Ritchie Gets It!

Someone I have never heard of called Tom O’Leary (I make the point solely to say I have no idea who he is, whether I have ever met him, and whether he has any qualifications to comment, or not) has put forward an argument that revolves around these points:

1) I am ignorant (but that goes without saying these days
….
Let’s take (1) as read

Only taken a decade to get to this point…..

12 thoughts on “Ritchie Gets It!”

  1. False humility from an arrogant fool. He’s fishing for compliments from his sycophants: ‘Richard, you are not ignorant, you are a genius…’ etc.

  2. Theo

    In recognition of his oft quoted ‘Quaker roots’ I am reminded of Luke 15:7

    ‘I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.’

  3. He doesn’t have Quaker roots, he’s a joiner.
    There’s Birthright Quakers, those who are born into a Quaker family, Convincement Quakers, those who find their own way to Quakerism, and, ahem, what we call LegOver Quakers….

  4. Anon

    What about people who claim to be quakers for explicitly political purposes and to fraudulently claim the moral high ground while explicitly promoting evil? Is there a category of Quakers that cover such people?

  5. Just read the Murphy post in a little more detail.

    The Murphmonster seems to had several epiphanies recently.

    The most recent is that he has now adopted certain principles of MMT economics without telling anyone of the change from his previous position.

    What is the advantage for a person these days to be an MMT-er in terms of – being totally cynical – extracting a peerage from some political party? Have I missed something?

  6. What about people who claim to be quakers for explicitly political purposes and to fraudulently claim the moral high ground while explicitly promoting evil? Is there a category of Quakers that cover such people?

    I think there’s a more generalized non-Quaker category for that type. We non-Quakers in Ohio call them “assholes”. I think it fits quite nicely.

  7. Ritchie is particularly agreived about the provenance or lack of, of this Tom O’Leary. He also seems concerned about the unqualified gaining prominence.

    He lives in an irony-free world.

  8. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Someone I have never heard of called Tom O’Leary (I make the point solely to say I have no idea who he is, whether I have ever met him, and whether he has any qualifications to comment, or not) has put forward an argument that revolves around these points:”

    Is it really too much to expect an academic to spend less the 5 minutes doing a little bit of research before spouting off?

  9. What if he tops himself?

    Personally, I’d regret the diminution in the nation’s gaiety, welcome the demise of a successful and intellectually dishonest/incapable leftist ideologue, and hope he didn’t become a martyr.

    Anyone else? I mean, seriously, what if he does? No one is *that* immune to failure and ridicule.

Leave a Reply

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