killer

[Insert ambiguous comment, as not to disclose my political alliances]

Quote:
[Insert ambiguous comment, as not to disclose my political alliances]

How about this:

"I voted Republican this year; the Democrats left a bad taste in my mouth."
-- Monica Lewinsky

Quote:
I figure who wins will have a big effect on business and the economy and hence, our hobby. Hard to buy expensive gear when one is either unemployed or taxed.

You are employed but not taxed now? Whoa. How do you do that?

Quote:

Quote:
I figure who wins will have a big effect on business and the economy and hence, our hobby. Hard to buy expensive gear when one is either unemployed or taxed.

You are employed but not taxed now? Whoa. How do you do that?

Can you say "eshol ploo xta" bass ackwards?

heres a hint: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13908_3-9982672-59.html

Yes, Scott, we can say, "tax loopholes." I doubt if any IRS agent would be fooled by the "code," but if this makes you feel more witty in your foolhood, then by all means go for it.

I like paying a lot of taxes. It means I had a great year trading. I would rather be taxed 30% of something than 0% of nothing. Or, worse, getting a refund by declaring trading losses. That's no fun.

Now, evaluating how that tax money is spent is another story. But that is why we have periodic elections.

"If a fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise."
--William Blake

Quote:
Yes, Scott, we can say, "tax loopholes." I doubt if any IRS agent would be fooled by the "code," but if this makes you feel more witty in your foolhood, then by all means go for it.

I like paying a lot of taxes. It means I had a great year trading. I would rather be taxed 30% of something than 0% of nothing. Or, worse, getting a refund by declaring trading losses. That's no fun.

Now, evaluating how that tax money is spent is another story. But that is why we have periodic elections.

"If a fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise."
--William Blake

Sure. But wouldn't you rather have a good year and not pay taxes?

Quote:
Yes, Scott, we can say, "tax loopholes." I doubt if any IRS agent would be fooled by the "code," but if this makes you feel more witty in your foolhood, then by all means go for it.

"That's a joke, son"... Read the topic. "Pay attention, boy"...
-- Foghorn Leghorn (split)

Quote:
I like paying a lot of taxes.

"I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there! If you don't think that's funny you can get the hell outta here..."
-- Larry the Cable Guy

Quote:
"If a fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise."
--William Blake

"The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
-- William Shakespeare

Quote:
Wall street bankers furious at the failure of the $700,000,000,000.00 Bailout converged on the capitol in protest.

(Thanks Ken)

This year, as things now stand, I will pay over $300,000 in taxes. Gratefully. This means I made more than 3 times that, trading in perhaps the most volatile environment in the history of the markets.

Part of it was luck, and part of it was skill. I will probably never figure out which was which, in terms of exact percentages. Still, I have been at this for more than 30 years, so maybe I keep learning.

But. And I repeat. I would rather pay taxes on winners than deduct them on losers. If you prefer otherwise, you either can't multiply and divide, or you are stuck on zero.

Render unto Caesar. And enjoy the other 70%.

Thinking and becoming are worlds apart. Shakespeare knew and dramatized that. Sophomoric cliches in 9th grade Latin and bardic quotes out of context merely highlight your motley, not your progress towards wisdom.

But, do persist. There is always hope...

Ferraris? Too much maintenance. I'll take my Honda and spend the overage on good wine.

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

"better a motley fool than a garish drool"
-- Young Mr. Bartlett Jr.

We know you got some bucks but do you have to keep reminding us in every post? Sheesh, get over yourself :-$

BTW you should stay away from logic; it's not your best suit.

Quote:
Render unto Caesar. And enjoy the other 70%.

Truly oxymoronic coming from you.

Oh and another thing; your literary understanding is quite limited for someone of your professed ilk. Would you mind providing some dates in your bio so I can do a little research? What foreign languages are you fluent in?

"It is often tragic to see how blatantly a man bungles his own life and the lives of others yet remains totally incapable of seeing how much the whole tragedy originates in himself, and how he continually feeds it and keeps it going."
-- Carl Jung

Speaking of percentages...

Scott, what percentage of your posts are non-adversarial?

Quote:
Speaking of percentages...

Scott, what percentage of your posts are non-adversarial?

Interesting question.

It does seem like I spend a fair amount of postage in defense. What would you say causes this?

Would you say this post is adversarial?

Even being a proponent of something puts one in an adversarial position, no?

I do enjoy a good debate. I am predisposed to participate in controversial topics. I am passionate about certain (too many) things. I am (too) quick to defend myself (and others). I do believe the best defense is a strong offense.

If I had to guess, 70% adversarial maybe more?

In keeping with the spirit of Halloween and political banter, here's
a classic from way back. We can all enjoy this one.

Bob Hope on Zombies

Quote:
In keeping with the spirit of Halloween and political banter, here's
a classic from way back. We can all enjoy this one.

Bob Hope on Zombies

That is a classic.

Let me see. "Render unto Caesar and enjoy the other 70%" is "oxymoronic"? Explain how that works, O great logician. You work, you make money, you pay taxes (or, believe me, Caesar will find you -- who needs the hassle?), and you enjoy the rest. Sounds pretty logical to me.

If you aren't paying taxes, you're not big enough for the IRS to worry about. Most likely, neither am I, but I remain cautious.

Let me see, again. You want to "research" my academic credentials. Goliath hunting? How flattering. Okay, fair enough. Just suffer through my miserable dissertation, if you can stay awake through 300+ pages of boring academic drivel. Of all the millions of dissertations around, you could count the number of interesting ones on the proverbial one hand. Mine, alas, is not among them. You have my name, which is all that is necessary for searching out the dissertation. But, if you need a date, try 1978-1979. "Lost in Light" is the title. The line is from Lionel Johnson, and the study focuses on his poetry and Yeats's poetic theories. Gawd-awful stuff. But, be my guest.

I repeat: neither you nor Jung (nor any of the other authors of the Bartlett's-worthy one-liners you dredge up) can judge my happiness, or my influence on the happiness of others.

Now, put it to rest.

Quote:
Let me see. "Render unto Caesar and enjoy the other 70%" is "oxymoronic"? Explain how that works, O great logician. You work, you make money, you pay taxes (or, believe me, Caesar will find you -- who needs the hassle?), and you enjoy the rest. Sounds pretty logical to me.

Quote:
Let me see, again. You want to "research" my academic credentials. Goliath hunting? How flattering. Okay, fair enough. Just suffer through my miserable dissertation, if you can stay awake through 300+ pages of boring academic drivel. Of all the millions of dissertations around, you could count the number of interesting ones on the proverbial one hand. Mine, alas, is not among them. You have my name, which is all that is necessary for searching out the dissertation. But, if you need a date, try 1978-1979. "Lost in Light" is the title. The line is from Lionel Johnson, and the study focuses on his poetry and Yeats's poetic theories. Gawd-awful stuff. But, be my guest.

If you have the degree, great. UCI (currently) does not offer a PhD in "Literary Theory". Also their doctoral program (currently) requires fluency in two foreign languages. If this was in effect at that time it will be easy enough to see how you do in this regard.

I am waiting to hear back from them about the time frame you mention. Again if you have it great. It just seems like there are some elements in your posts that put this in question.

Quote:
I repeat: neither you nor Jung (nor any of the other authors of the Bartlett's-worthy one-liners you dredge up) can judge my happiness, or my influence on the happiness of others.

You keep holding on to a false premise that your happiness is being judged. It's not. However, since you continually want to make it an issue this would suggest some psychological element, hence, Carl Jung.

The point of the quote is here: "bungles" because the premise is false and here "...how he continually feeds it and keeps it going..." because you do keep it going.

A quote is appropriate when it is applicable to the issue. It can be used to summarize a point very succinctly.

I'm just calling it as I see it.

Quote:
Now, put it to rest.

We're almost there "Dr." Clifton.

I see Stephen must have turned on the asshole bug light. It's working.
Where do they come from?

Buddha, thank you, old friend. This speaks volumes. I'm on it.

You and I are both music lovers. We agree on much, when it comes to the mysteries involved in getting live sound into the living room (an impossibility, but why not keep trying?), and we disagree on much, when it comes to value.

Do not mistake my silence, for the next day or two, for acquiescence. This is a crucial time in the markets. Now, being retired, the markets are my vocation, avocation, and focus. Opportunities abound. Generational opportunities. I have to sort out my trading strategies and set risk/rewards parameters. All of this extraneous bullshit comes at a bad time, but that is life.

As I said, above, I'm all over this one. But I need a day or two.

I hope you are doing well during hard times. I hope you are getting at least three good screws a week. I hope you are successful (you always seem to be) at sniffing out the best live music within reasonable driving distance.

Cheers, happy tunes, and better wine.

Monty, thank you. As I said to Buddha, I'm all over this one. There are limits to the anonymity offered by the web.

Happy tunes, and better dreams.

Quote:
I see Stephen must have turned on the asshole bug light. It's working.
Where do they come from?

He comes to this thread, starts making condescending remarks aimed at me, I defend myself and this makes me an asshole?

If I have missed the mark or otherwise become too offensive just point it out and I'll back off.

Quote:
Monty, thank you. As I said to Buddha, I'm all over this one. There are limits to the anonymity offered by the web.

Wow, I have really struck a nerve on this one. This alone suggests I have hit a soft spot.

Are we moving to veiled threats and invading others privacy? Your info is public mine is not.

If you choose to continue on this new path, my "anonymity" is thin at best and I'll make it even easier for you. We'll see where it goes from there...

However, I have no axe to grind with you. If you agree to stop nipping at my heels I'll drop the whole thing.

Where we go from here is up to you.

You know, as long as we are off topic, there is a GREAT political stats site that is actually a futures market where people can trade shares in candidates, outcomes, etc.

It's run by the Iowa Business School.

Link to the current Presidential markets.

I linked to a price page, but you can look at predicted vote percentages, Congress, etc.

They have an excellent track record. I think, at the 48 hour mark before an election, they have never been off by more than one half or one percentage point.

Looks like "Senator Franken," for better or worse!

Cheers.

In Trade has a market, as well.

Scott, I'll have to string this out over a couple of posts. I wrote a complete reply, but it timed out.

First, the logic of my 2 statements, " Render unto Caesar. And enjoy the other 70%," within the context of my discourse. This is simply a statement and a completion of the statement. There is no apparent self- contradiction involved. The 2 statements assume 100% income, 30% taxation, and personal use of the other 70%. My Webster's defines "oxymoron" thusly: " Rhet. a figure of speech by which a locution produces an effect by a seeming self-contradiction, as in 'cruel kindness' or 'to make haste slowly.' "

Obviously the second part of my statement doesn't "self-contradict" the first at all.

Now, you go off on the relationship of my 2 statements to Christ's 2 statements. Again, there is no self-contradiction. This larger relationship is partially allusive ("Render unto Caesar") and partly ironic. "Irony" may be the term you were searching for -- certainly, there is no oxymoronic relationship, even in the more general sense you were attempting to invoke. Actually, "oxymoron" is a rhetorical term (that is, "producing an effect," above). There must be two terms that begin as overt self-contradictions, within context, but suggest a covert linkage upon further examination.

This is too piddling to argue over. The only reason I mention it concerns your use of it to accuse me of not being capable of the kind of "logic" required of a PhD. I'll get to this in a subsequent post, because I fear I am about to time out.

Quote:
First, the logic of my 2 statements, " Render unto Caesar. And enjoy the other 70%," within the context of my discourse. This is simply a statement and a completion of the statement. There is no apparent self- contradiction involved. The 2 statements assume 100% income, 30% taxation, and personal use of the other 70%. My Webster's defines "oxymoron" thusly: " Rhet. a figure of speech by which a locution produces an effect by a seeming self-contradiction, as in 'cruel kindness' or 'to make haste slowly.' "
Obviously the second part of my statement doesn't "self-contradict" the first at all.
Now, you go off on the relationship of my 2 statements to Christ's 2 statements. Again, there is no self-contradiction. This larger relationship is partially allusive ("Render unto Caesar") and partly ironic. "Irony" may be the term you were searching for -- certainly, there is no oxymoronic relationship, even in the more general sense you were attempting to invoke. Actually, "oxymoron" is a rhetorical term (that is, "producing an effect," above). There must be two terms that begin as overt self-contradictions, within context, but suggest a covert linkage upon further examination.

Ok, fair enough..

In the context that you are putting it in you are correct. However, My inital comment stated "Truly oxymoronic coming from you" and was taking into account your previous statement in this thread "I enjoy paying taxes". It seemed to me that you had developed a concept where these were related.

As for the definition I was going for the broader sense:

Merriam Webster Online dictionary:
oxymorinic
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness) ; broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Quote:
This is too piddling to argue over. The only reason I mention it concerns your use of it to accuse me of not being capable of the kind of "logic" required of a PhD.

You started out on the education issue with "Sophomoric cliches in 9th grade".

I suppose I could have retorted with something along the lines "Jane, you miserable slut...". instead I went the way I went.

Quote:
I'll get to this in a subsequent post, because I fear I am about to time out.

I use word to help in this regard (also helps with spelling)

I forgot to mention that there are many exegetical possibilities for the referential meaning of Christ's cryptic comments besides yours. To see a few of them, read Frank Kermode's The Genesis of Secrecy.

Now, the story at Irvine. When UCI first began their PhD program, in the mid-1960's, they attracted a couple of heavyweights in the field of Literary Criticism -- Hazard Adams (a Yeats and Blake scholar who later became my dissertation chairman) and Murray Krieger (a more broadly theoretical critic). They wanted to go in a different direction from more traditional graduate school English Departments. They wanted doctoral dissertations to show some command of literary theory. So they recruited staff who, in addition to their more traditional biographical and historical areas of specialization, were interested in larger, theoretical issues. The degree itself would say "English," as per the wishes of the UC system, but the hiring recommendations for graduates by the staff would specify the "literary theory" emphasis. My dissertation displayed this emphasis. Later, the department attracted luminaries such as Kermode, Northrop Frye, and Jacques Derrida. I sat in on a Post-Doctoral Seminar with Derrida in the 1980's, but I was unable to finish because I had to move to Chicago -- I had a job offer for $125,000 a year (as an off-exchange trader, but I still had to be in close physical proximity to the CBOT), and I was tired of being a starving eternal student/beginning teacher.

As the political climate changed, and grant money flowed to schools catering to the multi-cultural emphases at the time, Irvine eventually dropped the "Literary Theory" emphasis. Which is how things stand now.

My degree states "English" on it, as required by the UC system, but its emphasis was theoretical, as per the older specialty demanded by Krieger and Adams. The move from post-structuralism to multi-culturalism didn't show up on the faces of the degree certificates, but the emphasis shifted, and now, the degree is in "English."

My two languages were French and German. Proof of fluency was left up to individual departments. In my department, you showed up in a testing setting on a Saturday, and you translated passages chosen by the staff. My tasks involved translating one of Rilke's "Sonnets to Orpheus," and a scene from "Le Misanthrope." I had to preserve the sonnet form originally written by Rilke, and it was the most demanding 2 hours I have ever experienced. I am not "fluent" in the sense that I could carry on an enlightened conversation with natives of either culture, but, if you dropped me off by parachute in either France or Germany, I would be fluent with a month or two.

My degree is valid. It has opened many doors for me, over the years, and finishing it was the best decision I ever made.

I tried to contact the university over the weekend, without any specific success in the area of finding an address or a telephone number for the verification of credentials. I'll try again on a weekday.

Or, if Stephen (Buddha?) wouldn't mind, I can simply mail my degree certificate, have either verify it, and have it returned to me.

Obviously, I wouldn't be able to trust you with it.

More to come.

I see no reason to chase the education issue further. Especially in light of your response to the logic question. PhD's in my experience tend to be very myopic in their intellectual focus and your response highlighted this perfectly.

I have no hidden agenda. You, however, came to this thread and immediately started making off topic and condescending remarks regarding education aimed at me.

Why is this?

Quote:
I forgot to mention that there are many exegetical possibilities for the referential meaning of Christ's cryptic comments besides yours. To see a few of them, read Frank Kermode's The Genesis of Secrecy.

This is also good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar...

OK, so, speaking of Wikipedia, I invented a Wikipedia game.

Hold a piece of paper up so it can cover your screen below the title of the Wikipedia article.

Once you get the location right, you can lift the paper/cardboard back up and hit "Random Article," which is the bottom choice of the left upper box of blue things to choose. Then you cover the screen again.

When the topic comes up, you have to convince the other players that you know what the topic is about; showing some degree of knowledge, scored as acceptable or not by the crowd.

We play in "innings," and each player continues until "missing" three topics.

Each corectly identified topic counts as one run.

Quote:
. . . .you have to convince the other players that you know what the topic is about . . .

Sounds fun.

But how do you deal with the fact that those contributing to Wikipedia often do not know about the topic?

Quote:

Quote:
. . . .you have to convince the other players that you know what the topic is about . . .

Sounds fun.

But how do you deal with the fact that those contributing to Wikipedia often do not know about the topic?

Well, when it comes to B

You don't know B