticisms to politicians who subsidize clean coal, drilling oil, and ethanol production whatever their political pursuasion.

[jams]

The Chicago school had nothing to do with subprimes and derivatives other than to cope with the liberal mess that they were forced to deal with.

Economics, nor history, is really not your strong suit, is it?

Most of what is currently taught to potential MBAs in this country and others is basically Chicago school due to its its dogma of conversion through better grades, despite the flaws.. You, yourself, parrot the lines.

My neighbor and I chuckle about how the expert economists have suddenly discovered that he working class are consumers.

[ccbatson]

It is repeatedly pointed out in "The Fountainhead" that Reardon Metal is the highest quality (objectively) and lowest price. Alternative energy is no such thing, nor does it have the potential to be so until, and unless the market forces make it so (over oil). Similarly, John Galt's generator is highest quality and yield at lowest cost....see the pattern? Capitalism requires that the result of a market system is what? Correct, the best product/service at the lowest price.

I am surprised that you would make this error, it is such a simple an obvious concept.

[Lorax]

You guys can't even get it right amongst yourselves.

If any of you read the various critiques and reviews of Rand's writings, and not try and dissect hers as has been done ad nauseum, then you may get somewhere.

If you would like to turn your book reports in to the professor, I'm sure you'll be allowed to debate them next class.

[Stosh]

It is repeatedly pointed out in "The Fountainhead" that Reardon Metal is the highest quality (objectively) and lowest price. Alternative energy is no such thing, nor does it have the potential to be so until, and unless the market forces make it so (over oil). Similarly, John Galt's generator is highest quality and yield at lowest cost....see the pattern? Capitalism requires that the result of a market system is what? Correct, the best product/service at the lowest price.

I am surprised that you would make this error, it is such a simple an obvious concept.

Fine, using the lowest cost analogy, then all the producers now reside in China, and all the best and finest products are sold at dollar stores. I see the pattern quite well, Rand-bot.

Highest quality? One aspires to always have the highest quality goods and services. It's obvious that there is no possible way that lowest cost and highest quality can be achieved at the same time. And the qualifier (objectively) is quite useless in this argument, since it allows you an escape clause for every dissenting argument.

Rand's utopian constructs are, for the most part, useless in a real life situation. Unless you wish to enslave the lot of us, then perhaps lowest cost, and high quality can be achieved. It's happening in some parts of the world with prison labor. Like in all the "lowest cost" countries you can think of.

Try this on for size, CC. I know you won't read it, but maybe others will:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/04/human.trafficking/

[ccbatson]

Stosh....you miss the meaning of the phrase...lowest cost AND highest quality. Not one, or the other, both...that is the way it works.

[Stosh]

Stosh....you miss the meaning of the phrase...lowest cost AND highest quality. Not one, or the other, both...that is the way it works.

I'd love for you to attempt to quote me some concrete, verifiable examples of this concept. Outside of the labratory of Randian thought, of course. Real World. And with proof. Unless you do, there's no point in continuing this drivel. Score!

[ccbatson]

Sooo easy...Consider any purchases that you have made and why you chose the particular products or services...I am willing to wager that in just about every instance, when more than one choice presented themselves, best price AND best quality compelled you to make your choice.

[Stosh]

Not a concrete example from you, of course. Why am I not surprised?
Quality and costs are not absolutes. To quantify these constructs is impossible.
Objective thought would dictate this.

[Lorax]

Stosh has it right.

There is no proof that the choices we make end up in getting both quality and best price. There are many qualifiers.

If I'm deciding between brands of coffee in a store which is known to carry superb quality coffees, I probably have a large selection of coffees that are all considered high-end.

If I go to a regular supermarket, I have the choice of varying degrees of OK coffee, and maybe one high-end brand.

Since I'm am probably only shopping one of these stores, my choices are limited. If, as a consumer, my city or town has multiple choices, such as in New York City, Chicago, and my neighborhood has various places to buy varied goods from, then my choices are better, but I'd have to be wealthy to live there in the first place.

If only Walmart is available in your local municipality, then you have only what Walmart has to offer.

When monopolies are encouraged by federal policy drawn up by republicans (i.e. libertarians, fascists, whatever) you get fewer choices. And fewer quality choices.

Have you ever tried to wash anything bought at Old Navy?
Their cheap, made in China clothing can't even withstand one washing. Sure, it's cheap to buy, but if you can't get more than a couple of wearings out of it, it ends up being expensive.

Try reading the book: "Walmart- The High Cost of Low Prices" and you'll better understand the concept.

[oladub]

Lorax says, "When monopolies are encouraged by federal policy drawn up by republicans (i.e. libertarians, fascists, whatever) you get fewer choices."


Lorax, You continue to harbor bizarre notions about libertarians. Libertarians, think anarchy as a libertarian extreme, do not limit choices - by definition. Fewer choices are, however, often the product of governement regulations, licensing, and taxation. Last week, for instance, the House passed a bill, which as I understand it, will make it much more difficult for home sellers and purchasers to conduct land contract transactions. The bankers are thereby guaranteed more profit. If you want to talk about an example of economic fascism, that is a good one. It was primarily supported by Democrats - not libertarians.

Question) Hillary Clinton was offered a seat on the board of which company on the very day her husband was elected as the Governor of Arkansas?

Answer) WalMart

[Stosh]

Its a shame that these lefties can not see their oh so close resemblence to the blind followers that goose stepped tragicly across my beautiful homeland years ago .

No better than their zombie like communist genocidal brothers in arms .


Eh comrades?

And it a shame that your ancestors left that homeland to come here, apparently.

I didn't know that they invaded Rovealia. Must revisit the history books.

[Stosh]

Quit it Stosh. My groin is aching.

Then quit doing that, for Christ's sake, you'll go blind !!!

[Lorax]

Then quit doing that, for Christ's sake!!!


It's always about his groin, isn't it.

He probably got one from some guy in high school and never forgot how great it was, so we should re-label this thread "The Little Confessional"

Since when did I become your priest? :eek:

[ccbatson]

You want concrete? I bought a Mac last year, as I considered the purchase, I recognize that the ease of use, reliability, and longevity were superior to Windows based computers. I also realized that the cost is/was a little more than twice what the PC is/was. I then look at my prior make and realize that it had served well for 5 years and that the last PC I had (I used/owned them both until the Intel based Macs allowed for killing 2 birds with one stone) had to be replaced in 2 years (and was pretty miserable in the last 6 months. That brought the cost over time close to a wash, plus I would enjoy the advantages of the Mac over the PC for the entire duration of ownership and use....decision made.

Now THAT is concrete.

[Stosh]

You want concrete? I bought a Mac last year, as I considered the purchase, I recognize that the ease of use, reliability, and longevity were superior to Windows based computers. I also realized that the cost is/was a little more than twice what the PC is/was. I then look at my prior make and realize that it had served well for 5 years and that the last PC I had (I used/owned them both until the Intel based Macs allowed for killing 2 birds with one stone) had to be replaced in 2 years (and was pretty miserable in the last 6 months. That brought the cost over time close to a wash, plus I would enjoy the advantages of the Mac over the PC for the entire duration of ownership and use....decision made.

Now THAT is concrete.

Ease of use: subjective. Reliability: subjective. Longevity: subjective.

There's no possibly way you can quantify the three above qualities in relation to an overall experience, related to quality. each consumer has his/her own experiences. I've always found the OS in a Mac to be counter-intuitive.
Factor in the extreme lack of choice in software. Also the cost of what you have to buy.

Also factor in the excessive cost outlay for the Mac, your argument is flawed.

The initial premise was, Quality AND low cost. Not what you said.

[ccbatson]

Premises wrong....

Ease of use measured in the number of clicks required to accomplish a task and in the number of decision points (fewer) encountered in the process. PC magazine did just such an analysis head to head Mac vs PC 3 years ago.

Reliability measured in the number and severity of freezes and crashes encountered per the same use...easily quantified and objective.

Longevity measured in the amount of time that said computer is functional (fully, or otherwise, take your pick).

No way?? Are you insane? Daft? Or just too closed minded to see logical reasoning at work?

[Lorax]

No way?? Are you insane? Daft? Or just too closed minded to see logical reasoning at work?

Getting personal here, may have to report it, as name calling is forbidden per the forum rules.

[ccbatson]

I asked if this was the case, I didn't assert that it was...no name calling.

[Lorax]

I asked if this was the case, I didn't assert that it was...no name calling.


What did you mean by "daft, insane, closed minded?"

Looks like name calling to me.

You can't shape-shift your way out of this one, that only works for George Bush.

You're quick to report others and label them as getting personal, so in typical republican fashion you can dish it out....

[ccbatson]

There was a 4th option, the one that I intended, and not name calling...but you already know that.

[Lorax]

There was a 4th option, the one that I intended, and not name calling...but you already know that.

Enlighten me.

[Stosh]

Premises wrong....

Ease of use measured in the number of clicks required to accomplish a task and in the number of decision points (fewer) encountered in the process. PC magazine did just such an analysis head to head Mac vs PC 3 years ago.

Reliability measured in the number and severity of freezes and crashes encountered per the same use...easily quantified and objective.

Longevity measured in the amount of time that said computer is functional (fully, or otherwise, take your pick).

No way?? Are you insane? Daft? Or just too closed minded to see logical reasoning at work?

Lorax, I agree. He can dish it out, but he can't take it.

It's subjective, as I've stated before. Quality is a relative term, both are powered by Intel microprocessors. Both have hard drives. Memory, etc. Nothing special there.

Ease of use? I suppose that's the case in all sysyems. The main feature to me may be the OS. I'd think that if Apple engineered their software to run on a PC, all PC's would be equal to Macs. But they won't, Ever wonder why? Because once that happened, no one would buy Macs. And another silly thing would happen, that every hacker criminal on earth would write software to hack you silly.

[jams]

You're quick to report others and label them as getting personal, so in typical republican fashion you can dish it out....

Personal liberty is a fluid thing, it only applies to some.

Like government, it is best when it when you agree with it.

[rb336]

No way?? Are you insane? Daft? Or just too closed minded to see logical reasoning at work?


logical, of course, means throwing out legitimate, peer reviewed data as "coerced" or part of some secret agenda (accusations that you can't back up with anything close to evidence) in favor of propoganda pieces by people without the proper scientific background with clear ties to companies/organizations with clear agendas (inspite of those comments being shown to be not only wrong, but fraudulent as well in many cases.)

yes, that is what Bats means by logic, which explains, btw, where we get the term "batty"

[Stosh]

Just an informational item for all concerned... Seems that there's a hack that allows one to run OS X Leopard on a PC. So quality vs price enters a new realm. Which is better?

[ccbatson]

Peer reviewed consensus Rb...not data.

[Stosh]

What? No canned response to my posts CC? I'm surprised.

Why can't you wrap your arms around the fact that your premise is wrong? That your whole philosophy is just one big fat mistake in judgement? That Macs and PC's are equal? That OS X can be hacked to make it run on a PC? That Apple and Steve Jobs have jobbed you (pun) out of the extra bucks that you shelled out for a quality lie?

[Detroitej72]

If only Walmart is available in your local municipality, then you have only what Walmart has to offer.

When monopolies are encouraged by federal policy drawn up by republicans (i.e. libertarians, fascists, whatever) you get fewer choices. And fewer quality choices.

Try reading the book: "Walmart- The High Cost of Low Prices" and you'll better understand the concept.

Piggybacking on monopolies and Walmart:

Walmart forces companies to build products in places like China. A few years back, there was a famous case with Huffy Bikes, and Walmart dictated to them that in order to sell in their stores, they would have to be sold at a certain price. Huffy then closed their U.S. plant, and moved operations overseas. In effect, they were forced, under duress by Walmart to kill American jobs.

Also, as far as monopolies go, we all know with less competition, its easier for one large company to censor what products we have access to. An example is that Walmart frequently refuses to sell music that it deems morally questionable. If a company is doing that, one is left to wonder where the line is drawn?

Do they start to sell only books by right-leaning authors? (this would help all the ditto heads in their quest to proclaim best sellers!) Censorship of any kind is wrong, and monopolies should not be allowed to practice it.

[rb336]

Peer reviewed consensus Rb...not data.

no, bats, you reject any study, peer reviewed especially, in a knee-jerk fashion simply because it provides evidence that your silly dogma is dead wrong.

[ccbatson]

Never...do you know of any such studies that I have rejected?

[Lorax]

Never...do you know of any such studies that I have rejected?

Why do you always answer a question with another question? Obviously you have rejected peer reviewed studies, or he wouldn't have said so. Read your own posts and figure it out yourself.

[rb336]

Never...do you know of any such studies that I have rejected?

virtually every global warming study out there. hell, you dismissed a list of over 100 peer-reviewed studies i posted with one of your trademark delusional/paranoid rants about conspiracy

[ccbatson]

Could you be a bit more evasive and vague Rb? "A list of over 100 peer reviewed studies I posted with one of your..... posts (over 20,000 of them)?

Give me one to rip apart, or refer to the bibliography from Chris Horners book on the subject to see them get shredded by real scientists.

[rb336]

funny, when the old forum ended, i had less than half that. and it wasn't just one, look at any of the gw threads over there. you were given ample opportunity, which you squandered by throwing discredited heartland org/fossil fuel-funded crap instead of real studies. you don't get to play that game, boy

[ccbatson]

Bring it here if you have the guts Rb...otherwise, you are spitting in the wind.

[Detroitej72]

Why should he, since you never bother to offer anything other than the tired and debunked retoric favored by right wing radicals.

[ccbatson]

If he wants to score points in the debate, he can't just vaguely allude to something not even he can produce.

[rb336]

why do you keep on insisting I can't produce it? everyone who was here at the time knows it

[Lorax]

Because he uses the shape-shifting rethugnican method of confusing the line of questioning by asking another question. Maddening, really.

He, like others, demand proof and tedious research to either clarify or prove a point that has already been made, and do it ad nauseum, in order to deflect the point and purpose of the thread to begin with.

When pressed to do the same to prove one of his points, he shrinks into the woodwork.

[Stosh]

What? No canned response to my posts CC? I'm surprised.

Why can't you wrap your arms around the fact that your premise is wrong? That your whole philosophy is just one big fat mistake in judgement? That Macs and PC's are equal? That OS X can be hacked to make it run on a PC? That Apple and Steve Jobs have jobbed you (pun) out of the extra bucks that you shelled out for a quality lie?

Still no response to the above either. I wonder why?

[ccbatson]

Anyone who has used both Macs and PCs, will attest to which is by far the superior (Mac).

[Stosh]

Anyone who has used both Macs and PCs, will attest to which is by far the superior (Mac).

Due to the operating systems. Not to the hardware. And the Mac OS is just ass backward in some respects.

[Detroitej72]

Anyone who has used both Macs and PCs, will attest to which is by far the superior (Mac).

Why is that?

Enlighten me, as I'm thinking of updating my system.

[ccbatson]

Absolutely correct Stosh...the OS is the reason. The hardware and packaging is somewhat superior, but not as much as is the OS (10.5 coming soon).

Detroitej72...the best way to find out is to go to an apple store, and bring a list of some of the applications and uses you have for personal use. Try it out for about 45 minutes...you will be sold (not meaning the price, as that i e biggest obstacle at 2-3 times what a Windows only machine will cost you).

[Detroitej72]

Thanks, I'm not exactly a tech savvy sort of guy.

[ccbatson]

If the price doesn't stop you, it will be a move that you will kick yourself for not having made it sooner.

[Stosh]

Absolutely correct Stosh...the OS is the reason. The hardware and packaging is somewhat superior, but not as much as is the OS (10.5 coming soon).

Detroitej72...the best way to find out is to go to an apple store, and bring a list of some of the applications and uses you have for personal use. Try it out for about 45 minutes...you will be sold (not meaning the price, as that i e biggest obstacle at 2-3 times what a Windows only machine will cost you).

Which is my point all along in this price vs quality issue. Not the lowest price, OR quality. And the OS is restricted by the makers of the software to only run on their machines (but can be cracked to run on PC).

Monopolistic practices, just like you know who...

And the OS may be slightly faster running, but the more it's used, the more threats are found. Safari browser exploits are more common now. Apple just recently had to patch their OS for vunerability to zip files, in respect to trojans.

[ccbatson]

Monopolistic? Owning the rights to your own software is NOT monopolistic. Even if it were, the only harmful monopolies are the coercive government type that abound.

[Stosh]

Monopolistic? Owning the rights to your own software is NOT monopolistic. Even if it were, the only harmful monopolies are the coercive government type that abound.

But yet you defend them as they were the best thing since sliced bread. It's a monopoly if you restrict use of a product to a proprietary device.

Quit deflecting the obvious failure of your logic. It doesn't make you look good.

[rb336]

Even if it were, the only harmful monopolies are the coercive government type that abound.


can we start a gallery of incredibly stupid Bats quotes?

[Stosh]

can we start a gallery of incredibly stupid Bats quotes?

There's not enough hours in the day to copy and paste 99% of his 20,000 + posts to this board. Only a few are not in the category referenced above.

[Lorax]

can we start a gallery of incredibly stupid Bats quotes?

We could, easily, but we'd all be bored to death :eek:

[ccbatson]

Another unanswered argument meeting trivial personal attacks...meaning? My argument is that strong.

[rb336]

Another unanswered argument meeting trivial personal attacks...meaning? My argument is that strong.


your argument is so absurd, so stupid that no one with a modicum of sense would look at it and say it even had an ounce of credibility to it. history and economic books of every stripe, from liberal to conservative extremes, are filled with examples of the damage caused by monopolies. Either you are totally ignorant of the history, in which case you should just shut up and read something, or this is another case of your dogma overriding the facts, which is as pathetic as actually thinking a rabbit's foot brings good luck

[Lorax]

Another unanswered argument meeting trivial personal attacks...meaning? My argument is that strong.

No, your liquor is that strong. Personal attacks? Geez.

I can't say your arguments bore people to death without it being labeled a personal attack?

Like I said before, grow a thicker skin, and perhaps read a few non-fascist books once in a while.

[ccbatson]

Someone's "incredibly stupid quotes" isn't a personal attack? Identifying someone with a shortened version of their username that borders on name calling isn't personal?