Oh For Crying out loud

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Where are the right-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are federal insurance like FDIC that make borrowers less wary and encourage excessive risk?

If we just get rid of consumer protection like that, then the risk will properly keep businesses from overextending. It's all the Democrats' fault.

Where are all the left-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are the free market? That if we socialized all lending institutations there would be no need for profits?

If we just get rid of profits, then the businesses would keep from overextending. It's all the Republicans fault.

I don't know who's fault this is, but reducing or eliminating 25 rules/regulations by Fannie/Freddie in 2003 (at the urging of the administration) so that many more people could get mortgages certainly didn't help.

It was absolutely disastrous.

For who? (see previous post)

For everybody.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Where are the right-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are federal insurance like FDIC that make borrowers less wary and encourage excessive risk?

If we just get rid of consumer protection like that, then the risk will properly keep businesses from overextending. It's all the Democrats' fault.

Where are all the left-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are the free market? That if we socialized all lending institutations there would be no need for profits?

If we just get rid of profits, then the businesses would keep from overextending. It's all the Republicans fault.

I don't know who's fault this is, but reducing or eliminating 25 rules/regulations by Fannie/Freddie in 2003 (at the urging of the administration) so that many more people could get mortgages certainly didn't help.

It was absolutely disastrous.

For who? (see previous post)

For everybody.

My financial services firm has a Cheshire Grin lately...how about yours?

Yes, the aggregate is very bad, but many firms are thriving in this environment - those with sound business models and a risk-based approach to investing. That was my point...the market is correcting itself, unforunately big profits and huge growth means the reverse is true during correction.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Where are the right-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are federal insurance like FDIC that make borrowers less wary and encourage excessive risk?

If we just get rid of consumer protection like that, then the risk will properly keep businesses from overextending. It's all the Democrats' fault.

Where are all the left-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are the free market? That if we socialized all lending institutations there would be no need for profits?

If we just get rid of profits, then the businesses would keep from overextending. It's all the Republicans fault.

I don't know who's fault this is, but reducing or eliminating 25 rules/regulations by Fannie/Freddie in 2003 (at the urging of the administration) so that many more people could get mortgages certainly didn't help.

It was absolutely disastrous.

For who? (see previous post)

For everybody.

My financial services firm has a Cheshire Grin lately...how about yours?

Yes, the aggregate is very bad, but many firms are thriving in this environment - those with sound business models and a risk-based approach to investing. That was my point...the market is correcting itself, unforunately big profits and huge growth means the reverse is true during correction.

We have been doing well enough. I'm actually surprised we haven't popped up as a buyer of any of these firms. Months ago we were mentioned wrt Merill, but the CEO denied right away. We've taken very light losses.

I just wish our business specifically was more brisk, but caution is the word.

In general, this is nothing more than wealth redistribution, with the wrong people losing.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Where are the right-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are federal insurance like FDIC that make borrowers less wary and encourage excessive risk?

If we just get rid of consumer protection like that, then the risk will properly keep businesses from overextending. It's all the Democrats' fault.

Where are all the left-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are the free market? That if we socialized all lending institutations there would be no need for profits?

If we just get rid of profits, then the businesses would keep from overextending. It's all the Republicans fault.

I don't know who's fault this is, but reducing or eliminating 25 rules/regulations by Fannie/Freddie in 2003 (at the urging of the administration) so that many more people could get mortgages certainly didn't help.

You're understating.

Leaving Pedro in to pitch the 8th inning in 2003 'certainly didn't help'.

The mortgage changes were much worse than that.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234
Where are the right-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are federal insurance like FDIC that make borrowers less wary and encourage excessive risk?

If we just get rid of consumer protection like that, then the risk will properly keep businesses from overextending. It's all the Democrats' fault.

Where are all the left-wingers to say that the cause of the problems are the free market? That if we socialized all lending institutations there would be no need for profits?

If we just get rid of profits, then the businesses would keep from overextending. It's all the Republicans fault.

Well, the 'liberal agenda' is a regulated market keeping it serving society's interests and not running off a cliff to profit a few - while profiting people as the grease for themachine.

I tell you, I'm convinced that many or most right-wingers are stuck at the 13 year old level of understanding these issues, once they heard from some propagandist that democrats are against profit, and they realized profit has an important role to play and from then on consider themselves of opponents of the Democratic Party based on that straw man as they defend the nation from communism, not realizing what they're actually doing is enabling the blocking of helpful regulation.

Craig, what's your education and experience when it comes to finance and the markets? While you like to call me a "13 year old", I have a BS in Finance and an MBA, and I've been in insurance and financial services for 11 years.

And I can show you all kinds of examples where people who have far more education and experience than you do still appear affected by teenage-level fallacies.

Ayn Rand seemed to ruin more young men than about anyone else in the modern era. A whole generation of misguided right-wingers have been influended by her nonsense.

Alan Greenspan, who has credentials almost as good as yours, has some problems in that very area, depsite all of his extraordinary abilities.

Let's not even start on the fallacies in economics of some of our presidents.

I'm not saying by any means that you are like a 13 year old overall, I'm saying that that one specific fallacy that seems to have become such a pervasive myth for so many adults, is at the level of fallacy you would expect around the age of 13, not from serious people like yourself.

Call it parody now all you like, it represents the view of a whole lot of people. If you didn't mean it, you were at least making the misguided argument that it was any sort of counterpart to my post which pointed out the very believable and also misguided argument some on the right I think will make before long why the liberals are to blame.

I understand that when a myth is widespread, criticism of it sounds wild and crazy, until the process of debunking it widely happens at which point people pretend it was never a widely held belief. Obviously my point sounded wild and crazy to you for you to attempt a 'parody' version. Not a very rational or substantive response for an MBA, but oh well.

Because my parody post shows how ignorant you are about a general concept like FDIC and it's purpose.

Except that you showed nothing like that, you're wrong, and the fact you think it showed that only shows how clueless you are, for whatever reason.

What exactly did I get wrong on the FDIC, an FDR-era program following the bank crashes caused by frightened investors withdrawing their funds in a panic, designed to give them the feeling of safety needed to leave the funds in the banks and thereby prevent the financial institutions' crashes?

I guess you proved how I got it wrong; I look forward to your elucidation.

This has everything to do with firms leveraging capital and chasing the "profits" of subprime. Firms that turned their noses up at the allure of those profits are sitting pretty. Those who did not, as we can see, are getting chewed up and spit out.

Uh, ya, and my argument was clearly not a position I held, it was one I'm saying I see as quite possibly coming soon from misguided right-wingers. You did not understand that?

Then again, your level of social concern is reflected by the complete absence of any concern for those impacted or fixing the system, instead your comment in a later post only references glee that your own firm has made the choices needed to benefit from the problems. Congrats on your money, and not so much on your humanity and citizenship, IMO, if your posts here are an indication.

But you can serve a useful role for reminding others why we need power in the hands of others than the narrow interests, watching out for society's more general interest.

A power which the narrow interests - as they appear to have successfully done with the deregulation Engineer and LegendKiller mention - attempt to subvert.

 

[alchemize]

You already proved you're a fool when it comes to FDIC anyhow. From another thread:

Originally posted by: Craig234
Hm, I have two FDIC insured accounts at WAMU, wonder if I should reconsider that.

If the gov stops paying on FDIC, then we are at financial doomsday.

So your original post was responded by me mocking you. I guess if your point is I responded to a stupid post with another stupid post, then you are correct. But mine was on purpose, was yours? Or was it just a troll?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize
You already proved you're a fool when it comes to FDIC anyhow. From another thread:

Originally posted by: Craig234
Hm, I have two FDIC insured accounts at WAMU, wonder if I should reconsider that.

If the gov stops paying on FDIC, then we are at financial doomsday.

So your original post was responded by me mocking you. I guess if your point is I responded to a stupid post with another stupid post, then you are correct. But mine was on purpose, was yours? Or was it just a troll?

No, you prove that you lack reading comprehension with your false assumptions.

My comment was not asking 'am I going to lose my money', it was asking 'should I consider changing institutions to avoid having to deal with FDIC reimbursement'.

Frankly, I am ignorant of the process of FDIC reimbursement - it might be anything from painless to painful - and that's why I asked.

So why did I mention they're FDIC insured? Specifically to distinguish them from accounts that are not. If I had just posted that I had two accounts and should I reconsider, the first question an informed person would ask is to determine whether they are FDIC insured, or not (for reasons of the type of investment or exceeding the per-account cap of $100K). So, I mentioned that to pre-emptively answer that question, leaving only the question I was actually asking, whether there is any reason to avoid FDIC hassles.

A little common sense would have steered you that direction, and people who are ignorant of FDIC insurance usually don't mention the acconts have it in the question.

But that ignorance of mine I think is more understandable than yours about what I said.

In your other post, you attempted to make some point with facetiousness.

You were wrong in your underlying reading comprehension, and it fell flat.

Now you're trying to put up a smokescreen with insults to hide the mistake, and that's not going so well, either. Cut your losses and move on.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Has there been any Republican deregulation that has not lead to ruin and doom????
S&Ls, ENRON, oil speculators, air travel, mortage crisis, etc., etc.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Thump553

Originally posted by: sandorski
Wasn't that like 400 days ago?

No, I have the date marked on my calender at work-it's in late October/early November.

I know you do and I know that you are probably clinging to that date with great anticipation as if when and if my thread was wrong you'll somehow be able to discredit the very basic point I made.

Anyone buying into the suckers rally?
Dumping your gold & silver?

The smaller banks will soon begin to fall like dominoes. All those banks that are two small to be protected by the net of the federal government.
It is likely that some of you will soon be needing this website.

I think that we are on the brink and the hundreds of billions of dollars being infused into the system is but a temporary fix.

I believe that many of you who are very comfortable will lose much of what you have.
Everything, and i mean everything, aside from commodities and gold & silver, is going to lose.

Will America and the world wake up to the shortcomings of a private central bank and the unrestrained issuance of money? Is the rest of the world going to continue to have blind faith in the dollar?
I tell you this minute that the shock & awe that Americans underwent on 9/11 is nothing compared to what they will feel when their wealth is gone or severely diminished.

It's almost time folks. Better empty those banks accounts and do something wise with that money while it still has value.

After the crash really kicks in president Barack Obama will usher in groundbreaking new reforms to give the central bank sweeping new powers to "fix" the economy.
Millions more will lose their homes and unemployment will soar.
Doesn't really sound plausible does it?
That's because as Americans we believe we are apart from history.
We are not exempt but are a part of an ongoing history.
I believe we are very close to an economic disaster.
Within a few months.

A little history.

Now tell me honestly how ridiculous does any of this really sound. Many besides myself have been saying these things for some time. I make this statement and titled it with a radical name and people starting marking their calenders jubilant to humiliate me publicly when I'm proven wrong.
Well what if it doesn't happen next month but happens next year? Will you all still be laughing?
We're all laughing ourselves into the ghetto is what we're doing.

By the way I won't bother responding to this.
The original thread is here.
It doesn't matter if i guessed(yes that's it...guessed/hypothesized) right or wrong. My points remain just as valid.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
You already proved you're a fool when it comes to FDIC anyhow. From another thread:

Originally posted by: Craig234
Hm, I have two FDIC insured accounts at WAMU, wonder if I should reconsider that.

If the gov stops paying on FDIC, then we are at financial doomsday.

So your original post was responded by me mocking you. I guess if your point is I responded to a stupid post with another stupid post, then you are correct. But mine was on purpose, was yours? Or was it just a troll?

No, you prove that you lack reading comprehension with your false assumptions.

My comment was not asking 'am I going to lose my money', it was asking 'should I consider changing institutions to avoid having to deal with FDIC reimbursement'.

Frankly, I am ignorant of the process of FDIC reimbursement - it might be anything from painless to painful - and that's why I asked.

So why did I mention they're FDIC insured? Specifically to distinguish them from accounts that are not. If I had just posted that I had two accounts and should I reconsider, the first question an informed person would ask is to determine whether they are FDIC insured, or not (for reasons of the type of investment or exceeding the per-account cap of $100K). So, I mentioned that to pre-emptively answer that question, leaving only the question I was actually asking, whether there is any reason to avoid FDIC hassles.

A little common sense would have steered you that direction, and people who are ignorant of FDIC insurance usually don't mention the acconts have it in the question.

But that ignorance of mine I think is more understandable than yours about what I said.

In your other post, you attempted to make some point with facetiousness.

You were wrong in your underlying reading comprehension, and it fell flat.

Now you're trying to put up a smokescreen with insults to hide the mistake, and that's not going so well, either. Cut your losses and move on.

You're the one posting lines and lines defending your stupidity and/or troll.

 

[schdaddy]

Original Thread from 07/24/2008

Funny, I searched & read the exact same thread after reading the Lehman news.

Monday should be really interesting.
I believe America is going to start hearing that wake up alarm they've been ignoring for years.

Foolishness without consequence has its limits.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Has there been any Republican deregulation that has not lead to ruin and doom????
S&Ls, ENRON, oil speculators, air travel, mortage crisis, etc., etc.

As I commented in another post, it does not always lead to crashed - I mentioned that other times, it merely leads to the impoverishment of the many to enrich the few.

I'll add a third situation that might please the righties a little - there actually can of course also be some legitimate cases of excessive, misguided, wrong regulation that need reform.

So, I don't think we can make blanket statements about deregulation, even whether it's good or bad, but we can note that the *type* of deregulation that's fueled not by a rational process of people really watching out for the public interest deciding if the regulation is good, but instead fueled by the special interests buying their way out of good regulations that protect the public interest, that it is harmful.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
You already proved you're a fool when it comes to FDIC anyhow. From another thread:

Originally posted by: Craig234
Hm, I have two FDIC insured accounts at WAMU, wonder if I should reconsider that.

If the gov stops paying on FDIC, then we are at financial doomsday.

So your original post was responded by me mocking you. I guess if your point is I responded to a stupid post with another stupid post, then you are correct. But mine was on purpose, was yours? Or was it just a troll?

No, you prove that you lack reading comprehension with your false assumptions.

My comment was not asking 'am I going to lose my money', it was asking 'should I consider changing institutions to avoid having to deal with FDIC reimbursement'.

Frankly, I am ignorant of the process of FDIC reimbursement - it might be anything from painless to painful - and that's why I asked.

So why did I mention they're FDIC insured? Specifically to distinguish them from accounts that are not. If I had just posted that I had two accounts and should I reconsider, the first question an informed person would ask is to determine whether they are FDIC insured, or not (for reasons of the type of investment or exceeding the per-account cap of $100K). So, I mentioned that to pre-emptively answer that question, leaving only the question I was actually asking, whether there is any reason to avoid FDIC hassles.

A little common sense would have steered you that direction, and people who are ignorant of FDIC insurance usually don't mention the acconts have it in the question.

But that ignorance of mine I think is more understandable than yours about what I said.

In your other post, you attempted to make some point with facetiousness.

You were wrong in your underlying reading comprehension, and it fell flat.

Now you're trying to put up a smokescreen with insults to hide the mistake, and that's not going so well, either. Cut your losses and move on.

You're the one posting lines and lines defending your stupidity and/or troll.

Well, then I'll stop wasting my time, and say you are an idiot, with an MBA (you're not alone).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CrazyHelloDeli
Whatever happens, the only thing we can be sure of is that Dave predicted it.

Awwww thank you

:lips: :heart:

I didn't see this earlier.

All I heard for 18 months was it was never going to happen.

It's quite something watching so many people be wrong.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
You already proved you're a fool when it comes to FDIC anyhow. From another thread:

Originally posted by: Craig234
Hm, I have two FDIC insured accounts at WAMU, wonder if I should reconsider that.

If the gov stops paying on FDIC, then we are at financial doomsday.

So your original post was responded by me mocking you. I guess if your point is I responded to a stupid post with another stupid post, then you are correct. But mine was on purpose, was yours? Or was it just a troll?

No, you prove that you lack reading comprehension with your false assumptions.

My comment was not asking 'am I going to lose my money', it was asking 'should I consider changing institutions to avoid having to deal with FDIC reimbursement'.

Frankly, I am ignorant of the process of FDIC reimbursement - it might be anything from painless to painful - and that's why I asked.

So why did I mention they're FDIC insured? Specifically to distinguish them from accounts that are not. If I had just posted that I had two accounts and should I reconsider, the first question an informed person would ask is to determine whether they are FDIC insured, or not (for reasons of the type of investment or exceeding the per-account cap of $100K). So, I mentioned that to pre-emptively answer that question, leaving only the question I was actually asking, whether there is any reason to avoid FDIC hassles.

A little common sense would have steered you that direction, and people who are ignorant of FDIC insurance usually don't mention the acconts have it in the question.

But that ignorance of mine I think is more understandable than yours about what I said.

In your other post, you attempted to make some point with facetiousness.

You were wrong in your underlying reading comprehension, and it fell flat.

Now you're trying to put up a smokescreen with insults to hide the mistake, and that's not going so well, either. Cut your losses and move on.

You're the one posting lines and lines defending your stupidity and/or troll.

Well, then I'll stop wasting my time, and say you are an idiot, with an MBA (you're not alone).

Still waiting on your education background...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yes, the aggregate is very bad, but many firms are thriving in this environment - those with sound business models and a risk-based approach to investing.

That was my point...the market is correcting itself, unforunately big profits and huge growth means the reverse is true during correction.

There is no market.

You call this crap a market?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Has there been any Republican deregulation that has not lead to ruin and doom????

S&Ls, ENRON, oil speculators, air travel, mortage crisis, etc., etc.

Deregulation=No Market

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: alchemize
Yes, the aggregate is very bad, but many firms are thriving in this environment - those with sound business models and a risk-based approach to investing.

That was my point...the market is correcting itself, unforunately big profits and huge growth means the reverse is true during correction.

There is no market.

You call this crap a market?

Active traders have done very well riding the up and downswings of commodities, bonds, emerging markets.

Diversified portfolios/dollar cost averaging are doing fine as well (my personal approach)

But those who follow the Dave McCowen technique of buy high, sell low, and complain about the market are doing quite poorly, agreed.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Still waiting on your education background...

I suggest you hold your breath.

I've had a practice pretty much forever here of not discussing much RL info like that, for a number of reasons, but one of which is that it's pointless and harms the discussion.

It pretty much involuntarily creates an 'appeal to authority' type distraction deom the merits of the point I'm making, for better or worse.

I realized that let's say there's a foreign policy discussion, and someone with the best credentils you could ask for posted here - say a former secretary of state - and I recognize that people at that level are regularly viewed as idiots by their opponents here, and they often disagree among themselves (you don't think some other top foreign policy experts view Kissinger as a war criminal?), and so even if that were posted, what would it really prove?

Even if it were accepted, then does the person just say things that then have to be taken at face value because of their credential? If not, then what was changed?

Sometimes, such credentials have a place in a discussion, and I've made occassional compromises for that.

Your level of discussion doesn't even come as close as Sarah Palin is to Russia to meeting that need, you are clearly trying for an adolescent-level debater's point for a fallacy.

You justify the need for me to discuss that to show your idiotic attack was a lie that I don't understand FDIC (something I addressed more directly, with you continuing to nip nip for the pointless 'credential'), and I'll answer, and in the meantime I've made the mistake of wasting more time on an idiot, further confirmed with every post you are making.

Edit: to further address the actually relevant issue, and to advocate for what I think people should do (an MBA is no guarantee of a clue on national policy), I will say that I read the best people in the nation IMO on these broader topics, who address the larger issues not much taught in the MBA classes, for nuts and bolts future cogs training, with an extra helping of ideology included along the way. Such training makes you well qualified to speak on some things, especially about how the system works; public policy, not so much.

Have you read Naomi Klein's outstanding history of how wonderfully MBA's can do for the world, "The Shock Doctrine"? How about 'Confessions of an Economic Hit Man'?

Those have some broader information on some of what's going on that is useful background.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: alchemize


Diversified portfolios/dollar cost averaging are doing fine as well (my personal approach)

They are? I have a few 6 year old Roth IRA's that have been dollar cost averaged that entire time and have a really diversified portfolio and both are down (significiantly) over that 6 year span (although they weren't down earlier this year but they weren't setting the world on fire either). I'm not so sure that my 401k plan isn't in the same boat.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

whats that website that tracks all the failing banks

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: alchemize
Still waiting on your education background...

I suggest you hold your breath.

I've had a practice pretty much forever here of not discussing much RL info like that, for a number of reasons, but one of which is that it's pointless and harms the discussion.

It pretty much involuntarily creates an 'appeal to authority' type distraction deom the merits of the point I'm making, for better or worse.

I realized that let's say there's a foreign policy discussion, and someone with the best credentils you could ask for posted here - say a former secretary of state - and I recognize that people at that level are regularly viewed as idiots by their opponents here, and they often disagree among themselves (you don't think some other top foreign policy experts view Kissinger as a war criminal?), and so even if that were posted, what would it really prove?

Even if it were accepted, then does the person just say things that then have to be taken at face value because of their credential? If not, then what was changed?

Sometimes, such credentials have a place in a discussion, and I've made occassional compromises for that.

Your level of discussion doesn't even come as close as Sarah Palin is to Russia to meeting that need, you are clearly trying for an adolescent-level debater's point for a fallacy.

You justify the need for me to discuss that to show your idiotic attack was a lie that I don't understand FDIC (something I addressed more directly, with you continuing to nip nip for the pointless 'credential'), and I'll answer, and in the meantime I've made the mistake of wasting more time on an idiot, further confirmed with every post you are making.

This plus disdain for MBA's translates to liberal arts degree (at best).

At the end of the day, you trolled, I mocked you. Get over yourself, you can't be as brilliant as you think you are in all subjects.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: alchemize


Diversified portfolios/dollar cost averaging are doing fine as well (my personal approach)

They are? I have a few 6 year old Roth IRA's that have been dollar cost averaged that entire time and have a really diversified portfolio and both are down (significiantly) over that 6 year span (although they weren't down earlier this year but they weren't setting the world on fire either). I'm not so sure that my 401k plan isn't in the same boat.

Dollar cost averaging requires more than a 6 year horizon

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
whats that website that tracks all the failing banks

Economy Failure websites

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize
This plus disdain for MBA's translates to liberal arts degree (at best).

If you weren't an idiot, you would have realized the point I made when I criticized you for your rush to assumption. But you are, and so you didn't, and you continue the mistake.

You also failed to understand my second comment on your lack of reading comprehension.

I'm not 'disdaining' MBA's by any means at all. I simply explained - correctly - that they are not an 'I win' button in discussions on broad public policy.

Your challenging that notion shows how desperately you need to try to use it that way, for the bankruptcy of any other ammo like, say, a solid argument.

At the end of the day, you trolled, I mocked you. Get over yourself, you can't be as brilliant as you think you are in all subjects.

At the end of the day, you are an idiot, and your attempt to mock something exposed that.

What part of my not caring to hear more garbage from you is not clear? You're wasting both our time with your continued attempts to salvage something from your mistake.

Quit digging the hole for yourself.