• Milton Friedman

    From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to ALL on Fri Aug 21 15:26:40 1998

    I was laughing about Klahn echoing Krugman. He agrees, and
    quibbles about the timing of his post. I don't care if it

    Which is a lie. I refuted his claim I took two weeks.

    Once again Bobzo calls a true statement a "lie." You might

    Once again Earlie calls a lie a true statement.

    think that he is being loose with his word choice, but he
    might also be trying to pretend that he does not know what
    the word "lie" means. He has done so in the past.

    Earl lies again.

    I indicated when Krugman's column came out. I indicated
    when Bobzo echoed it into Fidonet. He misuses the word
    "lie" AND the word "refuted" AS WELL.

    Earl loves to spin things. I never challenged his claim about
    when Krugman's column came out, I said I did not agree about me
    "echoing" Krugman.

    Yet, Earlie keeps going back to the time it came out, and
    ignores what I really said. I did point out that it came out,
    here, a couple days before my response.

    Yet, Earlie keeps repeating the lie that I agreed with his claim
    that I 'echoed' Krugman.

    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)
  • From BOB KLAHN@1:123/140 to ALL on Fri Nov 8 15:26:40 2002

    This is hilarious! I point out that Klahn blindly echoed
    Krugman's column (without understanding the substance and
    without any reference to Krugman). And Klahn's "response"

    You echoed the column, blindly, which has nothing to do
    with "a direct quote." I suppose that, in your mind,

    An echo is a direct repetition.

    Now he's just trying to be boring: "a close parallel or
    repetition of an idea, feeling, style, or event"

    Now he's pretending he gets to define how the whole world
    perceives anything. Nothing in what I posted qualifies as a
    "close parallel or repetition. Not by any reasonable standard.

    someone doing a simple google search would not find the
    "inspiration" for your post, as long as you, for example,
    change the word "avatar" to "icon." Interesting strategy,
    but it failed.

    You are too stupid to realize, I did not care one bit about the
    words "avatar" or "icon". Nor would the word "avatar" lead them
    to the column.

    And now he is just faking ignorance of basic searching. If

    And now he is pretending he didn't focus on the word "avatar".

    he had copied the phrase "avatar of conservative economics"
    directly from the original, a Google search would have lead

    Since I didn't even come close to that phrase, and since the
    word "icon" did lead directly to the Krugman article, just that
    one word, he's bull shitting again.

    right to the source of his post. So he alters the wording
    to "conservative icon for economics" when passing off
    Krugman's idea as his own.

    Like I said, google 'icon' and Krugman's article showd up on the
    first page.

    Now Earl seems to be saying Krugman is the first person to ever
    suggest that Friedman was an "icon" of conservative economics. I
    would not use the word 'avatar' simply because my understanding
    of the word does not make it valid.

    OTOH, I read one of Milton Friedman's books and watched his TV
    Series long before I was reading Krugman.

    And the best Earl can do is quibble about words?

    BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

    --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)