@RichardJMurphy ism of the day

Richard Murphy [email protected] 15h

@worstall @dslesperance @morethanataxman @nickshaxson @UKuncut How odd that you turned up when I said that…..
View conversation

So, there\’s been a bit of teasing going on. Why is it that the Murphmeister, Nick Shaxson and the rest won\’t respond to a piece I did over at Forbes concerning The Guardian\’s particularly stupid piece on corporate taxation.

They don\’t have to respond, of course, free speech includes the right to silence. But @dslesperance has been goading a little.

So then I turn up in one of the responses to Ritchie\’s response to lesperance. Which is what leads to Ritchie\’s response above. The clear allegation being that lesperance and I are in cahoots, that I only turn up because I\’ve been tipped off and can thus press my case.

And indeed it\’s true, I was tipped off. Because Ritchie put @worstall in his response, meaning that Twitter then sends me his tweet. That being how the system works you see.

Richard Murphy [email protected] 10 Aug

@dslesperance @morethanataxman @nickshaxson @worstall @UKuncut I do not engage with those who use abuse as an argument.


10 thoughts on “@RichardJMurphy ism of the day”

  1. “I do not engage with those who use abuse as an argument.”

    So, if I call Richard Murphy a rude name (and there are lots to choose from) I will never hear of or from him again?


  2. What a funny thing for him to say, except it fits the pattern. The last time I turned up on his blog (really is the last time) he hurled abuse at me like, well, like a complete troll. My last contribution was to compile a compendium of his, er, arguments.
    It’s sad to say, but I got the distinct impression he wasn’t completely in control of his own logic and couldn’t/wouldn’t play the game unless he could be referee. So it doesn’t surprise me to read him contacting you and then complaining that you answered.
    Out of his depth.

  3. Trolling is about behaviour, not ownership, surely? In which case, well, yes. “Your blog” gives you ownership of the medium of discourse, and some practical control of the topics and contributions, rather than ownership of the discussion itself.

    Strictly, of course, with copyright in online comments belonging to the commentator rather than the blog host / owner. Hence the rather alarming “perpetual licence to use” statements that come from some of the American hosting and social media companies.

  4. JamesV, interesting thought.

    Surreptitious Evil, excellent analysis.

    Me, let’s just call him a complete prat shall we.

  5. The reasons that I “goaded a little” are:

    a) Richard is widely quoted but rarely challenged to support his statements;
    b) The causes that Richard espouses as his (e.g. poverty eradication) are noble and deserve an advocacy that is logical, practical and defendable;
    c) As my grandfather told me, “Never run away from a debate. You will either find your original position changed for the better or you will convert someone to your better position”

    As I look around Twitter, I see a number of times that Richard has played this little game of not defending his statements, which eats away at his credibility. Could it possibly be that Richard lives by the updated old adage “Better to remain silent and be thought a “_____”, then to type a response and remove any doubt”?

  6. This might surprise some, but I generally do polite debate and do appreciate learning from people even when being bested – hello JamesV.
    I would have engaged him politely, but his insecurities just don’t allow for that. So, well, one ends up goading him into a response. It should be different really.

Leave a Reply

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