|
Post by firestorm on Apr 1, 2015 12:40:30 GMT -8
So, the libertarian tolerates the intolerant ... I think I get it now, but the pretzel logic evades me.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Apr 1, 2015 12:52:59 GMT -8
JD, I love ya, man ( not literally).
But as a good tolerant Libertarian, why do you keep urging people not to post Business Insider links or CNBC opinion pieces? I like a big tent and just want to be sure I won't be flamed if I post something from an unfavorable source.....;-)
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Apr 1, 2015 12:55:23 GMT -8
So, the libertarian tolerates the intolerant ... I think I get it now, but the pretzel logic evades me. Well gee, Mr. Firestorm, thank you so much for distilling my long, thoughtful post into that strawman argument talking point. Not wanting to participate in something is not "intolerant". It simply means you disagree with it. But, yes, I am tolerant of views I disagree with. I think liberals should be allowed to have their views on gay marriage and all sorts of public policies (most of which aspire to control my life or steal my money) that I might disagree with, without their businesses being boycotted or them being sued or otherwise ostracized. Even your feminist interpretive dance troupe, Firestorm. Please, by all means, tell me of a viewpoint liberals disagree with, even outside of the equality realm, which they are "tolerant" of and wouldn't boycott a business like Hobby Lobby or Whole Foods or the (pro-gay marriage) Koch Brothers over. You want to know what tolerance is, Firestorm? It's Elton John playing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Apr 1, 2015 13:14:11 GMT -8
JD, I love ya, man ( not literally). But as a good tolerant Libertarian, why do you keep urging people not to post Business Insider links or CNBC opinion pieces? I like a big tent and just want to be sure I won't be flamed if I post something from an unfavorable source.....;-) Because I disagree with BI and its business model, and I prefer not to associate with troll-clicking sites because it enables them and their disreputable FUD and tends to hurt Apple and its stockholders. I encourage other AAPL longs not to do so either. I view the discouragement of Business Trollisider links to be mutually agreed upon by most on the board. Nobody is saying that linking to BI here should be criminalized, or that BI should be prosecuted for its blather. Surely everyone here knows BI's domain name if they want to read their articles (preferably with an ad blocker installed in their browser). Or, AFB'ers can summarize BI's (dis)information here without rewarding the bad kitties themselves for pooping on the rug. I have strong opinions, some of which I forcefully debate in public. Libertarians want a marketplace of ideas to decide which ideas are bad and which are good, and associate with the good ones accordingly. We just don't want a Ministry of Approved Ideas telling us what we are allowed to think. We also strongly discourage our CEO's from presuming to speak for us. In private S-corps, YMMV. Libertarians are not anarchists, BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Apr 1, 2015 13:32:56 GMT -8
Yes, I get the idea that Libertarians just want an open marketplace but I never hide a link that I list....so if nobody else wants to click on it, fine; they can see the source. However, I and other "open tent" posters have been chastised for the activity of pointing out dissenting views that others, maybe even by "most of the Board" , whatever that means - we don't take polls very often - find objectionable not because of the content of the ideas stated but by the source of the link. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Let the reader decide...rather than create an environment where certain sources are "deemed unacceptable" or "frowned upon". Just don't hide the link and let the reader figure it out. Both Business Insider and CNBC can provide useful information and insight...at times....in my experience. I don't think as a group we should be discouraging information..just post the source. WARNING: Interesting BI article on the IBM/Apple App rollout strategy. www.businessinsider.com/apple-ibm-announce-9-more-apps-2015-4O.k. enough (apologies to Since84 and all others). How about that push by AAPL late in the day. We want to go higher....so much good news ahead.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Apr 1, 2015 13:46:34 GMT -8
Off topic: I charged my iPhone yesterday morning and still have 58% battery life left which can only mean I haven't posted enough in this forum, please forgive my negligence .
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Apr 1, 2015 13:48:51 GMT -8
JD, I love ya, man ( not literally). But as a good tolerant Libertarian, why do you keep urging people not to post Business Insider links or CNBC opinion pieces? I like a big tent and just want to be sure I won't be flamed if I post something from an unfavorable source.....;-) Hot damn, what a troll you are
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Apr 1, 2015 13:51:07 GMT -8
JD, I love ya, man ( not literally). But as a good tolerant Libertarian, why do you keep urging people not to post Business Insider links or CNBC opinion pieces? I like a big tent and just want to be sure I won't be flamed if I post something from an unfavorable source.....;-) Because I disagree with BI and its business model, and I prefer not to associate with troll-clicking sites because it enables them and their disreputable FUD and tends to hurt Apple and its stockholders. I encourage other AAPL longs not to do so either. I view the discouragement of Business Trollisider links to be mutually agreed upon by most on the board. Nobody is saying that linking to BI here should be criminalized, or that BI should be prosecuted for its blather. Surely everyone here knows BI's domain name if they want to read their articles (preferably with an ad blocker installed in their browser). Or, AFB'ers can summarize BI's (dis)information here without rewarding the bad kitties themselves for pooping on the rug. I have strong opinions, some of which I forcefully debate in public. Libertarians want a marketplace of ideas to decide which ideas are bad and which are good, and associate with the good ones accordingly. We just don't want a Ministry of Approved Ideas telling us what we are allowed to think. We also strongly discourage our CEO's from presuming to speak for us. In private S-corps, YMMV. Libertarians are not anarchists, BTW. I remember when neither JD or I would think of +1-ing a damn thing the other said. And on balance I don't think our "net politics" are THAT far off (a ton of people online would hate me for not being polarized enough, maybe) No one tell him iPad, our calming voice of reason, hasn't been posting around here lately, btw. Drat! (Though iPad MUST visit, just invisibly.)
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Apr 1, 2015 14:15:51 GMT -8
Yes, I get the idea that Libertarians just want an open marketplace but I never hide a link that I list....so if nobody else wants to click on it, fine; they can see the source. However, I and other "open tent" posters have been chastised for the activity of pointing out dissenting views that others, maybe even by "most of the Board" , whatever that means - we don't take polls very often - find objectionable not because of the content of the ideas stated but by the source of the link. That makes absolutely no sense to me. Let the reader decide...rather than create an environment where certain sources are "deemed unacceptable" or "frowned upon". Just don't hide the link and let the reader figure it out. Both Business Insider and CNBC can provide useful information and insight...at times....in my experience. I don't think as a group we should be discouraging information..just post the source. WARNING: Interesting BI article on the IBM/Apple App rollout strategy. www.businessinsider.com/apple-ibm-announce-9-more-apps-2015-4O.k. enough (apologies to Since84 and all others). How about that push by AAPL late in the day. We want to go higher....so much good news ahead. I have never understood why Members of this board, who have a vested interest in Apple would support business models where compensation is derived from knowingly distorting the truth about Apple. I have come to understand that there will never be agreement on this point of principle. I appreciate when posters make it clear where the link will lead to, so that I can exercise my choice not to reward business practices that I despise. And I will never link to BI, Forbes, or CNBC, no matter what the story or merit is. Because they are primarily in the business of sending responsible journalism to the gutter forever.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Apr 1, 2015 14:39:16 GMT -8
So, the libertarian tolerates the intolerant ... I think I get it now, but the pretzel logic evades me. Well gee, Mr. Firestorm, thank you so much for distilling my long, thoughtful post into that strawman argument talking point. Not wanting to participate in something is not "intolerant". It simply means you disagree with it. But, yes, I am tolerant of views I disagree with. I think liberals should be allowed to have their views on gay marriage and all sorts of public policies (most of which aspire to control my life or steal my money) that I might disagree with, without their businesses being boycotted or them being sued or otherwise ostracized. Even your feminist interpretive dance troupe, Firestorm. Please, by all means, tell me of a viewpoint liberals disagree with, even outside of the equality realm, which they are "tolerant" of and wouldn't boycott a business like Hobby Lobby or Whole Foods or the (pro-gay marriage) Koch Brothers over. You want to know what tolerance is, Firestorm? It's Elton John playing at Rush Limbaugh's wedding. I'm so glad to hear that you would have been tolerant of the religious sensitivities of the segregationists back in the day. Or would you parse that to be something different? Elton made $1 million playing at the fat fart's wedding; it's pretty easy to be tolerant when the money is right. Toleration would be a gung-ho Bush's War fan going to a Dixie Chicks concert. Yeah, right. Meanwhile, you can get your knitting supplies at Hobby Lobby, and I'll get some of my business news at CNBC.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Apr 1, 2015 14:41:22 GMT -8
A little birdie told me today as much as his NDA would allow. Just a tidbit, but nice to know there's lots percolating behind the scenes. Allegedly, Apple has given early access to a couple reporting sites, one being qz.com, on the development of what was called a "secret project" having to do with special new apps. So, the theme of giving more and better access to select media continues. Could it be juicy new HomeKit apps mixed with chocolatey new Apple TVs? Dunno.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Apr 1, 2015 14:41:59 GMT -8
I agree with Mercel. Defending BI as having some good information once in a while is like saying Marcus Junius Brutus was a friend of Caesar. I have no objections to summarizing what they say. But I am of the firm belief that CNBC and BI and any other FUD misreporting source has and continues to harm the interests of Apple and its shareholders. Why give linktrolls what they want? This is less a freedom or information issue than a common sense one. When you click on an ad revenue-modeled site that consistently trolls for clicks with inaccurate or misleading FUD, you enable them to make money and profit against our interests. How is that logical? Nobody said you have to agree with the uber bulls at all times when posting here. If you have legitimate concerns about Apple, by all means, air them. But not all opinions or sources are of equal merit. Does anyone really think that CNBC or BI have proven themselves of any value where Apple is concerned? And what's the point of having an AFB to congregate to if we are going to just regurgitate what is intended for the low information Joe Sixpack investor? We do have the Apple Investors News site with every single Apple news link of the day for that, BTW. On a related note, I'd like to point out what a vindication for Libertarianism this site has become. We've been without our (beloved) moderator overlord for quite some time now, and yet, we seem to have less real strife and acrimony than ever. See how private, free-thinking men can associate freely and come to an accommodation of civility and common interest? Wow, all of this warm fellowship almost makes me want to open a bakery and bake a "Coexist" cake and have Firestorm be the keynote speaker at my Grand Opening. Happy April Fool's Day and Apple Birthday!
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Apr 1, 2015 14:44:40 GMT -8
I agree with Mercel. Defending BI as having some good information once in a while is like saying Marcus Junius Brutus was a friend of Caesar. I have no objections to summarizing what they say. But I am of the firm belief that CNBC and BI and any other FUD misreporting source has and continues to harm the interests of Apple and its shareholders. Why give linktrolls what they want? This is less a freedom or information issue than a common sense one. When you click on an ad revenue-modeled site that consistently trolls for clicks with inaccurate or misleading FUD, you enable them to make money and profit against our interests. How is that logical? Nobody said you have to agree with the uber bulls at all times when posting here. If you have legitimate concerns about Apple, by all means, air them. But not all opinions or sources are of equal merit. Does anyone really think that CNBC or BI have proven themselves of any value where Apple is concerned? And what's the point of having an AFB to congregate to if we are going to just regurgitate what is intended for the low information Joe Sixpack investor? We do have the Apple Investors News site with every single Apple news link of the day for that, BTW. On a related note, I'd like to point out what a vindication for Libertarianism this site has become. We've been without our (beloved) moderator overlord for quite some time now, and yet, we seem to have less real strife and acrimony than ever. See how private, free-thinking men can associate freely and come to an accommodation of civility and common interest? Wow, all of this warm fellowship almost makes me want to open a bakery and bake a "Coexist" cake and have Firestorm be the keynote speaker at my Grand Opening. Happy April Fool's Day and Apple Birthday! It would be fun to roast you at the Grand Opening.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Apr 1, 2015 14:48:19 GMT -8
At times we have screamed about the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal as biased, and if you talk to the Android crowd they will swear that every site, including Business Insider is stacked against them.
Macrumores and 9 to 5 Mac, and Imore and all the rest are clickbait too...just different ways to try and get the hits. We have been told that Drudge should be paid attention to, cause it gets more clicks than anybody...
It's all about creating controversy or roiling opinions. It's how the sites get paid or noticed. I just don't see the difference between "good" and "bad". I read way too much stuff from way too many sources across way too many spectrums (or is it spectra?) It's all just words...take em or leave em. Get what you can or skip over. I'm just more of a big tent guy without making concrete statements that a site is against Apple's (or AAPL's) interests. I'm not smart enough to make those black and white decisions.
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on Apr 1, 2015 16:12:40 GMT -8
Re Tim Cook Washington Post letter.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue it is obviously controversial for a large chunk of the population.
My hunch is that even though Tim and Apple feel very strongly about this they would be aware enough not to take a stand on a controversial topic before reporting in line earnigs and launching a dud product.
This signals to me that they are supremely confident in the quarter that just ended and the guidance they will give on April 27th.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Apr 1, 2015 16:42:09 GMT -8
If you link good articles and ignore the bad ones, wouldn't that more strongly encourage good journalism rather than boycotting a entire site? I agree with Red - I see plenty of good stuff on BI and SeekingAlpha.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Apr 1, 2015 17:18:15 GMT -8
Wow, all of this warm fellowship almost makes me want to open a bakery and bake a "Coexist" cake and have Firestorm be the keynote speaker at my Grand Opening. Happy April Fool's Day and Apple Birthday! It would be fun to roast you at the Grand Opening. Better watch it or you're going to wake the sleeping dragon out of his good fellowship-y haze and then there's gonna be a shit-storm, firestorm!
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Apr 1, 2015 17:48:42 GMT -8
Look at it this way people -
There's no mod to remove links OR keep us in line.
And yet, no board implosion. So, uh, keep up the good work
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Apr 1, 2015 19:00:33 GMT -8
Look at it this way people - There's no mod to remove links OR keep us in line. And yet, no board implosion. So, uh, keep up the good work Someday, someone will post something, that upon reflection, they find troubling. They want to edit their post..... OR maybe even DELETE it. REST assured some of MY poor posts actually disappear. Here is what you do. AS long as the offensive post is still an "active" thread, YOU can edit it or make it DISAPPEAR! This shows a locked thread. WE don't have a moderator. There are very few locked threads. You edit OR delete the thread near the sprocket on the right top. It is very easy to find all of your posts. YOU click on your own name in one of your posts. Then click on your most recent posts. EDIT or DELETE away.
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Apr 1, 2015 19:01:57 GMT -8
Many of the arguments against the LGBT crowd are the same ones that were used against blacks and interracial marriage in years past. Glad we're evolving and glad that Tim Cook is taking a lead. Face it, Apple users are generally more educated and younger, the crowd that isn't going to take issue with anything he said. If anything, it might endear Apple to more people. The dumbshits in Indiana are already regretting their decision. Arkansas gov. pulled back, Montana tabled a similar move, North Carolina is having second thoughts. Money talks. The pizza place in Northern Indiana that stupidly said that they would embrace the law and discriminate against gays had to close their doors today because of the backlash. Apple has taken the lead in so many areas, creating products that pollute less and using renewable energy have always been seen as progressive causes, just add LGBT rights to the list. This won't affect the stock one bit. Btw, agree with Red. I want to hear what Fans and Haters are saying. It helps to gauge sentiment (and Greg T. Can adjust his ISM numbers ?). If anything, you can gain some insight by the comments. Steve Jobs would be so proud of Tim Cook and Apple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2015 20:52:42 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Apr 1, 2015 23:11:09 GMT -8
Leave it to Chasmac to come in and raise the level of discourse. Many of the arguments against the LGBT crowd are the same ones that were used against blacks and interracial marriage in years past. Glad we're evolving and glad that Tim Cook is taking a lead. Face it, Apple users are generally more educated and younger, the crowd that isn't going to take issue with anything he said. If anything, it might endear Apple to more people. The dumbshits in Indiana are already regretting their decision. Arkansas gov. pulled back, Montana tabled a similar move, North Carolina is having second thoughts. Money talks. The pizza place in Northern Indiana that stupidly said that they would embrace the law and discriminate against gays had to close their doors today because of the backlash. Apple has taken the lead in so many areas, creating products that pollute less and using renewable energy have always been seen as progressive causes, just add LGBT rights to the list. This won't affect the stock one bit. Btw, agree with Red. I want to hear what Fans and Haters are saying. It helps to gauge sentiment (and Greg T. Can adjust his ISM numbers ?). If anything, you can gain some insight by the comments. Steve Jobs would be so proud of Tim Cook and Apple.
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Apr 2, 2015 2:54:21 GMT -8
Leave it to Chasmac to come in and raise the level of discourse. Leave it to the board bully to insist on always having the last word. For a supposed Libertarian you sure do love to tell other people what to think, say and do.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Apr 2, 2015 5:50:17 GMT -8
I appreciate JD's views and his thoughtful analysis.
Thanks JD, and all of you for a great board !
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,183
|
Post by JDSoCal on Apr 2, 2015 9:38:46 GMT -8
Leave it to Chasmac to come in and raise the level of discourse. Leave it to the board bully to insist on always having the last word. For a supposed Libertarian you sure do love to tell other people what to think, say and do. After giving my honest, thoughtful opinion on a complicated subject, you barreled in here like a bull in a china shop and basically called anyone who disagrees with you stupid, uneducated, and similar to segregationists. Liberalism in a nutshell, "we're right and you're evil." But I'm the bully, LOL.
|
|