Wednesday, July 26, 2006

economic statistics, mahoshada, and spin

recent post in sunday island columnist mahoshada's blog analyzes sri lanka's fiscal situation. i agree with most his conclusions: government is acting irresponsibly and 'obfuscate and spin the economic information'. unfortunately last ailment seems to be catching and mahoshada has fallen victim to it.

i left a comment regarding the errors in his post on sunday night. moderator it seems has not approved it so far. you can see the full comment below this post.

mistake?
this is the relevant passage from his post ( report referred here is mid year fiscal position report 2006 issued by the government)
The major news from the Report is the sharp, 31 percent, increase in the budget deficit during the first four months of this year, going from Rs 67.9 billion for the corresponding period last year to 88.8 billion. The budget deficit for the entire year last year was 8.7 percent of GDP (according to the Central Bank Annual Report). If the deficit for the rest of the year was to show the same 31 percent increase as it did for the first four months – the total deficit for 2006 would be 11.4 percent. This would be the highest budget deficit for more than a quarter of a century.

intentionally or not, mahoshada makes a stupid mistake about the 'major news'. he compares nominal money value of first four months' budget deficit (rs. 88.8 billion) with last years first four months deficit (rs 67.9 billion) and arrives at a 31% increase. then he increases last years full year budget deficit expressed as a percentage of real gdp - 8.7% (not as the nominal money value) - by 31% and speculate that this years budget deficit will be 11.4%. this is simply the wrong way to go about this, because real gdp for this year is different from last year.

if he wanted to speculate about this year's deficit from first four months data (which itself is not right but maybe allowable) he should have obtained the numbers for this and last year's first four months budget deficit in gdp percentage terms (not nominal money value) and used the increase (or decrease) to calculate this year’s deficit.

as it happens in the report relevant passage reads,
The overall deficit increased to Rs. 88.8 billion compared to Rs. 67.9 billion due to increased public investments. Budget deficit including Post-Tsunami expenditure in relation to GDP during the first four months was 3.2 percent in comparison with 2.9 percent during the corresponding period of last year.

so the numbers (3.2% and 2.9%) were clearly available. doing the calculation we get an increase of 10.34% in budget deficit for the first four months. increasing last year's full year budget deficit ( 8.7 %) by that gives a speculative full year budget deficit for this year of 9.6% of gdp. ( not the 11.4 % 'highest budget deficit for more than a quarter of a century' mahoshada arrived at)

9.6% is still too high and as i said, i agree with mahoshada that government is fiscally irresponsible, but let us use statistics correctly when pointing that out, if we want to remain credible.
-
i also commented on another minor point in his post.

here is relevant section from mahoshada's post
For 2005, total public debt is estimated to be equal to about 94 percent of GDP – in other words, the government owes to foreign and domestic lenders almost as much as the total income generated by the country during the course of an entire year.

this is correct, however he fails to mention that public debt at the end of 2004 was 106% of gdp according to central bank. in other words it has come down (mainly because of the appreciation of the currency after the tsunami according to central bank)
94% is still too high and unsustainable in the long run, i agree but hiding facts do not help to make a credible case.


let us hope mahoshada will make more honest use of statistics in the future. correct statistics are damning enough.

-
* this is the comment i left in mahoshada's blog on sunday night (which is still to get moderator approval).
i agree with most of your analysis that government is fiscally irresponsible. i also agree that government 'obfuscate and spin the economic information'.

however when we bring out the statistics to support our arguments we should make sure we do not 'spin' them erroneously ourselves. in your post your compare the nominal value of first four months' budget deficit with last years first four months and gets a 31% increase. then you add 31% to last year's whole year budget deficit expressed in gdp percentage terms (not in nominal money value) and speculate that this year will be 11.4%. this is wrong maths. you ignore the fact that real gdp in last year and this year will be different. what you should do is find the difference between this and last year's first four months budget deficit in gdp percentage terms and then use that (instead of nominal money value ) to speculate about this years full year deficit .


same way you say 2005 public debt is estimated to be equal to about 94 percent of gdp. you do not give the figure for 2004. is it because that percentage has been coming down?


as i said i agree that budget deficit and public debt are irresponsibly high, but let us argue for responsibility with correct statistics. they are damming as they are.

33 comments:

Keshi said...

hope they will understand it better now :)

Keshi.

sittingnut said...

keshi
hope so :-)

Seal said...

Sittingnut,
That's a good point, but you too made a mistake. The inflation that has to be taken into account is not the monthly inflation corresponding to the latest month for which data is available. It should be the year on year inflation between April 2005 and April 2006. (Since we are comparing the first quarter deficit of 2005 with the first quarter deficit of 2006.) This is around 10 percent. So the growth in the budget deficit in real terms would come to around 20 percent.(30-10)
If that trend continues for the rest of the year, the budget deficit is as a percentage of GDP will come to roughly 10 percent.

seal said...

Okay just realized that you didn't calculate it the way I had imagined. You made the calculation by comparing the budget deficits of the first quarters of 2005 (2.9p of GDP) and 2006 (3.2 of GDP). Unfortunately the figures provided are not specific enough to make meaningful calculations. In the case of the budget deficit of 1Q 2005, 2.9% has obviously been rounded. What's the precise figure to two decimal places ? Is it 2.86 or 2.94 ? They haven't given that information. Similarly, the deficit for 1Q 2006 would be anywhere between 3.16 and 3.24. (Assuming they always round to the nearest decimal place which is the mathematically sensible thing to do.) Then the maximum growth in GDP (that can be calculated from these figures) will be (3.24-2.86)/2.86 = 13.28% and the minimum we can calculate will be 100*(3.16-2.94)/2.94 = 7.48%.
And this just leaves me totally puzzled! just checked the CPI and according to that, the year on year inflation between April 2005 and April 2006 is 9.17%. [ Calculation - 100*(4321-3958)/3958]
So the growth in GDP in real terms is 31-9 = 21%.
Okay, just figured it out. GDP grew by 8% too. That has to be taken into account when calculating the deficit in terms of the percentage of the GDP. (And I hadn't done so in the previous comment so the figure I came up with there is wrong.)
If we were to do that, the growth of the deficit as a percentage of GDP would come to 100*(121-108)/108 = 12%.(Which turns out to be very close to the upper bound of the extremes calculated earlier)
Then the projected (speculative) deficit for 2006 will be 9.7% [ = 8.7*1.12 , Didn't check the 8.7 figure for the 2005 deficit, assume it's correct!]

sittingnut said...

seal :
go do your trolling somewhere else and in the spare time get your brain examined :-)
trolls/nutters should try to be amusing at least. spending 2 hrs + to write the comments above is a waste of time. :-)

seal said...

Atleast Mahoshada keeps quiet and is a bit more decent when his mistakes are pointed out!

sittingnut said...

sure bc his are mistakes. as such he can admit them or keep quiet hoping it will be forgotten.
btw did you seriously think you can confuse ppl by such inane comments ? :-)
hope you are not connected to mahoshada and you are merely a jobless troll.

Seal said...

can't you see your mistake when it is staring you in the face?
Mahoshada did make a mistake, hopefully he will be man enough to admit it. but even if he doesn't he will keep quiet at worst. I doubt he'll try to attack the one pointing out the mistake personally the way you are doing right now. He is much better than you in that manner atleast.

seal said...

Suppose for example, the accurate value for the dificit is 2.8734% in one year and 3.2441% on another year. Then assume all numbers are rounded to the first decimal place as a matter of practice when a report is prepared. Then the deficit for the first year will be presented as 2.9 and the deficit for the second year will be presented as 3.2. There will be a significant difference between the percentage increase from 2.8734 to 3.2441 and the percentage increase from 2.9 to 3.2. In the first case the increase will be 12.9% and in the second case it will be 10.34%. You shouldn't use the 2.9 and 3.2 numbers to calculate deficit growth unless you are sure that they are exact values and not approximations. If you don't get all this then some of your readers might. If you choose to respond with a personal attack that'll just damage your own credibility.

sittingnut said...

don't tell me you take your comments seriously.
if you do read this

first the rounding error .
you say,
There will be a significant difference between the percentage increase from 2.8734 to 3.2441 and the percentage increase from 2.9 to 3.2. In the first case the increase will be 12.9% and in the second case it will be 10.34%.
:-)
if we take 2.8734 and 3.2441, when the calculation is complete we get a full year speculative budget deficit of 9.8% just 0.2 above the the one arrived at from rounded figures ( 9.6%).
in fact even if we take the largest ( taking 3.2444 %, 2.8556% for first four month's deficit ) or the a smallest ( 3.1556%, 2.9444%) difference for 4 decimal points
the full year speculative budget deficit ranges between 9.9% and 9.3%. range of 0.6%
do your calculations first then point out mistakes.

but the problem is you seem to have a muddled head ( or you are a troll and don't care what you write) .
for instance to take just three example from your second comment :

Then the maximum growth in GDP (that can be calculated from these figures) will be (3.24-2.86)/2.86 = 13.28% and the minimum we can calculate will be 100*(3.16-2.94)/2.94 = 7.48%.
:-) how did you jump to gdp growth figures from deficit numbers ?

So the growth in GDP in real terms is 31-9 = 21%.
where did you get that 31? and where did you learn to subtract? :-)

Okay, just figured it out. GDP grew by 8% too.
how ? :-)

first get a primary school text book and remind yourself basics of mathematics, then learn the difference between gdp , inflation, real gdp, deficit etc.

seal said...

:-) how did you jump to gdp growth figures from deficit numbers ?
Okay, I did make a mistake there. What I had in mind was "the growth of the deficit in proportion to the DGP". Thanks for taking the time to correct it.

where did you get that 31? and where did you learn to subtract? :-)
I got "that 31" from Mahoshada's article which you also quoted. That's the nominal increase in the deficit.
Your right, I was careless when subtracting, 31 minus 9 equals 22.

if we take 2.8734 and 3.2441, when the calculation is complete we get a full year speculative budget deficit of 9.8% just 0.2 above the one arrived at from rounded figures ( 9.6%).
You have a point there too. The final figure does not change much. I was focusing on the methodology for calculating growth of the deficit. Just wanted to show that using the 2.9 and 3.2 numbers as provided to calculate the growth in the deficit is not reliable because the percentage growth in the deficit (as a proportion of the GDP) could vary anywhere from 7.48% to 13.28% depending on what precise values were rounded to 2.9 and 3.2. It does turn out that the real values that were rounded to get 2.9 and 3.2 as deficit percentages weren't too far removed from those values to make the final deficit (as a percentage of GDP) that different from the one obtained by using the 2.9 and 3.2 values. But still, it's important to use the proper methodology.

Okay, just figured it out. GDP grew by 8% too.
how ? :-)

Okay, I just realized that the 8% GDP growth figure was for the 1Q of 2006 and that it's not the figure for the whole of 2005. Thanks for pointing out that too.

but the problem is you seem to have a muddled head ( or you are a troll and don't care what you write) .
Given the number of mistakes I've made, I acknowledge that I should have been more careful and less sloppy when making the comments I made earlier. But accusing me of having a muddled head and being a troll and needing to get the head examined etc. etc. was totally uncalled for. Everybody makes mistakes, and I've acknowledged the ones I made.

in fact even if we take the largest ( taking 3.2444 %, 2.8556% for first four month's deficit ) or the a smallest ( 3.1556%, 2.9444%) difference for 4 decimal points the full year speculative budget deficit ranges between 9.9% and 9.3%. range of 0.6% do your calculations first then point out mistakes.
I would disagree that a range of 0.6 is insignificant. Budget deficits do not change very rapidly from one year to another. If we take last year’s deficit of 8.7 for example, it would be almost miraculous if it were possible to reduce it to something like 6.7%. Even if it is possible to reduce the budget deficit to something like 7.7% that can be regarded as a very positive improvement and much more cannot be expected within a single year. On the other hand if the budget deficit increases even by 1 percent, that will be a very negative development and much further increases than 1 percent would quickly lead to the kind of massive deficit that hadn't existed in a quarter century that Mahoshada was referring to. To put it another way, a budget deficit change of 0.6% of GDP would amount to 6.9% (100*0.6/8.7) of the deficit. The deficit increasing by 6.9 percent is not at all insignificant.

first get a primary school text book and remind yourself basics of mathematics, then learn the difference between gdp , inflation, real gdp, deficit etc.
I will not respond to that because in this case you’re just playing to the gallery. You do have a lot of good points in your posts, it's a pity you have to neutralize those positive aspects by behaving in a very rude manner. You might entertain some who read you just for the entertainment value, but even they will see it for what it is and you'll loose the respect of your own readers.

sittingnut said...

seal:
I got "that 31" from Mahoshada's article which you also quoted. That's the nominal increase in the deficit.
why deduct 9 ( inflation %?) from 31 ?

It does turn out that the real values that were rounded to get 2.9 and 3.2 as deficit percentages weren't too far removed from those values to make the final deficit (as a percentage of GDP) that different from the one obtained by using the 2.9 and 3.2 values. But still, it's important to use the proper methodology.
in the first place as i said on the post whole method of using four months numbers to speculate whole year's is not correct. i just pointed out what numbers mahoshada should have used if he wanted to use that method.
second rounding up a rate of increase to fewer decimals when result is expressed with few decimals, does not result in significant errors whatever the real numbers.

I would disagree that a range of 0.6 is insignificant.....To put it another way, a budget deficit change of 0.6% of GDP would amount to 6.9% (100*0.6/8.7) of the deficit. The deficit increasing by 6.9 percent is not at all insignificant.
actually you are getting muddled again.
0.6% is the the range of rounding error of the speculative budget deficit not the increase in budget deficit. if you read forecasts even in developed countries the speculative ranges vary even by larger percentages.

and i said in the post increase to 9.6% (or 9.3-9.9) from 8.7% is irresponsibly large and not good for the economy , though not in the same scale as mahoshada speculated.

But accusing me of having a muddled head and being a troll and needing to get the head examined etc. etc. was totally uncalled for. Everybody makes mistakes, and I've acknowledged the ones I made.
you only acknowledged them now.
the mistakes were elementary ones as such only a person with a muddled head or a troll will argue like that. i did you the 'honor' of thinking you made the mistakes on purpose as trolls do, first. if you are not ( and its seem you are not a troll) that means your mathematical skills need lot of improvement .

You do have a lot of good points in your posts, it's a pity you have to neutralize those positive aspects by behaving in a very rude manner. You might entertain some who read you just for the entertainment value, but even they will see it for what it is and you'll loose the respect of your own readers.
as i said i thought you were a troll to advance that kind of silly calculations( bc i do not assume my commenters to be fools.). and we bloggers do not treat trolls kindly . we either ignore them or make fun of them. that will not change.

seal said...

why deduct 9 (inflation %?) from 31?
Yes. The increase of the deficit in real terms (the money value increase that is, not as a percentage of GDP) can be obtained by subtracting the rate of inflation from the nominal increase. I did realize that this calculation is rough and will be valid only when the rate of inflation is very low and thought that it wouldn't matter much when the inflation rate is 9%. Just realized that I shouldn't have taken a short cut like that.(specially when I was making an issue out of the fact that it isn't right to use the 2.9 and 3.2 values since they are provided to only a single decimal place of precision.)
The proper value for the increase in the deficit in real terms would be 20.18% [ calculation - 100*(131-109)/109]

actually you are getting muddled again.
0.6% is the the range of rounding error of the speculative budget deficit not the increase in budget deficit. if you read forecasts even in developed countries the speculative ranges vary even by larger percentages.

well, I wasn't getting muddled there, at least I was clear in my mind about what I was thinking, but I didn't express myself accurately yet again. What I had in mind was that due to the rounding done to present 2.9 and 3.2 as the percentage values of the 1Q deficits, the accurate value of the deficit (As a percentage of GDP) may turn out to be greater by 0.6 compared to the value obtained through the relevant calculations using the 2.9 and 3.2 values for the first quarter deficits of 2005 and 2006. I did fail to translate the thoughts in my mind to words properly in this case, and I acknowledge the error. (yet again!)

you only acknowledged them now.
The first few times you responded you didn't point any errors out, you just shouted at me and called me a troll and said I should get my head examined. It's only subsequently that you pointed out my errors and I acknowledged them when you did so.

in the first place as i said on the post whole method of using four months numbers to speculate whole year's is not correct. i just pointed out what numbers mahoshada should have used if he wanted to use that method.
Okay, you've checkmated me there. I had totally missed the part in your post where you qualified the calculations that you outlined by emphasizing that you merely consider them to be "allowed". I think I must have read your post yesterday or day before yesterday, kept your calculation in mind and forgotten to keep in mind the other details, such as the fact that you presented those calculations merely as something that can be allowed if someone really wants to take the approach Mahoshada had taken. So I apologize, I am sorry!
I should be careful in the future and always reread a post before responding, specially when it is something I had read the day before.(What I mean is, I did read your post just prior to responding but I must have skimmed through it since it was something I had read before, shouldn't have done that.)

the mistakes were elementary ones as such only a person with a muddled head or a troll will argue like that. i did you the 'honor' of thinking you made the mistakes on purpose as trolls do, first. if you are not ( and its seem you are not a troll) that means your mathematical skills need lot of improvement .
Well again, I just made some mistakes. And unlike many people I am not ashamed or defensive to admit mistakes when I make them. I don't know how you can make a sweeping generalization of me based on a few mistakes I made during such a brief interaction. I generally don't make these kinds of mistakes and it is a one off thing. (And I'll make doubly sure it doesn't repeat in the future). I am not going to argue about my maths skills because you’re just trying to justify your rudeness and pretend that there was a valid reason for it.
And yes, thanks for the honor! lol

as i said i thought you were a troll to advance that kind of silly calculations( bc i do not assume my commenters to be fools.). and we bloggers do not treat trolls kindly . we either ignore them or make fun of them. that will not change.
Well you can consider me to be a fool if that's what you want to. I don't think I am a fool. Personally I wouldn’t think of somebody as a fool based on the kind of brief interaction that we’ve had. But if that’s your style then so be it. You’ll just end up poisoning your own thoughts with this kind of hateful attitude.
How you treat trolls is up to you, that's really not my problem.

sittingnut said...

seal:
The proper value for the increase in the deficit in real terms would be 20.18% [ calculation - 100*(131-109)/109]
wrong again. you figure it out this time. :-)

at least I was clear in my mind about what I was thinking, but I didn't express myself accurately yet again.
:-)

What I had in mind was that due to the rounding done to present 2.9 and 3.2 as the percentage values of the 1Q deficits, the accurate value of the deficit (As a percentage of GDP) may turn out to be greater by 0.6 compared to the value obtained through the relevant calculations using the 2.9 and 3.2 values for the first quarter deficits of 2005 and 2006.
no. maximum rounding error for four decimal places( or in fact for 10 decimal places) will only result in deficit being greater by 0.3% (or lessor by 0.3%)at most, than the deficit figure (9.6%) obtained using figures rounded to 1 decimal place.

'you only acknowledged them now.'
The first few times you responded you didn't point any errors out, you just shouted at me and called me a troll and said I should get my head examined.

as i said the errors were elementary. only a troll or a fool could have written them. i assumed you were not a fool first. :-)

What I mean is, I did read your post just prior to responding but I must have skimmed through it since it was something I had read before, shouldn't have done that.
yes, esp if you are going to point out supposed errors.

And unlike many people I am not ashamed or defensive to admit mistakes when I make them.
btw you are yet to successfully point out any errors in my post. so there is no question of my admitting any mistakes.

thanks for the honor! lol
you are welcome :-)

How you treat trolls is up to you, that's really not my problem.
i know :-)

anyway thanks, it was very entertaining :-)

sittingnut said...

my original comment has now appeared on mahoshada's blog.

seal said...

wrong again. you figure it out this time.
There is nothing wrong there, unless it’s simply a matter of disagreeing with the exact rate of inflation used, in which case there is nothing to figure out.
But it’s a good thing you aren’t going to comment on that because you are incapable of civilized dialog.

btw you are yet to successfully point out any errors in my post. so there is no question of my admitting any mistakes.
What I said was "unlike many people I am not ashamed to admit my mistakes”. Ask your English teacher what the words "many people" means and then decide whether it was directed specifically at you or whether it was meant in a very general sense.

anyway thanks, it was very entertaining
I thought a man of your great intelligence would have much better ways to be entertained.


I am not going to say anything about the rest of what you said because you’re just trying to rationalize boorish behavior, as can be further confirmed by your use of a base explicative in one of your most recent posts.

sittingnut said...

seal:
There is nothing wrong there, ....
:-) you said that before and afterward had to apologize. so do check you method again .

Ask your English teacher what the words "many people" means and then decide whether it was directed specifically at you or whether it was meant in a very general sense.
there is some thing called honesty , you know.
so be honest about your own intentions. :-)

I thought a man of your great intelligence would have much better ways to be entertained.
oh! i am not a snob :-)

. your use of a base explicative in one of your most recent posts.
:-) what can i say! lol

rationalize boorish behavior
? rationalize ? how do you know that ? bc i thought you did not know how to reason. :-)

seal said...

:-) you said that before and afterward had to apologize.
There is no shame in apologizing. Only in refusing to do so even when one has made a mistake.

so do check you method again
The method is correct.

there is some thing called honesty, you know. so be honest about your own intentions
I already apologized for having said that you had made a mistake in your post before I had said "unlike many people I am not ashamed to admit a mistake". Given the fact that I had just apologized and given the meaning of the words "many people", it's absurd and dishonest to continue to claim that the words "many people" were directed at you. It's you who has to think of the importance of honesty.

:-) what can i say! lol
N*th*ng at all!

sittingnut said...

i have a low tolerance for dishonest, stupid, and nutty, ppl. this kind of ppl even though they have been shown their mistakes continuously and even admitted and apologized for them, still continue to feel a need to endlessly justify themselves even though they can't, or continue say their methods are correct in spite of history of errors. as i said dishonest , stupid, and nutty. do they deserve pity or courtesy? imo no.
what do they expect? that i teach them to be honest , intelligent, or rational? and explain all their mistakes in details just bc i have already done one or three?
but ppl with those qualities are born with them, nobody can help them. sorry but true.

ionles said...

The fact that I had made errors and apologized for them doesn't mean I have to stand by and put up with brutish and ultra rude behaviour.

When your left with nothing to say, you spit out some insults and think insults qualify as "logic" ,"rationality" and "honesty".

I am glad I brought you to this because spitting out insults is the closest thing you'll ever come to admitting your own errors. And you just did make an error by claiming that I had you in mind when I said "unlike many people..."

So you'll have to spit out even more insults to cover up that fact!

PS - It's a good thing your not faking a smile anymore.

sittingnut said...

ionles:
who are you?
if you are seal why not use that name ? memory gone too? :-)

seal said...

That was an accident, I wrote the word verification thing in the name field.

sittingnut said...

seal:
no wonder :-)

anyway
I am glad I brought you to this because spitting out insults is the closest thing you'll ever come to admitting your own errors.
what errors?you have yet to point out any errors on my part .:-)
this one?
And you just did make an error by claiming that I had you in mind when I said "unlike many people..."
lol
but as your own previous sentence shows you meant me. so even that is not an error on my part.

i will be rude to dishonest, stupid, nutty, and (now ) clumsy, ppl as i said from the first. you are one. :-)

seal said...

You are deliberately mixing up the issue because you are left with nothing else to do!
I say -
"Unlike many people...."
You say -
"I never made an error"
I say -
"I didn't have you in mind. Ask your English teacher what the words many people mean"
You say -
"There is a thing called honesty. Be honest about your intentions"
I say -
"No you made an error in thinking that I had you in mind when I said unlike many people...."
Then you say -
"Aha, you dare to say that I had made an error, this proves that you had me in mind originally"

With this kind of logic, who needs irrationality!
You are free to respond with name calling and insults. That’s what your best at and you have to use your talents, otherwise you’ll loose them.

sittingnut said...

well as i said some ppl are dishonest. your last comment just proves that again

as for your logic your comments are testimony enough. :-)

well names stick when they are true .
you are dishonest, stupid, nutty , and clumsy . your comment from the first are evidence for that. :-)

seal said...

When you are left with absolutely nothing to say you just claim that my comments prove something. And then go for some worn out petty insults thinking you are very clever to repeat them.
If you cannot accept the fact that a person who had just apologized to you for saying that you had made a mistake didn't have you in mind when he said "unlike many people I am not ashamed to admit a mistake" then the dishonesty is all yours.
And you're right, you didn't make an error when you said that I was referring to you when I said "unlike many people...." it was a deliberate lie!
You yourself refer to yourself as a nut, so better think twice before you say someone else is nutty. Your insults are meaningless because they are a transparent effort to justify your rudeness. Rudeness is your nature and so is vulgarity. Your vulgar to the point of using unprintable words thinking it's okay to do that if you cover them with st*rs!

sittingnut said...

If you cannot accept the fact that a person who had just apologized to you for saying that you had made a mistake
!?you apologized for my mistake? what the hell are you saying?
i did not make a mistake, you did, and you apologized, but you still feel you need to justify yourself endlessly.
and you meant me when you said "some people" . you are free to say you didn't( bc you cannot prove i made a mistake) but that only makes you a liar.

did i say i was not rude ?
i like being rude to ppl like you( dishonest, stupid , nutty and clumsy, all proved with evidence from your own comments) as said before :-)

what does my calling my self sittingnut has to do with your proved nutty behavior and comments.

as for the word fuck i used it in the post without *, i have used worse too. i do not use it on the title bc title gets displayed in blog aggregators and i don't want some puritan aggregator admin to remove it . if you do not know what you are talking about don't talk.

seal said...

!?you apologized for my mistake? what the hell are you saying?
Did you actually read what I wrote? Probably not. What I said was “If you cannot accept the fact that a person who had just apologized to you for saying that you had made a mistake ". My deal thothe baba, I apologized for having said that you had made a mistake, not for your mistake.

i did not make a mistake, you did, and you apologized, but you still feel you need to justify yourself endlessly.
As I said, there is no shame in apologizing. My apology was limited to the reason that I stated. Not for everything under the sun. I did not say that your some god and that henceforth I will accept everything that comes out of your divine mouth.

and you meant me when you said "some people"
I didn't say "some people", I said "unlike many people". You shouldn't be so clumsy and misquote a person like that. This point is so damn obvious and your dishonesty is so transparent to any impartial observer, that I will henceforth refuse to comment on it. You’re free to lie, lie, and lie as much as you desire about it. You have nothing more to do now than repeat your lies anyway.

did i say i was not rude ?
Did I say you said you were not rude ? What I said was that your insults are a cover to hide the true source of your rudeness, which is your rude nature

what does my calling my self sittingnut has to do with your proved nutty behavior and comments.
Everything! The words you use to describe yourself says everything about what you are. Since you are a sitting nut, your opinion on the nuttiness of someone else carries zero weight.

as for the word (this is where the nuts filthy unprintable word was used by him) i used it in the post without *, i have used worse too.
That figures. When a person has filth in his mind, filth will be what comes out of his mouth.

sittingnut said...

seal
where did you apologize for "saying that you had made a mistake" ?
since you did not do that, your sentence was ambiguous.

My apology was limited to the reason that I stated.
given that almost everything you say is an error you should probably start with an apology in every comment and end with one too. do not limit yourself you cannot afford to do that :-)

I didn't say "some people", I said "unlike many people".
lol "unlike many people" = "some people". may be you do not understand that ?

Did I say you said you were not rude ? What I said was that your insults are a cover to hide the true source of your rudeness, which is your rude nature
so i am rude to people like you( dishonest, stupid, nutty and clumsy) by nature. i am glad !

Everything! The words you use to describe yourself says everything about what you are. Since you are a sitting nut, your opinion on the nuttiness of someone else carries zero weight.
haha!
man can you see what you write. is this what you have been reduced to. so anything i say (explain if you can, why you limit yourself to my saying someone, namely you, nutty) is discounted bc i use the name sittingnut ? may be you should only comment on fish and seals since you are seal. :-)

When a person has filth in his mind, filth will be what comes out of his mouth.
so you think fuck is filth.:-) as you wish prude.

seal said...

where did you apologize for "saying that you had made a mistake" ?
since you did not do that, your sentence was ambiguous.

given that almost everything you say is an error you should probably start with an apology in every comment and end with one too. do not limit yourself you cannot afford to do that :-)

You’re entitled to your opinion on how many times I should have apologized. But I apologized only for one thing and for one thing only. It was for having said that you had made an error in your original post. That'll be very clear if you read the comment in which I apologized. You continuously pretend that I had given an open apology for everything under the sun and that me daring to question anything that comes out of your divine mouth contradicts such an open ended apology.

You’re saying there is an ambiguity in the sentence "If you cannot accept the fact that a person who had just apologized to you for saying that you had made a mistake"? And you can justify interpreting it as me saying that I apologized for your mistake. As you wish nut!

lol "unlike many people" = "some people". may be you do not understand that

People often say "unlike some people" when they want to point to a person without naming them, this is not the case with “unlike many people”. In any case, you may think they are the same, but I think there is a subtle difference. For someone so hung up on accuracy, you’re pretty shameless when it comes to taking great liberties at misquoting a person. If you’re quoting a person, you'd better use his words instead of putting words into someone else's mouth. Of course, to the great sitting nut, anything is permitted; it's for everyone else that the slightest error becomes deadly.

so i am rude to people like you( dishonest, stupid, nutty and clumsy) by nature. i am glad !

No, you’re rude by nature, period. Everything else is a transparent excuse.

may be you should only comment on fish and seals since you are seal. :-)

There is a huge difference between fish and seals. You may not know that, but the only real similarity is that they live on water! In fact, seals are mammals. Saying that fish and seals are similar simply because both live in water is like saying that Humans and Snakes are similar because both live in land.
But of course, it isn't much of a big deal to call me a seal is it? So you bring in fish into the picture because you are prepared to promote any distortion to get your way.
In any case, you’re left with nothing to say and go for the utter ridiculous. What I said was that since you called yourself a sitting nut you will look ridiculous when you call someone else nutty! A proper analogy would be to say that I will look ridiculous if I were to call someone else a seal! Not that I should always talk about seals. I didn't say you should always talk about nuts, only that you don't have standing to accuse someone of being a nut.
And yes, not just me, whenever you call anyone as nutty, that should be discounted completely because you are a sitting nut.

so you think (this is where the nut again used a kunuharapa) is filth.:-) as you wish prude.

Yes, it's absolutely disgusting when that word is used because it is always used in an inappropriate way. Decent people use words like "make love”, they don't use the kind of filthy words that you use. The word which you shamelessly utter is a mark of vulgarity. You’re even shameless to the point of trying to deceive aggregator admins. But your mind is filled with filth so it's not surprising that you spit out filth.

sittingnut said...

seal
seals eat fish.learn that
according to the logic in your previous comment, that is the only thing they are competent to speak about. but you changed the argument you made in to something else in the next comment.
but then you are a dishonest person so that is expected .

that fact you were forced to accept and apologize for your errors and your inability to point out a single error on my part seemed to have been to be too much for you to bear going by your comments .
for instance you are reduced finding fault with me for, .

1. rudeness - which i readily admit in your and similar cases. as for whether i am rude to everyone those ppl can judge for themselves. i don't think they will need your error prone silly guidance on that.

2. 'filthy' words i used in other posts - according to your prudish standard. you really need to get laid, though i doubt you will find anyone willing to do that with you. :-)

3. having a name called sittingnut - your argument does not make any sense . why can't i call anyone nutty bc my name include word 'nut'? why is that not credible? i offered your own comments as evidence of your nuttiness . it doesn't matter what my name is.

4. supposedly subtle differences between 'unlike many' ppl and 'some' ppl - there is no difference. your attempt to change that to 'unlike some' ppl which is different is all too obvious and wont get you anywhere. .

none of those things can be considered faults on my part. only a dishonest, stupid, nutty, clumsy, prude will consider them to be faults.

on the other hand your faults were all too obvious and can be proved from your own comments. and you were already forced to apologize . if you had any honor instead of false wounded pride ( bc idiots have no right to feel proud) you would face reality and start and end all your comments with an apology as i suggested earlier. how about doing that from the next one. huh? :-)

or are you still feeling the hurt from your well deserved trashing ? .

seal said...

You hadn't even dealt with most of the points I raised, just evaded them.

1) Again, I know you readily admit to rudeness. You are rude by nature and need petty excuses to justify it. That's obvious to anyone who is impartial.

2) On the issue of seals, my point from the beginning was that a person who calls himself a nut looks ridiculous when he calls others nutty. A correct analogy would be to say that someone who calls himself a seal looks ridiculous when he calls someone else a seal. Not that seals are only qualified to talk about fish. I didn't change the meaning of anything, you did. Your desperately trying to confuse the issue because that's all that is left for you to do.

3) Well yes, there is a subtle difference between "some" and "many", "many" means lots and lots...."some" can mean lots and lots but it can also mean just 2 or 3 or "few". And the point of not putting words into other people’s mouth is very basic. As I said, I think there is a subtle difference, and if you think there isn't then you are free to use both words interchangeably but when quoting me, quote what I say, not what you foolishly consider as being "the same". In any case, as I said I had demonstrated conclusively that I didn't have you in mind when I said "unlike many people..." If I had you in mind I wouldn't have apologized just before saying that sentence. But you’re a liar so you are free to lie lie and lie. That's that is all that is left for you to do.

4) You didn't even deal with the issue of you claiming that the sentence "If you cannot accept the fact that a person who had just apologized to you for saying that you had made a mistake" is vague and that it can be interpreted as me apologizing for your mistake! That has got to be the height of foolishness. Such an interpretation would have required someone to completely drop the words "for saying that".
You obviously have nothing to say to that! Well at least you didn't make up some lie. (Yet!)
5) If you can't figure out the fact that it is silly and dumb for someone who calls himself a nut to be calling others nutty then I can't help you. Ask your shrink for help.
6) Your response to my objection to the filthy word you use is not a response at all. It's just a cheap retort of someone who has nothing to say. I'll take that as an acknowledgement what I said. As I said, it’s absolutely disgusting when that word is used because it is always used in an inappropriate way. Decent people use words like "make love”, they don't use the kind of filthy words that you use. The word which you shamelessly utter is a mark of vulgarity. You’re even shameless to the point of trying to deceive aggregator admins. But your mind is filled with filth so it's not surprising that you spit out filth.
You are a kunuharapa kareya and a filthy shameless one at that!
That's it, I am ending my comments now, because you are getting increasingly desperate and your only responses for a long time have consisted of lies, evasion and distortion. You are free to have the last comment or the last 50 comments to yourself and utter whatever filth, lies or distortion that you wish to.

sittingnut said...

seal:
:-)
where did you raise any valid point ?
what does your last comment have with the main post here ?
fact is you were so carried away with your foolish justifications for your ever accumulating of errors even after you apologized for some of them and your total inability to point out a single mistake on my part, that you ended up with a comment about seals talking, filthy words, my name is nut etc etc.
and most of it quite is incoherent to the point of being unreadable.
so good riddance ! :-)