jjg lambasts me some with eye rolling and the like...
I merit you in spite of all the lambasting.
I have noticed something interesting though... a pattern in your responses.
I use a technique when making an idea clear where I allow for a possibility that I highly doubt. This time instead of saying; "I think this is the super-cycle" I lay out that I think there is a significant change the last 50% crash will be the first of a generally decreasing magnitude of bears.
You tend to look at the flat statement: (Something along the lines of) "The 'normal' 80% crash could still happen this cycle BUT..." and you kind of knee jerk and go:
oh gawd... Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Let's at least get through noman's land and see what happens after that before you start predicting doom and gloom bullshit.
Sure it is possible, but anything is possible.
It's like you are missing my point. My point is not the doom and gloom. And I am saying what you a are saying in your response. Perhaps I could be more clear and say: "Of course anything is possible, but I believe we may see more frequent, less deep bear markets as we move into a mature market that ends up eating all the value in the world".
But that would not have the cAPS over-dramatic flair!!!
Still, the thing I notice is you want to knee jerk at any extreme prediction, particularly bearish ones, that you do not notice when they are a hypothetical meant as a contrast.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comments!
Again... I think something really big is coming.
Of course, I had merited that earlier "meta analysis" post of yours too.. even though i rolled my eyes at some of your ways of presenting matters.. I concede that you still raised several decent points, and I responded how some of those points struck me in terms of even how some other members might react to some of your ways of presenting some of the matters.
Might I have read through my responsive post and changed my tone after re-reading and going through the whole thing a few times..? sure maybe I could have and sure maybe I spent less time on my response than I should have.. but I made choices regarding how much time to spend on my responsive post and at what point to move on once I made my points rather than going through it one, two or three more times...
Concededly, I also have some opinions about you based on some of your past writings that may have influenced my way of responding at various points in that post too..;.
And yes, upon first reading your post, I had not noticed that you were juxtaposing argumentative hypotheticals that did become more apparent when I read some of your points in later paragraphs of your post..
I doubt that I am being overly unfair to the various points that you made nor failing to understand you as much as you are making me out to be (including your assertion that I am mostly only receptive to bull arguments or even accounting for my one of my ongoing criticisms of you and other posters who seem to be inclined to roll their own models without adequately accounting for some of the dominant currently credible BTC price prediction models), but so be it, you can conclude what you wish regarding the extent of my understandings or lack thereof or if I should have spent more time on the substantive points (and nuances) of your post to improve the quality of my various on-the-spot criticisms.
I certainly don't claim to understand everything that every poster writes whether convoluted argument styles, technical presentations, cultural references, stylistic matters or even if I might not be feeling sufficiently well-rested to get nuances that are meant to be communicated within certain writings.
Overall I do tend to continue to have positive impressions regarding several of your longer posts, even though sometimes I do not agree and sometimes I might not get inspired to respond in any kind of way.. even though there were a few points in this latest long post ("meta analysis") that pushed me over my own then threshold and into a kind of responsive mode.
Poll
