theoretically, the reason to have a moderator on tribe is to boot out yahoo's like our prime example above...

anyone want to see if we can get a moderator who actually uses tribe?

Claim #1: “The best part, and indeed the most accurate description EVER, of Libertarianism”

Wrong. The most accurate description of Libertarians is “Don’t Tread On Me”


Claim #2: “Free speech is thy friend unless you have to listen to criticism.”

Wrong: “Freedom of Speech” isn’t a friend, it’s a Right. Furthermore, Criticism, specifically CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, can be extremely valuable. When criticism serves no constructive purpose, however, it is valueless and mean.


Claim #3: “…The only people who will tolerate your vitriolic and cowardly ‘my way or the highway’ approach to political debate, are others of your mindset.”

Wrong. Pete Stark takes the same approach and not just privately. Actually, he was a little more forceful about it, and suggested that someone should be helped out of a window instead of telling them to hit the road. I cannot classify Pete Stark as a Libertarian; he has proven repeatedly that he didn’t represent me or my views when I was one of his constituents, but there are a lot of voters that still “tolerate” him.


Claim#4: “Ideological incest, and all that. Yes, I know, the concept of ideological incest is a bit over your head.”

Fuck you, brother, your ideas are stupid. Is that a good enough example of “Ideological Incest”? No? Ok, then try this on for size: “If you keep talking trash, I’ll keep fuckin’ witchu.”


Claim #5: “I don't NEED humility because I AM better than these Libertarians.”

I’d be real interested in seeing this proven. Until then, I’ll consider this to be an unsubstantiated allegation.


Claim #6: “I don't NEED civility because I AM better than these mental cases.”

While it’s true that an individual doesn’t need civility, it does help ease the friction involved in social intercourse. As for the reason that you claim, refer to my reply to Claim #5.


Claim #7: “I don't NEED to play nice because I represent the majority of America.”

While it’s true that an individual doesn’t need to play nice, it does help ease the friction involved in social intercourse. As for the reason that you claim, this fails because of the Democratic Fallacy.

Claim #8: “I have no RESPECT for Libertarians…”

I believe you. Respect for others starts with respect for yourself (and I think you don’t respect yourself).

Claim #8a: “…because they are selfish, illogical nutcases…”

This isn’t provable, but it is disprovable. To help disprove the claim that we are selfish, I’d like to point out to you that the East Bay Libertarian Party has helped as volunteers for Habitat For Humanity. I was there. I was given a job that I don’t like doing, but I did it anyway.

Claim #8b: “…who couldn't string together a coherent sentence to save their hind quarters…”

Some Libertarians are erudite, terse and cogent. I’d like to also point out that Libertarians aren’t generally prone to run-on sentences either.

Claim #8c: “…they're a bunch of BOYS trying to act like big, bad cowboy men…”

Most of the Libertarians that I hang out with are well past that phase. A surprising number of them are Veterans, and while they are respectful of guns, they’d rather settle problems without using them.

Claim #8d: “…and they live sheltered lives in their mommy's basements…”

Actually, my mother now lives in one of my houses. Oh, and none of my houses have basements.

Claim #8e: “…away from the cruel world which would pimp slap the red white and blue right off their ‘in Dollars we trust’ lower back tattooed butts.”

This form of communication is referred to as “Pathetic Fallacy”. It tugs at emotions, but fails as proof.


Claim #9: “So I'm basically telling you to kiss my ass. Get down on one knee and pucker up, bucky.”

I’m not interested. Besides, I think your neck is plugging your asshole, and your shoulders are in the way.


Claim #10: “I'm the voice of America telling Libertarians that they're absolutely bugfucked crazy and that America does not want Libertarians around.”

I think you’re the voice of your ego, desperately seeking attention. In fact, I think you are so desperate for attention that you willingly let us use you as our local whipping boy.

This is another instance of the Democratic Fallacy in use.


Claim #11: “There is no escape for you people. Not in real life, and not here.”

We’re not looking for escape. We’re trying to prevent tyranny (and other forms of Authoritarianism).


Claim #12: “I earn more money than any ten of you momma's boy Libertarians combined even dream of.”

I don't believe you. This claim fails because I can imagine more money than exists on this planet.


Claim #13: “You dweebs cheer when work leaves the country and goes to Asia.”

No, I don't. It makes me sad. I respect that the future doesn't look bright for this Society if we forget how to make things.


Claim #14: “It's no wonder that you guys lack the credibility or support of the American people.”

If that is the case, why do some consultants to the DNC consider the LP to be a spoiler? The LP is considered (by those that advise the DNC) to be a credible threat in some elections.

Do we have a support of the majority of voters? No, not yet. But we do have the support of some Americans. In 2006, the figure was reported to be about 15% of the voters.

Claim #15: “You can't stop anyone from doing anything.”

Actually, Libertarians activists have a demonstrated history of blocking tax measures in a variety of jurisdictions. Further, we would prefer that others use self-restraint, rather than having us tell them what to not do.


Claim #16: “You can't even stop a fly from giving you a collective wedgie.”

This hyperbole doesn’t need a reply.


Claim#17: “Your movement couldn't even fill a telephone booth.”

It would take a very large phone booth to hold the Libertarian population of the USA. I don't think the Astrodome could hold all of us.


Claim #18: Give me a break - if you were soooo much better than those weak, lazy blah blah liberals, then why do you have no political power?

This also turns out to not be the case. The LP has demonstrated its power repeatedly at all of the levels it operates at. You need to do better research before you spew such nonsense.


Claim #19: “The strong survive and the weak perish and you're a hell of a lot closer to perishing than liberalism. STFU, log off, and go run the numbers on which side has the most people in power, then get back to me.”

The last time I checked, it was both the strong and the weak that perished. You're again offering the Democratic Fallacy as ‘proof’, but once again it is letting you down.


Claim #20: “Oh please, you live in your mommy's basement.”

Actually, my mother lives in a house that has a concrete slab foundation, but no basement. I know, because it’s one of the houses that I own, and I’ve helped repair that foundation.


Claim #21: “You can't stop anyone from killing you.”

The last time someone threatened my life (August 18th, 2009), I had a conversation with my assailant and I walked away unharmed after they left. I DID stop someone from killing me.


Claim #22: “I could hit you with a simple math problem and make your brain explode.”

This hyperbole doesn’t deserve a reply.


Claim #23: “In your trailer park a simple economics question (such as, say, EXTERNALITIES) would be considered a weapon of mass destruction.”

Considering that I live on a court full of California Ranch style homes, your premise is invalid, but let’s see the question anyway. Rather than having it get lost in this thread, why don’t you make it into a new thread?


Claim #24: “BTW Zillow is the LEAST reputable property value estimator service EVER.”

Ok, who is the most reputable property appraisal service?


Claim #25: “It's November now and your appraiser is still a figment of your imagination.”

Considering you posted that statement on December 8th, this claim disproves itself. Good job!


Claim #26: “Libertarianism fails for one simple reason: It is inflexible.”

This is what I’m inflexible about: Each individual should be free to do as they please, so long as they do no harm to others. That approach provides a shit-load of flexibility (especially when compared to the system we currently experience).


Claim #27: “Anything short of pure laissez-faire is seen as SLAVERY, STATISM and COLLECTIVISM by you guys.”

How did you switch from Politics to Economics?


Claim #28: “Your system can only exist if human beings are flawless and purely logical creatures - short of that, laissez-faire is fraught with problems.”

This conjecture is unsubstantiated. Regardless of whether “flawless and purely logical creatures” will cause a marketplace to operate or not, I believe they are not required for a political system to operate satisfactorily. In fact, under Libertarianism, there are several different kinds of economies that might operate – and interoperate – simultaneously, while serving a flawed, illogical population.


Claim #29: “Laissez-faire eats its own tail because the rich have the power to buy politicians and thus influence laws... just like with Keynesian systems.”

When bought politicians influence the laws and thus meddle with the natural ebb and flow of markets, it is, by definition, no longer “laissez-faire”. Now you are dealing with “corporatism”. Don’t blame the ills of corporatism on laissez-faire capitalism.


Claim #30: “Transparency is impossible in laissez-faire systems because the rich will not allow it. (See: the oil speculators.)”

Transparency is not impossible in this situation. For one example, it can be done voluntarily. Some of the Rich (as well as others) will understand that providing transparency in their dealings will increase their credibility, which could lead to greater profits.


Claim #31: “Without transparency, true informed consent is impossible.”

While this may be true, it does not apply to every transaction. “True informed consent” is not always required – often a transaction will be consummated when the buyer feels that there is sufficient value, regardless of clouded issues (such as whether the product was made on Antares-IV). For example, when you buy a car, do you care about the criminal histories of the line operators that produced it?


Claim #32: “Under laissez-faire, rich corporations who break laws that laissez-faire would find legitimate or even necessary, cannot be easily prosecuted: they will retaliate by indirectly pressuring juries with threats of plant closings, offshoring and mass layoffs, to yield a not guilty verdict.”

What laws does laissez-fair require? “Thou shalt not hurt anyone. Thou shalt not commit fraud. Thou shalt not coerce anyone”. Threats of plants being closed and mass layoffs are an additional hurt (called “Coercion”), therefore an additional crime. Moving offshore is a business decision, but threatening to do so could be more coercion, and therefore criminal.


Claim #33: “If they're still convicted, they can close up shop and impoverish an entire city, or even leave the country.”

Perhaps that would be allowed, once they’ve paid for their crimes. Perhaps the business would be turned over to the customers that were victimized, thus impoverishing the criminals before they can flee. There are a lot of potential outcomes that conflict with the ones you state. So the truth of this matter is that you don’t know what will happen in the event of this hypothetical conviction.


Claim #34: “At this point, law itself becomes meaningless to the corporations.”

At this point, your conclusion is speculative, and no longer related to your thesis.


Claim #35: “The free market is run by human beings who are by nature flawed individuals.”

Really? Which ‘free market’ are you referring to? This is unsubstantiated conjecture.


Claim #36: “Laissez-faire is a utopianistic system that cannot survive in a flawed environment, because it does not adapt to flaws, and thus it leads to a whole host of unintended consequences.”

This conjecture is also unsubstantiated. While it may be that the system is a utopian ideal, it has not demonstrated a lack of adaptability. That demonstration is due to a lack of existence; there is hypothetical reason to believe it works and is adaptable, but no hypothetical reason to believe it cannot work. I, for one, would like to see some pragmatic and scientific testing of the matter.


Claim #37a: “In fact, laissez-faire denies that negative unintended consequences can occur under its system…”

Wrong. Laissez-faire capitalism makes no claims either way on this matter. Prudent Cynics understand that unintended consequences can occur, and they would rather reduce those consequences by not fixing things that aren’t broken to begin with.


Claim #37b: “…or it disregards them as ‘bad things happening to the weak’…”

You are mixing apples and oranges here. If they occur at all, then “unintended negative consequences” could as easily happen to the strong. It doesn’t take capitalism for a weak man to blow a hole in a strong man’s armor (which is an “unintended negative consequence” for someone).


Claim #37c: “…in essence, it falls back to the rule of the jungle, where the strong prey on the weak - thus, ironically, bringing into question, or even negating, the very reason for the concept of civilization.”

This does not logically follow from your premise.

BTW: the history of Civilization is written in the development of armaments. These have been developed in order to let the weak gain advantages over the strong.


Claim #38: “Basically, if any interference in the market is ‘Slavery’ and ‘Statism’, then why even have a civilization? An unregulated market will find its way around civilization to favor the wealthy few. Why not go back to the jungle?”

If you have any interference (such as regulatory interference), then you no longer have a Free Market, and by that point you’re then arguing about something else entirely. Don’t blame laissez-faire capitalism for the ills of corporatism.


Claim #39a: “The free market is not a self correcting system…”

I haven’t found any other models that self-correct as well as laissez-faire capitalism.

Claim #39b: “…if America were a completely unregulated economy…”

I’m assuming here that you meant to say “…if America had a completely unregulated economy…”

Claim #39c: “it would fall prey to one of the most basic failure conditions - caveat emptor.”

‘Caveat Emptor’ is not a basic failure condition, it is one of the minor reasons why Laissez-faire Capitalism works.

‘Caveat Venditor’ is another minor reason why Laissez-faire Capitalism works, and it keeps ‘Caveat Emptor” in balance.


Claim #39d: “Other failure conditions, pretty much corollary to caveat emptor, would be the inability to trust banks.”

“Caveat Argentari”? No, that would mean “Banker Beware”. We need a label for the antithesis of that. How about “Caveat Debitor”? If the Bankers hurt, defraud or coerce, they should fail. That’s different that having a market fail. There are several Libertarian systems that require little or no banking. In these Libertarian systems, you claim has no framework within which to exist.


Claim #39e: “Lack of trust is inherent in a free market, and is its ultimate downfall.”

Trust and lack of trust do impact the ebb and flow of natural commerce, but they are not what causes its downfall. What causes its downfall is the meddling regulations of Authoritarians.


Claim #40: “The free market, when unregulated, promotes naked greed as the first virtue.”

This is entirely untrue. The first virtue in the free market is “Self-Interest”. This virtue is required for “Self-Preservation”. “Self-Interest” MIGHT become perverted into greed, but it doesn’t NECESSARILY become that.

Claim #41: “Nowhere will you find naked greed to be a virtue, because of all the harm it does.”

It seems to be a virtue in Washington, D.C.


Claim #42: “It is expensive to prevent industrial pollution from damaging a city.

It is thus cheap to do business in China where industrial pollution is unregulated and which has laid ruin to their air and their rivers.

Companies held to pollution laws in America have been busted for breaking pollution laws; they then closed up profitable factories in America and have moved to China in pursuit of higher profits (greed), impoverishing the cities they moved from. Others don't fill in the void because they see they can pollute to their hearts' content in China.

Free market capitalism would turn a blind eye to pollution; and if you believe that property rights do justify laws against pollution, then you are undone by China, which will steal your jobs by ignoring citizens' property rights in favor of more permissive pollution laws. Basically, this is another systemic failure condition, because free market capitalism is too inflexible to allow for - you guessed it - tariffs.”

I am dubious that you can document this claim. The question that I have is “Are you trying to use China as an example of “Laissez-faire Capitalism”? I say you are trying to compare apples and (in this case MANDARIN) oranges.


Claim #43: “That is a utopianistic mindset. It assumes that people making billions of individual choices will not lead to systemic failure conditions.”

The problem with this claim is that it assumes that the individuals need the system and cannot function if it fails. It’s not that way at all, in fact, it’s quite the opposite: the system needs the individuals. Some Libertarians don’t need laissez-faire capitalism, they’re entirely comfortable with rational anarchy and laissez-faire communism.


Claim #44: “One of the most obvious examples of a failure condition under this example is racism. An employer is free to deny employment to anyone for any reason under a truly free market: you can be denied employment just for being white.”

While a possibility, this path leads to failure and will be appropriately punished by market dynamics. Those employers that are too stupid to learn from this sort of mistake will starve.


Claim #45: “Can you imagine, during a job crunch, you just graduated with a degree in civil engineering but the big companies are run by black people and they won't hire whites?”

Yes, I can absolutely imagine it happening.


Claim #46: “That, my friend, is the drawback of unregulated ‘individual choices’ that can seriously set you back economically.”

The advantage of unregulated individual choices, the advantage that you seem to ignore, is that unregulated individual choices would also allow you to start your own firm and compete on your own relative merits. Furthermore, when you work for yourself, you have a much easier time making yourself rich – when you work for someone else, you tend to make them rich.


Claim #47: “Certainly, you can wish for the free market to condemn this irrational employer to ruin - which it probably will not if the discriminator represents 80% of the local population, or 60% of the whole country's population.”

This claim is more unsubstantiated speculation. Further, when firms hire mediocre employees, they get mediocre results and mediocre profits (regardless of personal bias or skin color).


Claim #48: “Till then, you're out of work.“

If that were your only option, it’d be traumatic. Since it would not your only option, you would do something else. As a result, your situation would not be traumatic.


Claim #49: “My point? Irrational prejudice influences a lot of individual choices, and it is but one of many examples of what can and does lead to systemic failure conditions.”

You haven’t yet proven that. Picture a laissez-fair economic system where NO ONE is employed, and you’ll understand why your claim fails.


Claim #50: “If a poor person gets cancer and cannot get the money for chemotherapy, yes, laissez-faire does say this person is weak and they deserve what they get.”

Not at all. Even the weak (as you put it) are welcome to place bets on their health.


Claim #51: “Their only recourse is to stand outside some charity place and beg for money to save their lives.“

That’s one possible option, but not the only option. You haven’t given this a complete analysis.


Claim #52: “The whole argument that ‘health care is not a right’ is based on natural selection and survival of the richest.”

Nope. It’s based on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Amendments to the Constitution. You have a Right to Life, but that does not imply that you have a right to good health (let alone healthcare).


Claim #53: “It would be even worse in an unregulated market. The wealthy had to work hard to game this system. They have to sneak around now: but in an unregulated market they would simply bribe a politician in the open to get their way.”

Nope, that doesn’t work. As soon as you do that, you’re talking about a different economic system. Once again, do not blame laissez-faire capitalism for the ills of corporatism.


Claim #54: “Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling would never have been convicted of wrongdoing in a free market system.”

This is more unsubstantiated speculation.


Claim #55: “Insider trading? Stock manipulation? Shutting down power generator systems to ramp up the cost of electricity (causing the systemic failure condition of rolling blackouts)? All legal under laissez-faire.

You should also know that there is no crime called “Insider Trading” in Switzerland. Look at the rest of Europe and you’ll find that it is standard operating procedure in all of them (even the Socialist countries and the Monarchies). It’s legal in Vatican City. “Insider Trading” is legal in a lot of places that do not practice laissez-faire capitalism. In fact, the USA is about the ONLY place where it is considered a crime. But we don’t currently have laissez-faire capitalism, we have corporatism. So your point is moot.

Stock Manipulation, on the other hand would probably be considered actionable (as “Fraud”) under laissez-faire capitalism. So that part of this claim fails.

Funny, but I wasn’t bothered by rolling blackouts. I had emergency power supplies in place long before that happened. Besides, if the price of electricity (or any commodity) is manipulated to induce artificial scarcity, it’s probably actionable (as “Fraud”) under laissez-faire capitalism. So this part of your claim also fails.


Claim #56: “Plus, anti-trust laws are also statism and collectivism under the true definition of laissez-faire economics.”

No, under laissez-faire economics, anti-trust laws wouldn’t need to exist because they would be redundant.


Claim #57: “That's the whole point - the ‘corrective’ properties of markets only exists in theory and in fantasies. You accuse me of not having documentation, but where's any proof of these ‘corrective’ properties?

Granted that they are hypothetical, they are still the extrapolations from phenomena which have been observed in regulated markets.

Claim #58: “Greed is inherent in Capitalism - I no more need documentation for the existence of rampant insatiable desire for wealth under Capitalism than you need documentation that you breathe oxygen.”

Actually, it isn’t greed so much as “enlightened self-interest”.


Claim #59: “But, you want documentation. So fine. I was waiting for you to step into that one. I offer you the Ayn Rand society's own testimony.
www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer
‘A Utopia of Greed: Ayn Rand's Moral Defense of Capitalism’”

Following this hyperlink, we see a synopsis of a talk. The synopsis doesn’t prove your claim (although it might support it) and we can’t tell if the talk supports your claim or refutes it. As a proof of your claim (which is to say Claim #57), this is entirely inadequate. BTW, it’s not “the Ayn Rand society”; you’re close, but again off-base. If you’re going to cite an authority, at least cite the authority correctly.


Claim #60: “Oh wait, they're pushing laissez-faire as a utopia, too.”

What’s your point here? This seems like a valid statement, but it doesn’t support or refute your most recent thesis.

Claim #61: “I'm sure One-Man Junta will find that this makes no sense.”

This is a non sequitur.


Claim #62: “What regulation caused hundreds of banks to close every year in the Roaring 20s? Come on, really now, you have no rational case there.”

Banking regulations were liberalized. What lacking “rational case” are you referring to?


Claim #63: “And if ‘free markets neither view nor act as if those who are unfortunate are weak or deserving of their ills’ then please, explain where in the free market does a poor person get $250,000 to pay for a heart transplant or thousands for chemotherapy? I mean, aside from begging at a charity house and HOPING someone will give them the money to live?”

It looks like you’ve missed the point here. You tried to use the Pathetic Fallacy, and it was appropriately countered.


Claim #64: “Perhaps the reason you cannot make a productive discussion of this is laissez-faire is truly, disastrously wrong, which is why no nation on Earth wants to try it. No, not even Hong Kong of years past.”

The “Perhaps” lead-in indicates that this claim is speculation. The “productive discussion” part is self-evident to many of us, and refutes your implication.


Claim #65: “Another reason nations avoid your philosophy like a plague: you throw epic temper tantrums when someone drives a truck through the massive holes in your logic.”

You are the one that seems to get upset when your claims are refuted and/or disproven. So far, you have only been able to present two claims that are believable – so there’s no reason for me to get upset. Now how that applies to nations remains a huge mystery – it appears to be another ‘apples and oranges’ comparison.


Claim #66: “You're such an entertainingly angry little boy. Got low testosterone issues, little boy? Or maybe your mommy was an Ayn Randist and decided you needed to go hunt for your own breast milk as a baby.”

You sound jealous.


Claim #67: “I'm not questioning your intelligence - there is nothing there to question.”

This is more unsubstantiated conjecture.


Claim #68: “I'm not having any tantrums.”

The way you reply in here is pretty close to that.


Claim #69: “I'm making fun of the fact that Libertarianism is unable to admit when its principles have led to failure.”

I haven’t seen Libertarian principles lead to failure yet. If it ever happens, you may be surprised to find that I would indeed admit to it.


Claim #70: “You don't think your ideology can lead to systemic failure conditions and economic collapse.”

This is partially right, in that I do believe Libertarianism does not lead to systemic failure conditions. Economic collapse is a separate issue, with separate dynamics. Further, economic collapse is caused by economic issues. Under a Libertarian system, an economic collapse would not be caused by political issues. It is possible that an economic collapse might not occur at all (although I do not personally believe this).


Claim #71: “You think every other economic system is doomed except yours.”

Here again, you’ve made the error of switching between politics and economics. Furthermore, I have reason to believe that ALL economic systems are doomed.


Claim #72: “Every time laissez-faire is thrown into the system, something goes wrong on a legendary scale but you're right there digging for the collectivist boogeyman.”

Can you offer any valid examples of when this has happened?


Claim #73: “Your arguments suck.”

They seem to be holding together better than your claims.


Claim #74: “There's a reason why you can't sell Libertarianism to any nation on Earth: it's a fantasy based on nutjob reasoning.”

Actually, I think it’s for other reasons. Those other reasons are temporary, and will eventually disappear, so we will eventually see Libertarianism established in many countries.


Claim #75: “Now before you start hurling more invectives, little boys, go find me a Libertarian laissez-faire nation.”

You’ve been far more guilty of hurling invectives. I believe this is because you haven’t been able to adequately support your claims.


Claim #76: “My claims haven't been disproven.”

Another wrong statement. The truth of the matter is that only SOME of your claims haven’t been disproven. Many of the others have been. Much of what’s left over has been refuted if not disproven.


Claim #77: “You haven't proven me wrong about anything.”

This is a ludicrous claim, bordering on or well into delusion.


Claim #78: “Spare me your fantasies. You've made a total fool of yourself, though.

Sure. That bit about mis-stating the current month was a classic bit of foolishness. Unfortunately, it was you that made that blunder and made yourself look like a fool. Good job!


Claim #79: “No one cares what you define as credibility.”

This claim might have some veracity if we were using my definition of “credibility”. Let’s use the definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:

“cred•i•bil•i•ty (krěd'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē)
n.
1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: "America's credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders" (Henry A. Kissinger).
2. A capacity for belief: a story that strained our credibility.”
Because you make so many claims that do not elicit belief, you fail in the first category.


Claim #80: “There are too few of you to be anything but a joke.”

This “joke” has prevented some Democrats from winning their elections. That’s pretty funny.

Claim #81: “Tell me again what country uses laissez-faire economics? Oh yeah, the rest of the world thinks you're all insane.”

More unsubstantiated conjecture.


Claim #82: “And the more you talk, Kurt, the more you alienate the world.”

Here’s a clue: It’s not me that’s at fault here.
Here’s another clue: I have no need to spread bullshit or slam others in order to try and make myself fell better.

So let’s look at the tally:

Wrong claims: 42
Unsubstantiated allegation or conjecture: 11
Use of Democratic Fallacy as “proof”: 3
Use of Pathetic Fallacy as “proof”: 2
Mixing apples and oranges: 3
Non-Sequiturs: 2
Hyperboles: 2
Use of indeterminate results as “proof”: 1
Statements disproven by Tribe.net’s time and date stamp: 1
Believable statements: 2
…and some miscellaneous stuff that I didn’t tally

You have a long, LONG way to go before you’re going to start convincing people in here. Until then, the more you rail, the more you fail.