Pragmatarian Discussion Thread

[Dogmeat]

The fuck are you talking about Xero? I've pointed out that it isn't my preference multiple times in the last few pages, and also at least once before then. Including the post you're responding to.

You can't make this about me Xero. Nothing I've done comes close to your blatant intellectual dishonesty or disrespect for the dead.

I'm not making up the fact that you haven't told us the truth about your preferred political system. You either tell us the truth or admit that you have a double standard when it comes to the truth.

You said:

Expressing your true valuation doesn't mean literally burning your money. In this case, DV'ing for yourself would be a complete waste of your money. There's no chance that you're going to get one of those seats. But you can DV to make sure that Obama, rather than Trump, gets a seat. Do you do so?

Expressing my "true valuation" would be burning my money. DV'ing for myself would be a complete waste of money. There's no chance that my preferred political system will win. But I can DV to make sure that Capracracy, rather than Pragmatarianism can win. There's no double-standard, I'm just being shrewd.

You falsified expert testimony to mislead people. That's reprehensible, and there's no comparing the two.

[Xerographica]

If a person gives $0 to food safety, then I'd simply guess that they have bigger fish to fry.

Ok, so let's have an example. Some random nobody, let's say Warren Buffet, examines the FDA food safety system and realizes it will make a number of the companies he invests in food safety systems redundant, saving tons of money. He's so very thankful to the FDA, they ask for $10 million, and he gives them $12 million, just to show how good of a job they're doing.

He then announces "Relax America, I got this!" and no one else funds the FDA.

This shouldn't be taken to mean Warren Buffet is the only person interested in food safety, yes? That other people are interested, but since he's funding it single handedly from his taxes, they can relax. Correct?

More or less.

[Galloism]

Ok, so let's have an example. Some random nobody, let's say Warren Buffet, examines the FDA food safety system and realizes it will make a number of the companies he invests in food safety systems redundant, saving tons of money. He's so very thankful to the FDA, they ask for $10 million, and he gives them $12 million, just to show how good of a job they're doing.

He then announces "Relax America, I got this!" and no one else funds the FDA.

This shouldn't be taken to mean Warren Buffet is the only person interested in food safety, yes? That other people are interested, but since he's funding it single handedly from his taxes, they can relax. Correct?

More or less.

But based on our previous statements, this means no one values food safety, so it would be eliminated.

With the current system... the multitudes with an interest in peace would have to lobby in order for their tax dollars to be spent on peace rather than on war. Do you want peace? Yes? Have you lobbied for peace? Nope. I'm in the same boat. I'm guessing that a lot of people are in the same boat. It's the epitome of a collective action problem. But with a pragmatarian system... this collective action problem is entirely eliminated because.... there's absolutely no lobbying required. If the multitudes truly prefer peace... then they will have the freedom to not spend their tax dollars on war. If a large enough percentage of the population allocates their taxes to peace... then the "special interests" who prefer war will not have the freedom to spend their tax dollars on war. War will be removed from the "menu".

Are you walking that back now?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not making up the fact that you haven't told us the truth about your preferred political system. You either tell us the truth or admit that you have a double standard when it comes to the truth.

You said:

Expressing your true valuation doesn't mean literally burning your money. In this case, DV'ing for yourself would be a complete waste of your money. There's no chance that you're going to get one of those seats. But you can DV to make sure that Obama, rather than Trump, gets a seat. Do you do so?

Expressing my "true valuation" would be burning my money. DV'ing for myself would be a complete waste of money. There's no chance that my preferred political system will win. But I can DV to make sure that Capracracy, rather than Pragmatarianism can win. There's no double-standard, I'm just being shrewd.

You falsified expert testimony to mislead people. That's reprehensible, and there's no comparing the two.

It's also really none of his fucking business tho.

Like, what you vote is what you vote, whatever your reasons are, that's the point of spending your money. It's your money, neither you nor I should have to give explanations to him as to what we do with our money.

[Xerographica]

I'm not making up the fact that you haven't told us the truth about your preferred political system. You either tell us the truth or admit that you have a double standard when it comes to the truth.

You said:

Expressing your true valuation doesn't mean literally burning your money. In this case, DV'ing for yourself would be a complete waste of your money. There's no chance that you're going to get one of those seats. But you can DV to make sure that Obama, rather than Trump, gets a seat. Do you do so?

Expressing my "true valuation" would be burning my money. DV'ing for myself would be a complete waste of money. There's no chance that my preferred political system will win. But I can DV to make sure that Capracracy, rather than Pragmatarianism can win. There's no double-standard, I'm just being shrewd.

Wins what exactly? Is there some sort of grand prize that I don't know of? The only thing that is being "won" is eyeballs. If your preferred political position was in 3rd place, it would win virtually the same amount of eyeballs as the 1st and 2nd political systems. We're not talking about a lifeboat where there's only 10 seats. There are plenty of eyeballs to divide among the top political systems.

You falsified expert testimony to mislead people. That's reprehensible, and there's no comparing the two.

I joked about corresponding with a dead economist. I acknowledge and admitted the truth. This is more than can be said for yourself. Are you going to continue to hide the truth from the community?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I really don't know how plainly I have to make this point Xero, I already tried to tell you three different times about it:

Don't question people about their decisions, especially when it comes to their money. It's our fucking money. Shit, I can spend my money however the fuck I want to. Just today I went to a ramen place with a female friend. Why? Because I fucking felt like spending money to go see someone and have a good time. Do I value her company? What do you give a fuck?

See, I don't have to explain myself to you, or to any fucking body as to why I went and spent my money on fucking ramen and booze rather than spend it on books. Again, it's my fucking money, if you don't like how I spend it that's too fucking bad. Same applies for everyone else.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Wins what exactly? Is there some sort of grand prize that I don't know of?

This coming from you rings truly hollow.

You're more interested in this bullshit and your system being in first place than we are. That is plain as day.

The fact that you're now trying to pretend like you're not is bullshit, and we all know it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I joked about corresponding with a dead economist. I acknowledge and admitted the truth. This is more than can be said for yourself. Are you going to continue to hide the truth from the community?

No you didn't.

That's just a shit copout from you. You thought you could get away with it, until we called you out. Now you're trying to weasel out, as usual.

Also, are you going to keep denying the fact you have lied to us this whole time about everything?

[Galloism]

Wins what exactly? Is there some sort of grand prize that I don't know of? The only thing that is being "won" is eyeballs. If your preferred political position was in 3rd place, it would win virtually the same amount of eyeballs as the 1st and 2nd political systems. We're not talking about a lifeboat where there's only 10 seats. There are plenty of eyeballs to divide among the top political systems.

How many #1 slots are there?

[Xerographica]

More or less.

But based on our previous statements, this means no one values food safety, so it would be eliminated.

With the current system... the multitudes with an interest in peace would have to lobby in order for their tax dollars to be spent on peace rather than on war. Do you want peace? Yes? Have you lobbied for peace? Nope. I'm in the same boat. I'm guessing that a lot of people are in the same boat. It's the epitome of a collective action problem. But with a pragmatarian system... this collective action problem is entirely eliminated because.... there's absolutely no lobbying required. If the multitudes truly prefer peace... then they will have the freedom to not spend their tax dollars on war. If a large enough percentage of the population allocates their taxes to peace... then the "special interests" who prefer war will not have the freedom to spend their tax dollars on war. War will be removed from the "menu".

Are you walking that back now?

I don't think it's a very likely that any single individual will completely pay for food safety or asteroid defense or any other public good.

[Dogmeat]

You said:

Expressing my "true valuation" would be burning my money. DV'ing for myself would be a complete waste of money. There's no chance that my preferred political system will win. But I can DV to make sure that Capracracy, rather than Pragmatarianism can win. There's no double-standard, I'm just being shrewd.

Wins what exactly? Is there some sort of grand prize that I don't know of? The only thing that is being "won" is eyeballs. If your preferred political position was in 3rd place, it would win virtually the same amount of eyeballs as the 1st and 2nd political systems. We're not talking about a lifeboat where there's only 10 seats. There are plenty of eyeballs to divide among the top political systems.

You've got "Capracracy is #1" in your sig. Your protestations ring hollow.

You falsified expert testimony to mislead people. That's reprehensible, and there's no comparing the two.

I joked about corresponding with a dead economist. I acknowledge and admitted the truth. This is more than can be said for yourself. Are you going to continue to hide the truth from the community?

That wasn't a joke. And I have been completely honest. Stop projecting your failings onto others.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

But based on our previous statements, this means no one values food safety, so it would be eliminated.



Are you walking that back now?

I don't think it's a very likely that any single individual will completely pay for food safety or asteroid defense or any other public good.

Let's assume that it is, would food safety have to be eliminated?

I mean, we have already established you have a warped sense of perspective about the world, so this is as fine as any other of the conspiracy-tier assumptions you have dragged us thru like this one:

The point of these experiments is to test the difference between BV and DV. Why are you motivated to be dishonest? It's because you don't want these experiments to prove that DV is more effective than BV. But you're just delaying the inevitable.

Mr. "y'all are agents of the democratic Jew lizardmen".

[Galloism]

But based on our previous statements, this means no one values food safety, so it would be eliminated.



Are you walking that back now?

I don't think it's a very likely that any single individual will completely pay for food safety or asteroid defense or any other public good.

But you just said that if we perceive it to be overfunded, we don't fund it anymore.

I wish you could make a consistent story. So very much.

Here's the thing, if you take $0 contributions as "no demand" for taking it off the menu, you are assuming "adequately funded" means "eliminate it". It doesn't have to be one person. It could be a hundred people funding the VA and it's "adequately funded" by the other 10 million who demand it. And you'll eliminate it.

You're ascribing conflicting information to that $0 input, and you're going to have to come up with a consistent story - whether it means "we don't want it" or "it's good where it is" or, like you previously, "I'm too lazy to scroll through a few hundred federal agencies". It can't be both Xero, and until you figure that out, you don't even know what you're interpreting about the data you're getting or what any of it means.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I don't think it's a very likely that any single individual will completely pay for food safety or asteroid defense or any other public good.

But you just said that if we perceive it to be overfunded, we don't fund it anymore.

I wish you could make a consistent story. So very much.

Here's the thing, if you take $0 contributions as "no demand" for taking it off the menu, you are assuming "adequately funded" means "eliminate it". It doesn't have to be one person. It could be a hundred people funding the VA and it's "adequately funded" by the other 10 million who demand it. And you'll eliminate it.

You're ascribing conflicting information to that $0 input, and you're going to have to come up with a consistent story - whether it means "we don't want it" or "it's good where it is" or, like you previously, "I'm too lazy to scroll through a few hundred federal agencies". It can't be both Xero, and until you figure that out, you don't even know what you're interpreting about the data you're getting or what any of it means.

That's because his entire system is just a hunch, a prayer to the economics god on stilts. Anything and everything to satiate his addiction to gambling.

But of course, he's going to deny that.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Also, this comes back to another point you made:

So would you say there is a legitimate demand for goats ruling over people?

If the demand is illegitimate, it's because some people don't want markets to replace democracy. People who value democracy naturally have an incentive to try and make markets look bad. But this incentive only exists when markets are directly compared to democracy. Outside of this context, we don't have to worry about democracy lovers endeavoring to discredit markets by donating lots of money to the KKK.

You are thinking too hard about your opponents' motivations.

We're not out to prove that democracy is better. We're out to game your system, because it is easily broken. Shit, me and Gallo have already broken it thrice at this point.

Also, the incentive is not because markets are directly compared to democracy, is because it's you, and you have single-handedly turned us all against you.

[Galloism]

But you just said that if we perceive it to be overfunded, we don't fund it anymore.

I wish you could make a consistent story. So very much.

Here's the thing, if you take $0 contributions as "no demand" for taking it off the menu, you are assuming "adequately funded" means "eliminate it". It doesn't have to be one person. It could be a hundred people funding the VA and it's "adequately funded" by the other 10 million who demand it. And you'll eliminate it.

You're ascribing conflicting information to that $0 input, and you're going to have to come up with a consistent story - whether it means "we don't want it" or "it's good where it is" or, like you previously, "I'm too lazy to scroll through a few hundred federal agencies". It can't be both Xero, and until you figure that out, you don't even know what you're interpreting about the data you're getting or what any of it means.

That's because his entire system is just a hunch, a prayer to the economics god on stilts. Anything and everything to satiate his addiction to gambling.

But of course, he's going to deny that.

I mean, pretty much - it's a faith based system. Through the magic of the Invisible Hand (despite lacking the elements necessary for the invisible hand to actually operate to benefit people) everything will work out fine.

I mean, it fails several logical tests right at the outset. It's also too much work for people to manage consistently.

I mean, I don't remember now, but I looked it up for Xero one time. There's something like 400 Departments and Agencies just at the federal level. Nobody is going to go through that list and scrupulously allocate their taxes among 400 agencies and departments. Functionally nobody.

By definition, this makes it worse than Congress (how many times do you get to say THAT?) who does scrupulously go through 400 departments and agencies and determine funding and how it's used and what's needed to accomplish the task at hand. I mean, imagine if you could go to Wal-Mart, then as you were checking out, it popped up on the screen 400 agencies and departments at Wal-Mart for you to allocate your purchase towards. I bet you'd get a participation rate less than 1 in 10,000, and those who did would likely pick one thing they liked and fund it all to that one thing. You wouldn't get granular feedback. You'd get pseudo-random noise.

[Dogmeat]

I have to say Xero, I'm more than a little disappointed in how you react to criticism. When accused of being unscientific, you accused others of being unscientific too. When accused of being dogmatic in your Pragmatarian views, you accused others of being religious too. When accused of lying, you accused others of lying too.

Even if you were correct in every instance - which is not the case - this still would not justify your position or your actions. Rather than using criticism to improve Pragmatarianism, or improve yourself personally, you instead sling mud at everyone, and attempt to drag us down into the muck with you.

Because of this, any flaws in your Pragmatarian model as it exists will never be fixed, your ideology has no room to improve, and you will continue to alienate virtually everyone you talk to about it.

[Xerographica]

I don't think it's a very likely that any single individual will completely pay for food safety or asteroid defense or any other public good.

But you just said that if we perceive it to be overfunded, we don't fund it anymore.

I wish you could make a consistent story. So very much.

Here's the thing, if you take $0 contributions as "no demand" for taking it off the menu, you are assuming "adequately funded" means "eliminate it". It doesn't have to be one person. It could be a hundred people funding the VA and it's "adequately funded" by the other 10 million who demand it. And you'll eliminate it.

You're ascribing conflicting information to that $0 input, and you're going to have to come up with a consistent story - whether it means "we don't want it" or "it's good where it is" or, like you previously, "I'm too lazy to scroll through a few hundred federal agencies". It can't be both Xero, and until you figure that out, you don't even know what you're interpreting about the data you're getting or what any of it means.

A hundred people would adequately fund the VA? It just doesn't sound plausible. A few wealthy people are somehow going to pick a funding amount that is just above everybody else's perception of what counts as "adequate" funding? Not likely. It's a given that there are going to be scores of people who still perceive that the VA is inadequately funded.

[Bombadil]

But you just said that if we perceive it to be overfunded, we don't fund it anymore.

I wish you could make a consistent story. So very much.

Here's the thing, if you take $0 contributions as "no demand" for taking it off the menu, you are assuming "adequately funded" means "eliminate it". It doesn't have to be one person. It could be a hundred people funding the VA and it's "adequately funded" by the other 10 million who demand it. And you'll eliminate it.

You're ascribing conflicting information to that $0 input, and you're going to have to come up with a consistent story - whether it means "we don't want it" or "it's good where it is" or, like you previously, "I'm too lazy to scroll through a few hundred federal agencies". It can't be both Xero, and until you figure that out, you don't even know what you're interpreting about the data you're getting or what any of it means.

A hundred people would adequately fund the VA? It just doesn't sound plausible. A few wealthy people are somehow going to pick a funding amount that is just above everybody else's perception of what counts as "adequate" funding? Not likely. It's a given that there are going to be scores of people who still perceive that the VA is inadequately funded.

So you say..

[Galloism]

But you just said that if we perceive it to be overfunded, we don't fund it anymore.

I wish you could make a consistent story. So very much.

Here's the thing, if you take $0 contributions as "no demand" for taking it off the menu, you are assuming "adequately funded" means "eliminate it". It doesn't have to be one person. It could be a hundred people funding the VA and it's "adequately funded" by the other 10 million who demand it. And you'll eliminate it.

You're ascribing conflicting information to that $0 input, and you're going to have to come up with a consistent story - whether it means "we don't want it" or "it's good where it is" or, like you previously, "I'm too lazy to scroll through a few hundred federal agencies". It can't be both Xero, and until you figure that out, you don't even know what you're interpreting about the data you're getting or what any of it means.

A hundred people would adequately fund the VA? It just doesn't sound plausible. A few wealthy people are somehow going to pick a funding amount that is just above everybody else's perception of what counts as "adequate" funding? Not likely. It's a given that there are going to be scores of people who still perceive that the VA is inadequately funded.

Well, maybe a thousand could, given we get to choose how all kinds of taxes are allocated.

One hundred is probably too small, given. But a thousand could do it, provided its a thousand with large payrolls. Presumably employers can choose how to “allocate” their employer payroll taxes.

Point is, you’re taking $0 to mean “we dont want it” and “we want it but it’s adequately funded” at the same time. Those are contradictory positions. Which is it? Does $0 mean “we don’t want it” or “we want it but it’s adequately funded.”?

[Xerographica]

I have to say Xero, I'm more than a little disappointed in how you react to criticism. When accused of being unscientific, you accused others of being unscientific too. When accused of being dogmatic in your Pragmatarian views, you accused others of being religious too. When accused of lying, you accused others of lying too.

Even if you were correct in every instance - which is not the case - this still would not justify your position or your actions. Rather than using criticism to improve Pragmatarianism, or improve yourself personally, you instead sling mud at everyone, and attempt to drag us down into the muck with you.

Because of this, any flaws in your Pragmatarian model as it exists will never be fixed, your ideology has no room to improve, and you will continue to alienate virtually everyone you talk to about it.

You attack me for lying and I'm supposed to ignore the fact that you aren't being honest about your preferred political system? My lie is buried on the 113th page while yours is in the OP. I have already told the truth while you have not.

Regarding alienation... here we are going back and forth for a long time. Can you show me a similar exchange between you and your congressperson? Can you show me where your representative has been open and receptive to your thoughts on how to improve our system of government?

On NS, here's how open and receptive our representatives have been to my thoughts...

How many times, and in how many ways, do we have to state that we're not doing any of your DV survey ideas? You've had at least two shut down in Technical already, and there better not be any more in Moderation.

WE
ARE
NOT
INTERESTED

This wouldn't occur with a pragmatarian system. Nobody would have the power to shoot down anybody else's idea. Look at the OP. You don't have the power to eliminate pragmatarianism as an option. Just like I don't have the power to eliminate capracracy as an option. As a result, we have to solely rely on persuasion...

Shortly before the court made this predictable ruling, a Wall Street Journal headline revealed why it was necessary. The headline said: “Unions Court Own Members Ahead of Ruling.” Anticipating defeat, government-employee unions had begun resorting to persuasion — imagine that — in the hope of retaining members and convincing nonmembers to continue making payments to the unions that the court says can no longer be obligatory. - George Will, The ‘Janus’ ruling is a welcome blow to coerced speech

The deadliest dagger in Wednesday’s decision was the stipulation that nonmembers’ fees cannot be automatically deducted from their wages — nonmembers must affirmatively consent to deductions. So, public-sector unions must persuade people. No wonder they are panicking. - George Will, The ‘Janus’ ruling is a welcome blow to coerced speech

[Xerographica]

A hundred people would adequately fund the VA? It just doesn't sound plausible. A few wealthy people are somehow going to pick a funding amount that is just above everybody else's perception of what counts as "adequate" funding? Not likely. It's a given that there are going to be scores of people who still perceive that the VA is inadequately funded.

Well, maybe a thousand could, given we get to choose how all kinds of taxes are allocated.

One hundred is probably too small, given. But a thousand could do it, provided its a thousand with large payrolls. Presumably employers can choose how to “allocate” their employer payroll taxes.

Point is, you’re taking $0 to mean “we dont want it” and “we want it but it’s adequately funded” at the same time. Those are contradictory positions. Which is it? Does $0 mean “we don’t want it” or “we want it but it’s adequately funded.”?

I'm taking $0 to mean "there are more important things." Everybody's going to use their taxes to help rank government behavior by importance. The more important some behavior is to a larger number of people, the more likely that it will be continued. The less important some behavior is to a smaller number of people, the more likely that it will be discontinued. Everybody will know and understand this. Everybody will be able to clearly see exactly how important some behavior is to how many people. It will be completely transparent. It won't be like Trader Joes where one day you discover that your favorite product has been discontinued. Every citizen will see exactly how their preferred government behaviors are ranked.

[Galloism]

Well, maybe a thousand could, given we get to choose how all kinds of taxes are allocated.

One hundred is probably too small, given. But a thousand could do it, provided its a thousand with large payrolls. Presumably employers can choose how to “allocate” their employer payroll taxes.

Point is, you’re taking $0 to mean “we dont want it” and “we want it but it’s adequately funded” at the same time. Those are contradictory positions. Which is it? Does $0 mean “we don’t want it” or “we want it but it’s adequately funded.”?

I'm taking $0 to mean "there are more important things." Everybody's going to use their taxes to help rank government behavior by importance. The more important some behavior is to a larger number of people, the more likely that it will be continued. The less important some behavior is to a smaller number of people, the more likely that it will be discontinued. Everybody will know and understand this. Everybody will be able to clearly see exactly how important some behavior is to how many people. It will be completely transparent. It won't be like Trader Joes where one day you discover that your favorite product has been discontinued. Every citizen will see exactly how their preferred government behaviors are ranked.

So "there are more important things" means "other things should be discontinued even though we clearly find them important as well"? This is very key Xero.

Your position is inconsistent Xero. If $0 doesn't mean "we don't want it", then why would you discontinue it when it's adequately funded by a small group of people and everyone knows that?

[Xerographica]

I really don't know how plainly I have to make this point Xero, I already tried to tell you three different times about it:

Don't question people about their decisions, especially when it comes to their money. It's our fucking money. Shit, I can spend my money however the fuck I want to. Just today I went to a ramen place with a female friend. Why? Because I fucking felt like spending money to go see someone and have a good time. Do I value her company? What do you give a fuck?

See, I don't have to explain myself to you, or to any fucking body as to why I went and spent my money on fucking ramen and booze rather than spend it on books. Again, it's my fucking money, if you don't like how I spend it that's too fucking bad. Same applies for everyone else.

Right now you're crying because I'm questioning somebody's spending decision. As if my mere questions are somehow harming them. But guess what guy? You are the reason why I don't have the freedom to spend a big chunk of my money. What gives you the right to prevent me from deciding for myself how this money is spent? Who the fuck are you to eliminate my freedom to spend my money on protecting the environment or helping to find the cure for cancer or colonizing space? If you feel like I'm being disrespectful by simply questioning somebody's spending decision... then how would you characterize your effort to prevent me from deciding for myself how my tax dollars are spent?

Do us all a huge favor and figure out whether or not society truly benefits from your freedom to spend your money on ramen and booze rather than on books. And yes, I do give a fuck whether you value her company. Who the fuck are you to tell me that I can't give a fuck? Right now I have the freedom to ask you whether you value her company. Just like you have the freedom to tell me to fuck off. Is this freedom a good thing? Do you think we'd be better off without it?

I spend my time fighting for your freedom. You spend your time fighting against me. I have the freedom to seriously question how you're spending your time. You have the freedom to tell me to fuck off. Is this freedom a good thing? Do you think we'd be better off without it?

Freedom isn't something that's beneficial in the private sector but detrimental in the public sector. Freedom is something that's either beneficial or detrimental. Which is it man? You don't know, but you're fighting me anyways. Stop fighting me and figure out whether your freedom is beneficial or detrimental. Ask your lady friend whether or not society benefits from your freedom. Ask a random stranger whether or not society benefits from your freedom. Ask God whether or not society benefits from your freedom. Ask a psychic whether or not society benefits from your freedom. Even try and ask your congressperson whether or not society benefits from your freedom. Good luck.

Here I am telling you that society does benefit from your freedom. Do you think I'm lying? If not, do you think I'm wrong? Figure it out. Use your brain. Use other people's brains. Make the most informed decision ever. Or make the least informed decision ever. Because this is what freedom allows. Freedom allows you to fall just like it allows you to fly. But I know for a fact that everybody wants to fly.

[The Holy Therns]

You attack me for lying and I'm supposed to ignore the fact that you aren't being honest about your preferred political system? My lie is buried on the 113th page while yours is in the OP. I have already told the truth while you have not.

Your lie has been a prominent topic of conversation since you pulled it, so it's not exactly buried, is it?