And charitable donations are just like shark attacks in every important particular?

For the record I know perfectly well what your main point is, since you started a thread here about it a couple of years or so ago and we exchanged tens of thousands of words on the subject.

Not sure where you get this "we" thing, but nobody is stopping you from setting up an experiment. I'll watch.

Thommo wrote:And charitable donations are just like shark attacks in every important particular?

For the record I know perfectly well what your main point is, since you started a thread here about it a couple of years or so ago and we exchanged tens of thousands of words on the subject.

This is my first thread on the subject of using FB groups to test and compare steering mechanisms.

laklak wrote:Not sure where you get this "we" thing, but nobody is stopping you from setting up an experiment. I'll watch.

There won't be much to watch, if I can't persuade enough people to participate.

Xerographica wrote:

laklak wrote:Not sure where you get this "we" thing, but nobody is stopping you from setting up an experiment. I'll watch.

There won't be much to watch, if I can't persuade enough people to participate.

Well, you could always try paying people to participate in your experiment. I know that psych researchers do this. Who knows, you might learn something.



I know you keep trying to tell me that it's to my benefit to learn the outcome of this experiement, but frankly, you're just not selling that one. I'll bet you're better at buying than you are at selling, and that tells us a lot about why you think you've come up with such a fucking great research proposal.

Xerographica wrote:
This is my first thread on the subject of using FB groups to test and compare steering mechanisms.

You really are shit at selling. Really, absolute shit.

Cito di Pense, I'm basically trying to sell people the opportunity to have their most cherished beliefs disproved.

Xerographica wrote:Cito di Pense, I'm basically trying to sell people the opportunity to have their most cherished beliefs disproved.

You don't know what people believe. For that, you have to carry out a survey.

What you're doing here is broadcasting your intention to troll skepticism. And, you know, we've seen that movie, too.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Cito di Pense, I'm basically trying to sell people the opportunity to have their most cherished beliefs disproved.

You don't know what people believe. For that, you have to carry out a survey.

Virtually everybody believes in democracy.

Cito di Pense wrote:What you're doing here is broadcasting your intention to troll skepticism. And, you know, we've seen that movie, too.

If I go on a Christian forum and tell them to test their most cherished beliefs, then I'm a hero. If I tell people on this forum to test their most cherished beliefs, then I'm a troll.

And if people tell you that the data you seek to collect is already available elsewhere, then it's them, not you, who have their eyes closed to gathering data? Amiright?

Xerographica wrote:

Thommo wrote:And charitable donations are just like shark attacks in every important particular?

For the record I know perfectly well what your main point is, since you started a thread here about it a couple of years or so ago and we exchanged tens of thousands of words on the subject.

This is my first thread on the subject of using FB groups to test and compare steering mechanisms.

Right. So you're asking me to believe this is an entirely new topic, not merely an extension of the same thing you've been promoting on dozens of sites for literally years. And you're asking me to believe this as you repeat, almost verbatim, numerous things you said in that previous thread.

If you can't be honest, I don't see much point in conversing.

Xerographica wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Cito di Pense, I'm basically trying to sell people the opportunity to have their most cherished beliefs disproved.

You don't know what people believe. For that, you have to carry out a survey.

Virtually everybody believes in democracy.

Is that like believing in the sun?

Cito di Pense wrote:What you're doing here is broadcasting your intention to troll skepticism. And, you know, we've seen that movie, too.

If I go on a Christian forum and tell them to test their most cherished beliefs, then I'm a hero.

What sort of cartoon world do you live in?

If I tell people on this forum to test their most cherished beliefs, then I'm a troll.

You're welcome to start testing cherished beliefs any time you like, when you can find them. Leave it to a troll to proclaim their declaration of intent as heroic

OlivierK wrote:And if people tell you that the data you seek to collect is already available elsewhere, then it's them, not you, who have their eyes closed to gathering data? Amiright?

China developed without democracy. This is data, but it is hardly conclusive data, given that virtually everybody still believes that democracy is necessary.

Thommo wrote:

Xerographica wrote:

Thommo wrote:And charitable donations are just like shark attacks in every important particular?

For the record I know perfectly well what your main point is, since you started a thread here about it a couple of years or so ago and we exchanged tens of thousands of words on the subject.

This is my first thread on the subject of using FB groups to test and compare steering mechanisms.

Right. So you're asking me to believe this is an entirely new topic, not merely an extension of the same thing you've been promoting on dozens of sites for literally years. And you're asking me to believe this as you repeat, almost verbatim, numerous things you said in that previous thread.

If you can't be honest, I don't see much point in conversing.

We've talked about economics before, specifically markets and their limits, but I have no idea what your objection is to using FB groups to test and compare steering mechanisms.

No objection, I'm just not going to participate because 1) I have better uses for my money than to send it to you and 2) I don't actually care what happens to any facebook groups and 3) it isn't going to prove anything except some people are stupid enough to send you money.

You're being deliberately obtuse. You started a thread on exactly the same topic of replacing democracy with "earmarking" just as you've done numerous times in numerous places before.

I don't think the tactics of being obtuse help, nor will the attempt to provoke by implying claims or beliefs on behalf of others.

Xerographica wrote:

OlivierK wrote:And if people tell you that the data you seek to collect is already available elsewhere, then it's them, not you, who have their eyes closed to gathering data? Amiright?

China developed without democracy. This is data, but it is hardly conclusive data, given that virtually everybody still believes that democracy is necessary.

Woot! QED.

Xerographica wrote:

Thommo wrote:So you're asking me to believe this is an entirely new topic, not merely an extension of the same thing you've been promoting on dozens of sites for literally years. And you're asking me to believe this as you repeat, almost verbatim, numerous things you said in that previous thread.

If you can't be honest, I don't see much point in conversing.

We've talked about economics before, specifically markets and their limits, but I have no idea what your objection is to using FB groups to test and compare steering mechanisms.

On what basis are you requesting "objection" in this way? I told you early in this latest thread that if you make a research proposal and nobody supports it, the proposal dies. I think you really do understand how research funding works.

Thommo did not ask you to justify trying to use FB groups as you propose. The objection is to your spamming us with the same song and dance you used before. I think what you're assuming is that because no one states an objection to using FB groups in this way, everyone should immediately sign up to your proposal, but that is not how "objection" works in this case. All you're really saying is that you'll keep spamming us with this as long as you ignore the fact that you're not selling the idea of signing up for your special brand of idiocy. In this case, the idiocy is "convince me to shut up", a time-honored trolling technique.