Interesting Document on the Banking System

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

You created the topic. You'd meant to start the discussion. That's how it works. Without your input the discusison can go in any direction away from the topic you wanted to talk about (as evidenced by the fact that after 51 posts there's still bugger all discussion about the contents of the document).

oh i didn't realise you made the rules... just read it yourself.

humanji

Why? You won't tell anyone what it's about. You won't discuss it. What is there to gain by spending time on it? Why did you post it in the first place? Why are you refusing to talk about it?

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

Why? You won't tell anyone what it's about. You won't discuss it. What is there to gain by spending time on it? Why did you post it in the first place? Why are you refusing to talk about it?

em... it's an interesting document on banking. i will discuss it. you will gain insight into the origination of paper money. i posted it because i found it interesting and some threads were discussing money at the time. i am not refusing to talk about it.

why are you refusing to read it?

Kama

This thread deserves an award for persistence coupled with a complete lack of information content...4 pages of complete non-discussion!

Nominated for Thread ov Epic Fail Status, plx preserve for posterity!

humanji

Clare_Guy wrote: »

em... it's an interesting document on banking. i will discuss it. you will gain insight into the origination of paper money. i posted it because i found it interesting and some threads were discussing money at the time. i am not refusing to talk about it.

why are you refusing to read it?

Because up until this post, you didn't give any indication as to why it should be read. Have you not realised that that was the first time you posted any sort of information on it. It took over 7 months, 54 posts and a banning for you to give a reason why anyone should be bothered to read the thing.

All because you refused to put a one line summary in your first post.

Kama wrote: »

This thread deserves an award for persistence coupled with a complete lack of information content...4 pages of complete non-discussion!

Nominated for Thread ov Epic Fail Status, plx preserve for posterity!

Well, it's more interesting that the document itself.

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

Because up until this post, you didn't give any indication as to why it should be read. Have you not realised that that was the first time you posted any sort of information on it. It took over 7 months, 54 posts and a banning for you to give a reason why anyone should be bothered to read the thing.

All because you refused to put a one line summary in your first post.

didn't i? really? what is the thread called genius????

how can you be expected to read the document if you can't even read the title of the thread?...

humanji

Oh for the love of Pighead! How is the thread title give an indication of why it should be read? And again, what about the other points? If you didn't want to talk about it, why didn't you post it in the main forum for things you find "interesting". If you do want to talk about it, then why haven't you? What's your opinion on the article?

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

Oh for the love of Pighead! How is the thread title give an indication of why it should be read? And again, what about the other points? If you didn't want to talk about it, why didn't you post it in the main forum for things you find "interesting". If you do want to talk about it, then why haven't you? What's your opinion on the article?

are you serious? 3 posts ago (see below) you said the same sentence was a summary!!? you said it was the first time in 7 months, etc, etc, that i'd indicated why the document should be read. If the same sentence is a summary now surely it was a summary 7 months ago?

humanji wrote: »

Because up until this post, you didn't give any indication as to why it should be read. Have you not realised that that was the first time you posted any sort of information on it. It took over 7 months, 54 posts and a banning for you to give a reason why anyone should be bothered to read the thing.

All because you refused to put a one line summary in your first post.

I do want to talk about the document, but with someone who has read it too...

You just don't want to read it. Do you?

humanji

Clare_Guy wrote: »

are you serious? 3 posts ago you said the same sentence was a summary!!? you said it was the first time in 7 months, etc, etc, that i'd indicated why the document should be read. If the same sentence is a summary now surely it was a summary 7 months ago?

You've got to be taking the piss at this stage. I said that because it's the only time in this entire thread that you've actually made an effort to say what's in the document. You also said:

you will gain insight into the origination of paper money. i posted it because i found it interesting and some threads were discussing money at the time.

which is something I've been trying to drag out of you. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because it looks unlikely you'll ever say anything else about it.

Clare_Guy wrote: »

I do want to talk about the document, but with someone who has read it too...

You just don't want to read it. Do you?

That's the problem, you didn't give anyone a reason to read it. That's the point I'm making. You posted a link and assumed everyone would flock to it. If you want a discussion, then why should everyone else have to start it for you? Be pro-active!

Clare_Guy

humanji wrote: »

Clare_Guy wrote: »

are you serious? 3 posts ago you said the same sentence was a summary!!? you said it was the first time in 7 months, etc, etc, that i'd indicated why the document should be read. If the same sentence is a summary now surely it was a summary 7 months ago?

You've got to be taking the piss at this stage. I said that because it's the only time in this entire thread that you've actually made an effort to say what's in the document. You also said:



which is something I've been trying to drag out of you. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, because it looks unlikely you'll ever say anything else about it.


That's the problem, you didn't give anyone a reason to read it. That's the point I'm making. You posted a link and assumed everyone would flock to it. If you want a discussion, then why should everyone else have to start it for you? Be pro-active!

so i have given a summary, but i haven't? and it was the first time in 7 months that i'd given and information on the content, but it wasn't?

so tell me, what is the point you're making?

humanji

Ok, this is the last time I'm going to bother explaining it to you because you're probably about to be banned for the abusive PM you sent me.

Here goes, try and keep up:

From post 1 to post 53 you give no information about the article you posted, other than you find it interesting and it has something to do with banking.

In post 54, you finally (after 7 months) give a little more information and a bit of a reason as to why someone might like to read it:

you will gain insight into the origination of paper money.i posted it because i found it interesting and some threads were discussing money at the time.

This was the most information you had posted on it.

The point is, you posted an article, refused to say why you posted it (other than saying it was "interesting"), didn't respond to those who tried to discuss it, and got shirty and abusive to those who asked you for a summary. You eventually gave a little more info, which I happily accepted as the only information you were willing to share on it.

You've given no evidence that you have read it yourself, and have given absolutely no indication that you would even like to discuss it, as you have ignored any attempt to do so.

Oh, and your PM was a statment, not a summary.


And the ultimate irony is that I've read the article and found it interesting.

Kama

And the ultimate irony is that I've read the article and found it interesting.

Perhaps now you'd like to discuss it?

humanji

Geez, can't you just read it yourself?:pac:

DubTony

LMAO. How has this thread managed to go to over sixty posts without someone's head exploding?

Or maybe a Mod might have locked it !!!!!!!!

I read some of the article. From what I can gather it's a freakin' history lesson.

Mahatma coat

Humanji, when did you read the document? why wont you discuss the document? why must you muddy the waters and detract from the debate? oh yeah I forgot you just come in here to be 'Funny'

rexusdiablos

Clare_Guy,

Just a little advice you might want to heed: submit, concede and comply. Your thread has failed; your persistance has failed; your argument has failed. The objective of the thread was to perpetuate an inteligible discussion concerning the documentation you provided. Instead everyone has become fixated on your clear inability to comply with what seems a more than reasoable request.

I'd say right about now you're the least popular guy in the forum and its completlety justifed. I'm sure you've rationalized to yourself that everyone else is at fault rather than you. You really need to fathom how delusional and self-indulgent such a notion truly is.

Repitition (or dramatic sighs for that matter) won't render your argument any more legitimate. You seem to be clinging to the fact that the enclosed documentation contains a summary. WAKE UP! Forum members are telling you that this simply doesn't suffice. ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! YOUR POST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH! YOUR ATTITUDE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH AND YOUR PETTY INARTICULATE RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH! (since repitition is your vernacular I'll adopt it for now :pac:)

It would taken a whole lot less to post a summary rather then retorting to each topically irrelevant post in this thread.

You've discredited this thread, its topic and yourself. You fail.

Conspiracy Theories Forum 1 - Clare_Guy 0

humanji

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Humanji, when did you read the document? why wont you discuss the document? why must you muddy the waters and detract from the debate? oh yeah I forgot you just come in here to be 'Funny'

Very strange attitude to take. I didn't come here to be funny, and I'm not sure what gives you that impression. I simply questioned why the OP refused to comment on a link he provided. Do you not agree that it makes sense to discuss something if you want to have a discussion? Posting a link and then giving out abuse when asked your opinion on it isn't really healthy for a debate.

So far there's little to discuss. An "interesting" article was posted. It is interesting. A bit heavy for those not into economics like myself, but it's interesting. That's it. Clare-Guy never asked anyones opinion. He never offered his own other than to say it's "interesting". He never asked anything about it. So, what's there to discuss? He killed the thread as soon as he started it and would of been better posting it as a reply in the conpiracy theory resources thread, or as a reply to the banking threads.

Kama

Can't get anything on devvy.com to open...is it hosted anywhere else?

Any document that inspires this much debate with no one reading it must have something going for it...

humanji

Here it is on rapidshare that might be easier to download:

http://rapidshare.com/files/156755204/GougeOnPaperMoney.pdf.html

rexusdiablos

Kama wrote: »

Any document that inspires this much debate with no one reading it must have something going for it...

I don't think it is the document that has spawned so much debate so much as it is Clare_Guys abyssmal attitude and thread ettiquette.

The document could be the official Mc Donalds Burger Flipping Technique Manual for all we know. The aroused debate is nothing to do with the merit of the document he attached. It the foul stench of relentless stubborness and of a decaying void where common sense perhaps once resided is what has "something going for it".

Clare_Guy: Would you like fries with that? :rolleyes:

Clare_Guy

rexusdiablos wrote: »

Clare_Guy,

Just a little advice you might want to heed: submit, concede and comply. Your thread has failed; your persistance has failed; your argument has failed. The objective of the thread was to perpetuate an inteligible discussion concerning the documentation you provided. Instead everyone has become fixated on your clear inability to comply with what seems a more than reasoable request.

I'd say right about now you're the least popular guy in the forum and its completlety justifed. I'm sure you've rationalized to yourself that everyone else is at fault rather than you. You really need to fathom how delusional and self-indulgent such a notion truly is.

Repitition (or dramatic sighs for that matter) won't render your argument any more legitimate. You seem to be clinging to the fact that the enclosed documentation contains a summary. WAKE UP! Forum members are telling you that this simply doesn't suffice. ITS NOT GOOD ENOUGH! YOUR POST ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH! YOUR ATTITUDE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH AND YOUR PETTY INARTICULATE RESPONSES TO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH! (since repitition is your vernacular I'll adopt it for now :pac:)

It would taken a whole lot less to post a summary rather then retorting to each topically irrelevant post in this thread.

You've discredited this thread, its topic and yourself. You fail.

Conspiracy Theories Forum 1 - Clare_Guy 0

advice from you? meh...

rexusdiablos

Clare_Guy wrote: »

advice from you? meh...

There's more of that idiosyncratic charm again. :rolleyes:

I knew I'd be wasting key strokes on this guy.

bonkey

Kama wrote: »

Any document that inspires this much debate with no one reading it must have something going for it...

Post 3 suggests OB had read it by then.
Post 62 suggests humanji has read it.
Post 65 suggests DubTony has read at least some of it.

I think its fair to say that the problem isn't that no-one is reading it, but rather that no-one has any inclination of starting a discussion on a topic where the OP refuses to start their own ball rolling, especially when their original reason for not doing so was that they weren't going to "waste time arguing"....which is ironic seeing that he seems perfectly willing to waste time arguing reasons not to discuss the topic.

DubTony

75 ...and counting.

MODS !!!!!

Bonkey wrote:

... especially when their original reason for not doing so was that they weren't going to "waste time arguing"....which is ironic seeing that he seems perfectly willing to waste time arguing reasons not to discuss the topic.

:D:D