4 ms·
He's explaining in some detail why your assumptions are incorrect, and you're not taking the time to actually read what he's saying.
by Frogolocalypse 9y ago
He's explaining in some detail why your assumptions are incorrect, and you're not taking the time to actually read what he's saying.
- sillysaurus3 9y agoI read every word. If you have a follow-up argument, let's hear it. You've been taking the conversations in personal directions -- for example, you accused someone else upthread of having Stockholm syndrome, and now you're saying I didn't read replies. Please engage with the argument, not the person.
- Frogolocalypse 9y agoI think I've been clear enough. You've been asked repeatedly how a facility could even be constructed that would be effective in your 'go for the exchanges' argument, and have yet to recognize the ineffectiveness of any suggestion you've made. This after repeatedly having it demonstrated to you. Furthermore, you're not presenting new arguments, just re-hashing the same one with more words and the same lack of understanding of the subject at hand. And I think the stockholm syndrome argument for people who argue for the type of control they think banks have without understanding their limitations is a pretty good description of that argument, especially from someone who, not me, brought up 'denial'. Like I said, these are old arguments and suggestions that wouldn't have been effective four years ago, let alone today, where there is even less possibility of control. For the reasons that have been demonstrated by not just me.