Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 8:25 am**

death row joe = welfare case spending every waking hour assembling little graphs to bolster his ridiculous claims the current administration is doing as a "great" job
just don't ask him to cite sources other than his own imageshack account.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 11:19 am**

dong dokken wrote:death row joe = welfare case spending every waking hour assembling little graphs to bolster his ridiculous claims the current administration is doing as a "great" job
just don't ask him to cite sources other than his own imageshack account.

I've noticed that. Now his images may have come from someplace real, but it's funny how they're always at imageshack.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 11:34 am**

What's funny is you assclowns should be paying him tuition for all the schooling he's given you. Brotherplanet, if you weren't being a butthurt bitch, you would commend him for not stealing image bandwidth from the sources he clearly cites.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 11:36 am**

So it's better he takes material he doesn't own?

Six of one half a dozen of another.

What schooling? The guy tried to claim how many people were working as if that changed the amount of people not working. Now his figures may not have been wrong, but it completely ignored the fact that if, for example you have twenty million people working and thirteen million people out of work, and you only post that there are twenty million people working in order to make Obama look good, you still have thirteen million people out of work.

And I've got to say, I love the whole "assclowns," and "butthurt bich" type comments. Do you actually think that matters on the internet or are you still in the 10th grade?

And if you are in the 10th grade, I mean no offense. In that case you're genuinely acting your age.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 11:55 am**

He cites his sources. He's not stealing as you imply. it is proper internet etiquette to host your own images as opposed to stealing valuable image hosting bandwidth from another website.

It's 'bitch', not 'bich'. Even a 10th grader is smarter than you.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 11:58 am**

Not really. One is taking bandwidth, the other one is taking copyrighted material.

And you're actually picking a side based on this?

That's your argument? Really?

You should have said, "But his images are real. He didn't make them up."

See? Now that would have been a better argument, and would have shown that you knew what we were discussing here.

And speaking of what we're discussing... Go here...

This is where he gets his graphs from... http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/he ... h_formulas

Click on that part that says... I would like to publish data found in FRED. What is the appropriate citation to use?

Notice the rules...

Please note that some data available in FRED is owned by third parties and subject to copyright restrictions. Before using data owned by third parties for anything other than your own personal use, you must contact the data owner to obtain permission.

So, you were saying...

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 6:00 pm**

brotherplanet wrote:Not really. One is taking bandwidth, the other one is taking copyrighted material.

And you're actually picking a side based on this?

That's your argument? Really?

You should have said, "But his images are real. He didn't make them up."

See? Now that would have been a better argument, and would have shown that you knew what we were discussing here.

Why should I? That wasn't an issue. We both know the facts he presented were true. Because you can't refute him, you have decided an ad hominem attack is in order.

brotherplanet wrote:And speaking of what we're discussing... Go here...

This is where he gets his graphs from... http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/he ... h_formulas

Click on that part that says... I would like to publish data found in FRED. What is the appropriate citation to use?

Notice the rules...

Please note that some data available in FRED is owned by third parties and subject to copyright restrictions. Before using data owned by third parties for anything other than your own personal use, you must contact the data owner to obtain permission.

So, you were saying...

Fair use.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... /chapter9/
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyright101

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 6:22 pm**

Danzig in the Dark wrote:
brotherplanet wrote:Not really. One is taking bandwidth, the other one is taking copyrighted material.

And you're actually picking a side based on this?

That's your argument? Really?

You should have said, "But his images are real. He didn't make them up."

See? Now that would have been a better argument, and would have shown that you knew what we were discussing here.
Why should I? That wasn't an issue. We both know the facts he presented were true. Because you can't refute him, you have decided an ad hominem attack is in order.

brotherplanet wrote:And speaking of what we're discussing... Go here...

This is where he gets his graphs from... http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/he ... h_formulas

Click on that part that says... I would like to publish data found in FRED. What is the appropriate citation to use?

Notice the rules...

Please note that some data available in FRED is owned by third parties and subject to copyright restrictions. Before using data owned by third parties for anything other than your own personal use, you must contact the data owner to obtain permission.

So, you were saying...
Fair use.
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_a ... /chapter9/
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/copyright101

To your first point about the ad hominium attack.

1. I didn't start this thread.

2. It's not an ad hominem attack when it's relevant to actual posts made. The source of his statements was being questioned. An ad hominem attack would be if I didn't like his post so I started commenting on his spelling or how lousy he did his job at work or started calling him names like a 10th grader, making it personal.

3. Notice how I italicized the word may in my response to the first post. I actually did that because I've noticed people don't always read what they're responding to and I wanted it to stand out so my point was clear yet you still missed it.

4. Everything else was directed at you and your posts. (I'm hoping you'll notice the bold since italicizing didn't work the last time)

To your second point about fair use...

Touché, my good man... Touché

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 6:49 pm**

dong dokken wrote:death row joe = welfare case spending every waking hour assembling little graphs to bolster his ridiculous claims the current administration is doing as a "great" job
just don't ask him to cite sources other than his own imageshack account.

Well, he's not really wrong on the gas price debate. The national average was well over $4.00 for a while during W.'s last term. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that since it was around $1.85 just as he left office.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 7:20 pm**

brotherplanet wrote:
To your first point about the ad hominium attack.

1. I didn't start this thread.

2. It's not an ad hominem attack when it's relevant to actual posts made. The source of his statements was being questioned. An ad hominem attack would be if I didn't like his post so I started commenting on his spelling or how lousy he did his job at work or started calling him names like a 10th grader, making it personal.

3. Notice how I italicized the word may in my response to the first post. I actually did that because I've noticed people don't always read what they're responding to and I wanted it to stand out so my point was clear yet you still missed it.

4. Everything else was directed at you and your posts. (I'm hoping you'll notice the bold since italicizing didn't work the last time)

To your second point about fair use...

Touché, my good man... Touché

You couldn't refute his facts so you attempted to suggest his sources were shady and his usage of them illegal, suggesting nothing he posts should be trusted. That's poisoning the well, a form of ad hominem attack.

The source of his facts was never in question. He put a link in all his posts. Had you clicked on the links, you would have even seen where his graphics came from. He hosted them at Imageshack because it is considered bad etiquette to leech bandwidth others paid for. Fair use covers his ass. Are you done being an idiot?

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 7:36 pm**

The source was in question because it was imageshack instead of a link to where these graphs originated.

I can make graphs if I want to, hence why it was brought into question as opposed to me saying they were lies.

But you knew that.

Now I will stop going in circles with you.

Posted: **Sun May 06, 2012 8:06 pm**

brotherplanet wrote:The source was in question because it was imageshack instead of a link to where these graphs originated.

There is a link in every post he made. Go check.

brotherplanet wrote:
Now I will stop going in circles with you.

Wise decision.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 12:16 am**

dong dokken wrote: just don't ask him to cite sources other than his own imageshack account.

The source is listed in every graph you dunce. St. Louis Fed's data base called FRED. Here is an example which shows that even though the population has grown 16% since 2000, there are fewer employed in the private sector than in 2000. Want to know why unemployment is high? The Bush recessions wiped out all job growth.

See the url underlined in red at the bottom.

I primarily use 3 sources: Commerce department, labor department or St Louis Fed which has a site called FRED which allows you to generate a graph using data provided by those two sources and many others.

Here is the FRED site. Feel free to prove that numbers have been fabricated.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/

Here's the commerce department's site. Feel free to show that any numbers have been doctored.

I usually post tables 1.1.1 or table 1.1.2

Frequently Requested NIPA Tables
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/Sel ... ?Popular=Y

Here is the labor department page that I primarily use for employment numbers:
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm

Look forward to seeing you prove your allegation that numbers have been doctored.

brotherplanet wrote: I've noticed that. Now his images may have come from someplace real, but it's funny how they're always at imageshack.

As demonstrated above, the source of the graph is listed on the graph, typically St. Louis Fed. If it comes from somewhere else the source is always listed and a link to the data is usually posted.

If you generate a graph at St Louis Fed and the images have a messy URL like this:

Code: Select all

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=NPPTTL,CNP16OV&scale=Left,Right&range=Max,Custom&cosd=2000-12-01,2000-01-01&coed=2012-04-01,2012-04-01&line_color=%230000ff,%23ff0000&link_values=false,false&line_style=Solid,Solid&mark_type=NONE,NONE&mw=4,4&lw=1,1&ost=-99999,-99999&oet=99999,99999&mma=0,0&fml=a,a&fq=Monthly,Monthly&fam=avg,avg&fgst=lin,lin&transformation=lin,lin&vintage_date=2012-05-10,2012-05-10&revision_date=2012-05-10,2012-05-10

It's easier to save the graph and upload it to imageshack, especially if you want to post multiple graphs or post a comment on the graph.

Also, the numbers from the commerce department are a screen capture of their web page so they have to be uploaded to imageshack.

This is eaiser to read:

than this:

Code: Select all

Table 1.1.2. Contributions to Percent Change in Real Gross Domestic Product 
Line 	  	   2012   
I
  	Percent change at annual rate:	
1	      Gross domestic product	2.2
  	Percentage points at annual rates:	
2	Personal consumption expenditures	2.04
3	   Goods	1.47
4	      Durable goods	1.13
5	      Nondurable goods	0.35
6	   Services	0.57
7	Gross private domestic investment	0.77
8	   Fixed investment	0.18
9	      Nonresidential	-0.22
10	         Structures	-0.35
11	         Equipment and software	0.13
12	      Residential	0.40
13	   Change in private inventories	0.59
14	Net exports of goods and services	-0.01
15	   Exports	0.73
16	      Goods	0.39
17	      Services	0.34
18	   Imports	-0.74
19	      Goods	-0.44
20	      Services	-0.30
21	Government consumption expenditures
    and gross investment	-0.60
22	   Federal	-0.46
23	      National defense	-0.44
24	      Nondefense	-0.01
25	   State and local	-0.14

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 12:36 am**

brotherplanet wrote:So it's better he takes material he doesn't own?

As usual, you are expressing an opinion without knowing jack shit. The St Louis Fed site is there to create graphs for people to use. If you were not massively financially illiterate, you would be aware of this site. Here are the options they give you:

Also, the source of every graph is listed on the graph. A link to any data is provided with the data.

brotherplanet wrote: What schooling? The guy tried to claim how many people were working as if that changed the amount of people not working.

That never happened.

You claimed that 12 million unemployed meant the economy was in recession.

You were fixated on the number unemployed. "The economy is not in recession? How do I explain that to the 12 million unemployed??"

The number unemployed has no bearing on whether the economy is in recession. For starters, unemployment is a lagging economic indicator which speaks to the state of the economy 2 to 3 quarters ago. Second, if the private sector sheds 9 million jobs over two years, you are going to have many unemployed even though the economy is expanding (ie: not receding)

It was obvious you did not understand what the word recession meant. You still do not. The fact that you did not feel schooled on that thread proves you are incapable of learning.

The entire discussion on that thread went over your head. I never attempted to change the number unemployed. I told you that was not determinative of whether or not the economy was in recession.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 12:50 am**

brotherplanet wrote: Notice the rules...

Please note that some data available in FRED is owned by third parties and subject to copyright restrictions. Before using data owned by third parties for anything other than your own personal use, you must contact the data owner to obtain permission.

So, you were saying...

What part of "for anything other than your own personal use" do you not understand stupid? Permission is required to use some of the data for commercial use, such as analyst's reports.

Also, that is not a rule. It's a notice that some of that data is proprietary and needs to be purchased if used commercially.

Finally, all the data I post from that site is provided to the public by the commerce department and labor department. The only exception to that is University of Michigan's inflation expectations.

When the data is protected, they have a notification at the bottom:

The most recent value is not shown due to an agreement with the source. Copyright, 2011,Survey Research Center, Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan. Reprinted with permission.

Also, the news articles you cut and paste are infringing on copyright. You do not have the copyright holders permission to republish them.

For example, on this thread you republish a story from Reuters:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=268725

Copyright 2012 Thomson Reuters.Click for restrictions.

Full legal notice

© 2011 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Reuters content is the intellectual property of Thomson Reuters or its third party content providers. Any copying, republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. "Reuters" and the Reuters Logo are trademarks of Thomson Reuters and its affiliated companies. For additional information on other Reuters media services please visit reuters.com/newsagency .

You need to go through your entire posting history and delete every single news article you posted in violation of copyright.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 8:22 am**

how do you make that copyright circle symbol??

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 2:57 pm**

I have a huge crush on DEATH ROW JOE.

Even moreso when he's on a rampage, schooling the tards.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 3:57 pm**

But, but, I'm a Republican, I don't understand charts and graphs I only understand colors that represent a terrorist threat, got any of those loudmouth?

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 5:53 pm**

MitziDupree wrote:I have a huge crush on DEATH ROW JOE.

Even moreso when he's on a rampage, schooling the tards.

A crush out of sympathy?.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 6:23 pm**

Ok now, DRJoe supplied his sources...

Why is it so quiet in here all of a sudden?

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 12:50 pm**

That is the sound of ownership.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 12:57 pm**

He's great at schooling right-wing retards.

He's shit at music.

He's so-so at photoshop.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 1:02 pm**

[quote="Crazy Levi"]He's great at schooling right-wing retards.
[quote]
i'm so endeared by your assumption i'm right wing and retarded

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 1:22 pm**

Crazy Levi wrote:He's great at schooling right-wing retards.

He's shit at music.

He's so-so at photoshop.

So every time he goofs on something you don't like, he's great, and every time he goofs on something you like, he's shit...

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 1:24 pm**

SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:
Crazy Levi wrote:He's great at schooling right-wing retards.

He's shit at music.

He's so-so at photoshop.
So every time he goofs on something you don't like, he's great, and every time he goofs on something you like, he's shit...

Precisely. I agree with his politics. I disagree with most of his music opinions. I think he's hit or miss on the photoshop.

Why is that

-worthy?

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 1:24 pm**

dong dokken wrote:
Crazy Levi wrote:He's great at schooling right-wing retards.
i'm so endeared by your assumption i'm right wing and retarded

Jesus Christ.

You can't make this shit up.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 5:07 pm**

dong dokken wrote:
Crazy Levi wrote:He's great at schooling right-wing retards.
i'm so endeared by your assumption i'm right wing and retarded

While your political leanings are perhaps subject to conjecture, you have long ago dispelled any doubts concerning your retardation.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 6:19 pm**

silly little man you could only dream of being where i'm at intellectually.

Posted: **Fri May 11, 2012 6:36 pm**

dong dokken wrote:silly little man you could only dream of being where i'm at intellectually.

...or I could be lobotomized.

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2012 12:51 am**

Crazy Levi wrote:
SeminiferousButtNoid wrote:
Crazy Levi wrote:He's great at schooling right-wing retards.

He's shit at music.

He's so-so at photoshop.
So every time he goofs on something you don't like, he's great, and every time he goofs on something you like, he's shit...

Precisely. I agree with his politics. I disagree with most of his music opinions. I think he's hit or miss on the photoshop.

Why is that -worthy?

Death Row Joe has awesome photoshops. It does seem he talks shit about all the bands that get mentioned and talks shit just about everyone here on the boards but he's harmless. He's talked shit about me but fuck it, he provided me with some damned good laughs it makes up for it. There was quite a few times in recent weeks when I needed a good laugh so thank you Death Row Joe, I can careless how naive you think I am or what you think about my avatar, you still make me laugh.

Metal Sludge Gossip Board

death row joe

death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe

Re: death row joe