As one commentator on this blog has said in the last week of the contributions others have made, there are number of people posting right now whose main aim does, it seems, to be wasting my time to prevent me doing other work.
I have considerable sympathy with that suggestion. So the current rash of commentators who are engaged in posting repetitive, neoliberal commentary of mind-numbingly boring irrelevance on the blog will be finding the delete button in heavy use in the coming week, not least because I will be spending a couple of days of it in and around hospital as part of my on-going dispute with my gall bladder.
Priorities matter. Reading comments from such people comes very low on my list of them, especially when I am sure that the aim is to grind down my willingness to campaign for change. It won't work.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Your work is clearly having an effect for those that are to be disadvantaged by it are becoming ever more vocal and increasing in number and trying ever more to discredit you. That alone should be an indicator to continue as you are doing the right thing.
Give ’em hell Richard!
I hope you get well soon and take some time out with your family. Taking on the world can wait a wekk!
Rather than excommunication, a brief referral to the last post you made answering that particular point might be suitably defective. As they say often in H of C ” I refer my honourable friend to the answer I gave in (date).”
I tried that and it did not seem to work
Just give up on the comments since they add nothing. People either agree with what you say, or set out to make trouble.
Save your time and just delete anyone who clearly is out to be argumentative. Insist on real names and matching email addresses. Those that lose out, bad luck.
Richard,
Comments can be a useful addition to a blog but given their content here is vastly from those that would seek to undermine your work I would suggest just delete anything that takes more than a second to respond to. Your time is not work trying to answer sneaky comments made by people who would never come round to your way of thinking anyway. Life is too short.
Andrew
Keep fighting Richard!
sounds like a wise move. they’re really no better than common forum trolls and its the only way to deal with them.
i don’t know how much time you spend responding to the comments sections but maybe if you just responded to the more interesting questions/comments ie. those that actually help you clarify things in your own mind.
most comment sections i read are discussions between readers, with very occasional contributions from the author. and with the trolls gone hopefully the quality of debate in the comments section will increase anyway.
I enjoy the comments and the intellectual debate that they trigger. If would be a shame to delete them
Amongst your plans for the week, is there any chance you could just fuck off & die?
Do your bit for the world & sensible economics & that.
Posted just to give an idea of the sort of company Tim Worstall keeps
As others have noted it is clear your work is having an effect!
subhuman. maybe they are all lizards after all…
Post anything like this so people can see what you put up with
The comment is indicative of the crass vulgarity, anti-intellectualism and sheer thuggery that lies under the surface of the ‘line-yer-wallet’ brigade. As playwright Howard Brenton put it, the Thatcher era unleashed a ‘hurricane of philistinism’-the above comment perfectly exemplifies this. One feels sadness that we have to share the same planet.
Oh come on Richard, I’m not responsible for some random nutter off the internet. Get a grip.
I attack your ideas, your philosophy, your world view, your evidence, all of these are true.
I do not wish you ill as an individual: I only wish to reduce what I see as your unhealthy influence upon the body politic.
Just for the record I do indeed hope that your treatment will be successful, at the least cost in time and pain to yourself.
I disagree with you which means that I might well wish your ideas ill but I do not wish you such.
Tim
Spreading and encouraging abuse is your stock in trade
Writing that you despise people in Forbes is sure sign of that
And your publication of blatantly abusive commentary on your blog is further evidence of it
As ever, your arguments simply do not stack
I am very familiar with hating the sinner and loving the sinner. The sort of abuse you dish out and the comments you make are not consistent with that philosophy. You persistently play the man, not the idea. Change your spots and some of your followers might too
Richard
delete away richard ! it makes a much more pleasureable reading experience not having to read around the junk peopel post !!!
The silent majority are behind yuo Richard. Just ignore the haters – they will go away then.
Keep up the great work!
There’s far better ways for you to waste your time Richard – answering comments is not one of them.
I appreciate your frustration but find the reply,
“Thank you for your comment.
I have answered your question many times already on this blog and considerable information is available in the public domain.
I regret I am not a personal substitute for Google.”,
not very helpful to your argument. You have posted a considerable amount of information over a period of time. Where there is a very specific claim or rebuttal which deals with Mr. Worstall’s comments it would be helpful to point a link to it or even cut and paste (you know where it is and how it helps your argument in a way I do not). Your reply, possibly borne out of frustration doesn’t help or move anyone forward. It also risks people googling something which does not help your argument.
You may not find it helpful
But candidly I am not here to undertake literature reviews for you on request when the evidence you are seeking is readily available in many places
So, respectfully, and in line with the vast majority of commentators views, I ill not be elaborating safe in the knowledge that the evidence is compelling enough for UK parliamentary and EU Competition Commission enquiries even if Tim Worstall cannot work out why due to the selective filter he has applied to the available data, which filter I have also explained here
Richard
Most of the new names commenting on here are anagrams of insults towards yourself. Why they would bother to compliment you whilst hiding intent is very peculiar.
And Tim, they are definitely readers of yours.
I have not looked for anagrams….
I will