My identical comments at his identical postings here (awaiting moderation) and here. I have to draft another post for the morning, 9:30 am EST, and it has to publish precisely to military precision and when you see it, you'll understand why. So, you'll have to read Fuckface Keieger's stupid post yourself, where he tries to impress you with his stock trading prowess by means of overwrought, non-sequitur and just plain stupid analogy. ...Which is no surprise, as he can't even beat himself out of a wet paper sac on the meaning of hypocrisy.
Of course, that moron cunt Evelyn at CarbSane couldn't wait to suck his cock over it (comments).
James is also a master of Latin phrases for logical fallacies.
Laf. If so, it's probably the first time she ever heard of them.
Alright, my comment. Tear it to shreds if you like.
Ha, and yet here I sit, such a fan of "Larry the Liquidator."
But, as Larry explained in that speech at the stockholder's meeting, it was time to cash out. This wasn't breaking windows to "create value," it was redeploying assets to more profitable uses. And if people care to, they can see just how many times I admonished Evelyn to "redeploy" her assets during our exchange, when she dropped 85 comments on my blog in the 2 or 3 Kruse posts I did.
...There's nothing hypocritical about beating up on a bully, taking stuff from a thief, or killing a wanton murderer. Your thinking is laughably muddled here. A better case for hypocrisy and one tougher for me to defend, is that I often rail against various reporters, dietitians, and even researchers whom I often refer to as "grant whores." There, I'm going against CW and institutionalized dogma that has clearly failed; as people keep getting fatter, more diabetic, more unhealthy. The individuals are simply convenient cross-hair targets of opportunity. I don't keep chasing and chasing those individuals.
The problem with the pump & dump analogy is that there are people who signed up for the risks and they're on both sides of the trades. You don't call it right on all your trades, either, James; and sometimes, it was because you got effed for whatever reason by those luckier, smarter, or with better information than you. I traded options full time for about 3 years—credit spreads on the SPX—so I do have a bit of familiarity with the terminology of the square analogy you're trying to force into a round situation. I was totally agnostic as to market direction. At any one time, I'd have as many short spreads as long—they were simply placed at different times, in different contexts.
I'm not arguing against scientific critique. I went after Evelyn, again, because she seems to me to just want to entirely discredit Lustig rather than politely point out whatever errors she thinks he's making while acknowledging a lot of the good he has done like raise awareness—which to me comes down to: drinking a lot of sugar in juices, sodas and energy drinks that don't satiate is very likely to have you eating several hundred calories a day more than you need. Here's an example of a critique I love:
"Part of the issue is about balancing the argument. I think we can learn a lot from someone like Robert Lustig because he has done the knowledge translation piece so well. Whether he's done it intentionally or not, he has brought a lot of attention to his issues. On the other hand, we’ve done -- at least the people with a more balanced view -- a very poor job at trying to communicate that balanced view. Yes, there may be some signals [that fructose has an adverse effect] or, no, there aren't, or it may be conditional on energy. With all the nuances, we’ve done a pretty bad job at communicating it as opposed to the simple message of "Fructose at any level is poison." We're trying to say it depends on the dose, it depends on the energy, and that’s a hard message to communicate. We've been dwelling on harm. We’ve been saying "Well, it doesn’t support harm except where there is excess energy.""
But then there's all this stuff asserting that he even thinks whole fruit is bad when I am quite certain I heard him say on either or both of the Jimmy Moore podcasts he did that fruit is good (because it has fiber, which satiates).
So, to return to the very poorly thought out trading analogy, you might consider that the stock that just got pumped to $120 isn't worth that, and soon people are going to figure that out, so go short. But you probably don't think it's worth zero (and trying to drive it to zero would likely involve securities fraud, not to mention plain unethical) and probably no less than $80.
So, in reality, the analogy you're offering actually supports my contention as concerns Evelyn. Tell me she's not trying to drive the stock of Taubes, Naughton, Moore, and now Lustig to zero. If you short enough shares and a stock does go effectively to zero then well, you get to go live the rest of your days on a tropical island with luscious brown skinned girls serving you drinks with fruit and umbrellas in them. And your conscience is clear.
A stock only goes to zero when it _should_ go to zero and I assume you know why.
I saw you cross posted this and so I'll cross post this comment as well. I saw mention on the other post about Colpo and whole grains. First off, I'm on good terms with Anthony. Secondly, I told him Martin is cool, but he kinda made fun of me for that. Perhaps in time. On the whole grains issue, this is another area where my thinking is evolving. I used to buy into the whole anti-nutrient thing. Could be something there, but I think it pales in comparison to nutrient density. Grains are plain bankrupt nutritionally, which is why they're often "fortified." Simply put, grains (and sugar) crowd out high quality nutrition.
Compare equal caloric portions of bread to either beef liver or salmon:
One day I'm going to actually calculate it out nutrient by nutrient. I think it's safe to say that liver is thousands of % more nutritious and salmon hundreds of %.
Takes 5 pounds of mixed fruit to equal the nutrition of 4 ounces of liver. So, this is really my focus with Paleo: nutritional density.
To wrap up an egregiously long comment, Evelyn and others like her, who have largely built whatever attention they have on the backs of people like Taubes, Naughton, Moore, Lustig, still haven't figured out that "bad science" is not really what it's all about if you care about people dropping the weight and improving health. Both good and bad science got us into this mess and both good and bad science will get us out. What's important is personality, drive, sensation, conniving, influence, and a whole list of human attributes people pay attention to, in the end.
If you were real scientists, you'd understand that as the meta-science. Yes: good and bad results can be obtained by good and bad science. In the end, the best salesman wins. Thousands of people, including myself, can credit Taubes, et all, with being that one thing that got us on the right track.
And as for Lustig, isn't it so awful that perhaps thousands of people might be questioning the idea of having their kid down a quart or more of fruit juice per day because it's cheap and "healthy," all based on "bad science."
Alright Jamie. Ball's in your court, fuckhead.