Now he explains why he bans my comments

The blocking is because of the persistent abuse Tim publishes on his blog of a great many people and by a great many people using language and tone that is unacceptable to a great many people

It\’s like banning a man from Church because he swears in the pub…..

21 thoughts on “Now he explains why he bans my comments”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    Actually it is like banning a man from Church (or in this case the Village Idiot’s house) because some other people swear in the pub.

    The accusation is not that you are abusive but that you allow others to be abuse – at best, you allow them to be abuse too.

    Richard is such a cock end isn’t he? There. Now he is going to ban you again. Although calling him a cock end is an insult to other cock ends.

  2. The man is incredible. I posted a simple comment asking where I could find the background for some, shall we say ‘suprising’ statements he made. Result? Blocked as being abusive.

  3. A great many people think he’s got ‘a great many people’ set up as a macro on his keyboard. But then, a great many people think a great many people do.

  4. There is good news in this.

    He reads this blog AND the comments.

    And the whole lot is going deep under his skin.

  5. I often enjoy reading this blog, but can we stop with the dirty laundry articles?

    I really don’t care where you can or cannot comment mate… It’s even more ridiculous since I’m confident you don’t care either…!

    Back to the quality posts please.

  6. Seems Richard does not understand the simplicities of Murphy’s Law, which for this purpose I have amended to :

    “Anything that can be stated wrong, will be stated wrong”.

    Alan Douglas

  7. Also, who are these “great many people” you supposedly abuse ? Over several years of reading, I can recall only abuse of one Richard Murphy, and of the same person in all his many guises !

    Alan Douglas

  8. If you read and comment on blogs as I do, you become aware very quickly that there are some VERY clever people out there, and if you make an error you WILL get called on it. And if someone calls you on something you think you know a bit about, you’d better be sure you really do know what you’re talking about, because you can be made to look a fool in an instant.

    I think RM is a worried man. I would be in his shoes. I think he’s got further into things than his intellect can manage, and it scares him. He can’t debate with the people who disagree with him, because they’re cleverer than he is, better educated possibly too. And he can’t compete. So he doesn’t. He just bans them for be ‘abusive’ instead.

  9. Jim,

    I think you should take another look at RM’s blog and browse some of his articles before you start attempting to promote the opinion that he doesn’t know what he is talking about, has a poorer education than people who leave objective comments or has an inability to compete.

    Currently it is /you/ that appears the fool. I thought it only fair to tell you, so that you have ample opportunity to reinvent yourself as an intellect and grace us all with some pearly words of wisdom.

    Greg

  10. I am glad he reads your site. With any luck, even if he does not change his views, he’ll be reminded that there are a lot of smart, articulate folk out there who despise his lying, sloppiness, and pretence of authority on subjects he clearly knows nothing about.

    Oh, Richard, you’re a cock-end. Have a nice weekend.

  11. Thanks Greg for pointing that out. Could you just enlighten this poor unintellectual fool how refusing to engage with ones opponents and banning them from even questioning your work makes one such a tower of wisdom? Indeed if I had a blog and you made a comment such as you have above, would deleting your comment and banning you from my site prove I’m smarter than you?

    Or perhaps the opposite?

  12. Greg, you have the time factor around the wrong way here. People look at Richard’s blog, browse Richard’s articles , and then, from that, work out that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

    He once told me some ridiculous things about what neoliberals believe, and when I dug up some quotes from people like Milton Friedman directly contradicting his assertions, rather than digging up some quotes supporting his assertion he started to tell me I was blind. Not only does he not know what he’s talking about, he’s determined to not know what he’s talking about (or possibly incapable).

  13. Chris, I think you are on a hiding to nothing when you ask people to write what you want on their blogs.

    If you don’t like an article, stop reading and click next.

  14. I wrote the following. It said, “awaiting moderation”, now it’s gone. Was I abusive?

    “Devon Chap,

    Richard clearly thinks that creating something has more value than buying something already in existence. Why he can’t put this in blunt terms I don’t know.

    This sounds superficially reasonable, but I’m not much of a thinker so I wouldn’t rely on my own analysis.

    I suppose problems arise when things can can change use easily. Taking over a vacant building and turning it into a pharmacy is presumably investment, and buying a pharmacy isn’t. What about taking over a grocers and converting it? You are destroying one thing and creating another.

    If buying a pharmacy isn’t investment, what about if you stipulate the current owner must close down and sack everyone, then you move in and rehire a few weeks later. It’s hard to imagine anyone would be happy with that – I suppose it would fail Richard’s ethical test.

    My problem is his attitude to appropriate tax behaviour seems to be, “I’ll know it when I see it”, and I don’t see how you convert that into a system for a country.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *