Conquer Club

Saxi's world view:




--Andy

Metsfanmax wrote:I put about as much faith into it as I do the conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club about how the U.S. is successfully engaged in a massive campaign to control the global oil market.

You know, Mets, the more you talk the dumber you sound (and you never did sound all that bright). What you just said is the equivalent of someone saying "Oh yeah <air quotes> 'the sun' </air quotes> effects the ray-de-o in my Trans-Am ... what a crock of shit!"

The oil glut is one of 2 or 3 major theories used to analyze the breakup of the Soviet Union. The grand strategy program at Harvard Kennedy has an entire fucking semester seminar devoted to it. So, when you indicate you're so totally unfamiliar that you think it's some marginal crackpot idea, you come across as much as a dullard as the guy who doesn't believe the sun effects his AM ray-de-o he uses to listen to Glenn Beck.

Newsweek
In truth, the might of the Brezhnev-era USSR was built on high oil and gas prices. When those prices began to fall in the 1980s—with more than a little help from Ronald Reagan's White House—Soviet power crumbled with it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/cold ... 48103.html

Harvard National Security Journal
America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to “turn on the oil spigot” and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Soviets’ primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult for the Soviets to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.
http://harvardnsj.org/2011/12/the-colla ... iet-union/

If you actually read books, I might also suggest The Main Enemy: The Inside Story Of The CIA's Final Showdown With The KGB by the Pulitzer-winning James Risen, which approaches this subject from the oil glut perspective. I could also recommend 100 peer-reviewed papers on this subject from indexed journals, however, you've already said you don't believe all that fancy social science talk.

I know at this point you'll start wildly waving your hands in the air and exclaiming "well no, I know that, I actually was referring to XYZ or ABC, or was just saying LMNOP" like you do when you lay these goose eggs (e.g. your quoting of bible prophecy websites or thumbs-upping Glenn Beck). Please just spare us. You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.

AndyDufresne wrote:Saxi's world view:

WRONG. I would never put a monotone sofa against a beige wall. You basically know jack-shit about my interior design ideology, so STFU and quit pretending you do. You make yourself look stupid, you make me look stupid for responding, and you offend everyone who prefers Tuscan Villa motifs.

You got the part about the Bolivian sex slave stuffed behind the furniture right, though, but at this point - I don't think that was anything more than a lucky guess. So GFY.

saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something

I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty. I think it is possible that the U.S. is capable of pulling off a massive global campaign to adjust the oil market, but I am also partial to the argument that our government can be pretty damn dysfunctional at times. So when I hear the argument that government agency X from country Y is trying to adjust the global market for Z, I generally put it all in the same bin of "I have no fucking clue whether this is actually likely" and move on with my day. If you ask a physicist whether he thinks the KGB controls the Middle East, expect to get an absurd answer. If you didn't want my uncertain opinion, then don't ask for it.

instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.

Can you give examples of phrases phrases I am using that you think I learned last week and don't entirely understand? I usually refrain from doing such things, especially when they are outside my field of expertise. If you compare the number of times you make grandiose, all-encompassing subjects about certain topics such as "U.S. politicians are owned by Israel" compared to the number of times I have ever made such assertions (approximately zero) I think that should settle this particular issue.

(BTW, where did you earn your Ph.D.'s in economics, international relations, and behavioral sciences? I can only assume, given the volume of information you have on this topic, that it was an Ivy or pretty damn close.)

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something

I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty.

No, this -

Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club

- is not a statement of uncertainty. That is an expression of absolute certainty. You bought it, so own it. (Or back out like BBS, wave your arms in the air when you get called on it and say "I was just kidding - I didn't really mean that - this was all part of my master plan!" Either is fine.)

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something

I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty.

No, this -

Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club

- is not a statement of uncertainty. That is an expression of absolute certainty. You bought it, so own it. (Or back out like BBS, wave your arms in the air when you get called on it and say "I was just kidding - I didn't really mean that - this was all part of my master plan!" Either is fine.)

Doesn't really change the meaning of my statement. I literally don't have an opinion. What the bit about "on the Conquer Club" means is that I don't take seriously what any of you say because I don't care what any of you say, not that you're wrong. You might be right. I honestly don't know. I just doubt that any of you are experts in most of the things that you talk about, so I don't give much credence to anything said here.

(However, if your game is to catch people in what you think are clever word traps instead of having a genuine discussion with them to understand what they actually believe, then move the f*ck on because I'm not interested.)

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something

I'm not an expert in everything. The above statement was an expression of my large uncertainty on this subject, instead of an expression of any sort of certainty.

No, this -

Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club

- is not a statement of uncertainty. That is an expression of absolute certainty. You bought it, so own it. (Or back out like BBS, wave your arms in the air when you get called on it and say "I was just kidding - I didn't really mean that - this was all part of my master plan!" Either is fine.)

Doesn't really change the meaning of my statement. I literally don't have an opinion. What the bit about "on the Conquer Club" means is that I don't take seriously what any of you say because I don't care what any of you say, not that you're wrong. You might be right. I honestly don't know. I just doubt that any of you are experts in most of the things that you talk about, so I don't give much credence to anything said here.

(However, if your game is to catch people in what you think are clever word traps instead of having a genuine discussion with them to understand what they actually believe, then move the f*ck on because I'm not interested.)

No, this -

Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club

- is not a synonym for "I don't have an opinion." You're being abundantly clear about your opinion. There are any number of ways you could have expressed your opinion like "no, you're wrong." But when you carry on with your grandstanding scientist routine, there's not a lot of room for error; you better be 100% positive about what you're saying or your reputation is gonna get thrown in the same garbage heap as BBS' is laying in now the first time you shit your diaper.

But now you're indicating you misspoke so that's fine, I'll take it.

saxitoxin wrote:No, this -

Metsfanmax wrote:conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club

- is not a synonym for "I don't have an opinion." You're being abundantly clear about your opinion. There are any number of ways you could have expressed your opinion like "no, you're wrong."

Since that is not my opinion, that would not be a valid way for me to express my opinion. My opinion is essentially: none of you actually know what you are talking about, so I don't care what your opinion is. There are a couple of posters who I do pay attention to, and only then when they're talking about something that I think they do actually have expertise in. The rest of the time, I just literally don't care what opinion y'all have because I have better things to do than read uninformed comments about complicated subjects. Even the uninformed can be right once in a while, but since I have no idea who is right about what, the best policy is to ignore all of it. I only came in here because nietzsche said I got namedropped, not because I care what any of you think about ISIS.

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I put about as much faith into it as I do the conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club about how the U.S. is successfully engaged in a massive campaign to control the global oil market.

You know, Mets, the more you talk the dumber you sound (and you never did sound all that bright). What you just said is the equivalent of someone saying "Oh yeah <air quotes> 'the sun' </air quotes> effects the ray-de-o in my Trans-Am ... what a crock of shit!"

The oil glut is one of 2 or 3 major theories used to analyze the breakup of the Soviet Union. The grand strategy program at Harvard Kennedy has an entire fucking semester seminar devoted to it. So, when you indicate you're so totally unfamiliar that you think it's some marginal crackpot idea, you come across as much as a dullard as the guy who doesn't believe the sun effects his AM ray-de-o he uses to listen to Glenn Beck.

Newsweek
In truth, the might of the Brezhnev-era USSR was built on high oil and gas prices. When those prices began to fall in the 1980s—with more than a little help from Ronald Reagan's White House—Soviet power crumbled with it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/cold ... 48103.html

Harvard National Security Journal
America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to “turn on the oil spigot” and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Soviets’ primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult for the Soviets to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.
http://harvardnsj.org/2011/12/the-colla ... iet-union/

If you actually read books, I might also suggest The Main Enemy: The Inside Story Of The CIA's Final Showdown With The KGB by the Pulitzer-winning James Risen, which approaches this subject from the oil glut perspective. I could also recommend 100 peer-reviewed papers on this subject from indexed journals, however, you've already said you don't believe all that fancy social science talk.

I know at this point you'll start wildly waving your hands in the air and exclaiming "well no, I know that, I actually was referring to XYZ or ABC, or was just saying LMNOP" like you do when you lay these goose eggs (e.g. your quoting of bible prophecy websites or thumbs-upping Glenn Beck). Please just spare us. You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.

I've had an age-old policy on CC. In response to reasonable questions, sometimes the user starts screaming like a child by throwing ad hominems and straw man fallacies. I then troll that user. If you don't like receiving what you dish out, then don't dish it out to begin with. It's a simple system, and I'll halt my trolling for now--regardless of how childish you'll remain (like patches did). Anyway, thanks for providing something meaningful.


(1) How did Saudi Arabia become persuaded to increase the production of x-amount of oil barrels? Wouldn't this also deprive them of their government revenues? (I'm just wondering how this deal went down because the authors don't explain).


You seemed to have placed very much emphasis on the oil price hypothesis while disregarding other factors. The authors of the two linked articles at least mentioned USG R&D and active measures which pressured the SU. That's good to mention, but they neglect an emphasis on the fundamental economic problems of the socialist economic policies which contributed significantly to its meager economic growth/stagnation. (2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).


(3) Given the recent and gradual increase in prices of oil compared to the sudden 1984/1986 drop in oil, how can you posit that the US is actively seeking to increase oil prices to hamper China's economic growth? How are you controlling for your confirmation bias?

BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).

I always thought it was the combination of Rocky IV and Rambo III that was the tipping point.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:I put about as much faith into it as I do the conspiracy theories on the Conquer Club about how the U.S. is successfully engaged in a massive campaign to control the global oil market.

You know, Mets, the more you talk the dumber you sound (and you never did sound all that bright). What you just said is the equivalent of someone saying "Oh yeah <air quotes> 'the sun' </air quotes> effects the ray-de-o in my Trans-Am ... what a crock of shit!"

The oil glut is one of 2 or 3 major theories used to analyze the breakup of the Soviet Union. The grand strategy program at Harvard Kennedy has an entire fucking semester seminar devoted to it. So, when you indicate you're so totally unfamiliar that you think it's some marginal crackpot idea, you come across as much as a dullard as the guy who doesn't believe the sun effects his AM ray-de-o he uses to listen to Glenn Beck.

Newsweek
In truth, the might of the Brezhnev-era USSR was built on high oil and gas prices. When those prices began to fall in the 1980s—with more than a little help from Ronald Reagan's White House—Soviet power crumbled with it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/04/18/cold ... 48103.html

Harvard National Security Journal
America also persuaded its friends to assist in these efforts, including encouraging Saudi Arabia to “turn on the oil spigot” and flood the world with cheap petroleum in 1986. This act severely undermined the Soviets’ primary means to secure hard currency, depleted its foreign exchange reserves, made it difficult for the Soviets to import badly needed grain, and deeply impacted the thinking of the Soviet leadership.
http://harvardnsj.org/2011/12/the-colla ... iet-union/

If you actually read books, I might also suggest The Main Enemy: The Inside Story Of The CIA's Final Showdown With The KGB by the Pulitzer-winning James Risen, which approaches this subject from the oil glut perspective. I could also recommend 100 peer-reviewed papers on this subject from indexed journals, however, you've already said you don't believe all that fancy social science talk.

I know at this point you'll start wildly waving your hands in the air and exclaiming "well no, I know that, I actually was referring to XYZ or ABC, or was just saying LMNOP" like you do when you lay these goose eggs (e.g. your quoting of bible prophecy websites or thumbs-upping Glenn Beck). Please just spare us. You don't have to be an expert in everything - all anyone is asking is that you behave a little more modestly when you're uncertain of something instead of putting on this crude and annoying pseudo-intellectual know-it-all act where you spout a shitload of nonsensical phrases phrases you learned last week, don't entirely understand, but are pretty sure no one else knows enough to call you out on, a la BBS.

I've had an age-old policy on CC. In response to reasonable questions, sometimes the user starts screaming like a child by throwing ad hominems and straw man fallacies. I then troll that user. If you don't like receiving what you dish out, then don't dish it out to begin with. It's a simple system, and I'll halt my trolling for now--regardless of how childish you'll remain (like patches did). Anyway, thanks for providing something meaningful.


(1) How did Saudi Arabia become persuaded to increase the production of x-amount of oil barrels? Wouldn't this also deprive them of their government revenues? (I'm just wondering how this deal went down because the authors don't explain).


You seemed to have placed very much emphasis on the oil price hypothesis while disregarding other factors. The authors of the two linked articles at least mentioned USG R&D and active measures which pressured the SU. That's good to mention, but they neglect an emphasis on the fundamental economic problems of the socialist economic policies which contributed significantly to its meager economic growth/stagnation. (2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).


(3) Given the recent and gradual increase in prices of oil compared to the sudden 1984/1986 drop in oil, how can you posit that the US is actively seeking to increase oil prices to hamper China's economic growth? How are you controlling for your confirmation bias?

Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

Metsfanmax wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) How much does the oil-price hypothesis explain? (it seems to be more of a tipping point than a fundamental cause of Soviet collapse).

I always thought it was the combination of Rocky IV and Rambo III that was the tipping point.

If we're unwilling to restrict ourselves to estimation and to detailed theoretical explanations, then I must agree that the Rocky-Rambo cultural attack was also the tipping point.

saxitoxin wrote:Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

saxi: Ronald Reagan was responsible for Saudi Arabia crashing oil prices in the 1980s. Ty Cobb and Newsweek said so.

BBS: How do Ty Cobb and Newsweek know this? What is their evidence for this hypothesis?

saxi: hahahaha like I actually thought about this further than just c/p'ing the first links that came up when I googled Soviet Union and oil glut

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:[insert problems with saxi's references.]

Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

You start shit, then I dish it back, so get over yourself.

Regrettably, without providing a sufficient defense, your position has become more untenable.

Shall we lump the US-China oil hypothesis next to the Rocky-Rambo hypothesis? Currently, both are on equal footing.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

saxi: Ronald Reagan was responsible for Saudi Arabia crashing oil prices in the 1980s. Ty Cobb and Newsweek said so.

BBS: How do Ty Cobb and Newsweek know this? What is their evidence for this hypothesis?

saxi: hahahaha like I actually thought about this further than just c/p'ing the first links that came up when I googled Soviet Union and oil glut

I've already sufficiently explained why I don't need to engage with BBS. I don't waste my time on someone who uses terms like "confirmation bias" because he heard it last week and thought he'd try testing it online to see if it will make him sound smart to some internet randos. I don't seriously engage with Player either. If you want to keep hitching your horse to this wagon, you go right ahead sweetie. I expect nothing better out of you at this point.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:[insert problems with saxi's references.]

Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

You start shit, then I dish it back, so get over yourself.

Regrettably, without providing a sufficient defense, your position has become more untenable.

Shall we lump the US-China oil hypothesis next to the Rocky-Rambo hypothesis? Currently, both are on equal footing.

Maybe we lump it with "I didn't seriously quote Glenn Beck, it was all part of my master plan!"

You're done. Keep performing for Mets if you want, he seems to appreciate the act. Anyone with an IQ over 80 can see what a fraud you are after your implosion. And like I said earlier, congrats on having absolutely no shame. Anyone else would have slunk away in total embarrassment at this point.

Mets, I can tell your fat little fingers are pounding out something right now. Let me just advise you to stop and think before you hit Submit.

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

saxi: Ronald Reagan was responsible for Saudi Arabia crashing oil prices in the 1980s. Ty Cobb and Newsweek said so.

BBS: How do Ty Cobb and Newsweek know this? What is their evidence for this hypothesis?

saxi: hahahaha like I actually thought about this further than just c/p'ing the first links that came up when I googled Soviet Union and oil glut

I've already sufficiently explained why I don't need to engage with BBS. I don't waste my time on someone who uses terms like "confirmation bias" because he heard it last week and thought he'd try testing it online to see if it will make him sound smart to some internet randos. I don't seriously engage with Player either. If you want to keep hitching your horse to this wagon, you go right ahead sweetie. I expect nothing better out of you at this point.

Don't you think there's a reason why pretty much the only people who engage with you are patches and JuanBottom? Don't dish what you can't take.

or don't

saxitoxin wrote:or don't

Thank you for the advice, but I had already demonstrated that I don't listen to you so your advice was really in vain as you should have been able to guess

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:[insert problems with saxi's references.]

Talking more is gonna be the last thing that digs you out of your hole.

You start shit, then I dish it back, so get over yourself.

Regrettably, without providing a sufficient defense, your position has become more untenable.

Shall we lump the US-China oil hypothesis next to the Rocky-Rambo hypothesis? Currently, both are on equal footing.

Maybe we lump it with "I didn't seriously quote Glenn Beck, it was all part of my master plan!"

You're done. Keep performing for Mets if you want, he seems to appreciate the act. Anyone with an IQ over 80 can see what a fraud you are after your implosion. And like I said earlier, congrats on having absolutely no shame. Anyone else would have slunk away in total embarrassment at this point.

When pressured to provide any reasonable defense, you still scream about the imagined deficiencies of only the people who disagree with you. Like Symmetry, you're not interested in a debate.

Propagandists, such as yourself, have for centuries impeded the intellectual progress of humanity. You've been exposed as a fraud, so it's time for you to pack up and spread your lies elsewhere.

BigBallinStalin wrote:...elsewhere.

Gaza?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Propagandists, such as yourself, have for centuries impeded the

ok!

A6 sits here mouth agape in disbelief. BBS and Saxi must have gotten a divorce.

saxitoxin wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:so it's time for you to pack up and spread your lies elsewhere.

ok!

Thank GOD!