User talk:Threepillars

Welcome!

Hello, Threepillars, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Albion moonlight (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACORN article[edit]

Who are you to designate some economists, particularly Stan Liebowitz [[1]] as "wacky"? Only economists who happen to agree with you are acceptable? See [[2]]. Syntacticus (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, like you, can make my own judgements. More importanly, the balance of analysts and social scientists in the field seem to find the argument to lack credibility. See the wiki CRA page for tons of writing on how weak the "CRA-caused the economy to wreck" argument is. In any case, why post this here? Stick to the relevant pages. Threepillars (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If things have gotten heated you have only yourself to blame. Also you are using the wrong test. This is about notability. It's not for you to decide whether the CRA argument is valid and parrot what misguided left wing economists think. The fact that it is being raised makes it notable and ACORN is deeply involved in backing the CRA. In addition, many ACORN critics have specifically said ACORN and its backing of the CRA contributed to an extent to the mortgage meltdown and those criticisms should at least be summarized in the article. There does not have to be a huge section in there about it but at least a few sentences laying out the critical perspective. Syntacticus (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others are to blame for your behavior? Seriously, you have no cause to get nasty with me. I would agree it's notable if it was widely held but it, instead, seems to be widely dismissed. If you do include it, a balanced view should be given especially noting that it is not widely held. No?Threepillars (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]