Tweet
Re: iTulip beats TIME on Harper's beating the Onion's Next Bubble story
Yes, I indeed missed the article was a tongue in cheek send-up of Harry Dent, and Time Magazine's hack reviewer. With regard to Time Magazine's flabby journalistic investigation of the underlying issue, I'm 100% with iTulip. However my post really was raised as a question - Harry Dent's forecast has some uncanny similarities to iTulip's forecast that at some point we really will have another soaring bubble within a segment of the stock market. Given this overlapping of their views of the near future, iTulip's send-up of Harry Dent navigates through a fair bit of ambiguity right there.
No matter. What threw me off was FRED's summarily deleting my first post. Just for your information, what he saw fit to summarily delete is pasted verbatim into my second attempt to re-post it (post # 2 in this thread). Can someone explain to me, what is so egregiously unacceptable in that short question to merit deletion? The question is maybe a little argumentative, and it indeed misses the point of FRED's editorial comment, which was written primarily with humor in mind. But can anyone construe my post above as being so specious or "disruptive" that it merits summary deletion due to "editorial discretion"?
Yes, it was deleted. I posted it once. Saw it sit there for ten minutes, and then saw it "disappear".
Now I'd like to point out, that apparently no-one else here has ever had any of their posts summarily deleted from this website. You don't therefore have any visceral experience of being "muzzled", and I note that I've been there several times before. Does anyone recall the actual content of the one or two entire threads which FRED has seen fit to delete in the past? It seems to me, their content got right down to some nitty gritty debates - things like "why telecommuting won't significantly mitigate peak cheap oil", and so forth.
These are real questions, and observations with a fair bit of truth in them. These are not questions which merit entire threads being erased, merely because they openly call into question the validity of editorial opinions here. Now we see that "editorial oversight" thingy getting rolled out again to delete a comment which was posed in the form of a serious question:
How can you have another stock market boom, even if just an "alt-energy bubble", when oil prices climb to $500 per barrel?
This is a central tenet of Janszen's predictions, such that he made it the core of his Harper's article. My post asks, "please substantiate how you see any kind of next boom, or next bubble, in a world where the price of energy gets so prohibitive it summarily shuts a great deal of economic activity down?
This is hardly what you'd describe as a "specious question". It's also hardly material which justifies a website editor summarily "disappearing" the post to begin with. I know the post was deleted. I posted it, and saw it sit there on this thread for ten minutes. Then it disappeared. All the guffaws and ribbing going on around here turn a studiedly blind eye to this point. You can smile complacently, but as long as you turn a blind eye to that you countenance a certain degree of complacency.
I recall a post of Janszen's where he seriously suggested that tele-commuting would mitigate peak cheap oil - and no-one here had a murmur of objection, or thought of pointing out that other than in OECD countries, most nations economies are not anywhere remotely near the prospect of telecommuting because their economic niche has nothing to do with service industries. Such comments speak from an entrenched America-centric, or OECD-centric viewpoint. And it bears noting, that such observations ALSO meet the most woolly-minded complacency around here. A few people, me among them, read such suggestions as merely partisan attempts to debunk any portrayal of Peak Cheap Oil as an intensely traumatic event.
I see such a comment as a tell-tale of stubbornly "Panglossian" mind-set, particularly as it's so manifestly irrational when projected out upon a world which is 2/3rds industrialising, rather than based on any "telecommuter" economic paradigm. Yet despite the many overwhelmingly cogent arguments as to why telecommuting represents little real response to Peak Cheap Oil at the global leve, we can actually witness the open and challenging argument of such issues with Janszen result in entire "disappeared threads", and none of the jolly contributors here today had a murmur of comment to make about that. :rolleyes:
You've just been advised - we had another "sighting of a disappeared post" here today, only on even more questionable grounds, as my post above phrased a simple question of substance, and was utterly innocuous. And while everyone's got their two cents to chip in here on the overlooked humor quotient, no-one appears to have a word to say about the practice of "disappearing" posts which ever pose awkward questions to the editor in chief. Hmm. Any comments on whether post # 2 on this thread merited being erased to begin with? Or are you all just a gaggle of captive geese in a pen, within this community?
Originally posted by GRG55
View Post
No matter. What threw me off was FRED's summarily deleting my first post. Just for your information, what he saw fit to summarily delete is pasted verbatim into my second attempt to re-post it (post # 2 in this thread). Can someone explain to me, what is so egregiously unacceptable in that short question to merit deletion? The question is maybe a little argumentative, and it indeed misses the point of FRED's editorial comment, which was written primarily with humor in mind. But can anyone construe my post above as being so specious or "disruptive" that it merits summary deletion due to "editorial discretion"?
Yes, it was deleted. I posted it once. Saw it sit there for ten minutes, and then saw it "disappear".
Now I'd like to point out, that apparently no-one else here has ever had any of their posts summarily deleted from this website. You don't therefore have any visceral experience of being "muzzled", and I note that I've been there several times before. Does anyone recall the actual content of the one or two entire threads which FRED has seen fit to delete in the past? It seems to me, their content got right down to some nitty gritty debates - things like "why telecommuting won't significantly mitigate peak cheap oil", and so forth.
These are real questions, and observations with a fair bit of truth in them. These are not questions which merit entire threads being erased, merely because they openly call into question the validity of editorial opinions here. Now we see that "editorial oversight" thingy getting rolled out again to delete a comment which was posed in the form of a serious question:
How can you have another stock market boom, even if just an "alt-energy bubble", when oil prices climb to $500 per barrel?
This is a central tenet of Janszen's predictions, such that he made it the core of his Harper's article. My post asks, "please substantiate how you see any kind of next boom, or next bubble, in a world where the price of energy gets so prohibitive it summarily shuts a great deal of economic activity down?
This is hardly what you'd describe as a "specious question". It's also hardly material which justifies a website editor summarily "disappearing" the post to begin with. I know the post was deleted. I posted it, and saw it sit there on this thread for ten minutes. Then it disappeared. All the guffaws and ribbing going on around here turn a studiedly blind eye to this point. You can smile complacently, but as long as you turn a blind eye to that you countenance a certain degree of complacency.
I recall a post of Janszen's where he seriously suggested that tele-commuting would mitigate peak cheap oil - and no-one here had a murmur of objection, or thought of pointing out that other than in OECD countries, most nations economies are not anywhere remotely near the prospect of telecommuting because their economic niche has nothing to do with service industries. Such comments speak from an entrenched America-centric, or OECD-centric viewpoint. And it bears noting, that such observations ALSO meet the most woolly-minded complacency around here. A few people, me among them, read such suggestions as merely partisan attempts to debunk any portrayal of Peak Cheap Oil as an intensely traumatic event.
I see such a comment as a tell-tale of stubbornly "Panglossian" mind-set, particularly as it's so manifestly irrational when projected out upon a world which is 2/3rds industrialising, rather than based on any "telecommuter" economic paradigm. Yet despite the many overwhelmingly cogent arguments as to why telecommuting represents little real response to Peak Cheap Oil at the global leve, we can actually witness the open and challenging argument of such issues with Janszen result in entire "disappeared threads", and none of the jolly contributors here today had a murmur of comment to make about that. :rolleyes:
You've just been advised - we had another "sighting of a disappeared post" here today, only on even more questionable grounds, as my post above phrased a simple question of substance, and was utterly innocuous. And while everyone's got their two cents to chip in here on the overlooked humor quotient, no-one appears to have a word to say about the practice of "disappearing" posts which ever pose awkward questions to the editor in chief. Hmm. Any comments on whether post # 2 on this thread merited being erased to begin with? Or are you all just a gaggle of captive geese in a pen, within this community?
. I recommend you take two Twinkies and call FRED in the morning...:rolleyes:
Comment