You surmise wrongly. That's unsurprising.
You're at least very closely related to the person who did write it, if any of the connections that your account has with the supposed author are accurate.
Let's make a simple mental experiment. We both sit down at a table in your favourite fast-food-joint-masquerading-as-an-eatery. I wouldn't eat there more than I'd eat at the gas station, but you're you. I place in front of you a complete menu of whatever they have on tap and a note, which says "Redeemable tomorrow for two complete menus". You get to pick one, and just one. Either the note or the "food". So what do you do ? Do you eat the shit or wait till tomorrow ? Depends on how hungry you are, right ?
Tomorrow comes, and here we are again : me stuck nine feet under the biofilm, disgustedly mingling with the lower classes and you in your natural element. I place in front of you two complete menus of their crap, and two notes. Each note says, "Redeemable tomorrow for two complete menus". Do you eat the shit or wait another day ?
One thing's for sure : you will not be waiting forever.
How is this not about "the question at hand"? Deflation does not prevent spending. Deflation simply prevents
misallocation of resources.
The issue isn't about deflation preventing spending. You're putting the cart before the horse here. The discussion was on how hoarding affects deflation.
The fact that you've missed this repeatedly is telling me that you're really not worth any more of my time. I've already explained not only that this is a different issue, but that the article you linked includes points that I agree with. I'm rather certain that I've made it clear I understand what those article(s) are attempting to say.
Also, for future reference, it's wise to link to more than a single source time after time. If you wrote it, then fine, but you suggested otherwise already, and even if you wrote it there should be links to outside sources within the articles rather than further linking within the blog.