Moderator: Community Team
Metsfanmax wrote:I put about as much faith into it as I do the conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club about how the U.S. is successfully engaged in a massive campaign to control the global oil market.
AndyDufresne wrote:Saxi's world view:
saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something
instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something
I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty.
Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something
I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty.
No, this -Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club
- is not a statement of uncertainty. That is an expression of absolute certainty. You bought it, so own it. (Or back out like BBS, wave your arms in the air when you get called on it and say "I was just kidding - I didn't really mean that - this was all part of my master plan!" Either is fine.)
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something
I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty.
No, this -Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club
- is not a statement of uncertainty. That is an expression of absolute certainty. You bought it, so own it. (Or back out like BBS, wave your arms in the air when you get called on it and say "I was just kidding - I didn't really mean that - this was all part of my master plan!" Either is fine.)
Doesn't really change the meaning of my statement. I literally don't have an opinion. What the bit about "on the Conquer Club" means is that I don't take seriously what any of you say because I don't care what any of you say, not that you're wrong. You might be right. I honestly don't know. I just doubt that any of you are experts in most of the things that you talk about, so I don't give much credence to anything said here.
(However, if your game is to catch people in what you think are clever word traps instead of having a genuine discussion with them to understand what they actually believe, then move the f*ck on because I'm not interested.)
Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club
saxitoxin wrote:No, this -Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club
- is not a synonym for "I don't have an opinion." You're being abundantly clear about your opinion. There are any number of ways you could have expressed your opinion like "no, you're wrong."
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I put about as much faith into it as I do the conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club about how the U.S. is successfully engaged in a massive campaign to control the global oil market.
You know, Mets, the more you talk the dumber you sound (and you never did sound all that bright). What you just said is the equivalent of someone saying "Oh yeah <air quotes> 'the sun' </air quotes> effects the ray-de-o in my Trans-Am ... what a crock of shit!"
The oil glut is one of 2 or 3 major theories used to analyze the breakup of the Soviet Union. The grand strategy program at Harvard Kennedy has an entire fucking semester seminar devoted to it. So, when you indicate you're so totally unfamiliar that you think it's some marginal crackpot idea, you come across as much as a dullard as the guy who doesn't believe the sun effects his AM ray-de-o he uses to listen to Glenn Beck.Newsweek
In truth, the might of the Brezhnev-era USSR was built on high oil and gas prices. When those prices began to fall in the 1980sāwith more than a little help from Ronald Reagan's White HouseāSoviet power crumbled with it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/cold ... 48103.htmlHarvard National Security Journal
America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to āturn on the oil spigotā and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Sovietsā primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult for the Soviets to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.
http://harvardnsj.org/2011/12/the-colla ... iet-union/If you actually read books, I might also suggest The Main Enemy: The Inside Story Of The CIA's Final Showdown With The KGB by the Pulitzer-winning James Risen, which approaches this subject from the oil glut perspective. I could also recommend 100 peer-reviewed papers on this subject from indexed journals, however, you've already said you don't believe all that fancy social science talk.
I know at this point you'll start wildly waving your hands in the air and exclaiming "well no, I know that, I actually was referring to XYZ or ABC, or was just saying LMNOP" like you do when you lay these goose eggs (e.g. your quoting of bible prophecy websites or thumbs-upping Glenn Beck). Please just spare us. You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.
BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).
BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:I put about as much faith into it as I do the conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club about how the U.S. is successfully engaged in a massive campaign to control the global oil market.
You know, Mets, the more you talk the dumber you sound (and you never did sound all that bright). What you just said is the equivalent of someone saying "Oh yeah <air quotes> 'the sun' </air quotes> effects the ray-de-o in my Trans-Am ... what a crock of shit!"
The oil glut is one of 2 or 3 major theories used to analyze the breakup of the Soviet Union. The grand strategy program at Harvard Kennedy has an entire fucking semester seminar devoted to it. So, when you indicate you're so totally unfamiliar that you think it's some marginal crackpot idea, you come across as much as a dullard as the guy who doesn't believe the sun effects his AM ray-de-o he uses to listen to Glenn Beck.Newsweek
In truth, the might of the Brezhnev-era USSR was built on high oil and gas prices. When those prices began to fall in the 1980sāwith more than a little help from Ronald Reagan's White HouseāSoviet power crumbled with it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/cold ... 48103.htmlHarvard National Security Journal
America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to āturn on the oil spigotā and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Sovietsā primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult for the Soviets to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.
http://harvardnsj.org/2011/12/the-colla ... iet-union/If you actually read books, I might also suggest The Main Enemy: The Inside Story Of The CIA's Final Showdown With The KGB by the Pulitzer-winning James Risen, which approaches this subject from the oil glut perspective. I could also recommend 100 peer-reviewed papers on this subject from indexed journals, however, you've already said you don't believe all that fancy social science talk.
I know at this point you'll start wildly waving your hands in the air and exclaiming "well no, I know that, I actually was referring to XYZ or ABC, or was just saying LMNOP" like you do when you lay these goose eggs (e.g. your quoting of bible prophecy websites or thumbs-upping Glenn Beck). Please just spare us. You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.
I've had an age-old policy on CC. In response to reasonable questions, sometimes the user starts screaming like a child by throwing ad hominems and straw man fallacies. I then troll that user. If you don't like receiving what you dish out, then don't dish it out to begin with. It's a simple system, and I'll halt my trolling for now--regardless of how childish you'll remain (like patches did). Anyway, thanks for providing something meaningful.
(1) How did Saudi Arabia become persuaded to increase the production of x-amount of oil barrels? Wouldn't this also deprive them of their government revenues? (I'm just wondering how this deal went down because the authors don't explain).
You seemed to have placed very much emphasis on the oil price hypothesis while disregarding other factors. The authors of the two linked articles at least mentioned USG R&D and active measures which pressured the SU. That's good to mention, but they neglect an emphasis on the fundamental economic problems of the socialist economic policies which contributed significantly to its meager economic growth/stagnation. (2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).
(3) Given the recent and gradual increase in prices of oil compared to the sudden 1984/1986 drop in oil, how can you posit that the US is actively seeking to increase oil prices to hamper China's economic growth? How are you controlling for your confirmation bias?
Metsfanmax wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).
I always thought it was the combination of Rocky IV and Rambo III that was the tipping point.
saxitoxin wrote:Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:[insert problems with saxi's references.]
Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.
Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.
saxi: Ronald Reagan was responsible for Saudi Arabia crashing oil prices in the 1980s. Ty Cobb and Newsweek said so.
BBS: How do Ty Cobb and Newsweek know this? What is their evidence for this hypothesis?
saxi: hahahaha like I actually thought about this further than just c/p'ing the first links that came up when I googled Soviet Union and oil glut
BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:[insert problems with saxi's references.]
Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.
You start shit, then I dish it back, so get over yourself.
Regrettably, without providing a sufficient defense, your position has become more untenable.
Shall we lump the US-China oil hypothesis next to the Rocky-Rambo hypothesis? Currently, both are on equal footing.
saxitoxin wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.
saxi: Ronald Reagan was responsible for Saudi Arabia crashing oil prices in the 1980s. Ty Cobb and Newsweek said so.
BBS: How do Ty Cobb and Newsweek know this? What is their evidence for this hypothesis?
saxi: hahahaha like I actually thought about this further than just c/p'ing the first links that came up when I googled Soviet Union and oil glut
I've already sufficiently explained why I don't need to engage with BBS. I don't waste my time on someone who uses terms like "confirmation bias" because he heard it last week and thought he'd try testing it online to see if it will make him sound smart to some internet randos. I don't seriously engage with Player either. If you want to keep hitching your horse to this wagon, you go right ahead sweetie. I expect nothing better out of you at this point.
saxitoxin wrote:or don't
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:[insert problems with saxi's references.]
Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.
You start shit, then I dish it back, so get over yourself.
Regrettably, without providing a sufficient defense, your position has become more untenable.
Shall we lump the US-China oil hypothesis next to the Rocky-Rambo hypothesis? Currently, both are on equal footing.
Maybe we lump it with "I didn't seriously quote Glenn Beck, it was all part of my master plan!"
You're done. Keep performing for Mets if you want, he seems to appreciate the act. Anyone with an IQ over 80 can see what a fraud you are after your implosion. And like I said earlier, congrats on having absolutely no shame. Anyone else would have slunk away in total embarrassment at this point.
BigBallinStalin wrote:...elsewhere.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Propagandists, such as yourself, have for centuries impeded the
saxitoxin wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:so it's time for you to pack up and spread your lies elsewhere.
ok!
Hunter S. Thompson wrote:The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over..
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users