Re: another georgist fabrication
- From: royls@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:51:21 GMT
On 1 Feb 2007 09:51:47 -0800, "Beal" <bealrabbitslayer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:47 pm, r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 28 Jan 2007 00:09:53 -0800, "Beal" <bealrabbitsla...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 27 Jan 2007 12:09:54 -0800, w_b_r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Orwell described the redefinition of rent to mean
anything but the payment for use of natural
resources quite accurately. The goal is to ensure
that no one is able to think that anyone is being paid
for idly owning what nature provided, because there
is no word to describe such payments. For the same
reason, income is now always referred to as what
people and companies "earn," no matter how it is
obtained. Like the concept of rent as a payment for
use of natural resources, the concept of unearned
income is being relentlessly excised from all
thought processes."
-------------------------
lol
Well done ;-)
Yes, indeed, well done. If the criterion is how
much you can concoct and fabricate, by putting
words in a famous person's mouth, then, indeed
well done.
I meant that Orwell had accurately described the general process and
effect of deceitful redefinition -- of which the redefinition of
"rent" is just one example
Yeah it's a good idea to "rewrite" your nonsense as soon as possible.
Maybe no one will notice and you can pretend all along that you meant
something else.
I have said what I meant, and while I agree that my sentence was
ambiguous, its meaning was not _only_ as you and Doo seek to
misconstrue it.
Good one. Orwell didn't actually describe the redefinition of rent.
Yes, he did, but in general terms rather than specifically -- the same
way any general observation also describes specific instances. Just
as it is perfectly correct to say that with his law of universal
gravitation, Newton described the orbits of bodies that were not
discovered until he was long dead, so it was perfectly correct for me
to say that Orwell had described the redefinition of rent. My
statement was ambiguous only because I neglected to spell out that he
had done so in his general description of thought control techniques,
not in a specific passage devoted to the redefinition of rent.
But that's ok. You apparently just pulled this directly from your ass
but it doesn't matter, does it?
Right. Truth does not matter, to you.
Oh I know, I "misinterpreted."
Yes, and you are now refusing to accept my clarification of my
statement, because clarity is the very last thing you want.
"Orwell described the redefinition of rent to mean anything but the
payment for use of natural resources quite accurately."
In exactly the same sense as Newton described the orbits of Kuiper
Belt objects quite accurately: specific examples of a general type.
Perhaps Orwell was actually describing building code regulations for
Lower Manhattan, since he was actually discussing land and fences and
stuff.
No.
But the fact is that Orwell never said
any such thing about the Georgist theory of rent.
He was too smart for that.
See Mark's demolition of you.
If this article is the basis for your comment,
It wasn't.
Then what was?
1984.
Are you willing to accept that I have clarified my comment, stated my
meaning, and denied having meant that Orwell talked specifically about
the redefinition of rent?
Buddy, I am laughing at you too hard to care.
No, you definitely care enough to continue being dishonest about it.
-- Roy L
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: another georgist fabrication
- From: Beal
- Re: another georgist fabrication
- References:
- Re: another georgist fabrication
- From: Beal
- Re: another georgist fabrication
- Prev by Date: Re: "why do economists earn more than mathematicians?"
- Next by Date: Re: another georgist fabrication
- Previous by thread: Re: another georgist fabrication
- Next by thread: Re: another georgist fabrication
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
