The TruthSeeker1234 $1000.00 Challenge

[qarnos]

Why don't you show your knowledge instead of bragging about it.

Perhaps he's a student of JDX?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Please do not respond to this until you've responded to Gravy's ultimatum, but after you've demonstrated to him whether or not you're worth debating, I'd like to hear about where the Austrian school economic theory has been tested empirically and what the results were that led you to conclude that it is correct.

Well, you've demonstrated that you are not worth debating, so I won't debate you about this, just tell me:

Where has Austrian School economics been tested empirically and shown to be effective?

 

[R.Mackey]

TS1234, you're not going to get the last word, and you're not winning the debate, and you're not succeeding in making anyone here look silly.

Why do you continue to hit that "reply" button? Has someone wired it to your pleasure center?

This is pretty incredible -- TruthSeeker1234 is failing to hold his own in a debate that he started, for the purpose of challenging us to a debate. In sporting terms, this is something akin to getting knocked out at the weigh-in.

Does this mean the "Challenge" is off?? I must say, my bet (that TruthSeeker1234's "challenge" is nothing more than a puerile bluff) is looking mighty safe right now.

 

[DavidJames]

This is pretty incredible -- TruthSeeker1234 is failing to hold his own in a debate that he started, for the purpose of challenging us to a debate. In sporting terms, this is something akin to getting knocked out at the weigh-in.

Does this mean the "Challenge" is off?? I must say, my bet (that TruthSeeker1234's "challenge" is nothing more than a puerile bluff) is looking mighty safe right now.

[Dave Barry]puerile bluff is a great name for a rock and roll band[/Dave Barry]

 

[MortFurd]

It was Mises who explained how, for example, Nazism was socialism.

Now there's a genius. It must have taken him years to figure that out, given that the real name actually says it all National Socialism ( Nationalsozialismus.)

Truthseeker's hero, a man who can state the bleeding obvious in learned words.

 

[R.Mackey]

[Dave Barry]puerile bluff is a great name for a rock and roll band[/Dave Barry]

True dat. I've always held in reserve, in case I ever start one, "The Fragile Egos."

 

[Loss Leader]

It was Mises who explained how, for example, Nazism was socialism.

Actually, I don't even agree that Twoofseeker1234 is right on this. Nazism was the will of the Fuhrer, full stop. It was not communism, capitalism, socialism or anything else - it was whatever Hitler said it was. And here's the German law that proves it.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps he's a student of JDX?

That would explain it.

Good old JDX, the paranoid pilate.

How's his forum doin? have more than 7 members?

 

[tsig]

This is pretty incredible -- TruthSeeker1234 is failing to hold his own in a debate that he started, for the purpose of challenging us to a debate. In sporting terms, this is something akin to getting knocked out at the weigh-in.

What's worse he was knocked out by a strawman.

 

[Foolmewunz]

This is pretty incredible -- TruthSeeker1234 is failing to hold his own in a debate that he started, for the purpose of challenging us to a debate. In sporting terms, this is something akin to getting knocked out at the weigh-in.

Does this mean the "Challenge" is off?? I must say, my bet (that TruthSeeker1234's "challenge" is nothing more than a puerile bluff) is looking mighty safe right now.

Debate? What debate? He's looking for a pen pal, and will correspond for three to six months and then announce to the swallows, as they return to Capistrano, that he's won.

TS - a debate is open to others to view. So now you're communicating with, I believe you said, "two" people from these forums about a closed debate that you and only one or the other of those two will know about. Doesn't the absolute absurdity of this idea strike you in the forehead like a brick(figuratively, of course)?

Let's get back to the debate challenge:
a) No one's going to debate you on Wayne's World in a limited time format. You will just go blah blah blah woo woo woo and fill the time and then declare victory on the Nuts R Us site. If Mackey or Gravy or Abby would accept such a challenge, all you'd have to do is play Rocky I, and survive to the end of the 15th round, to be able to say, "Adrian - I did it!"
b) You offered incentives because no one would even deign to debate your mighty logic and evidence in a closed thread without a hefty bribe. Multiple people have accepted the challenge, and now you're off on a tangent or twelve, heading into Illuminati v NWO territory.

Do you do or do you don't accept the terms of your own challenge, and who are you going to debate and when and where?

 

[Bell]

<snip>

Do you do or do you don't accept the terms of your own challenge, and who are you going to debate and when and where?

Abby and Mark agreed to debate BS101, as did some other members. BS101 never took up their offer.

*wonders why*

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why don't you show your knowledge instead of bragging about it.

I could link you to a pair of long articles I wrote and got published two years ago, on Austrian Economics and the Ferderal Reserve System and Money, but then you would know who I really am, and that would spoil the fun. You'll figure it out eventually anyways, then you can go see my economic theory stuff, while having a field day making fun of my actual day job work. No huge deal, just a couple of long articles. If any of you are interested in economic theory, we could discuss that on another thread. Unlike physical science, you will not empirically prove economic theories. This is why the Austrian school is different, because it rests on certain logical starting points which are accepted a priori (e.g. "human beings exist and act purposefully"). The entirety of Economic theory can then be logically deduced from these starting points, provided one does not make any logical errors along the way. This is precisely what Ludwig von Mises did in Human Action, and Rothbard did again, in his style, with Man Economy and State. There are other, more poplular schools of econ, based on Marx and Keynes, and the Austrians have completely refuted them. Austrians are ignored by the mainstream, because government pays for most economics work, and the Austrian theory has no role for government spending and no justification for central banking. That's all I will say about economics in this thread.

 

[Pardalis]

If this thread goes as long as Christophera's "realistice" thread, I want that million dollar.

 

[Abbyas]

From the above post, I'm guessing he's a sociologist. Or more likely someone who took a few sociology classes. Certainly not an economist.

This is why the Austrian school is different, because it rests on certain logical starting points which are accepted a priori (e.g. "human beings exist and act purposefully").

You do realize that all of economic thought beginning with Adam Smith relies on the assertion that human beings act (pretty much) rationally in their own interest, right? The "Austrian School" is no different in the above.

 

[DavidJames]

I could link you to a pair of long articles I wrote and got published two years ago, on Austrian Economics and the Ferderal Reserve System and Money, but then you would know who I really am, and that would spoil the fun. You'll figure it out eventually anyways,

Hey TS, I got news for you, nobody cares, you are but a single skid mark in a landfill of dirty underwear.

 

[Pardalis]

How does your knowledge in economics help you in the case of structural engeneering and controlled demolitions?

ETA: BTW, if you're wondering, I'm an illustrator, and I don't claim to know the "Truth" about 9/11, and I don't criticize the work of hundreds of skilled engeneers and scientists who studied 9/11.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Congratulations Abby!

I still have not heard back from Triterope, maybe he was not serious after all.

So Abby, I suppose you're up next!

Congratulations Abby Scott. Let's debate!

Perhaps it's fitting that you are a comedian, compared with what i do for a living, that makes us pretty much equally qualified to debate this issue! Like you, I too like to use 911 as a source for material. Your movie brought a smile to my face.

I'm sure our adventure together will be a goldmine of comedy nuggets for you. Promise me that you will write a nice summary of the explanation of the 9/11 collapses that is enough to satisfy the scientific curiosity of a typical layperson observer who wonders what the explanation is for what he just saw. If you promise me this, I will send you $100 and wait for your positive case. Then we will debate back and forth, and I'll keep sending you $100 at a time. When I'm out $1000, it will be over.

Hopefully I have the right Abby. I was so wrong before, I thought Stellafane was Kate! How silly of me. Anyways, let me know.

 

[Abbyas]

I'm sure our adventure together will be a goldmine of comedy nuggets for you. Promise me that you will write a nice summary of the explanation of the 9/11 collapses that is enough to satisfy the scientific curiosity of a typical layperson observer who wonders what the explanation is for what he just saw. If you promise me this, I will send you $100 and wait for your positive case. Then we will debate back and forth, and I'll keep sending you $100 at a time. When I'm out $1000, it will be over.

I agreed to your original terms. They seem to be changing constantly.

 

[Pardalis]

This sounds more like someone who is willing to pay for attention... An attention John?

 

[apathoid]

I could link you to a pair of long articles I wrote and got published two years ago, on Austrian Economics and the Ferderal Reserve System and Money, but then you would know who I really am, and that would spoil the fun. You'll figure it out eventually anyways, then you can go see my economic theory stuff, while having a field day making fun of my actual day job work. No huge deal, just a couple of long articles. If any of you are interested in economic theory, we could discuss that on another thread. Unlike physical science, you will not empirically prove economic theories. This is why the Austrian school is different, because it rests on certain logical starting points which are accepted a priori (e.g. "human beings exist and act purposefully"). The entirety of Economic theory can then be logically deduced from these starting points, provided one does not make any logical errors along the way. This is precisely what Ludwig von Mises did in Human Action, and Rothbard did again, in his style, with Man Economy and State. There are other, more poplular schools of econ, based on Marx and Keynes, and the Austrians have completely refuted them. Austrians are ignored by the mainstream, because government pays for most economics work, and the Austrian theory has no role for government spending and no justification for central banking. That's all I will say about economics in this thread.

With all the unanswered questions waiting for you here, and in various other threads - the only thing you manage to do is make yet another self-congratulatory meaningless off-topic post??

I'll second David James, no one here gives a rats ass about who you are and what you do(though I've got a pretty good idea). You are not important, and its fairly evident that you are not well educated.