COUNTDOWN TO SHELBY SIGNOFF

View previous topic View next topic Go down

COUNTDOWN TO SHELBY SIGNOFF

Post  Shelby on Wed Nov 23, 2011 9:13 pm

First of all, Nadeem Walayat has published my essay and I have submitted the following comment to the bottom of the essay:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31717.html

Much thanks to Nadeem for publishing this article.

Partially due to my late edits, some key links in the article were not included.

For example the text in the first bullet point, "deflation of unsocialized defaults", should be linked to the following explanation of why socialize defaults will cause continued monetary inflation:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t9p570-inflation-or-deflation#4664

Also I assume that to minimize the length of the article which is already quite lengthy, Nadeem was not able to include all the images. Or perhaps it was due to copyright concerns (although my use of linked thumbnails is allowed under fair use policy at least in the USA where I am a citizen). Those who wish to see the images, may view my self-hosted copy:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

This is very likely to be my last writing at any financial site. And this is very likely to be my last comment at any financial site. I hope all the readers understand the severity of the inflation threat ahead. Imho, readers are well advised to stick with Nadeem's analysis of the inflation threat, as he seems to understand that the govts won't stop socializing the defaults.

Also the new Disclaimer that I am now putting on all my writings, was not present in the version Nadeem published, so please consider it added with this comment as follows.

Disclaimer: The above expressed opinions and citations are my own and not necessarily endorsed by this site. My opinions and citations are shared as alternative perspective for your entertainment only. I cannot prevent you from deeming that my essay is educational. I am not a professional advisor, thus I claim safe harbor and I am not responsible for any outcomes, mental state, decisions or actions you experience or make after reading this essay or cited sources.


We probably now know that Nadeem Walayat and his MarketOracle.co.uk site, is the most free market educator of all the major alternative financial sites that I am aware of. I applaud Nadeem and wish him the best.

However, I will be frank. He did remove several of the key links from my article, such as the contentious links that rebuke "peak energy" and "anthropogenic global warming", also the link about the slavery and economic failure of "future promises", and the link about "neutrinos traveling faster than the speed-of-light". Also all the links on the context of the various quotes in the article were removed (I do understand there were too many links in the article). Nevertheless I am grateful for what he did publish. And I encourage the use of his site, because he allows (most) user comments.

===================================
Here is the reason I am considering "signing off".

If neither the short-form, with a link at bottom to the long-form,

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally%20(truncated%20version).html

nor the long-form,

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

are published (without significant omissions) by any one of the following financial sites which I sent the essay for publishing, then I will never again write another word to help adults manage their investments. The only economic wisdom from me will be directed to the youth via online education lessons.

This is not a temper tantrum, but rather a rational and objective analysis, about maximizing the limited productive time I have left in my life. I don't want to spend again days, weeks, or months on preparing content (no matter how imperfect and unrefined it may be), and not have it reach the intended audience.

The reason is because I sense that financial sites are unwilling to publish an article that says that the use of usury instruments and future promises are corrupt and failure-directed. If people who run the financial sites are unwilling to admit that what they have been doing their whole life is corrupt and failure-directed, then there is no hope for the adults. It is time to let the adults to perish, and for the world move forward with the youth who will not seek the mainstream educational system.

Note: if Jason Hommel were to publish my article, this would be much appreciated, but would not qualify to keep me from ending the throwing of my pearls at swine, because Jason has told me that the adults at his 30,000 readership don't care or don't understand the concepts when he writes about them.

The article was sent for publishing to following sites. First are the sites that in the past always published my article, but so far have not done so with this article.

I went back and forth cordially with Cris Sheridan, the Senior Editor at FinancialSense.com, including a brief upbeat phone call, and despite his positive comment that my article contained some interesting points, his final explanation was that my article has too much information packed into it and was too muddled and would fly over the heads of his readers. And I proceeded to add the "actionable" bullet points to the top and truncate to short-form that made the specific points about the EU crisis, which is a topic on all their readers' minds now. He did tell me that he harbored no bias about peak oil and anthropogenic global warming, which I see a very one-sided presentation on lately at FinancialSense.com. Yet at the end of all that effort, he did not respond further and apparently did not publish the counter-balancing viewpoint presented in the truncated version of the essay. I don't know what that means. It is a violation of his free will, for me to have produced an article specifically designed and with the intent of publishing to his site. Afaik, these sites do not make commitments with their contributors to publish an article before it has been submitted. Also, humans are imperfect (myself included), and so I don't harbor anger or judgment against a specific person. We all each have a different situation we are immersed in and trying to manage as best we can. All I know is I won't "throw my pearls at swine" (as the Bible verbatim instructs not to do), because to do so would be to waste my God given talents, and to fall under the wrath of the Parable of the Talents (or in non Biblical speak, I would be causing myself economic failure for wasting my capital on non-productive endeavors). One thing that I really hate myself for lately, is wasting time, even a few minutes wasted is a massively stupid outcome that is enormously shameful for me at this point.

We see that the article is already very popular at marketoracle, so I think Cris's reasoning ("safely say that your article won't get a lot of traction on our site") is proven to be flawed:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/UserInfo-Shelby_H_Moore.html

First of all, to be fair, if I am going to reprint the email addresses of others, I should also do so for my email address, which is "Shelby Moore III" <antithesis@coolpage.com>. If anyone decides to email any the senior editors on this page, please do not spam them. Please be courteous and make your point in a rational and level-headed manner.

http://www.financialsense.com/user/7 : "Cris Sheridan" <cris@puplava.com>

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/UserInfo-Shelby_H_Moore.html : "Nadeem Walayat" <nadeem@marketoracle.co.uk>

http://www.gold-eagle.com/research/moorendx.html : "Gold-Eagle" <vronsky@comcast.net>

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/03.09/justtime.html : "Kenneth Parsons" <johnny@silverbearcafe.com>

Additionally, I did also email the following with a suggestion that they consider linking to or publishing my essay:

http://www.zerohedge.com : "Tyler Durden" <tips@zerohedge.com>

http://maxkeiser.com : "Max Keiser" <max@maxkeiser.com>

http://www.johnmauldin.com : "John Mauldin" <johnmauldin@2000wave.com>

http://solari.com : "Catherine Austin-Fitts" <communicate@solari.com>

http://www.europac.net : "Peter Schiff" <PSchiff@europac.net>

I didn't bother emailing Lew Rockwell or Gary North (apparently they are connected at the hip with Ron Paul), because I know in the past that Lew removed an article of mine that he had already published, after he didn't like what further I had to say. Suffice is to say that Libertarians are not anarchists, and the latter is what I am, and I think it is much more rational and intelligent philosophy, as explained in the essay linked above.

================================
Feedback I received on the article confirms
my desire to stop wasting my time.
================================

> 'The fundamental reason the EU crisis will not result in a disintegration
> of the union, at least not until its people significantly abandon
> collectivism, is that organisms which are unable to comprehend the
> mechanism by which they are consuming resources faster than their
> ecosystem can replenish, thus are unable to stop the mechanism before they
> perish.'
>
> Shelby, this 'sentence' is grammatically nonsensical, n'est-ce pas?
>
> Mxxx Bxxxx
>

Sorry I don't think so.

As far as I can see, the sentence is grammatically correct.

Let's analyze it.


> 'The fundamental reason the EU crisis will not result in a disintegration
> of the union,

The above sets up the subject of the hypothesis.

> at least not until its people significantly abandon
> collectivism,

The above states a possible exception to the conclusion of the hypothesis.

> is that organisms which are unable to comprehend the
> mechanism by which they are consuming resources faster than their
> ecosystem can replenish, thus are unable to stop the mechanism before they
> perish.'

The above states the conclusion of the hypothesis. It says that organisms which are incapable of comprehending that they are doing an unsustainable action, are thus unable to stop doing it before they reach the point that it depletes all the resources they need to survive.

There is an implication from the context of the article that if the EU does not disintegrate, it will be due to the socialization of defaults, i.e. collectivist redistribution of capital, and that is a continuation of the mechanism that caused the crisis in the first place.

This is another indication to me, that our public education systems have reached the state where either people can no longer read, do not have the discipline to read extensively to sufficiently engross themselves in the context, and/or don't have the critical reasoning skills to interpret implied logic.

Thanks for providing yet another confirmation to me why I am wasting my time trying to help educate the current crop of adults. Apparently, we must start all over again with the youth:

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/lorimer-wilson/2011/11/23/alf-field-is-back-the-moses-generation-and-the-future-of-gold

Sorry if the facts are a bit harsh. I think it would be disingenuous for me to sugarcoat my response.

Thanks for taking the time to comment, and I hope you will prosper.

Best,
Shelby

======================================
Positive feedback
======================================

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html#comment129168

Shelby wrote:
Hassen wrote:
Silver at 32
Honestly speaking I will read on average 10-15 on gold/silver news on a daily basis. After reading your latest and fascinating article, I figued I'd check what else you have penned. To my amazement, your silver price projection has been 90% correct, and thats only because im unsure whether the $25 low you forcasted hasnt already happened a few weeks ago with silver hitting $26.

Honestly, that was the most simplest price forcast I have EVER read, no fibonacci, no elliot wave, no esoteric timescales, just amazing, honestly, I would love to hear back from you, and your new gold/silver forecasts

I look forward to hearing from you

Hassen,

I had planned for the comment at the following link to be my last on the financial sites:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31717.html#comment129057

Since I do not want people to idolize speculation unrealistically, I will make one final comment.

I do have a current expectation about silver.

But I want to caution readers that no speculator is correct 90% of the time. Over the long-run, the best short-term market timers are apparently correct roughly about 55-60% of the time. If I am not mistaken, Nadeem had stated this rough percentage in one of his past comments.

If speculation is longer-term, the probability of success can increase, if the speculator's research is impeccable, e.g. Jim Chanos's successful Enron and China short bets.

The fundamental paradigm that caused me to make that silver speculation was noting that we were in a reflation (actually an acceleration of debasement) from the 2008 lows that was likely to run out-of-steam and require another deflationary scare in order for the politics allow another increase in the rate of "socializing defaults", i.e. printing money and other forms of re-distributive debasement.

Then I looked at the patterns of the prior cycle of reflation from the dotcom market correction lows, to the top and crash of silver around May 2006.

I also saw in various charts that the cycles between reflation and busts were accelerating, as the volatility in the financial system is accelerating. My theory is this is because the free market wants to deleverage quickly, but the politics are against deleveraging, so there is this accelerating see-saw between pumping more air in the balloon and the free market making ever bigger holes in the balloon (the bond vigilantes, etc).

I think this pattern will continue to accelerate, so I see silver bouncing back faster than it did from the end of 2008 low, i.e. Europe can't delay printing money (stealing from those who have money to sustain the masses), or the free market will quickly implode it into widespread poverty for the european masses. That is why I am currently expecting $65+ silver before January 2013. However, as can be seen on the following chart from the 2008 bottom forward, silver lags gold coming out of reflations, thus my expectation for silver might be too soon:

http://www.munknee.com/2011/11/update-of-alf-fields-elliott-wave-theory-based-analysis-of-the-future-price-of-gold/

It might be wiser to buy gold first, but the more short-term timing one tries to do, the less probability of success. I would recommend some diversification into gold. It is usually wise to have some alternative speculations in play, so one can take profits at different times and profit on different scenarios. Also the Middle East is a powder keg, with the next action possibly to be against Syria, which might cause tension with Russia and China.

Looking out several years, I expect with great confidence (80+%) that silver will reach more than $65+ sometime during that period, probably significantly higher than that. But silver will remain incredibly volatile, and this may cause many people to get dejected and ejected from their investment in silver. Silver is volatile because the PHYSICAL market is incredibly tiny, so a small amount of capital buying or selling can move it significantly. And Martin Armstrong claims personal knowledge that the bank paper and futures market for silver is a favorite area of manipulation:

http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t44p75-what-is-money#4601

I expect the ratio of gold to silver price will fall from 50 to below 30 over next years, probably as low as 15. So if you intend to hold gold long-term, silver can potentially give you double or triple the return, assuming you can hold through the volatility and sell when the ratio is low.

Sprott is reportedly planning to buy another $1.5 billion of physical silver, which he did right before that that recent runup to $48.

Or you can try to sell silver when ever it gets highly overbought. The psychological problem is that 'silverbugs' tend to get over confident and expect higher prices, when silver is moving up too fast, and thus they don't sell (or at least trade for gold). Or they get dejected and sell when the price is low or ratio to gold is high. That is the time to buy silver.

A smart trade when silver hit $48 in late April, was for gold at $1500. Then seeing gold get overbought at $1900 and the mainstream TV analyst calls for $2500 before end of the 2011(e.g. JP Morgan commodities guru), sold and repurchased both at the lows in early October.

Sites such as this one provide updates on overbought and oversold conditions. Realize that the more uncomfortable an analyst is with very high beta investments such as silver, the more likely they will buy less close to the low and sell less close to the top. For a silverbug like myself who sees a long-term bull market for silver (probably at least to 2018), I am willing to hold if I miss a turn in the market, so I don't mind holding for the next extreme if I miss one.

Off topic: I still see in recent comments on this site (and else where, e.g. protesters) that many (most?) people think regulation is a solution, and lack thereof was the cause of the current debt crisis. Or that free market capitalism somehow was tried and failed. As I explained in my most recent article, for as long as humans want to borrow money in droves, no amount of regulation will be able to escape the political capture, that comes from a fractional reserve system. And the widespread use of debt financing, mathematically requires fractional reserve banking. But one thing I have learned recently is that it is a violation of the free will of others to rebuke them constantly, when they make such comments. They have to learn from experience of repeated slavery, that regulation is not the problem nor the solution.

Hey isn't it great that we have the internet and can research and share knowledge so efficiently? Let's focus on the positive future ahead that comes from technological advance. Think of this, even the poor today have a better standard-of-living than Kings of Yore. Technological advancement is the reason.

Okay time for me to STFU (joke) and do my core skill (programming). So I will let this be the last.

Disclaimer: The above expressed opinions and citations are my own and not necessarily endorsed by this site. My opinions and citations are shared as alternative perspective for your entertainment only. I cannot prevent you from deeming that my writings are educational. I am not a professional advisor, thus I claim safe harbor and I am not responsible for any outcomes, mental state, decisions or actions you experience or make after reading this essay or cited sources.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

minutiae

Post  Shelby on Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:20 pm

Mxxx,

Sorry but you are wrong. The following is grammatically sound:

Organisms which are unable to comprehend the mechanism by which they are consuming resources faster than their ecosystem can replenish, thus are unable to stop the mechanism before they perish.

If you are arguing against the insertion of the word 'thus', I agree the sentence would be sound without it.

Adding the predicate remains sound as follows:

The fundamental reason the EU crisis will not result in a disintegration of the union is that organisms which are unable to comprehend the mechanism by which they are consuming resources faster than their ecosystem can replenish, thus are unable to stop the mechanism before they perish.

You are wasting my time.

I am not disputing that the entire article could be improved. I wrote it over a sleepless night, made numerous content changes that were not related to copy editing, and was editing it in WordPad with all of the HTML formatting cluttering my view.

Also I never claimed to be a great technical writer. Perhaps you missed the link the in document about "'g' in IQ" where I pointed out that my IQ is probably very high except in the area of human language composition. Didn't you know that human language grammar is ambiguous, so there isn't an equation:

// Context-free grammars have the property that they are never ambiguous,
// i.e. there is always only one deterministic parse tree for each input.
// http://cs.union.edu/~striegnk/courses/nlp-with-prolog/html/node37.html#l6a.subsec.enggram
// Grammar is context-free because the productions of a rule do not
// depend on the context where the rule's name is referenced in the grammar, i.e.
// each production has only the rule name as the selector on its left-hand side,
// and not any of the contexts (i.e. other rule names and terminals) which
// follow the rule name where it appears in productions.
//
// To achieve context-free, if any of the rule's productions contain epsilon in
// their first-set, elements of the follow-set (i.e. context) for a rule name
// have to be distinct, because since the rule is optional, these follow-sets
// join the first-set of the rule (in addition to the first-set of the productions).
// Thus the elements of the follow-set also have to be distinct from the first-set
// of the productions of the rule.

And who would want to invest a lot of effort into perfecting such a document, considering that the site butchers the formatting compared to what was submitted:

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

And with such an important concept that was presented, the most intelligent comment you can make is some dubious pedantic operational semantic?

If you had read further, you would know that I am designing a computer language.

Graduate to higher level semantic concerns, they impact exponentially more.

http://copute.com/index.html.orig (see the Skeptical? section)

Please do not waste my time. If you have something productive to suggest, then I am amiable.

Copy editing has been known to drive people insane. If you would like to donate your time for free to help copy edit the articles before they are published, then speak up.

> [Boy! It sure was hard to read! I gave up on your article before the end
> of
> the first paragraph!]

Logic fail. The article was hard to read, but you didn't read it.

Best,
Shelby




> Gee, I admire your courage! Yeh, it is grammatically unsound. Here goes:
>
> one: identify the nature of the grammatical structure. It is a sentence in
> which a ‘that-clause’ is embedded in the predicate, as in ‘The reason that
> I
> can’t go to the movies with you is that I must finish my homework.’ Note
> that the ‘equation’ of such a sentence is: independent clause as subject +
> is + that + an independent clause in the predicate.
>
> two: remove the parenthetical material, which is ‘at least not until its
> people significantly abandon collectivism.’ As you well know (I sure do.
> I’m
> a retired technical writing tutor . . . ), a sentence remains sound either
> with or without its parenthetical material; but in parsing a sentence,
> it’s
> always helpful to ‘lift’ out the parentheticals, which makes it easier to
> identify the sentence’s constituent parts.
>
> three: note that the independent-clause-as-subject is sound.
>
> four: note that the ‘is’ and the ‘that’ are correct.
>
> five: note that the subject of the independent-clause-in-the-predicate –
> that is, ‘organisms which are unable to comprehend the mechanism by which
> they are consuming resources faster than their ecosystem can replenish’ –
> is
> sound.
>
> six: note that the predicate of the independent-clause-in-the-predicate –
> that is, ‘are unable to stop the mechanism before they perish’ – has been
> separated from its subject by a comma and the word ‘thus.’ [You were
> trying,
> I guess, to conjoin two clauses with the conjunctive adverb ‘thus,’ but
> got
> tangled up. Clarification upon request.]
>
> Therefore . . . the ‘sentence’ is grammatically unsound, n’est-ce pas?
> [Boy! It sure was hard to read! I gave up on your article before the end
> of
> the first paragraph!]
>
> Mxxx Bxxxx


===========================
> Ask him, "What's the definition of 'thus'". He is not applying the
> definition of thus that means 'consequently'.

He may some some morsel of truth from some pedantic POV. Perhaps there is a way to rewrite that paragraph so that it doesn't have such a long run-on sentence. And thus to make the paragraph easier to read. I frankly didn't put any effort into that. I wrote what flowed stream-of-consciousness from my head as fast as could type.

I simply don't think human language is that well defined. Human language grammer is ambiguous (not context free) and the special rules are in flux as they are defacto changed by popular use. It is an enormous time waster, except in important permanent literary works.

The bottom line is do the readers understand. And was the effort applied, justified by the potential return on investment.

The answer is that most readers are not going to understand concept of the article, no matter how well I compose the language in it.

Those who care enough and are smart enough to get the concepts, are not going to get hung up on the fringe minutiae of esoteric grammar.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

holiday every day

Post  Shelby on Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:36 am

> Sorry, I don't have time right now to read the revised essay. I think you
> are right to focus on your programming and your ideas for online
> education. I would wish you a Happy Thanksgiving but assume that you no
> longer celebrate. I don't really do much myself with my family. At least
> we enjoyed some gorgeous weather here today. Hope the weather and food
> are fine where you are at too and your kids are well.

Good to hear about the weather. Hope my mom also got some north of you in Bellingham, WA.

Here in the Philippines, people celebrate eating together every day. And the weather is always nice If it is too hot, drive to the mountain, and if it is too rainy, drive to the coast.

Thank you for the well wishes. I did format the article better and expound on the key points, but it remains an imperfect document.

http://www.coolpage.com/commentary/economic/shelby/Understand%20Everything%20Fundamentally.html

I wanted to get that article out there, because I didn't want to think later "what if". Thus far, 1284 people have opened the page on marketoracle.

There is your butterfly effect point that applies to such effort. I noticed that Gary North and others immediately copied my point that EU would not disintegrate and would double-down on socialized defaults:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31740.html

However, I agree that I can probably have a larger effect with technical work.

I am very much sick of all the minutiae of interfacing with adults over economic models. Too much blogging and not enough coding. STFU (joke).

Thanks again for trying to sooth my angst. I am just irritable from having o write that. As you know, I was very resistant to writing it. But I don't think anyone else in the world would have.

I think it is much better for me to focus on what I can accomplish than spend my time trying to tell others what should or couldn't be. Everyone should have their free will to think what they want. The bottom line is what happens in the market. I need to get back into the market of accomplishing things. Too much talk! I feel horrible!

Thanks again for trying to soothe. I will feel better about myself when I am back to being an engineer.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

run-on sentence, not unmatched subject & predicate

Post  Shelby on Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:45 am

Hi Mxxx,

> Shelby, it’s not ‘esoteric grammar.’

I am asserting that your interpretation of the rules of grammar are esoteric. I am not saying your rules are not a superior form. I recognized the run-on sentence when I wrote it. I inserted the 'thus' as a quick band-aid. Maybe you can try to rewrite that paragraph, after you understand the concept presented (which apparently you do not currently understand, see below). As far as I can see from a quick glance, it isn't quickly trivial to rewrite that paragraph to avoid the run-on construction.

> It’s absolutely basic that a sentence
> have both a subject and a predicate.*

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/subjpred.html

Subject:

The fundamental reason

Predicate:

is that organisms which are unable to comprehend the mechanism by which they are consuming resources faster than their ecosystem can replenish, thus are unable to stop the mechanism before they perish.

The problem with the above sentence is one of style. It is a run-on sentence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-on_sentence


> To suggest that you don’t care that
> the only people who will comprehend your articles are those who are both
> clever and dedicated enough to slog through your prose is, I suggest, a
> very
> strange perspective for a writer to have.

Socialism.

They didn't pay me to write a perfect article. I produced what I could with the time I could allocate. I earn nothing from that article. I probably don't even gain any networking or synergy benefits w.r.t. my core vocation.

This is a reason why I want to create the technology where any one can edit any article on the internet and then viewers can vote modifications up and down.

Do not worry, I am working hard to make it so you don't have to email the author. You will be able to make your changes without losing time in acrimonious debate.

And this discussion is slowing me down from what I think you and the world needs. Now do you understand socialism destroys the future? If not, please read my article.

>
> Yes, language is an imperfect instrument; and so are the people
> who use it.

Agreed for the grammar of human languages. Computer languages can be context-free grammars. However, higher-level denotational semantics are never perfect, due to the nature of the entropic force, which is embodied in theorems such as Russell's Paradox, Godel's theorem, Halting theorem, etc.. They all state the cover the same fundamental concept, which is essentially that recursion (or permutation) is infinite.


> The trick is to know so much about how language works that the
> meaning of your writing ‘jumps up’ off the page into your reader’s mind.


I already wrote to you that the focus of my life has not been on perfecting my writing skills. I got an A+ in freshman university English composition, and that was enough for me. I've since focused my life on the engineering, logic, and science side. I spend very little time thinking about the quality of my prose.

P.S. I had a 4.0 GPA at L.S.U. For example in my freshmam Chemistry class, I got a computer printout that said was ranked #5 out of all the sections, I guess this was roughly about 1000 students. Louisiana State University:

https://www.math.lsu.edu/people/professors


> Old-fashioned academics scorned this approach, and their texts were read
> only by the members of the academy. Good riddance to them. Other writers,
> like Shaw and Orwell, took enormous pains to learn to write well, and
> their
> ideas took the world by storm. The new-fashioned academics – Steven Pinker
> comes immediately to mind – also take pains to present logical ideas in
> clear sentences, and they are also enormously influential. Don’t you want
> to
> be influential?


I want to create the tools that help others be influential. I also believe that uncoordinated cooperation will enable the division-of-labor to be maximized.

It is inefficient to try to judge and change everyone to be the best writers. It is more efficient to help each person maximize the skill set where they are already strongest.


>
> Now, your taxes pay my pension; and for this I am genuinely
> grateful.


That will end. Pensions will be worthless within 10 years.


> So, if you will get down off your high horse, I’ll teach you to
> write like an angel. (Okay, you can pay me in books. I’m short of books
> for
> my studies.)


I appreciate very spirit of your offer. However, if I can succeed, I would rather create technology that you can use to help teach millions of others, and thus potentially help you get rich doing so. Here is a 75 year old US national champion pole vaulter:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3957

Of course I wish I was naturally a more gifted writer. But it would be an enormous sin for me to focus my energies in an area where I am not most gifted. This life is of limited duration, and we must maximize the skill that we are most tuned for. My tuned skill set is definitely higher-level algorithms (semantics) and programming.


> * Actually, at risk of starting a second acrimonious debate, even after
> the
> grammar of the sentence has been repaired, the idea still makes no sense.
> That is why I chipped you in the first place. I have, by now, read the
> sentence fifty times. Both the grammar and the idea of the sentence are
> unsound: if organisms (people) are so dumb that they destroy their
> environment, they will necessarily perish also.


I was correct that you didn't understand the article conceptually.

The entire point is that most organisms are too dumb to stop. And that is why they perish. And thus I expect this outcome for the people who are dependent on the financial coattails of any form of collectivism (in the current financial system). Sorry to bring bad news, pensions included.

That was the reason I wrote the article. To alert people like yourself to my vision of the future outcome.

I will not violate your free will. I respect your right to disagree. The market will tell us who was correct.

-Shelby

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

No matching subject & predicate, from a famous professor

Post  Shelby on Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:39 am

An example of a grammatically unsound sentence follows.

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-black/2011/11/25/banking-system-rotten-to-the-core

"In the Enron era, always frauds from the very top of the organization, and in this crisis the frauds came from the very top of the organization again."

Granted it is a transcript from a speech.

I assume he meant to say:

"In the Enron era, the frauds always came from the very top of the organization, and in this crisis the frauds came from the very top of the organization again."

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Wow! Gold-eagle published it!

Post  Shelby on Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:04 am

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/moore112311.html

Didn't expect that.

So I guess that means I can continue making financial comments :eek:

Seriously though, I need to bury myself in programming, so if you don't hear from me, it is a good thing.

I am very happy that two major sites published the article. This exceeded my expectation.

So my blind faith in Financialsense was misplaced. They were the only site not to publish it, after I had worked with them initially.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

continued discussion about my writing style & grammar

Post  Shelby on Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:35 pm

That is an interesting explanation-- it fits with my understanding. It argues for me to write less on things which are not worthy of my extensive effort. And it may explain why I prefer verbal interaction for complex subject matter.

I guess I don't view blogging as permanent writing. I figure it ends up dated, noisy soup, which decays in relevance and thus will get purged (e.g. by Google PageRank) over time.

Here follows two compositions I wrote today from scratch covering complex subject matter, wherein I care very much about the reader's comprehension. Note this is an unfinished work, more items will be added, some of this was written towards the end of an 18 hour workday, and thus is yet to be copy edited:

http://copute.com/dev/docs/Copute/ref/scala.html
http://stackoverflow.com/q/8279878

hehe, I found an error in your reply:

"It is just not so that the reader is responsible"

"It is just not so, that the reader is responsible"

Thanks for the educational feedback.

As always, my warm regards,
Shelby

> Shelby, my work here is done. You are attending to structure. It is just
> not
> so that the reader is responsible to crack the code of the writer, no
> matter
> how clever she might be. Rather, the onus lies with the writer. You have
> solicited your reader’s time. Full stop.
>
>
>
> Just a note: the spoken and the written have a fantastic and complex and
> much-argued-over relationship. You’d need a background in things like
> extraposition and topicality and Chomsky’s UG to delve into this. Suffice
> it
> to say that – and you can practise this – the tones and emphases of spoken
> language, which punctuational devices represent, are just far more complex
> than mere punctuation can provide for. The result is that spoken language
> can be far more fragmented than written language while remaining easily
> comprehensible – that is the reason that language has for centuries had a
> privileged place (and transcipts of dialogues really this).
>
>
>
> What you write is the essence of you. It doesn’t improve with age. Imagine
> that a teenage grandchild of yours might one day wander into the
> loungeroom,
> and begin reading aloud something that you presented to the world thirty
> or
> forty years ago. You can easily imagine the look in the child’s eyes if
> you
> said, ‘Oh, well, umm, yeh – I wrote it after a sleepless night . . . ‘

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Others now writing similar expectations as my recently published article

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:33 am

Now more and more people are becoming aware that the defaults will be socialized over a period until 2018. The world will slave away for 7 years, just as the Bible predicts (the period of slavery allowed in the Bible):

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31774.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31777.html

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

ECB logic

Post  Shelby on Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:22 am

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31774.html#comment129820

Shelby wrote:
gAnton,

From your "degrees of freedom" statement, thank you I surmise you read my recent article:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31717.html

Well I said I wasn't going to comment again, or violate the free will of others by constantly correcting them:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23786.html#comment129195

However, since I see that you are using the terminology from my article, but you may have missed the key point, I will clarify one final time.

In my article, I provided a link to an idea for a method by which the ECB can achieve a "socialization of defaults" (i.e. money printing) without 100% acceptance of treaty change. There are probably other mechanisms. The overwhelming political demand by the masses of Europe is to not implode into poverty and thus to steal from those who have networth (via the hidden tax of monetary inflation), so as to stretch out the defaults over a period of years. This is defaults by redistribution of wealth. In many cases, those who still have their networth in bonds and houses, are some of the ones who are gradually losing their networth to this redistribution scam.

The ECB has already overweighted their portfolio of sovereign bonds (via secondary market purchases) towards the PIIGS. Thus they can simply threaten to unwind this (selling the bonds of those that don't ratify and buy the bonds of those that do) in order to force economic implosion on those countries that won't ratify a treaty change. Perhaps they will make an "scorched earth" (extreme implosion into poverty) example out of Greece, in order to scare all the rest of the countries into voting for a treaty change. That might not be necessary. Goldman has installed its people at the heads of the govts probably to facilitate this process. Germany and France have sufficient voting rights (weighted by GDP) at the ECB to control ECB policy in this regard.

My understanding is that the ECB can dump the bonds of those who don't vote for the treaty change, while buying the bonds of those that do, and can do this during the time period in which it takes to get the treaty ratification completed. So we are likely to see incredible volatility in the markets during this process, but the overall trend of the rollercoaster ride will be inflation.

Disclaimer: The above expressed opinions and citations are my own and not necessarily endorsed by this site. My opinions and citations are shared as alternative perspective for your entertainment only. I cannot prevent you from deeming that my writings are educational. I am not a professional advisor, thus I claim safe harbor and I am not responsible for any outcomes, mental state, decisions or actions you experience or make after reading this or cited sources.

Shelby
Admin

Posts : 3107
Join date : 2008-10-21

View user profile http://GoldWeTrust.com

Back to top Go down

Re: COUNTDOWN TO SHELBY SIGNOFF

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum