Why no dig at Ritchie? He’s the classic example of somebody using something he’s published under one hat as evidence for the truth of his delusions when publishing with another hat. Shameless self-referential Overton-window shifting statist that he is.
Or, considering both the volume and profundity of Ritchie’s output – perhaps hat isn’t the appropriate item of clothing for covering the productive body part …
Shinsei67
13 years ago
“Why no dig at Ritchie? He’s the classic example of somebody using something he’s published under one hat as evidence for the truth of his delusions when publishing with another hat.”
You forget that Ritchie’s Messianic status allows him to reveal the truth as three distinct persons.
There is the Ritchie of Tax Justice Network, the Ritchie of Tax Research LLP and Ritchie the mild mannered former accountant of Downham Market.
Of course the difference is that a peer reviewed paper should include the evidence that’s being advance to support the assertion of truth, so one can properly assess the validity of any truth claims.
Oh, and – of course – peer review doesn’t end at the point of publication. If anything, post publication peer review is arguably the most important part of the peer review process.
Frank Fisher coined “Carousel Propaganda” last year, but it only caught on with bloggers and pundits this year. It refers to the way media, politicians and activists quote a piece of evidence that has no basis in fact at all; like check-kiting, the funds are non-existent. ”
Why no dig at Ritchie? He’s the classic example of somebody using something he’s published under one hat as evidence for the truth of his delusions when publishing with another hat. Shameless self-referential Overton-window shifting statist that he is.
Or, considering both the volume and profundity of Ritchie’s output – perhaps hat isn’t the appropriate item of clothing for covering the productive body part …
“Why no dig at Ritchie? He’s the classic example of somebody using something he’s published under one hat as evidence for the truth of his delusions when publishing with another hat.”
You forget that Ritchie’s Messianic status allows him to reveal the truth as three distinct persons.
There is the Ritchie of Tax Justice Network, the Ritchie of Tax Research LLP and Ritchie the mild mannered former accountant of Downham Market.
Of course the difference is that a peer reviewed paper should include the evidence that’s being advance to support the assertion of truth, so one can properly assess the validity of any truth claims.
Oh, and – of course – peer review doesn’t end at the point of publication. If anything, post publication peer review is arguably the most important part of the peer review process.
And the TUC’s advisor on tax matters, and the PCS’s pet avoidance specialist.
and the PCS’s pet avoidance specialist.
Given certain of his recent articles, that could be read in more than one way.
Matthew,
I was being deliberately ambiguous for the sake of a little humour.
I heard a great phrase about Ritchie today, “carousel propaganda”.
“‘In the IT world the equivalent is bootstrapping, which is nowhere near as interesting as it sounds. But in the political/meeja/NGO world there doesn’t appear to be a term for it – so I have invented one and I’m inordinately proud of it. Carousel propaganda© is a plague on democracy.’
Frank Fisher coined “Carousel Propaganda” last year, but it only caught on with bloggers and pundits this year. It refers to the way media, politicians and activists quote a piece of evidence that has no basis in fact at all; like check-kiting, the funds are non-existent. ”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/30/quotes_of_the_year_2010/page6.html