| Revision as of 20:13, 5 July 2007 editSlamDiego (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,709 editsm Jus' messin' wi' appear'nces.← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:32, 6 July 2007 edit undoSlamDiego (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,709 editsm →Warning : Lack of intellectual integrityNext edit → | ||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
| :You are ''very'' mistaken in your belief that the Austrian School embraces the equation of exchange; it does not. Were I making a partisan presentation, I would have critiqued the equation of exchange very effectively. But such a critique would be out-of-place in the section in question. —]<sub><font size="-2">]</font></sub> 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | :You are ''very'' mistaken in your belief that the Austrian School embraces the equation of exchange; it does not. Were I making a partisan presentation, I would have critiqued the equation of exchange very effectively. But such a critique would be out-of-place in the section in question. —]<sub><font size="-2">]</font></sub> 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :(For an exemplar of an Austrian School critique of the equation of exchange, see Mises' , Chapter XVII. “Indirect Exchange”, §2 “Observations on Some Widespread Errors”. Some readers might find the critique in Rothbard's ''Man, Economy and State'' more accessible, but I don't have a copy at hand do not remember just whereïn he presents his attack.) —]<sub><font size="-2">]</font></sub> 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | :(For an exemplar of an Austrian School critique of the equation of exchange, see Mises' , Chapter XVII. “Indirect Exchange”, §2 “Observations on Some Widespread Errors”. Some readers might find the critique in Rothbard's ''Man, Economy and State'' more accessible, but I don't have a copy at hand and do not remember just whereïn he presents his attack.) —]<sub><font size="-2">]</font></sub> 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Nu== | ==Nu== | ||
Revision as of 14:32, 6 July 2007
| Contents |
|---|
 Orc Hives |
|---|
| Some earlier messages may be found |
| · in the first orc hive, |
| · in the second orc hive, |
| · in the third orc hive, |
| · in the fourth orc hive, |
| · in the fifth orc hive, |
| · in the sixth orc hive, |
| · in the seventh orc hive, or |
| · in the eighth orc hive. |
Request for Mediation
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi.
|
I have agreed to mediate this dispute. Please take a look at the preliminary questions at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
“unsourced”
- Please don't confuse a datum lacking a footnote with one that is necessarily unsourced. (Note now that most of the article on Willem Mengelberg remains unfootnoted.)
- Please use the {{fact}} tag, rather than summarily removing content that is-or-is-believed to be unsourced. The tag can provoke helpful edits from users who would otherwise not know that they can make a contribution, and it means that intermediate edits don't foul what should be a simple process.
—SlamDiego←T 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- yes, but there's no sense in permitting more unreferenced data just because the rest of it is unsourced. anyway the point is moot, as i provided the necessary link myself. --emerson7 | Talk 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You provided a footnote from a source that was already provided at the end of the article (by me). Meanwhile, the rest of the article is unfootnoted, yet sourced. —SlamDiego←T 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- ...same net effect. --emerson7 | Talk 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- A rather silly net effect: A footnote for the pension datum, and only for the pension datum. —SlamDiego←T 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- ...same net effect. --emerson7 | Talk 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- You provided a footnote from a source that was already provided at the end of the article (by me). Meanwhile, the rest of the article is unfootnoted, yet sourced. —SlamDiego←T 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Warning : Lack of intellectual integrity
In the quantitative theory of money article, this user slamdiego insists on pretending that the cause for moving from the transaction form of the equation to one based on final expenditures is lack of data on other transactions. His austrian faith clearly bars him from having an honest position on the subject. And once It will be clear to me on what ground a complaint should be made to the administrators and how to do it, I will do so as such a behaviour is clearly despicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs) Panache (UTC)
- You are very mistaken in your belief that the Austrian School embraces the equation of exchange; it does not. Were I making a partisan presentation, I would have critiqued the equation of exchange very effectively. But such a critique would be out-of-place in the section in question. —SlamDiego←T 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
- (For an exemplar of an Austrian School critique of the equation of exchange, see Mises' Human Action, 4ed, Chapter XVII. “Indirect Exchange”, §2 “Observations on Some Widespread Errors”. Some readers might find the critique in Rothbard's Man, Economy and State more accessible, but I don't have a copy at hand and do not remember just whereïn he presents his attack.) —SlamDiego←T 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Nu
Reply on my Talk page. BW, Thomasmeeks 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Mediation
Hi, saw your message at User talk:Gracenotes - you're quite right I've been neglecting things shamefully. Its so easy to get distracted by some of the noisier disputes and forget a more quiet case - especially as there was some delay in getting everyone's comments at the start - my apologies. I'll try and get things moving again... WjBaway 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)