Moonbox
-
Posts
9,562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
47
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Moonbox
-
-
15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
A reasonable and thoughtful person would expect that if there were more mistakes they would have been found.
Who's to say they weren't?
I'd say the fact that the book's been completely removed from stores/vendors, and that looking it up yields this forum on the first page of a Google Search suggests there was something fishy about it. Not to you though...of course not.
Speaking of a reasonable and thoughtful person, he/she wouldn't ask someone to find mistakes in a book that cannot even be found anymore.
15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:So you couldn't find any other mistakes
You and Army Guy can wallow in the intellectual muck together. 🫂
-
On 5/17/2025 at 5:19 PM, Army Guy said:
No you wouldn't , if it is not me then it's some other on this forum that you'll attack for endless pages of nonsense...
Then what do I need you for?
Put me on ignore or stop whining. You're just embarrassing yourself.
-
On 5/17/2025 at 5:26 PM, Army Guy said:
Thats all you got is one mistake, out of 388 pages One mistake....on a book that gives carney a glowing review, and your still not happy, mind you voted liberal, i'd be a tad upset as well ....sorry your going to have to do better....
Right, it was "just one mistake"...
When the AI can't even the most basic facts straight, a reasonable and thoughtful human being would suspect that there'd be a great many other errors in those 388 pages. Nobody ever accused you of being thoughtful or reasonable though, so don't worry.
I know it sucks being the sucker, so if you want to pretend that this book was legit despite the fact that it's been removed from sale everywhere and that this forum now comes up on the first page of a Google Search for it, go ahead.
That doesn't change the reality. It doesn't change the fact that you didn't just fall for AI-generated slop. You paid for it.
-
9 hours ago, CdnFox said:
I know you think that if you use that term you'll sound intelligent but really you just sound out of touch. You probably don't know much about computers but AI is actually considered to be a pretty powerful research tool these days
Yes, it certainly can be. Check this out:
It can also be used to program shovelware, to barf out and spam click-bait articles/videos and flood social media with propaganda (slop).
10 hours ago, CdnFox said:Can't refute the important parts of the book that he's referring to then that strongly suggests that they are fairly accurate.
Two things:
1) When the National Post publishes an article highlighting how this "author" published three different books within weeks of one another, when they weren't even capable of getting basic stuff right like where Carney went to university, and when the vendors all pull the books off the shelves within a few weeks, I'd say it strongly suggests the opposite.
2) Nobody else was foolish enough to fall for this and read it, let alone pay for it.
-
9 hours ago, CdnFox said:
Exactly!
And you kept zooming in till it didn't look like there was so much blue
Exactly! and then Treebeard showed us much red there was in Alberta, because you're apparently so dumb that someone had to explain that the amount of paint on the map isn't important, but rather the number of seats won.
When this level of stupidity
is how you convince yourself that you're right, it's no wonder you think you're batting 100.00%
-
37 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
Yes a book generated by AI, a process that millions are using today, a book that somehow people like you have only found one mistake
Yes, AI-generated slop that didn't even get a basic editing or fact-checking pass, self-published by a guy who released at least two other books on Carney within weeks of each other.
If anyone was going to fall for that, of course it was you.
42 minutes ago, Army Guy said:Attacks, there are literally thousands of pages that you have created with absolutely no value at all , except to trade insults...it is what your here for...
Nobody spends more time on this forum crying about attacks and insults than you, and usually in the same breath as you're delivering attacks and insults. 🥴
-
27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
This is what i've been saying over and over again, nothing of any value.........God i'm going to miss your banter when your gone....
At any moment you can put me on ignore. I'd be happy not hear from you. 👍
-
18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
Dude you are wrong literally every time we talk
Right, like how the Conservatives "swept" the GTA? 🤡
-
9 minutes ago, User said:
I have already made my position throughout this thread.
The topic might change, but your "position" is the same in every thread:
Step 1: Respond to disagreement by making up a retarded strawman to argue against
Step 2: Squeal and moan about dishonesty when your opponent pushes back at your make-believe
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
So. What were you saying about hyper partisans who just spout any old lie to prop up their tribal echo chamber? LOLOLOL
The blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. Good job muppet. You finally got one. 👍
99/100 times, I'm pretty comfortable giving eyeball the benefit of the doubt over a chucklef*ck like you.
-
1 hour ago, User said:
Feel free to review the discussion and highlight any part you continue to have issues with.
I already did you clown. If you can find anywhere where Eyeball is actually defending Hamas, or saying "rape is okay", go ahead and show us. Otherwise it's just the latest example of you dumbing and argument down and reframing it into a stupid enough strawman that you feel adequate to defeat it. 🤡
1 hour ago, User said:No, not every time. Most of the time you run away from discussions and the many times I have repeatedly pointed out your factual errors.
If I was running away from you, I wouldn't have engaged. The truth is you're a waste of time, because you never offer anything new.
EVERY argument you get into:
Step 1: Respond to disagreement by making up a retarded strawman to argue against
Step 2: Squeal and moan about dishonesty when your opponent pushes back at your make-believe
-
1 hour ago, User said:
It should be no surprise that for as dishonest as folks here will be here I will be calling it out.
It would be surprising not to see you squealing about dishonesty at the faintest hint of disagreement or opposition. Cute self-validating logic though: "I call you out for dishonesty because you're dishonest". 🥴👍
It's just too bad that you follow the same routine in every argument:
Step 1: Respond to disagreement by making up a retarded strawman to argue against
Step 2: Squeal and moan about dishonesty when your opponent pushes back at your make-believe
EVERY TIME
-
On 5/13/2025 at 10:47 PM, User said:
Once again, your attempts at some moral equivalency here are a pathetic dishonest attempt for you to defend what Hamas does.
..and look at that. User is squealing about dishonesty again when folks push back against his retarded strawman. 😆
Eyeball's a Hamas supporter...apparently...because that's what it means to question anything Israel is doing.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Stephen Harper waited 8 months to come up with a budget when he won his first election.
Apparently it's only the most important when it's not a Conservative.
That's how logic works when you're a hysterical partisan, dontcha know?
-
10 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Thats quit the build up for only one mistake....Get ready for it was your quote right...everyone was ready for this Got ya moment only to be let down....
Let down by the fact that you're referencing AI-generated slop? 🤡
10 hours ago, Army Guy said:weeks before you accused me of not even reading the book, Well this week we went from the book was nothing more than a bunch of conspiracies' theories' to now it has one mistake factual error
Like I said before, it would have looked better on you if you hadn't read it. Now, you're left defending a book that at first looked like standard conspiracy-soup, but actually turned out to not even have a human author. Great job, genius.
You're digging in your heels in and insisting that this book (one of three that were spammed out this year by the same "author" within a few months) is still somehow credible.
It's still somehow credible despite the fact that as a "biography", it began with an error on something as basic as where Carney attended university (something that Wikipedia can tell you).
It's still a worthy source, apparently, despite the fact that the National Post highlighted it as a sham misinformation piece written by AI, and despite the fact that it's been removed from vendor sites and is no longer available.
Mon dieu...
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
So which part of the books did you think were wrong?
This is an old game of yours. You say the books aren't valid, point to the sections that are wrong.
You mean other than the obvious, ridiculous error I already quoted, and the fact that the National Post is highlighting it as AI-generated slop, and the fact that the book has been removed from most vendor websites?
Did you actually have an intelligent point, or were you just following me around like a butthurt puppy? 🤡
-
22 hours ago, Army Guy said:
Yes i did research him including read his biography written by james powell , can't wait until your next accusation
Okay...get ready for it:
...
...
...
That "biography" was even written by a human:
"In total, some 30 titles were published about Carney this year and made available on Amazon — but most were taken down from the site after inquiries from Bloomberg News."
"One author, James A. Powell, put his name to at least three books about the former central banker"
Another book by Powell called ‘Mark Carney: The Unelected Power Broker of the 21st Century,’ which is still available, begins with an error, falsely claiming Carney graduated from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario.
What else is there to say here, really? When you're so blindly and hysterically biased that you fall for AI-generated slop propaganda (and apparently paid to be able to read it), I'm not sure anything or anyone is capable of getting through to you. -
5 hours ago, betsy said:
I don't think this time, any NDP crossers would have to worry about angering their party.
It's not the party, but rather the constituents. Floor-crossers don't typically have long careers.
In this case, Carney doesn't really need a majority. The NDP is a wounded animal and won't be in a position to bring down the government for years. Quebec is ideologically opposed to Reform Party party politics and have already indicated they'll support the Liberals for at least a year "and some months".
If Carney shits the bed all bets or off, but as a minority goes, this one has a mandate and plenty of runway.
-
1
-
-
On 5/11/2025 at 10:46 PM, Army Guy said:
Well for someone claiming to educated on the subject, it is hard to tell from your posts.
Regurgitating 3 years of Pierre's dumdum populism has made you worse than uninformed on the topic. How would you know either way?
On 5/11/2025 at 10:46 PM, Army Guy said:I think that credit goes to Flaherty right and carney made it sound like it was all him.
For all the time and energy you spent conflating how Carney was an (informal) "advisor" to Trudeau, it's (not at all) curious how you aren't interested in how much advice Flaherty (the lawyer) sought out from the economics PhD he hired to run the BoC. 🙄
On 5/11/2025 at 10:46 PM, Army Guy said:you got one glowing review from the FP , i guess i should be bowing down to his greatness, and yet i provided you with over 4 from British sources and 2 from Canadian sources that do not providing glowing reviews
You should be embarrassed by the sources you provided, rather than continuing to bring them up.
You cited Liz Truss, the former UK PM who was turfed after 40 days for her incompetence. You also cited a conspiracy treatise written and self-published by a nobody that you can barely even find online. What that tells us is that your research on the topic amounted to Googling "Why Carneyman bad?"
You didn't actually research him or what people say about him. Carney was running for the Liberals, so you went scrambling to the interweb to find literally anything, no matter how ridiculous, that said bad things about him. That's the extent of your reasoning and knowledge on these topics.
On 5/11/2025 at 10:46 PM, Army Guy said:Yes you did quote some sources, good on you, it is a first i've seen you post, and you know what thank you....but they really don't say much do they....
I'd argue they say a lot. When Flaherty's former deputy chief of staff speaks out publicly against Poilievre's team and how they tried to rewrite history and reality, that tells people something (but not you obviously).
When I cite the National Post, a source you quote frequently, talking about how Carney was one of the smartest central bankers in the world and about the important things he did during the financial crisis, that too should register. Sadly, you curate your reality and your head's too deep in the sand. 🤷♂️
-
4 hours ago, ExFlyer said:
Oh wait, you predicted a conservative win and ...guess what.? You LOST.
He didn't just predict a conservative win...he predicted a conservative majority.
That Kool-Aid is mighty potent. Reality bends to his desires.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
Then i was right your not debating in most cases, but using bandwidth to insult people...
As opposed to you, who spends his time and bandwidth ranting at and insulting people...and then whining about being insulted?
42 minutes ago, Army Guy said:maybe you should step away from this topic as it does look like your the one that does not know WTF your talking about....
Because out of the two of us, you're the one who was educated on and earns his living from economics and finance, right?
🥴👍
56 minutes ago, Army Guy said:I do want to thank you for taking your time to provide sources this time...it must be snowing where you are ...
...and thanks for proving why a source is wasted on you. 5 different cites and quotes, and you just fly past it with barely a comment beyond "Flaherty was his boss and saying good things about him is what bosses do."
I even quoted a National Post article (and you love citing them) explaining what he did and why he was so highly regarded. Your response?
**crickets**
58 minutes ago, Army Guy said:I've told you this before as well as provide sources Carney record in the UK is not all that and a bag of tea
You provided garbage sources. Scouring the internet for anyone you can find that says something bad about Carney is questionable enough, but coming to us proudly with gems like Liz Truss, or conspiracy treatises on Carney's nefarious role in the "Great Reset" shows us how strict your information filter is:
Any information that doesn't support what you what you want to hear gets tossed, no matter what, and anything that tells you what you want to hear is accepted with almost literally zero scrutiny.
-
12 hours ago, Army Guy said:
If you can prove it wrong , then by all means do it, (thats what people do in a debate)
I answered your question with one of my own. I don't have to "prove it" any more than you did, which was not at all. 🙃
What people "do" in debates is argue different viewpoints, often on subjective topics with no way of objectively or definitely proving them. We can present the facts we have, and the conclusions we draw from them.
12 hours ago, Army Guy said:or is this you offering nothing more than chirping and opinions...
If you were offering anything more than your opinion, on a topic you know absolutely nothing about, that sort of comment would look less goofy.
As it is, I can offer you quite a bit, as can fellas like former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty:
Flaherty's dead, so he can't weigh in now, but his deputy chief of staff did, after Pierre's wife tried to pull a fast one:
We also have the big man himself, Prime Minister Harper:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-jRPA7zGZnM
telling Parliament what a tremendous job Carney did as BoC governor.
We know he tried to recruit Carney as his finance Minister, and one of the best lines from the Liberal campaign was:
"Stephen Harper could have approached Pierre Poilievre about serving as his Finance Minister. He approached Mr. Carney instead,”
“In 2025, Mr. Harper is being called on to save Pierre Poilievre from a historic drop in support, but no amount of revisionist history can take away from Mr. Carney’s proven record of economic leadership.”
I know you like citing the National Post, so here's an article they published that gushed about him:
All of this paints a pretty clear picture about what both the Conservatives thought of Carney at the time, but also what the world thought about him and his role in 2008/2009.
What's your "proof" again?
Oh that's right, you repeat whatever the Conservative party says. 🙄
-
"Doing better than EVER"
...after losing their fourth straight election, and increasing the Liberal vote share to its highest in 45 years.
If this is what success smells like to our little Foxie, that explains a lot about why he's so miserable. 🤣
-
2 minutes ago, myata said:
Keeping the objective numbers in mind I can't quite agree and neither should anyone who can count. 1.2 to 1.5 million $ for unnecessary election spent versus ~ 10% "saved"? Ohoh. It surely works out of someone's pocket just not his.
I don't know why you would say the election was unnecessary. Trudeau didn't have a mandate anymore. Carney wasn't elected, until he was.
-
1
-
Mark Carney: No Charisma
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
I've demonstrated that it was it was written by AI, that Bloomberg discovered right at the beginning of the book that the AI couldn't get a detail as basic as where Carney went to university correct, and I've demonstrated that the book has been removed from sale/circulation by the vendors.
Your donkey-brained conclusion:
"Yerp yerp tortally legit source!" 🤡