Entry 1064, on 2009-07-31 at 20:54:37 (Rating 4, Politics)
Today I have been involved in a "discussion" with a more right-oriented friend. Actually, it might have got a little bit beyond a discussion but it hasn't quite got to the point of being an argument yet. Maybe debate would be a better word.
Anyway the debate was over a story which has been circulating on the internet for several years. It tells of an economics professor who offers to average the marks of his class and pass or fail them all as a group. He had never failed anyone in the past but when that experiment was done the whole class failed. It was supposed to illustrate that the competitive, commercial model is best and we shouldn't be wasting resources on "freeloaders" as all the socialists want us to.
Its all garbage, of course - as all right-wing propaganda is. The first problem is that the story wasn't real - it is an urban myth. When I pointed this out the friend said it was an allegory. But he only said this after I showed him it wasn't true. Its too easy to present something as if it is true, then when it is discovered to be a lie just to say it was an allegory all along. That's quite dishonest!
The second problem is that the whole issue isn't presented in a realistic way. No one is saying that everyone should be treated the same no matter what their contribution to society is. What I am saying (and what most people with a political tendency to the left are saying) is that we should have some minimum standard for everyone and we should be more thoughtful about what type of behaviour we reward.
The right tend to indicate they want a totally free system where people are able to work towards greater rewards (to them that is always money) for themselves. They say this is fair and often even go as far as saying its best for everyone. Well if we had a "free for all" society we would have murderers and despots in the top level of our society. After all, isn't that the ultimate response to a competitive system?
So we do work in an essentially arbitrary system where some people are rewarded more than others. And despite what the right say, it has little to do with how hard people work. Sure, I agree that hard workers will probably do better on average but that's a minor factor really. For example a lazy banker will get paid a lot more than a hard working rubbish collector but I would debate which makes the greater contribution to society!
So we do have basically random rules which dictate who gets the most and who gets the least and all we are really arguing about is how those rules should be fine tuned. How much is enough for someone who makes a great contribution and how much is enough for someone who makes very little? And how do we decide what is a genuine contribution and what isn't?
One thing I can say for sure: the pure, free market capitalist system doesn't create an environment where the best people can thrive. Instead it creates one where the most ruthless, greedy and self-centered do well and almost completely ignores the role of the people making genuine long-term contributions.
To mention my old example again (I've never been given a good answer to this): why do executives selling sugar water (Coke for example) get paid a fortune when cancer researchers are often not funded adequately? Clearly capitalism doesn't work.
So the political right should think a little bit more carefully about their very superficial ideas. If we followed those disaster would inevitably follow.
Comment 1 (2317) by SBFL on 2009-08-01 at 06:28:19:
One common criticism of the left is that they like to hide and distort things, suffocate free voice, and restrict the right of the individual to decide what is best for him/herself (e.g. Animal Farm, Electoral Finance Act yada, yada, yada). Well at least this accusation pops up when they are in power.
Now this internet circular you speak of, I have not read. Instead of subjecting us to your left-wing opinionated diatribe, at least include it in your post (e.g. in block quotes), or if too long then provide a link to it.
Then we can make up our own minds of it's message, and also of your evaluation. Can we have that "luxury" please sir?
Comment 2 (2320) by OJB on 2009-08-01 at 10:27:17:
Here it is...
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
Comment 3 (2321) by SBFL on 2009-08-01 at 11:00:15:
Hmmm, why on earth would you wonder if it was real or not? Clearly it is an allegory (note correct spelling). So your first problem is not really a problem. It seems more a false attempt to discredit.
Anyway it's not a very good metaphor. I prefer one I read doing the email rounds about a group of people at a restaurant. The one who paid the most didn't come back the second time etc. If I come across it again I will post it here.
Comment 4 (2323) by NJS on 2009-08-01 at 11:11:54:
The argument here appears to be between extreme capitalism (where a privileged few make inordinately more than others) and extreme socialism (where everything is shared equally between everyone and there's no incentive to strive). Neither of these is workable in the real world. As with most things, the reality lies somewhere in the middle. Often the best way to tell that you have a good solution is that both the extreme left and right hate it.
Comment 5 (2324) by NJS on 2009-08-01 at 11:14:01:
Oh, and I like that this has been updated to reflect Obama's election (the urban myth about the economist has been around for much longer than that). I particularly like the reference to "Obama's socialism", which is probably more right-wing than our current government! Gotta love Americans' political ideas.
Comment 6 (2326) by OJB on 2009-08-01 at 15:54:07:
Yes, you both make some very good points there. The left tends to think the right represents the extreme right and vice versa. In reality everyone wants something between the extremes so its just a matter of where that central position should be. Stories like this present extreme views and do neither side credit.
It was presented as real initially, but the person hasn't exactly got a good appreciation of what's real and what isn't - I am constantly referring him to Snopes showing his stories are fake!
And yes, several people have pointed out the irony of calling Obama's policies "socialism". Unbelievable really!
Comment 7 (2327) by Jim Cable on 2009-08-01 at 16:41:28:
Good one. You covered it reasonably well except for the point where you maintain that I only brought up "allegory" after I'd been shown it wasn't true. Frankly, from the beginning I thought the whole message was allegorical - I wasn't bothered one way or another as to its veracity. The story was too good not to be true - whether or not it was or wasn't. Most of us in the centre - ie to the right of those insanely positioning themselves to the left - will forward such items in the belief they can be enjoyed for what they represent. Irrespective of factuality, one way or the other, it was an intriguing story.
Snopes didn't say it was true or untrue - it said it couldn't determine the origin - yet in demonstrable leftist form, you've leapt on to the extreme angle that it was "a lie" - and quoted it as such, irrespective of proof or even any indicating evidence. Surely, that sort of deliberate action to promote a false end - is determinably "dishonest."
"Murderers and despots" as an example too, was not any sort of valid comparison - as was your question about Coke executives and cancer researchers. The Coke guys get out and sell their product - the cancer guys hold out their hands. I mean, it's not rocket science - but to then extrapolate "capitalism obviously doesn't work" is to ignore functioning actuality.
Wasn't it interesting how SBFL's comments matched my own - without having had any chance to consult? You speak of the "political right thinking a bit more carefully about its superficial ideas ... disaster inevitably following" - but surely that conclusion is not at all derivable from the actual facts - only from the distorted and biased way in which those same facts are "interpreted."
Historically, policies of the "right" (ie centre) have done far better for mankind than those of the left.
Comment 8 (2328) by OJB on 2009-08-01 at 17:41:00:
If the story was true it would have been an interesting experiment in human behaviour and might have been worth taking seriously. Because its just a story invented by a right-winger its really quite irrelevant. As soon as I saw it I thought it was an urban myth but one thing I have often found in the past: some people take the silliest stories seriously, so I needed to check.
Well we both indulged in a bit of rhetoric then. Introducing myths as if they were true just misleads the reader and if anyone took that story seriously because they thought it was true then they were lied to.
The cancer researchers are trying to give us something which would be more valuable than every product ever sold my any executive - a cure for cancer. Saying they are just holding out their hands is both ignorant and insulting!
SBFL and you both have very similar political beliefs. There's no great surprise that your comments agree in places.
Your comment that the right has done more for mankind than the left is just an opinion. If I said the left had done more than the right would you believe me?
Comment 9 (2331) by Jim Cable on 2009-08-01 at 20:49:41:
There you go again - one moment you are trying to understand how Coke makers can be so much better remunerated than cancer researchers - the next moment you're positing that the researchers deserve better. A non-sequitor. One is a fact; the other, while inarguable from a desirable viewpoint, is unrelated, wishful opinion. If the cancer guys were flogging something as sought after as Coke they'd be as flush - end of story. Market forces - nothing whatsoever to do with left or right - hence the researchers' outstretched, cupped hands.
Obviously, SFBL is a person of balance, practical outlook, with workable insights and the realistic expectations of someone who actually works with or understands market-driven influences.
Comment 10 (2332) by OJB on 2009-08-01 at 22:45:41:
Well yes, the researchers do deserve better, don't they? Surely you think that someone trying to cure cancer is a more valuable member of society than someone flogging of sugar water? Do you not agree with this? How can you not?
Market forces are to do with left and right. Right tends to want to allow them to operate with less controls than left. Do you not agree? And in that situation people selling sugar water get more money than people curing cancer. Not good. Do you not agree?
SBFL is a fairly balanced person (even though I disagree with some of his opinions) which is why I value his contributions. Unfortunately I would have to say that you go a little bit too far sometimes, Jim! I still value your input too. I just think your wrong! Although I'm sure you don't agree with that!
Comment 11 (2333) by OJB on 2009-08-01 at 22:51:08:
Just to clarify. My point is this: you say Coke executives get more than cancer researchers because of market forces. I would say: well we shouldn't allow market forces to do that to us. Let's change the way those forces operate. One possibility would be to tax people who make sugar water and give the money to cancer researchers (not saying we should, just one possibility).
You are saying that's just the market and we can't (or shouldn't) change it. That's where we disagree. I mean its not as if the market forces are entirely natural like the physical forces (gravity, etc). They are something we created. They don't work. Let's change them!
Comment 12 (2335) by SBFL on 2009-08-02 at 08:44:11:
My goodness, to think anyone thought this internet email parable was indicative of a real event has no right to make any comment at all. They are truly fools.
..and yet OJB promotes it becoming real now, to the detriment of the unfortunate students involved!! OBJ makes it clear in comment 8 that he writes it off immediately. This means his opinion on it has and is always tainted by bias. No surprises there really. He would do well to move past the technical details and focus on the message.
Jim Cable is spot on w.r.t cancer researchers. They do not get paid more because the monetary motivation is not there. Which left-wing govt can you blame for not fixing this 'imbalance'? How about changing the current situation so that the demand for cancer cure incentiveises those who may fix it? Or if you think the govt is not paying them enough, then why not pay them a fair wage? Oh, but they are already! Since the pay rates of Coke executive is outside govt control, but the pay rates of cancer researchers are, why don't you focus on allocation of govt spending, instead of your leftist nonsensical ideologies?
Comment 13 (2336) by SBFL on 2009-08-02 at 09:02:53:
"Well we both indulged in a bit of rhetoric then." - no OJB, only you did in your post (though the comments have been more measured).
"Right tends to want to allow them [the market] to operate with less controls than left." - so now do you admit that the left accept market forces as a reality on our society, albeit with restrictions? The fact you acknowledge that the left accept the market (aka natural human behaviour) is truly an acknowledgement of defeat for many on the left (though nothing wrong with correcting your view).
Back to the matter of cancer researchers: if you can demonstrate that throwing more money at their salary packets will improve their aims, then I am all for the govt doing this.
Comment 14 (2340) by OJB on 2009-08-02 at 10:11:38:
If you can't see the rhetoric in Jim's comments then I am very disappointed. As I said in comment 10, I generally think you are realistic and fair in most of your commentary. Obviously not always!
Of course market forces are real in our society. No one would deny that. The question is: are those market forces a good thing to be left alone or should they be channeled through regulations, etc. That might be more where we differ.
Its not necessarily giving researchers more money as salary, its more about giving them job security, instead of the endless time wasting nonsense of applying for grants, and giving them the equipment and staff they need to operate efficiently.
Comment 15 (2341) by Jim Cable on 2009-08-02 at 20:41:54:
re Comment 10: Can I point out that the original point of debate was about an allegorical situation that sought to illustrate the nonsense of applied socialism. Whether or not cancer researchers are more deserving than Coke executives has no bearing whatsoever on the subject - full stop. What I or anyone else thinks doesn't make it relevant either. It's a typical leftist attempt to divert from the actual issue.
Market forces have nothing to do with left and right. They're determined by want and need. Leftists, who as persons fundamentally short-changed in most matters of elemental perception, try to apportion political "explanations" to everything, even to matters of the marketplace, where ironically, they're almost never found. Selling requires basic insights they just don't possess - it's far easier to bemoan and to criticise others' successes - thus their unsurprising attitude towards it.
re Comment 11: "Should" and "shouldn't" are leftists' stock in trade - leftist governments legislate to restrain the free movement of people and the freedom of the marketplace. The unnaturalness of the results is always chaotic. Leftists cannot understand that a free market is always a self-regulating one - one that "works." Very few leftists even understand finance - the stupidity of Clinton's insistence that FreddieMac and FannyMae lend to people with no adequate security for the loans precipitated the largest financial crisis the world has ever seen - but they don't accept responsibility for their deeds, they just point somewhere else.
The market always works. It sets the highest and lowest prices by determining who'll pay what - or who won't pay -it's governed by the laws of supply and demand, and is thus, self-regulating. Market forces are as natural and self-determining as gravity.
Comment 16 (2342) by OJB on 2009-08-02 at 21:00:44:
Unfortunately you have posted a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinions as if they were in some way factual. Like the original fictional story, this has no value at all. Anyone can make up a story to illustrate any point they want to. If you could support your rather extreme views through any evidence it would be different.
The claim that the market always works is ridiculous given what's just happened with the global financial crisis. And please don't dredge up that pitiful nonsense blaming it entirely on FreddieMac and FannyMae. Most experts agree they played a part but the basic problem was caused by financial traders having too much freedom.
Market forces are the result of human behaviour. We can control human behaviour in any way we want. Even if there is some degree of an inherent natural element in market forces, saying they are as natural as gravity is just not true.
Luckily economic extremists like you are becoming less common and even relatively right oriented governments like New Zealand's current one have more moderate policies. Its time to move on Jim, that nonsense you believe was tossed out years ago!
Comment 17 (2347) by SBFL on 2009-08-05 at 06:48:48:
Re comment 14 (by OJB):
"Obviously not always!" - indeed I can get carried away at times but on this occasion your rhetoric lured me!
Job security, salary, whatever. If increasing these will increase their productivity, then I'm all for it (incl. using taxpayer funds). Who wouldn't be?
Indeed market forces are a natural human phenomenon, but can be skewed by regulation (for good or bad). Some regulation I agree with, but only to curb non-productive excesses. Capitalism is not perfect (as I have said before) but it is the best economic system which is why all the rich countries have it. Even China and Vietnam have adopted it. It does need to be nurtured though, but I believe you prefer to fight it. A mistake all lefty ideologues make.
Re comment 15 (by Jim Cable):
On paragraphs 1,2,3,4 - agree, agree, agree, agree.
However I do reiterate my comment that some regulation is necessary (e.g. Commerce Commission, Reserve Bank)
Re comment 16 (by OJB): "Unfortunately you have posted a lot of biased and unsubstantiated opinions ..." - play the ball, not the man!
Most certainly the Democrat Congress forcing FreddicMac and Fannie Mae to offer cheap loans is a critical contributor to the current economic crisis that stemmed from the US banking sector. However I also agree that federal regulations had not kept up with the market of the times. In a way they are one and the same. One can't expect more modern regulations when Congress is deliberately (but not ill-intentionally) fuelling the sub-prime market.
OJB said "We can control human behaviour in any way we want." - absolute and utter bullshit. This is why your are deservedly labelled a left-winger (and after that comment of yours, that is putting it mildly!) (apologies for the swear word!).
I note the ringing endorsement of the current National government!
Comment 18 (2350) by OJB on 2009-08-05 at 09:46:59:
So my rhetoric lured you because it suited you to agree with Jim's rhetoric. But he fact is both exist. Actually, the whole purpose of rhetoric is to lure people so maybe mine was superior! Perhaps Jim's was just going too far!
Unfortunately this silly catch-phrase of greater productivity is always thrown in to the argument. How do you measure the productivity of a cancer researcher? Not by any standards likely to be acceptable to the right, that's for sure! These are genuinely dedicated, incredibly skillful people. Give them the money and let them work. Forget about productivity. Science is too important to let trivial business-oriented ideas get in its way! (I'll expect a reaction to that one)
Saying that what has been posted is biased and unsupported by evidence is criticising the content, not the person. If I had said "Jim is a right wing retard" then that would have been worth criticising.
You agree with Jim because you suffer from the same delusions as Jim. Did you read my latest blog entry (Real Economics, entry 1067) about how so many economic beliefs are untrue?
Well we disagree on what the major cause of the crisis was. Most economists I have heard indicate that Freddi and Fanny made a much less significant contribution than good old fashioned corporate greed and lack of control.
We can control behaviour. We make natural tendencies to violence and other anti-social acts illegal in an attempt to control them. Read my latest blog entry and see why there is nothing natural about markets or capitalism.
Comment 19 (2353) by SBFL on 2009-08-05 at 11:22:26:
"So my rhetoric lured you because it suited you to agree with Jim's rhetoric." - oh there you go again. Putting false words in my mouth. Since you have a comprehension problem let me spell it out in basic words: THE ONLY PERSON SPOUTING IDEOLOGICAL NONSENSE WAS OJB, MOST APPARENT IN HIS INITIAL POST.
Is that clear for you now?
You call 'greater productivity' a catchphrase because you don't know what it is. That is not surprising. Measure? Results, meeting objectives, things like that. What would you know though, you work in a university!! (sorry, couldn't resist).
No, you focussed on the person, not the content.
Delusions...heh!
Actually I presented significant research on the matter last year.
..."in any way we want"??? You really can be quite Orwellian!
Comment 20 (2356) by OJB on 2009-08-05 at 13:24:07:
So you think this isn't rhetoric? "it's a typical leftist attempt to divert from the actual issue" and "leftists, who as persons fundamentally short-changed in most matters of elemental perception" and "thus their unsurprising attitude towards it." and "should and shouldn't are leftists' stock in trade" and "leftists cannot understand that a free market is always a self-regulating one" and "very few leftists even understand finance" and "the market always works" and "market forces are as natural and self-determining as gravity."
Not only is rhetorical but is pathetic bullshit as well. Unfortunately Jim often sinks to this sort of level. If you can't see that then you really are blinded by your pre-conceived ideas. Compared with this garbage what I said was very reasonable!
Comment 21 (2359) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 08:57:53:
That's all just a bit hypocritical of you don't you think?
Besides lefties and righties having a go at each other on a discussion forum doesn't really fit the definition of rhetoric. For me it more about spinning the lines on a subject matter, and that's where your original post comes in (and granted, there were comments from both of us on the free market).
I guess maybe by having a discussion the rhetoric can be watered down as arguments are traded back and forth.
Comment 22 (2367) by OJB on 2009-08-06 at 11:10:34:
Well if it wasn't rhetorical it was definitely simplistic, close minded, ignorant, misleading, deceptive, confusing, deceiving, ambiguous, fallacious, specious, spurious, false, spurious, and sophistic (yes, I've been using a thesaurus).
Comment 23 (2375) by SBFL on 2009-08-06 at 13:35:39:
Aarrgh! My response was going to be "thesaurus.com" but you beat me to it by the time I read the end of your comment!
Comment 24 (2376) by OJB on 2009-08-06 at 13:42:37:
Damn it! I put "spurious" in twice too! But despite my facetious response I do believe all those words describe Jim's comments well.
Comment 25 (2381) by SBFL on 2009-08-08 at 10:22:11:
Good to see you believe in something after all ;-) - but so as to not disappoint, I have to disagree again!
Comment 26 (2382) by SBFL on 2009-08-08 at 11:37:10:
Comment 27 (2384) by OJB on 2009-08-08 at 16:45:22:
Believing things is fine as long as there is good reason for that belief. What I tend to argue against is faith, which is belief without reason.
I think Trotter has some good points there but he goes too far by implying that all individuals in those groups act that way. Not all farmers are like that, although a lot are I think. Same for the other groups he mentions. And in no way is that worse than what Jim said. Far more reasonable, I would say.
Comment 28 (2386) by SBFL on 2009-08-09 at 07:39:16:
Oh but I can think of many reasons for faith. Love being chiefly among them.
Wow, you really have something against Jim... As for Trotter, well I have to say he does have some common sense days. For a person who acknowledges that he is a letfist I have to say he sometimes puts truth above partisanship, and credit to him for this. Unfortuntalety this is an attribute often missing from the left. Trotter can also get carried away (as per my link above) so I have to say he is a bit unpredictable.
You know maybe I am skewed by political preferences but I have to say that even in blogoshpere, the right are willing to criticise their own but the left rarely do. Do you notice this? Bill English has been getting a hammering in right-wing blogs recently, as did Richard Worth when the revelations were made known. I guess both "sides" (left and right) will make errors but the difference in how each side responds to mistakes of their own side is telling. Moving to the private sector, one thing I learnt that it was not the error/mistake/disaster that mattered so much, it was how I responded to it. You know everyone makes mistakes, and usually from this there are two options: (a) deny fault and blame others, or (b) accept fault and do your best to make amends. Human nature is much more sympathetic to (b). Pro-right blogs seem the harshest critics of National, yet pro-left blogs tend to be apologists for Labour. Maybe this is a phenomenon in NZ, I don't know. But it does tell me one thing: Transparency is currently a valued attribute of the right (at least from a grassroots point-of-view), when will the leftist grassroots adopt the same?
Comment 29 (2388) by OJB on 2009-08-09 at 12:48:02:
Oh really, love is based on faith? That's the sort of fatuous response many people give because they just haven't really thought about it. Surely love is based on real interactions between individuals which have nothing to do with faith. Faith is believing something where there is either no evidence or contradictory evidence. Christianity for example.
I've got nothing against Jim. He's actually been a friend for many years. But I disagree with his politics and I get sick of his unsubstantiated sweeping criticisms of the left which simply aren't true.
For example, he might say "the left don't understand economics". Not true. I know many left oriented economists who know more than Jim ever will. I might say "business leaders are primarily motivated by making maximum profit". While I put a negative spin in that where the right would put a positive at least its something that few would disagree with. Until he sticks to the facts Jim deserves all the criticism he gets.
You could be right about the blogs, I haven't noticed it to the extent you say, but there is possibly a bias there. Can't see how that affects the big picture though.
Comment 30 (2390) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 09:47:39:
If you are going to stick to dictionary definitions they you will remain little in mind.
Re Jim: Okay, obviously I didn't mean personally. If you feel his (political) criticisms are sweeping and unsubstantiated then maybe he is your true opposite? Your example actually confirms this really.
Maybe there is a bias, but probably unlikely since I'm quite critical on right-wing blogs. Many are quite opinionated and need centre-ising!!
"Can't see how that affects the big picture though." - well yes the politicians have the power, but the grassroots make them, so if the grassroots call for change then change will come about. Don't write off the little man in a democracy!
Comment 31 (2392) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 09:59:09:
I have found that one of the biggest causes of misunderstandings, and subsequent heated debate, is lack of agreement on definitions of the topic under discussion. My definition of faith: believing something where the balance of evidence is against it being true (paraphrased by "believing something even when you know its fake"). What definition do you have?
I challenge you to show me somewhere where I seriously made a series of hugely sweeping statements of the type Jim just did. I don't think you'll find them.
Well we both think we are fairly moderate (everyone seems to want to take the center ground) but clearly you are right oriented and I am left. Its all about perspective I guess.
Comment 32 (2397) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 11:00:34:
Actually I would say that one of the biggest causes of misunderstandings is NOT 'lack of agreement on definitions of the topic under discussion' but lack of understanding and appreciation of another's point of view. This does not mean one must agree with his opponent, but to understand where he is comeing from. Only then can good debate be brought about. Arguing semantics is pointless and boring.
Re 2nd para: Hahaha, you´re having me on right? Where do I start? The evil corporations?
Re 3rd para: Hmmm, if you say so....
Comment 33 (2400) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 11:17:44:
Well in my experience definition of words is a problem. And you still haven't told me what you think faith is yet because we seem to have different ideas on this.
Well start somewhere. Just saying "the evil corporations" isn't exactly quoting anything I've said which is as bad as Jim's sweeping generalisations and unsubstantiated opinions,
Comment 34 (2402) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 11:41:47:
I know that you know already based on previous threads, yet I suspect you are looking for a digression...it's not the first time.
OJB - many of your original posts do include some reasonable views, but usually there is at least one comment out there, this one being no exception. Once we get into the comments though I find you can be less moderated than you original post suggests. I could trawl through the history of your blog and pull out the quotes, but do I expect you to agree with me, however obvious?
Comment 35 (2403) by SBFL on 2009-08-12 at 12:12:52:
To be fair, your comments can also suggest you to be more moderated. I guess it depends on which way the debate swings and how I see it.
Comment 36 (2405) by OJB on 2009-08-12 at 12:23:32:
So often you avoid answering simple questions. Why is that? Surely just typing out what you think faith is would have been quicker than typing out that explanation of why you don't want to!
Well if there is just an occasional comment which is "a bit out there" then I don't indulge in hyperbole, rhetoric, and unjustified claims to anywhere near the same extent as a typical Jim tirade!
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE