Sciolistic Tomfoolery

[filc]

Favorite Misesian cutdowns. Post em here QUICK!

[Nielsio]

?

[filc]

Yes?

[Neodoxy]

What is this thread about?

[filc]

Are you guys serious?

[Edit] Apparently I naively assumed the title and topic was explanation enough. I thought it would be fun to compile a list of cutdowns provided by Mises, or Rothbard, or anyone for that matter. Sciolistic tomfoolery shows up in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Considering the tone and clarity that Mises provideds in his writings it becomes quite hilarious when you come across these gems. I had to do a definition search on both sciolistic and tomfoolery. To my surprise tomfoolery is infact a word!

[Nielsio]

You stil haven’t explained anything..

Mind you that a lot of people here are not native speakers.

[filc]

Your comment leaves no hint as to what needs splaining. The intent of this thread was to be humorous. It’s awfuly somber now…

[Neodoxy]

@filc

Your comment leaves no hint as to what needs splaining. The intent of this thread was to be humorous. It’s awfuly somber now…

So are you saying that you want this thread to be used to give examples of funny phrases that Austrians have used to describe people?

…

[filc]

funny phrases that Austrians have used to describe people things?

I’m not exactly sure what else you would have assumed.

I certainly hope this thread isn’t a representation of where these forums have lead up to. No room for humor. A somber and serious sentiment almost as if there exists a residual resentment. If that is the case consider taking a break.

As I remember it Nielso you were always one of the more cheerful members of the forum. At any rate I took a break from the forums for quite some time. Perhaps Its not necessary for me to come back just yet.

[Nielsio]

I literally don’t know what the words mean that you are using. That’s why I’m trying to tell you that some are not native speakers.

I don’t know what ‘sciolistic’, ‘tomfoolery’, or ‘cutdown’ means. I have some vague possible interpretations of the last two, but the combination of the three certainly leaves me with nothing. This doesn’t mean I don’t have a sense of humor; it means I don’t know what you’re on about, which is what I represented with a “?”.

[filc]

@Nielsio

I don’t know what ‘sciolistic’, ‘tomfoolery’, or ‘cutdown’ means. I have some vague possible interpretations of the last two, but the combination of the three certainly leaves me with nothing. This doesn’t mean I don’t have a sense of humor; it means I don’t know what you’re on about, which is what I represented with a “?”.

The irony is that this was somewhat the point of the whole thread. Or to quote myself from above…

@Filc

Apparently I naively assumed the title and topic was explanation enough. I thought it would be fun to compile a list of cutdowns provided by Mises, or Rothbard, or anyone for that matter. Sciolistic tomfoolery shows up in Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Considering the tone and clarity that Mises provideds in his writings it becomes quite hilarious when you come across these gems. I had to do a definition search on both sciolistic and tomfoolery. To my surprise tomfoolery is infact a word!

Also both terms come up immediately in google. The definitions are readily available in every dictionary I have looked in. Cutdown is a just a word I use poorly. Its like a mild insult. To speak negatively of something or someone.

[filc]

it means I don’t know what you’re on about, which is what I represented with a “?”.

LMGTFY

LMGTFY

In a sentence

@Mises

Monetary calculation only has meaning within the sphere of economic
organization. It is a system whereby the rules of economics may be applied in the
disposition of economic goods. Economic goods only have part in this system in
proportion to the extent to which they may be exchanged for money. Any
extension of the sphere of monetary calculation causes misunderstanding. It
cannot be regarded as constituting a kind of yardstick for the valuation of goods,
and cannot be so treated in historical investigations into the development of
social relationships; it cannot be used as a criterion of national wealth and
income, nor as a means of gauging the value of goods which stand outside the
sphere of exchange, as who should seek to estimate the extent of human losses
through emigrations or wars in terms of money? This is mere sciolistic
tomfoolery, however much it may be indulged in by otherwise perspicacious
economists.

Hilarity.