In case any reasonable person cares, here's what this non-argument is about from my viewpoint:
I posted an opinion piece from the NYT which expressed some interesting views several of which I find noteworthy, though I didn't stipulate as much.
Haim offered a personal attack on the author, citing a story in the NY TIMES as a way to negate the entire piece (I presume), as well as the person who wrote it.
I retorted that given Haim's dishonesty (earlier that day he had claimed that everyone in the Education Mafia, an organization of his own invention, was a "card-carrying Democrat." I suppose if you're discussing an empty set, you can make any statement you like about its members, since there are none, but the whole thing simply reeked of Haim's usual animosity towards anyone who isn't of his own political stripe), he was being a hypocrite in his ad hominem attack on the writer. And of course, citing the NY TIMES as a way to denigrate the OPINION of someone writing in the NY TIMES is an interesting approach.
Things continued to degenerate, as Haim brought in "Stalinist" to describe "Occupy Wall Street," possibly as empty a statement as he's ever offered here, then explained the alleged movement to the "Left" of the TIMES in the early '90's, based on his fantasy that the Clintons represent some sort of radical or liberal or perhaps communist/socialist politics, rather than the neoliberal strangulation of everything progressive in the Democratic Party of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
It's hard to take any of this nonsense seriously, and I doubt even Haim does, but it's consistent with his style, one that rose to prominence before he was born, I suspect, under the short, ugly reign of McCarthyism in this country.
I don't know or care anything about the PERSON who wrote the opinion piece about competition that was supposed to be what this thread was about, but which Haim turned into a pointless argument about everything EXCEPT what was in the article. I have to assume that Haim was so threatened by what the article contained that he had to turn towards first attacking the writer and then attacking me, thus successfully deflecting us from what's actually in the article. This probably "proves," too, that "no one cares," though the active audience here is a bit small to draw that conclusion definitively. What is demonstrated is that when Club 1017 has no arguments worth making (which is most of the time), it resorts to transparent tactics to derail discussion. Bravo, Haim! Another win for the forces of darkness and the deep thinking of the 11th century.