Difference between revisions of "Talk:Macroeconomics"

Revision as of 08:40, March 18, 2007

I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. Tsumetai 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

You're not qualified to recognize that a forest v trees analogy and a statement that the subjects of that analogy are opposites don't make sense taken together? You're far brighter than that.

In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns. It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-This is a pretty embarrassing page, simply from the standpoint of reasoning.
+I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
-Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a
+You're not qualified to recognize that a forest v trees analogy and a statement that the subjects of that analogy are opposites don't make sense taken together?  You're far brighter than that.
-disruptive poster.
-There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot
+In the meantime, I see that the forest v trees analogy has also been judged pointless, so remarkably enough the entry's even *thinner* now in comparison with unicorns.  It hasn't trotted out a crazy aunt in the attic like 'baramin' yet, though.
-be brought into register.  They are presented one sentence following the next.
-one is the forest versus tree analogy.
-two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics.
-Let's think about two in the context of one:  would anyone seriously try to define
-trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally?
-I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory
-logic course.
-== no comment reversion ==
-Tsumetai might also want to consider why I was making the point;
-an embarrassingly sloppy three sentences are reinstated. Granted the point
-was made rather bluntly.  I had not known much of who was who when I saw the piece;
-since then, I was pleased to see Tsumetai taking point on getting the thermodynamics
-silliness out of the evolution discussion.
-If conservatives can't come up with a definition of macroeconomics that reflects
-the level of work on wikipedia, and instead invest that much energy in arguing
-muddleheadedness about physics...  Well, I'll just say I was thinking there'd be
-more on econ and less on unicorns.
-:I didn't revert because I think the original version is good; I'm simply not qualified to comment on or improve the content. If you are, feel free to take a stab at it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Macroeconomics"

Revision as of 08:40, March 18, 2007

Navigation menu

Search