IHB Forum As An Economic Indicator - Address Threads

[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252706369][quote author="It?s a dry heat..." date=1252655997][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252648048]"No your out of hand dismissal of the well-informed opinions by one of the most respected independent fianancial analysts is disingenuous. You comments plainly speaks to a desire to support unsustainable (and most likely self-serving) views."



Stop being a crybaby. I don't accept unsupported statements easily.</blockquote>


Followed by:



<blockquote>Again, jump in when there are actual facts you dispute. These generalizations are absurd.</blockquote>


<blockquote>And you are deeply feaful, misguided and an all-around tool.</blockquote>


and:



<blockquote>You clearly can?t stand your bullshit being called.</blockquote>


I used to think you sparked decent debate when you first arrived. This has degenerated into name calling, originating mainly from you. Generalizations by a respected figure in the financial industry are absurd? From what authority do you question these statements? Unless you are also a nationally respected banking analyst, I'm more inclined to believe Whitney, and to think less of you for your dismissive and insulting remarks.



And if this is how much credence you give to such a well-documented authority (which you clearly didn't bother checking), I no longer find it surprising why you're so contrary to people here.



At least your grammar and spelling are decent. You're clearly somewhat educated, which makes why you troll that much more difficult to comprehend.</blockquote>


The name calling is coming from me? Holy hell, you have not read a thing I've said. Even in this thread, I said the generalizations about me were absurd, not Ms. Whitney. Thanks for proving that you and your friends are incapable of telling the truth, even to yourselves.</blockquote>


You conflagrate the arguments against you, and then you argue semantics. You were arguing about the quality of Ms. Whitney's statements, and then you follow the thread of the conversation with the absurd generalization comment. Obviously this lurker (and I'm sure many others) are going to think you're calling her generalizations "absurd" in the context of what you write. Go back and read it again.



So obviously I've been reading what you write. Like I said, I liked hearing your side of things. And your questions have brought out cogent and thorough discourse about why people here believe what they do. Having to pick through your reactionary statements, though, degrades any significant meaning your counter-arguments may contain. It makes your writing boorish, and does nothing to support your view.



Consider this a dispassionate plea to step up your level of maturity.



[/relurk]
 
[quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252646911]"Newport Skipper, Meredith Whitney gave an interview and expressed her analysis, asking for her ?facts? here is a wholly transparent delay tactic, and indicative of the forum posting style that has riled so many IHBers. Are you being deliberately obtuse?"



I am not a mind reader and am not familiar with her interview. Unless she spells out her analysis from A to Z, I am unconvinced that the 25% has meaning. I would like to know:



1. What level of unemployment is assumed in the worst case scenario of "the underwriters";



2. The difference between that and what we have;



3. What level of home price drop was also assumed by "the underwriters";



4. The difference between that and what we have.



My questions are not a wholly-transparent delay tactic, they are the mark of a curious and not-easily-swayed consumer of information. But thanks for your $.02 anyway.</blockquote>


Sigh...



The questions you have asked are impossible to answer in the context of a nationally recognized pundit's opinion, given in an interview and related in a news article summarizing that interview, and you know it. At what point do you transition from consuming information to actually digesting it? It certainly seems that information that does not conform with your established world view is instantly crapped out (or ignored altogether). Again, just for giggles, what established track record do you have to support your assumptions and predictions? I respect your right to ignore my question, but therein lies the difference between an anonymous forum poster and Ms. Whitney. Credibility.
 
[quote author="It?s a dry heat..." date=1252720941][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252706369][quote author="It?s a dry heat..." date=1252655997][quote author="NewportSkipper" date=1252648048]"No your out of hand dismissal of the well-informed opinions by one of the most respected independent fianancial analysts is disingenuous. You comments plainly speaks to a desire to support unsustainable (and most likely self-serving) views."



Stop being a crybaby. I don't accept unsupported statements easily.</blockquote>


Followed by:



<blockquote>Again, jump in when there are actual facts you dispute. These generalizations are absurd.</blockquote>


<blockquote>And you are deeply feaful, misguided and an all-around tool.</blockquote>


and:



<blockquote>You clearly can?t stand your bullshit being called.</blockquote>


I used to think you sparked decent debate when you first arrived. This has degenerated into name calling, originating mainly from you. Generalizations by a respected figure in the financial industry are absurd? From what authority do you question these statements? Unless you are also a nationally respected banking analyst, I'm more inclined to believe Whitney, and to think less of you for your dismissive and insulting remarks.



And if this is how much credence you give to such a well-documented authority (which you clearly didn't bother checking), I no longer find it surprising why you're so contrary to people here.



At least your grammar and spelling are decent. You're clearly somewhat educated, which makes why you troll that much more difficult to comprehend.</blockquote>


The name calling is coming from me? Holy hell, you have not read a thing I've said. Even in this thread, I said the generalizations about me were absurd, not Ms. Whitney. Thanks for proving that you and your friends are incapable of telling the truth, even to yourselves.</blockquote>


You conflagrate the arguments against you, and then you argue semantics. You were arguing about the quality of Ms. Whitney's statements, and then you follow the thread of the conversation with the absurd generalization comment. Obviously this lurker (and I'm sure many others) are going to think you're calling her generalizations "absurd" in the context of what you write. Go back and read it again.



So obviously I've been reading what you write. Like I said, I liked hearing your side of things. And your questions have brought out cogent and thorough discourse about why people here believe what they do. Having to pick through your reactionary statements, though, degrades any significant meaning your counter-arguments may contain. It makes your writing boorish, and does nothing to support your view.



Consider this a dispassionate plea to step up your level of maturity.



[/relurk]</blockquote>


I am not the one torturing anyone. I have provided listings, criteria and other forms of proof to back up everything I have said. The refusal to acknowledge the reality of this is really shocking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top