Dealing with commentators on this blog reminds me of a story I was told a long time ago, I think by my father.
Every day two lawyers go into court rooms all over the world to argue their case and every day 50% of them are proved to be wrong.
Does it mean they should not have argued the case? Of course not.
Does it mean all the losing lawyers are bad, or even ignorant fools? No, of course not. It just means they have disappointed clients.
Some who comment here might be wise to remember that disagreement is fine. Persuading me I am wrong can happen. But just telling me I'm a provincial ex-accountant (when I'm actually very much a current one) is not an argument; it's just an insult.
And anyone commenting would also be wise to note, my aim is very often to change the law. I fly kites to find out what alternative opinion is. I don't lose by doing so. I just learn as a result.
And like the lawyer who lost, I brush myself down, have supper, and move on to fight the next day, because that's what my job is. So as far as I'm concerned, whether there's agreement or disagreement, it's pretty much an each way bet.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
HMRC lawyers are a notable exception to this. They will drop a case rather than go to court thinking there is less than a 100% chance of success. While they would not accept that they were ignorant fools they will certainly shovel that blame towards the civil servant who unsuccessfully challenges the rich and powerful and the scams dreamt up by their clever lawyers and accountants.
If HMRC concede quietly they can still steamroller the 99% and concede, or reach an accommodation, with the 1%. If they fight and lose, they lose everything.
Nonsense
If they lose they change the law
Sounds like a prescription for maintaining good mental health, Richard. There’ is enough to get depressed and demotivated about at present but demotivation is what the neo-libs want. You clearly have great resilience and a core trust in the underlying ‘moral arc’ of your work. I fight and challenge the system in my own, inexpert, way. Unlike you, I get depressed and low and feel like becoming an anchorite at times and temporarily fold up -but not for long!
I fold
But thankfully for about as long as it takes to boil the kettle
I’m lucky, I know
Simon, try Mindfulness Meditation, seriously. It’ll help break circular negative thoughts [though not break the influx of bad news via the MSM] +give you the calm+ energy to keep on fighting.
Keep on keepin’ on… :))
Oh dear, Richard, a provincial accountant (ex or otherwise), what an insult! Use of the term “provincial”, is, in my experience, a dead give away that whoever threw that one at you has a rather elitist opinion of themselves and their ilk. It also illustrates how you must really get under the skin of so many of that particular segment of our society. And I’m not surprised. I’m not sure what the readership of this blog is nowadays (is it still the number 1 economics blog?), as you haven’t flagged it for a while, but I’ve just scrolled back through the huge number of blogs you’ve produced over the last ten days (and I mean huge not large) looking at the shares, tweets, Facebook and so on, numbers for each and the figures for some show the scale and reach that just this one aspect of what you do achieves. So, while I know enough about you to know you’re thick skinned enough to sweep away this and many other insults (you didn’t go to Oxford and Cambridge either :-)) I personally would just like to say, keep up the good work.
Thanks Ivan
Appreciated
Excellent post.
I do find your reliance on facts, principles, trends+ analysis a little tiresome though, I have to say. It’s probably not just me. It’s 2013 don’t you know?
Ad Hominems are the future.
I won’t be able to take you really seriously until you just get a list of your detractors together, +just work through describing what they look like, what accent they have, whether or not their Grammar in on par, etc
Otherwise excellent.
😉
How about telling me I’m a troll, when I disagree with you? Is that an argument rather than an insult?
If your aim is to “fly kites to find out what alternative opinion is”, it seems odd then to dismiss those alternative opinions out of hand.
When the point has been made and is then made again and again and again trolling comes into play
From my point of view, when you ignore the point and simply say something glib, I feel that maybe restating it in a different manner might prompt you to make a reply. I generally assume that if you have not replied to a question that I must have phrased it poorly, rather than that you are merely evading it.
I’m not doing either
I think I’ve answered it – or it’s too trivial to bother with
I have a life apart from this blog. That seems to surprise some
By the same token Richard, just telling me I’m clueless or wrong is not an argument, is it? You told me you had 30 years’ experience in support of why you were right, I wanted to highlight that I was citing the authority of people who dwarf that experience many times over by their perspective and their qualifications. It didn’t meant to come across as a stand-alone ad hominem, but even if it did, that’s exactly the way you engage with commenters, so why be surprised that it’s the way they engage in return?
You make my case for me
Thank you, yet again
I am sure you will be amused by a piece on here tomorrow – be sure to read
What on earth could your geographical location have to do with the content of your arguments on taxation and the economy?
Precisely nothing.
It’s a favoured slight from a blogger based in Portugal