Here are a few examples of him returning funds to the treasury. He does publish the bottom line numbers, but I've never looked for a line-item breakdown....


http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press200....

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press200....

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press200....

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press200....

Those are all prior to 2004 - I'm not sure where the newer ones are warehoused, and these are sufficient to illustrate the point.

And I agree that it would be great if they all published the info on the web, and will pass along the suggestion.

As for his opportunity to commit a perverse act on the cranium of some FED officials..... I don't see what you are finding lacking in his performance - unless it's that he didn't reference the ticker.... He clearly was grilling them, but more about the big picture issues. He chooses to take on the systemic structure rather than any particular act emanating from it. I don't blame Bernanke for doing what central bankers do - inflate (well, I do, but apologists for the FED's existence share in the shame equally). You don't hunt down a bear and get mad about it killing a small animal - it is what they do. You either kill the bear, or you understand that it will continue to kill smaller animals.

genesis wrote..

he is free to fire said staff and communicate directly with me to rectify the position expressed.

Yes... and he owes you your every desire by virtue of..... what? Because you operate a blog and forum on the internet? I operate 12 of them, all told. It doesn't elevate you to any special status beyond anyone else wanting to fax thousands of pages that you know full well no one in congress will read.

Some people don't look to take some kid's head off for making a mistake in judgment. You are free to run your affairs as you see fit, and so is Dr. Paul. You are free to act like a fool and strain at a gnat in a 20 paragraph diatribe - but no one is under an obligation to read it simply because you feel entitled to an audience.

Quote:

Ron Paul uses earmarks just like the rest. He's even "kinda proud" of it.

He doesn't vote for earmarks. He does, however, perform a service to constituents to attempt to get as much cash back for his district as is wrung from it by Washington. I know that it is a somewhat nuanced thing that is difficult to grasp, but if you try, you can understand.

He puts them in the bills so that his constituents have as much access to the cash-grab as every other district, but votes against funding the bills on the principle that Congress should not be flippantly spending stolen money. It is not inconsistent, but it takes a minor amount of mental effort to understand it. If your orientation is to say 'bull****' every time someone says anything about Paul other than that he's an 'asshat', you'll struggle with it.

Quote:

For someone who has railed about how The Fed is illegal, you'd think he would have said so about the Bear Bailout.

Yea... forcing Bernake to take a position on fascism was like a game of patti-cake. A reference to the ticker and you personally isn't required for vindication of his ideological positions.

He is fighting the corrupt system - you want to let it keep going (yea, yea.... I know.... you want more oversight and tighter regulation - but not a structural change.... too radical in light of how well the current system is serving us). You're most concerned with getting the bad news out so you can enjoy the opportunity to rake the mad cash (I'd like that too, btw), but his interests are more fundamental. The BSC bailout is not the problem - it is but one symptom of a larger disease that has permeated every fractional reserve based central bank in all of history.

Was it illegal and immoral - heck yea, and I challenge you to show where Paul even collaterally gave it his blessing. Again.... he's not gonna swing from the rafters and rip open a 'Tickerforum' t-shirt with your picture on it. Get elected to congress and you can act like a fool if you wish to - but he ain't your sockpuppet.

abi wrote..

As far as refuting your "points", they don't warrant my energy.

I agree - it would be a complete waste of your time. Stick to tasks you are up to, like teenage-mentality sexual innuendo and swinging from the proprietor's jock. You certainly haven't done anything to lead me to believe you're ready to swim in the deep end. Now go back to watching Beavis and Butthead and let the adults talk, honey.

Circpro,

Give it up, R.P. has been, will be, and will remain irrelevant.

"Honey".... telling choice, that's so "Birdcage" of you.)

Now, I gotta go watch "Circpro does Dr. Ron" on the Bravo channel.

Congrats to KD for what i consider the best ticker so far this young 2008 season.

At least the best one of the 2nd quarter.


On the RP non response stuff, just step back and realize the media completely ignored and or ridiculed his effort. Any sane person would downsize their staff completely or abandon it etc.

The fact he hasnt totally withdrawn is a good sign to me even if its just a back up for mcbain imploding.


Of course he isnt the "perfect" or even "best case" canditate but WHO in the flying **** is?

We need to realize that the current candidates all have dirt and will be systematically exploited and the reason RP was denied media was he wasnt.

Notice the AIPAC meetings?

People that bitch about RP need to realize the serious evil K-ST corporate influence that really determine what happens. Sorry thats the way it is.


RP was pressed hard by avid supporters and it was at the very minimum a HUGE STATEMENT that people are*****ed and they spoke with lots of money in small amounts.

Im a conservative and at this point would venture to call myself a protectionist and really find 72 year old chipmunk head mcpain almost a stab in the eye to true conservatives.

This **** is for amnesty, cap n get ****ed, you name it.

I will write in RP just on conscious and it would be better then this sideshow of bull**** we currently are witnessing.

Joker- no need to put you in your place... don't worry your man RP won't be redeeming himself. That guy missed his chance to show the biggest pair of brass balls ever... troll away...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfLht1WFf....

Morgan -

I want to apologize for being rude. I let you have an ear (or eye, as it were) full, and you weren't being particularly antagonistic. I didn't fully realize what I had done until rereading it this evening.

Every one has to start somewhere, and intellectual curiosity is a good place. I do think you're making some collection of errors in your application of the texts you quote, but that is only justification for pointing out the errors - not being boorish.

I don't apologize very often (there is rarely cause for it ), but when I'm convinced that I've treated someone unfairly, I do.

My dander was up from dealings in the other thread.... my scorn was misplaced. I should have handled the non sequiturs in a less obtuse fashion, and I sincerely apologize for taking a shotgun approach when precision was called for.

Pollyana had his chance to show we the people and the rest of the Senate Banking comity what his exact points were in defending a gold backed currency and no FED. He has had up tine chances to take Bernspankies snide comments to the comity and ask follow up questions to prove his points, but instead he has constantly been a giant pussy, or perhaps just not aware enough about the current situation and just thrown ill thought out comments like "How dare you inflate our money supply" as an example when they were grilling him about the housing bust when it was in it's infancy. He could have said something like: "Well Mr. Spermspanky, you say that you could have never seen this problem coming, that it was absolutely impossible to know this would happen, but these bubble have all happened before, and they were mostly spurred on by access to easy credit. In fact Mr. Bernspanky, hasn't your personal property appraisal which was done for tax purposes (I know, it's funny because I'm sure you don't have to pay them) gone up by 100% in the last three years? Did you think that was an isolated incidence? Doesn't that give you a hint?

And maybe from their lead into why the whole 10% fractional reserve lending creates a perception of wealth, but time and time again bubbles just burst and therefore America goes through euphoric highs and devastating crashes, and that we wouldn't have that problem or the problem of ever elevating prices if our money supply wasn't so vastly inflated by lending 9 times what you have in the bank?

Seriously, he could have pounded the **** out of him, fought for his agenda (gold bug) and educated a LOT more people on how things really work, but instead he chose a tack that was out of the blue and made him look like a moon bat. I thought that in that meeting the CONgress woman that confused Paulson and Bumspanky looked smarter then he did.

I've also watched that long ass RP dvd and thought that he had SOME good ideas, but they were far too shallow in thought and general and he didn't really spend the effort or have the understanding of his own issues enough to explain them well.

Seems like a nice guy, and can relate to some of the masses, but the more you dig into his points, the less they make sense.

Geesh, the name calling and asinine accusations really are getting tiresome.

Needless to say, a lot of people are disappointed in Ron Paul, for a number of valid reasons. That his staff is worried about getting a few faxes, which if were read, may give his advisors some useful information, is just beyond comprehension. Paper isn't that expensive. Accept the faxes, for crying otu loud, and recyle the paper if no one has time to read them. The staff should really be doing other things than harassing Karl.

Some folks here just seem to be piling on with name calling. Grow up, please. To say that Paul is irrelevant is just parroting the media. He contributed something to the primary debates. To call him a "piece of ****", well do I really have to comment any more? This guy has served his country, in the reserves and as representative that seemingly wanted to make changes that would benefit his constituents and this country long term, not by just doing what he thought would help him get reelected or benefit him personally. The guy could have had a nice career as an obstetrician and been retired by now, enjoying his grandchildren.

I said he can seem kind of kooky, but I don't think he's crazy. It seems like some of his staff, however, might be "wing nuts" (which has apparently happened before). In my opinion, I think the guy was run ragged by this campaign, and probably lost control of the office.

I respect Ron Paul, but I'm disappointed, like many, that he didn't just rip Bernanke. I have no idea why, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he either did not think it would be effective, or he simply just froze in the spotlight. Let's give the guy a break. His intentions were in the right place.

The United States is not (well is, but should not be) in the practice of electing people that can't perform, but have good intentions. The dollar was destroyed, gas is $4, and people are broke as hell. He could have used his position to stop some of it from happening, or from happening in the future but he couldn't perform the task at hand. If that happened to me at work my ass would be on the street regardless of my intent.

Ohana -

You'll understand if I don't accept your assertions and characterizations as facts on the face of it.....

Raising the gold standard wouldn't be relevant to the discussion as framed - there is a time and place for all discussions, but this was neither to make that the issue. He isn't a gold bug anyway. He does support-commodity backed currency, but not a single, compulsory standard. The market should decide, and gold would certainly be a part of such a system, with government continuing to create money backed by something - But so could other currencies backed by something else. An equilibrium would naturally be reached. With the

Pointing out the fundamental problems is appropriate - but the commodity money vs. fiat money debate, while an appropriate discussion to hold, was not the reason for the hearings. Paul was a member of a Congressional committee that issued a pro-gold standard report, so his views are well known but not so well understood among most legislators.

He certainly hit all the salient points in his questions and monologues. I'm still waiting for a good explanation from a Paul supporter (or former) as to what they find objectionable. Don't let your short term investment (or gambling) objectives dictate what you think should be done in the long view that a congressman should be concerned with.

I think he acquitted his position well. He could have been more bellicose, or he could have 'skull-fxxked' the individuals before the committee, but that's just not the most judicious approach. It certainly doesn't win you any friends, and it might hamper your ability to get the information you seek.

It sounds like you wanted him to grand-stand. Didn't you see enough of that? Look for Senators Leahy and Schummer or Congressman Rangel (any random hearing will do) for an example.... and they are not alone (just some of my favorites to watch do it).

He made his points as to the fundamental nature and source of the problem. He nailed Bernanke on the subjects of moral hazard, malinvestment, and pressed the guy on the nature of the relationship between the state, the central bank and subsidization of favored business interests - he tried to hem him in on the subject of fascism! I don't know what more you were expecting.

You've assigned too much importance on the contents of 'the Ticker' in my estimate. Karl is good at analyzing the data and recognizing the broad implications from it - but I think he's off-base in some respects as to the causes, and in many cases when it comes to solutions. It is generally very timely with good info - but it's not without flaw.

It seems that many seem to think that because Paul didn't read off Karl's list of demands, he dropped the ball. He's got much bigger game in his sights than suggesting yet more bureaucracy and less freedom (every regulator needs paid for, and every new law means less freedom available to individuals in entering into contractual agreements). He is going after this behemoth at it's root.

In what ways do you find Paul's expounding of his positions on issues to be "far too shallow"? Sure, as with every campaign, candidates dumb it down while on the stump - Most people are dumb or ignorant. For those who want to know what he believes.... there is no more published Congressmen. His writings are easily available on every possible subject of interest to someone interested in a more in-depth look at his beliefs (non-interventionism, sound money economic and social liberty). If you'll say what it is you found 'shallow', I'll help dispel the misconception. Paul is one of the most scholarly and regimented in his beliefs, and it is easy to ascertain what he believes and why he believes it.

I'm not defending Ron Paul because I believe he has a realistic chance to be president; I'm doing it because he is spreading the gospel of liberty. I want real freedom for myself, but I'll settle for securing it for my children. I defend the doctrine of classical liberalism because it is the most fundamentally fair and logical theory of government. I advocate for a return to natural law because it is the right of every man to order his own life so long as he doesn't infringe the right of the same for another. I advocate for a sound, free-market economy because no self-appointed band of jackals should be able to steal the wealth of the productive with the backing of hired men with guns. I join Dr. Paul in standing for freedom - not because of this election season, but because there will be a time when people begin to question the socio-fascist state model we're operating under, and we have to educate the populace about liberty!

ohana wrote..

The United States is not (well is, but should not be) in the practice of electing people that can't perform, but have good intentions. The dollar was destroyed, gas is $4, and people are broke as hell. He could have used his position to stop some of it from happening, or from happening in the future but he couldn't perform the task at hand. If that happened to me at work my ass would be on the street regardless of my intent.

You couldn't be more off base. He was screaming from the rooftops. The reason he ran was to be able to bring these issues into the public debate. He has no unilateral power to do anything more than he does. He is one man, and not the chief executive.

You might be under a misconception about just how much power a solitary congressman has. It's not much, and generally less so when you are a pariah to most of your own caucus.

In my opinion, the most effective thing he can do is continue to be a burr in the establishment saddle when it comes to spending, individual liberty, economics, etc.... He cannot single-handedly save us from the effects of years of bad economic policy. He can only sound the alarm, and go about spreading the ideology of freedom.

You RonPaul hummers have had far too many hits off the crack pipe.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you are sadly - and simply - wrong.

I want to ad my 2 cents to this discussion. In my opinion Paul's staffers should allow the petition. It is simply bad politics as well as bad policy to not want to hear from your constituents. I am a Ron Paul supporter but I do not smoke the crack pipe or think Ron Paul is god. I have some knowledge of how his staff works both from first hand experience and from others who I have talked with who have first hand experience. Dr. Paul is known as Dr. No in Congress but with his staffers he is anything but Dr. No. He does not like confrontation with his staff/supporters and does quite a bit to avoid it. I can easily imagine that happening in this instance. A staffer wants the faxes to stop and he simply didn't realize it could start a mini eruption.

Circpros,

It would be great to have a world where regulations are not needed but our society is nowhere near that goal. Dr. Paul should have taken a stance with the Bear Stearns fiasco. By Dr. Paul going "after it's root" does not excuse not telling the American people they are being robbed by JPMorgan Chase, Paulson, and Bush.
I think it is only fair to hold Dr. Paul up to a higher standard because he does understand the problems. Maybe he doesn't believe in govt regulation but I am sure he doesn't believe in allowing taxpayers to get robbed without representation.

Of course he does.

He claims to vote "no" on appropriations bills but he knows that vote doesn't matter.

He then earmarks as much money as he can for his constituents, stealing money from the taxpayer for the benefit of his constituents.

Just like everyone else in DC.

He's a hypocrite and a liar.

Gen,

At least there is representation with appropriation bills. Whether that is hypocritical is open to debate. I am talking about the executive branch spending taxpayer money on the BS bailout. As someone who claims to want to follow the Constitution I am faulting him for failing to speak up about the Executive Branch spending money without Congressional approval.

Yep Fugitive.

And speaking of unconstitutional, have you heard him speak out on Medicare and Social Security, which are clearly unconstitutional laws as there is no delegated power behind them? Of course not.

(There is behind The Fed - Congress had it, and delegated it.)

I have never seen this type of fanaticism of support exhibited towards any politician in the US lately. What is it that caused somebody with perfectly able mind to make money to instead troll in these boards to defend Ron Paul from people who otherwise don't care anyway about RP. Is Ron Paul Islam?

genesis wrote..

You RonPaul hummers have had far too many hits off the crack pipe.

Name-calling and derision are rarely a good substitute for a logically cohesive and intellectually defensible position. If you lack the latter, then I guess you'll resort to the former. Maybe it will turn out to be a good substitute for you.

genesis wrote..

You're entitled to your opinion, but you are sadly - and simply - wrong.

That's an awful broad brush you use - wrong about what an why? It doesn't become so simply by virtue of your uttering of the words. I suppose the readers can decide who makes the more logically compelling case.

fugitivekind wrote..

It would be great to have a world where regulations are not needed but our society is nowhere near that goal.

You're employing a couple logical fallacies there.

Red Herring - My position is not that there should be no regulation whatsoever. It is that regulations shouldn't go beyond directly prohibiting fraud. The government shouldn't be interjecting itself into every possible relationship that people can possibly enter into contractually.

False choice - If my position were in fact as you represent, you would suppose that the only possibilities are a system of crushing regulation and intrusion into the contractual relationships (such as we have) on one hand, or no regulation whatsoever. Regulation to punish fraudulent behavior or theft is proper - attempting to save everybody from the results of their own ability to make choices is not.

Quote:

Maybe he doesn't believe in govt regulation but I am sure he doesn't believe in allowing taxpayers to get robbed without representation.

Again, a false choice. We do not have to have the current maze of tyrannical regulation (restrictions on freedoms) OR survival of the fittest - there are other alternatives. Just because you don't understand how freedom can work doesn't mean it won't. It won the day in our nation for nearly 100 years, and it worked pretty well. But over time, it gave way to the natural progression of governments to centralize power in it's own hands. Maintaining freedom requires understanding what it means, and jealous vigilance against the encroachment of the state into the prerogatives of the individual. I don't advocate an absence of regulation, but it should be minimal, and only go so far as necessary to inhibit theft and enforce contracts.

genesis wrote..

He claims to vote "no" on appropriations bills but he knows that vote doesn't matter.

He then earmarks as much money as he can for his constituents, stealing money from the taxpayer for the benefit of his constituents.

Just like everyone else in DC.

He's a hypocrite and a liar.

Trotting out this old pony again..... it has been explained.

Money has been extracted from his constituents; he feels obligated to submit the projects and program that they'd like to have submitted, all the while telling them that he intends to vote against the bill on principle.

I keep trying to give folks room to save face on this one, noting that it's nuanced and slightly difficult grasp. It isn't. A small does of intellectual honesty will go a long way to help the irrational paul-haters to stop getting all wrapped around the axle on this - it isn't that damned nuanced.

mtgspy wrote..

I have never seen this type of fanaticism of support exhibited towards any politician in the US lately

My 'fanaticism' (as you frame it) is for the cause of liberty. He happens to be it's most high profile advocate.

Being a shrinking violet on the subject of liberty, or failing to advocate with all mental faculty is not a virtue. These are fundamental issues of right and wrong, and go to my status as a sovereign individual or a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state. This is not the time to be an equivocal, weak-minded person.

You should have a philosophy of government too - it helps prevent one from wandering aimlessly through the discussion of how we want to be ruled by our benevolent benefactors in Washington, or whether there are some areas where the government cannot rightly intrude. Pragmatism (a solution oriented approach, with no ideological anchor) is not a good philosophy of government - it allows the government to do anything it can dream of, so long as they can rationalize it. Pragmatism is for those who have no philosophy or moral understanding of fundamental right and wrong.

(Karl - you won't answer my email - I still don't know why you've hobbled my account, but if you're interested in a discussion instead of grandstanding, take me off the two hours between posts junk - or do you need a little advantage to keep up?To keep replying when you know I can't is indicative of your MO.... a chance to bask in a little of your self-imposed glory without the untidiness of having your unfounded ideas challenged - at least for 2 hours, that is.....)

Quote:

Money has been extracted from his constituents; he feels obligated to submit the projects and program that they'd like to have submitted, all the while telling them that he intends to vote against the bill on principle.

I keep trying to give folks room to save face on this one, noting that it's nuanced and slightly difficult grasp. It isn't. A small does of intellectual honesty will go a long way to help the irrational paul-haters to stop getting all wrapped around the axle on this - it isn't that damned nuanced.

There's no face to save.

"Someone stole from me so I'll steal too!" is not nuanced. Its theft and those who support it cannot defend the act by saying "but everyone else is stealing too!"

As for your other positions I will simply note that Ron Paul has refused to speak on the unconstitutionality of Medicare and Social Security, yet they are, proportionally, far more serious issues than either the War in Iraq or The Federal Reserve.

OF course that would***** off his constituents, and when principle meets politics, principles (for him) lose.

The big issue that is being brought up here is if you are going to claim to follow the Constitution and be one following strict prinicple (for instance he voted against appropriating money to honor Rosa Parks) then you should carry your principals at all time not just when it is convenient. I am a fan of RP but I do have issues with principles not always being followed.
As for social security I have heard him in speeches to supporters say that we should get rid of it. I am not certain if he has espoused that in the halls of Congress. In my opinion he would be a bit better off not claiming to be so principled.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_S....

Fugitive, the 900lb Gorilla is Medicare. Social Security is a big issue but Medicare is a bigger one.

The problem with standing on principles is that you have to do so or you immediately get tagged as a hypocrite.

Its a tough choice - for a smaller example, see my view on free speech here. If LC wants to use the "N" word he can, even though the easy "PC" thing to do would be to ban him.

Well? I either stand on principles or I have none. Those are the choices.

KD,

You are working so hard to discredit anyone that dares to question our current system. Your stated position that our system is the best in the world, and all we have to do is prosecute the criminals is well known.

RP wants fundamental change. That's why you periodically spend your time on these ridiculous hatchet-jobs. He (and the MILLION+ people who have voted for him in the Republican Primary) threaten your beloved system. None of your ctiticisms of RP hold any water. They are either filmsy opinions blown out of porportion, or outright distortions.

Your motives are clear, and your arguments are transparent.

Continuing your sad attempts to distort RP's positions and intentions and poison the minds of your "faithfull followers" will just cause the more astute to lose interest IN YOU. The more you reach for his non-existant sinister motives, the closer you get to being promoted to the Captain of the good ship Tinfoil.

Most people I know love a good old fashioned American Cheeseburger (your trading analysis and insight), but it can be ruined by even a small amount of spittle (your misplaced venom and unfailingly crass behavior). Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they rage bitterly about fax machines, but ignore a lifetime of service to the Constitution. I guess Ron Paul doesn't hold a candle to your champion of limited government, Mike Huckabee?

To address the points that slipped through your seething rage:

- RP advocates dismantling both social security and medicare
- An explanation of RP's earmark activity is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillip....

"This is not the time to be an equivocal, weak-minded person."

I am guilty of both. I will worship you o unemployed one. No I will worship Karl instead Baaa bbaaa booyah. Now count money, $$$$$$$ ... heheheheh.

More...

Karl -

Trying to recoup what is stolen from you is not theft.

And he certainly has spoken out about Medicare and Social Security. He wants both to go away, but believes we must phase them out, keeping our promises so long as we can afford it, and allowing the younger workers the opportunity to go about making other arrangements. He so fundamentally disagreed with medicare that he wouldn't accept it in his practice, instead opting to work for free when cost was the ultimate issue for his patients.

Medicare and Social Security are more money than the war or Fed, but they are different - the entitlements represent funds people have been forced to pay into - and we have some moral obligation, though it's tough to know just how much of one. The war is*****ing money down a rat hole for what can generously be called a screwed up view of US Interests. The FED represents institutionalized theft under the supervision of the protection racket we call government. It is of the highest priority that the codified fraud be dealt with quickly to restore confidence among a populace cynical and mistrustful of everything that comes from the *****-on-the-Potomac.

Quote:

I will worship you o unemployed one

Please don't. You can help me celebrate my self-employment if you'd like. Learn to think for yourself, and don't worship any man. Not even your hero, Karl.
_____________________________________

For the record, I've been banned over this post here:

http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/ak....


Here's the post-ban email exchange between Karl and I - I either grovel and not challenge him any more, or I can't play in his sandbox.

You guys can have it.

Me to Karl Denninger

Why have I been banned? Are you so insecure that you can't handle not being perceived as right all the time?

If this is the case, you should seek mental help. Maybe a little counseling can let you be a happy person instead of a self-doubting toad who needs the adulation of simpletons to feel okay about themselves.

You let the rabble take me on by name, and I'm breaking the rules because I respond to being called out? Wow.... double standard much?

No. You don't like my positions, and would prefer to stifle me for any tortured reason you can to not be shown to be intellectually empty. You've done nothing but be rude to me personally all along - not that you aren't to anyone not desperately seeking your approval - and I'll not grovel so that you'll be my friend and let me play in your backyard.

Am I off-base in my diagnosis? Prove it. Un-ban me and be a man. Fight for your ideas..... don't take your toys and go running for the safety of momma's skirt.

_______________________________________

Karl Denninger to me

You were warned that I was not going to tolerate the destruction of that thread.

You decided to ignore that warning.

You had your fun in the other thread and I left it alone.

I will not unban you if you will not follow the rules; you will either publically apologize and confirm that you WILL follow the rules, or you remain banned.

Period.

_________________________________________

Me to Karl


Tell me how I was 'destroying' the thread. I was discussing the subject matter that other posters were discussing. I saw no bans extended
to them, and assumed the subject was in-bounds. Was I wrong to assume that the rules apply evenly.

Help me see my error, and I will apologize for it.
_________________________________________


Karl Denninger to me


I will not play word games with you.

You read the post, you knew what it meant, you couldn't resist violating it.

This is not a negotiation.
__________________________________________

Me to Karl

I am serious. What did I say that was 'polluting', whereas Abi, texdomer and downrange (all posting on the same subject on the same page) were not polluting? I am trying to understand the rules. The only thing I've been able to discern is that it isn't that I'm off-topic - it's that you simply disagree with me.

Is that what I need to apologize for? If so.... give me access and I will.

__________________________________________

Karl Denninger to me



More word games.

Don't bother with further emails. You're interested in games instead of reality.

Look at your count of posts in the other thread. The circular horse**** along with your signature were clearly intended to INCITE not debate.

I have no more time for this. Sorry; you've had your chance to reconsider and have refused. If and only if you change your mind, let me know. If you intend to pull horse**** like "I disagree so you banned me" then stay away - you already know that's a lie as you posted incessantly at opposite points with me all day in the other thread and I didn't move a thing.

No more games; I have work to do.

Bye.


Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net)
http://www.denninger.net
__________________________________________