No Clean Feed - Stop Internet Censorship in Australia

Buddhism on the Maribyrnong

By Lorenzo

While taking the train across the Maribyrnong River, I have been observing the building of a Buddhist temple on the Western bank the most striking feature of which is a 16m tall gold-painted statue of Mazu, gazing out over the industrial ugliness on the Eastern bank towards Port Phillip Bay.

A golden goddess gazing over industrial ugliness

I have been meaning to walk over and have a look, so this morning I did.

 

A touch of China in Footscray

I find a new Buddhist temple bothers me much less than a new mosque.  While Buddhism hardly has a perfect record–it has played an invidious role in Sinhalese chauvinism in Sri Lanka and in encouraging militarism in Imperial Japan–it has a much better record of playing nicely with others than Islam.

So I was a bit surprised to find myself having a negative reaction, while I was looking at the temple, to the fact that every piece of writing was in Chinese. It seemed an almost deliberate distancing from the society around it. Because religious figures in emigre cultures are about traditions  ”back home”, they can often be a barrier to integration; particularly as the role of a cleric is so often to be a “gatekeeper of righteousness”.

Of course, there was an extra little touch.

Stating where we are

On the way back, I came across an Asian man (probably in his 30s) rugged up in Demons beanie and Parramatta Eels jacket fishing alone on the river bank. He had clearly embraced his Australian tribalism!

(This can also be the weekend chit-chat thread.)

131 Comments

  1. Posted June 23, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Yes – a regular on the Geelong train, I’ve been watching this temple go up … it’s taking forever.

    It doesn’t really bother me – although now I know the statue is of a sky-fairy, bit disappointed it’s the superstitious peasant buddhism rather than the more philosophical kind. Don’t they read Confucius, that sky fairy, easter bunnies, etc, don’t exist, but a weekend of chocolate overdose (or seasonal presents, or whatever) serve at least to bring people together.?

  2. kvd
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    The Nan Tien Temple is situated about 100ks north of me. Years ago my wife took our three kids plus my mum for a tour – I forget where I was at the time. My mother thought there were far too many steps, and the kids thought the cafe had great food, and my wife thought it ‘could have been peaceful’.

    And if this is a chit-chat thread, I’d just like to pay back Lorenzo in kind by mentioning a really fascinating, but quite long, article on revolvoing doors. Architecture, libertarianism, history of torts, economics, movies; what more could you ask for?

  3. Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    DB@1 Yes, I thought it charming from a distance too, one reason why I went for quite a long walk to have a look. Hence my surprise at my reaction to all the writing I could see being in Chinese. One notes that Asian Christian Churches, for example, always have English as well as the relevant Asian script on their buildings.

    kvd@2 Thanks, that is the sort of piece you download and read on your iPad over a hot drink at a cafe :)

  4. conrad
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    I think roof monsters have universal appeal, so you probably don’t need to worry about the Chinese writing anyway.

  5. Mel
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    I find myself in Buddhist temples a few times each year for in-law family reasons. I always feel welcome. I don’t care if the temple inscriptions are written in a language other than English and I note the temples *always* have English language booklets, pamphlets etc..

    On the other hand, I find the Plymouth Brethren Church in a country town 30 minutes drive from my place, with its 3 metre high padlocked wrought iron fence and razor wire perimeter very alien and unsettling, but not as unsettling as the whitebread faithful who shun all contact with outsiders and send their kids to a similarly fortified school.

  6. Posted June 23, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    C@4 Yes, the roof monsters are cool :)

    M@5 There are other Buddhists centres in the Footscray area, they include English-language signage. I suspect part of the problem is it is still under construction and quite isolated, so it is forbidding and barren of life.

    As for monotheism, even the touchy-feely help-other versions such as the Salvation Army have their confronting aspects. It is amazing, what a sense of entitlement belief in the One God can generate.

  7. Mel
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    It isn’t only the Monotheists who have it in for homosexuals, Lorenzo. Skeptic Lawyer’s old blog is actively promoting the idea that the homosexualists are closet Gramscians who want to ruin civilisation and turn us into communists.

    As I’ve noted before, if we ever get to the stage where homosexuals are in danger of being turned into bars of soap and lamp shades, it will be the social democrats who will endeavour to save you while the great bulk of “classical liberals” and “libertarians” will do nothing more than avert their gaze.

  8. Mel
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 8:21 pm | Permalink

    comment in mod thanks

  9. Posted June 23, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    Lorenzo@6 : on that salvo at the salvos … Wow! When will people STOP saying the New Testament makes up for the sins of the OT, and admit that Saul is just as vicious (and Patmos John’s Revelation is the product of some weird brain chem or recreational pharmacology), that pretty much all but the gospels are apocryphal?

    If, despite objections among many of you against “hate speech” laws, such laws are on the books, how come that bit (and others) of the Bible are not expurgated to avoid disseminators of such stuff from being taken to court?

    Also wondering, Lorenzo, what you think of Gore Vidal’s portrayal of Saul/Paul (in “Live From Golgotha”) as a hate-mongering denouncer of same-sex attraction to act as cover for his own private preferences. (yes, is off topic of post, but you mentioned saturday chitchat)

  10. Mel
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:13 pm | Permalink

    Sheesh, this is proving difficult.

    Lorenzo, are you now or have you ever been a Gramscian h@mosexualist of the type that has such classical liberal luminaries as Sinclair Davidson fretting? Come on man, fess up!

    Unfortunately this site will not let me link to Catallaxy old boy Sinclair Davidson’s hitched-skirt fretting over Gramscian Marching Boys but if you type “peter saunders on g@y marriage” into your browser it should pop up (and possibly poke you in the eye).

  11. Mel
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 10:46 pm | Permalink

    Legal Eagle,

    I thought it was interesting because it seems to confirm the point that I have made before on this blog that persons who classify themselves as libertarians and classical liberals, notwithstanding the fine (pre-Mises) philosophical traditions of the latter, are nearly always instinctive conservatives if not reactionaries. I find this phenomena intensely interesting.

  12. Movius
    Posted June 23, 2012 at 11:36 pm | Permalink

    Every time I’m in Melbourne I see this temple and wonder what it is, now the mystery is solved. It’s just another Christian church. After all Jesus = Buddha, it’s all in the numbers you see.

    DB@10 all but the gospels are apocryphal? They can’t even agree with each other.

    M@14 I think that phenomenon is directly related to a lack of electoral success. You’d get a lot more mileage out of pressing the current “social democrats” on how a majority of parliamentary members whose parties all allegedly support gay marriage are seemingly unable to pass any legislation removing marriage discrimination.

  13. Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    M@8

    It isn’t only the Monotheists who have it in for homosexuals,

    Well no, but my point was more how entrenched it is even in “nice” forms of monotheism

    And I have been meaning to comment on that deeply stupid Saunders non-argument, thanks for reminding me.

    that persons who classify themselves as libertarians and classical liberals, notwithstanding the fine (pre-Mises) philosophical traditions of the latter, are nearly always instinctive conservatives if not reactionaries. I find this phenomena intensely interesting.

    “Nearly always” is putting too high a rate on it (libertarianism in the US has a higher rate of social liberalism). But there is no great mystery to the underlying phenomena. It is Thomas Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions“. Conservatives, classical liberals and libertarians are all “constrained vision” folks.

    DB@10 Folk always have to quote St Paul if they want to use the New Testament to kick folk, it is because he is also a follower of Philo of Alexandria.

    I am vaguely aware of Gore Vidal’s take: it has amusement value.

    M@15 That there is some connection between the Gospels and Buddhism has long been argued, but that takes it in a very numerological direction.

  14. Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    Yes, I’m a constrained vision type: where it gets interesting is that one of the reasons I so oppose interventions by social conservatives to improve us morally is because I think they will fail in the same way that similar leftie attempts to make us better people fail (think rent restrictions). They produce bad, unenforceable law that costs a fortune to implement, and requires a big government to police.

    This is such a blindingly obvious insight to me I am always shocked at the stunned silence I get on libertarian forums when I raise it.

    I am such a ‘constrained vision’ booster that I think that when a good principle doesn’t work in law, its promoters have to give up the possibility of state-backed enforcement, because hard cases make bad law, and we don’t need any more of that.

    Occasionally, of course, the lefties and the social conservatives join hands on something wildly silly: Prohibition is one example, but the current fad that sees all sexworkers as victims and wants to criminalise payment for sex is another. Utterly daft, and a simplistic promotion of a bunch of silly feminists’ and silly Christians’ views of woman as permanent victim, to boot.

  15. Posted June 24, 2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    LE@7: Beautiful buildings …. Hmmm …. Thinking of fancy presentation used for a dish that is stingy or ordinary

  16. Kahmal
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:48 am | Permalink

    David Bath

    If, despite objections among many of you against “hate speech” laws, such laws are on the books, how come that bit (and others) of the Bible are not expurgated to avoid disseminators of such stuff from being taken to court?

    This is an excellent point. After all, many children’s stories have been expurgated. Even Huckleberry Finn has had the snip transforming Jim from “nigger/jigaboo” to “slave”.

  17. Kahmal
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm | Permalink

    Mel, if you read through that catallaxy thread, just about every single poster is a radical Catholic and anti-liberal. A very strange site for them to campaign on.

  18. Mel
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    Kahmal @20:

    Actually only a couple of the commenters on that thread were Catholics; obviously your powers of observation are none too powerful. Most of the “too right” nods came from the scum who associate with the Australian Libertarian Society.

  19. Mel
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Anyway, I’ve been doing some sleuthing and I think I may have uncovered some Gramscian Marching Boys in the act of marching their way through the institutions. Somebody better warn Sinclair Davidson ;)

  20. conrad
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

    “Most of the “too right””

    I don’t think Catallaxy is a libertarian site (do they even have any of the ALS commentators anymore?) — they have the ramblings of people like Steve Kates now who is happy to call himself conservative. Most of the rest also seem to fit the standard post-modern right-wing Republican stereotype as far as I can tell.

  21. Movius
    Posted June 24, 2012 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    L@16 I think the Buddhist influence on/cross-pollination with Christianity is pretty obvious. Christian Lindtner’s theory seems ‘highly speculative’ to say the least though.

  22. Blue
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    I find it somewhat Ironic is that Buddha said not to worship him or to form a religion around him.He told people not to believe him or believe IN him, rather to search for the pathway to truth and what truth was, for and by their own selves….yet here we are a few centuries later..and Buddhism is now a multi-billion dollar global deist religion.
    Tell me..what kind of truth needs a million dollar temple in order to prove itself virtuous when 20,000 kids every day on the African continent can’t even get a 2 dollar a day energy biscuit? Smh..no deal..thanks…I don’t need idols to point out to me that the truth is in the doing.

  23. Blue
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 9:55 am | Permalink

    #Correction to my last….
    According to Save the Children, its 20 million children per day going without ‘plumpy’ or the energy biscut..not 20 thousand. – blue

  24. Mel
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    LE:

    “Mel, I’m afraid DEM’s computer has bitten the dust, and SL’s one is also being repaired, so SL’s not around to respond to pointed comments about the ALS (you know that’s where she started blogging, don’t you…?)”

    No, I thought SL started at Catallaxy. No offence intended to SL as she is a libertarian outlier of a better stripe. Perhaps it was more upmarket in SL’s day. The last time I looked at it seriously, about one year ago, it smelt like a testosterone charged sweaty boys locker room.

  25. Patrick
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    Mel, I think you are right, I get around it by calling myself a conservative libertarian (not, btw, the other way around).

    Ie my instincts are conservative but I will nearly always come around to the libertarian position ;)

  26. Posted June 25, 2012 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    I think it takes a certain amount of arrogance (or confidence) in your ability to maintain your lifestyle without existing government institutions to support libertarian politics. Inherent in that is an assumption that your current way of doing things is sufficiently superior enough in comparison to other ways to succeed in a survival-of-the-fittest social or economic environment. This is probably a key factor in why it’s more appealing to conservative white males than other demographics.

  27. Posted June 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    d@32 – tee hee or ouch, depending on persuasion.
    le@31 – on female libertarians – perhaps it’s called “nanny state” for a reason! And then again, balance gender employment stuff (as well as government interventions like infant welfare nurses, etc) will (sadly) be more obviously seen as useful by women.

  28. kvd
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    desipis@32 I’m not interested in labels as such, but the qualities you note: you say that as if these are ‘bad things’?

  29. Posted June 25, 2012 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

    kvd@34,

    Well they’re only ‘bad things’ in so far that the opposite are also ‘bad things’. It’d be bad also to take a totalitarian approach to things and totally hand over all responsibility to the government. Likewise it’d be bad to assume that a particular way of doing things has no merit or relevance for the future, or assume that all ways of doing things are equal and cannot be judged. I tend to be equally disdainful towards political ideologues of all stripes.

    As for the ‘conservative white male’, I’ll make the observation that other demographics have existing narratives to explain why they aren’t getting everything they want and to justify their political positions:
    - “The government oppresses us because its made up of people trying to hold onto power and won’t embrace new ideas.”;
    - “The government oppresses us because it is racist”;
    - “The government oppresses us because it is sexist”
    and so on. Conservative white males are only left with:
    - “The government oppresses us because… well… because it’s a government!”

  30. Kahmal
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

    Conservative white males are only left with:

    “The government oppresses us because… well… because it’s a government!” made up overwhelmingly by conservative white heterosexual males. ;)

  31. kvd
    Posted June 25, 2012 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

    desipis@35 there really are more important things in life than assigning vague but facile superficial labels to groups, then assigning characteristics to said groups, and then ‘disdaining’ said groups for said assigned characteristerics. Is it just that it is difficult for you to deal with people as individuals as opposed to collectives/concepts?

    I mean, I could wish all ‘law students’ well in their exam results, and at the same time all ‘banana-benders’ the worst of luck. But it doesn’t change the fact that some ‘law students’ are actually almost human, or that my father, and favourite aunt, was a ‘Queenslander’. ;)

  32. Posted June 25, 2012 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    kvd, I deal with individuals in everyday life. I find life better if I don’t disdain them, but instead focus my antipathy towards collectives of vague and facile characters on the internet. Of course the world is much more interesting if you can pull it a part, play with it and see how it works. Given the unfortunate fact that I’m not a god, I’m limited to conducting simplified thought experiments in that regard.

  33. Patrick
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 8:01 am | Permalink

    I think it takes staggering ignorance and the historical perspective of a gnat to not be, at the least, deeply sceptical of government-provided ‘solutions’ or indeed of concentration of power in any sense.

    In that context I think that the same applies to not seeing a fundamental distinction between ‘psychological suasion’ (ie the employer example, or much advertising) and direct coercion (ie do/do not do this or you will go to jail).

    I’m perpetually disappointed (but not surprised, my perspective is at least slightly longer than a gnat’s!) that the
    ‘progressive’ view of the person is so poor and deprived. The ‘common man’ as drawn by a progressive is, in fact, the barest reduction of homo economicus, bereft of values or principles.

    This can be most easily seen in Frank Rich’s inane ‘What’s wrong with Kansas’ thesis/babble: I just can’t believe that these idiots would vote for their values and not their economic interests as assessed by me! Shock indeed.

    But it also underlines the employer example above. Mill was correct to put so much weight on community expectations. If you set up a slaughterhouse in a vegan commune, you may find that you have no customers or staff and even that you can’t get a vegetable smoothie at the local collective. No-one should be able to force the collectivist vegetables to provide you with one.

    In my experience dealing with individuals, many of them have deep psychological preferences that they willingly (if not consciously!) incur significant ‘economic’ costs as a result of.

    Few, I think, would regret it if asked.

  34. Posted June 26, 2012 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    kvd @ 37:

    or that my father, and favourite aunt, was a ‘Queenslander’.

    I’m confused, but not half as confused as you must have been if that were really the case.

  35. kvd
    Posted June 26, 2012 at 8:55 am | Permalink

    m@40 yes, I think I added my aunt into the sentence afterwards. Thanks for pointing out my obvious lack of drafting skills. Very good thing I’m not a lawyer ;)

  36. Posted June 26, 2012 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    That’s interesting – I had assumed she was Guanyin (another looker out of train windows). Of course, Mazu, protector of sailors and fishermen. It makes sense.

  37. Posted June 26, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    H@42 Yes, I had assumed Kwan Yin too, but no.

  38. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 12:47 am | Permalink

    Conrad:

    I don’t think Catallaxy is a libertarian site (do they even have any of the ALS commentators anymore?) — they have the ramblings of people like Steve Kates now who is happy to call himself conservative. Most of the rest also seem to fit the standard post-modern right-wing Republican stereotype as far as I can tell.

    I think you’re confusing a lot of things as usual. First off the site writers have never suggested they were all libertarian although they all appear to be pretty damn close. If you suggest Steve Kates isn’t I don’t who would be. The economics he supports tends to be all free market right and I can’t recall the last time he ever made any comment on social issues.

    Sinclair Davidson? He’s so libertarian he would be happy to see 50 boats arrive per day filled with refugees.

    I think the site though has taken a far, far more anti-left position since the great stimulus swindle, the lying over the carbon tax, the mining tax, the attempt to finkelstein the media and finally the turgid incompetence of the administration. These are all things you support so i wouldn’t guess you generally wouldn’t receive get a great reception there.

    What other issues are there that you find non-libertarian, as I’m really puzzled? Have you seen any policies for instance that would re-regulate the economy? Throw people in jail if they write something the government doesn’t agree with like under the finkelsteinian laws. What exactly?

    Same with you Legal E, as I’m really interested in knowing.

    I don’t think you should should confuse an strong anti-left position that a lot of people have there with not supporting libertarian or quasi libertarian positions. The statism of the liberal party is well understood however this isn’t a choice of a super model bride and an aging spinster, it’s a least worst option, or in the real world a choice between complete incompetence, mediocrity and lying and something appreciably better.

  39. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Hi LE

    I think you’re seeing a little of the Tea Party effect at the Cat. You shouldn’t feel uncomfortable posting comments. A surprising number of females post there too of late.

    True, there used to be a great deal of a plague on both houses routine with libertarians, but I’m not sure that’s the case now in places like here and the US. Some of the Tea Party supporters are crazy, but it’s essentially a grass roots small government movement that is absolutely at odds with the current Left in the US. It’s a little different here as we don’t have the economic pressures US is suffering.

    What turned me extremely anti-left were the things I mentioned above along with the formation of the Iron Pact with the Greenslime. This isn’t the party of Hawke and Keating and I still regard Hawke as the most pro-libertarian PM the country has ever had. In the US Obama isn’t Clinton either.

    Attempts to Finkelstein the free press under the cloak of fairness is unforgivable as far I’m concerned. What happened to Bolt is a travesty.

    Your concerns over Abbott are reasonably well founded and I’ve expressed concerns about him myself numerous times as I worry that he’s a big government conservative.

    However if he delivers on the policies he’s announced so far I’m ok, although I still think they are softcocking over the issue of the renewables quota, as it needs to be eliminated. We’re an efficient energy producer and we shouldn’t screw around with this comparative advantage or move ahead by imposing a tax 3.5 times that of the rest of the world.

    What’s Abbott/libs said?

    Repealing the tax on carbon and mining. Firing 12,000 Canberra public servants. Opening up the North to much more development. Cutting spending and repaying the debt. He does these things and I’m happy. What is a crock is his maternity/paternity leave.

    I’m also hearing strong rumblings about “reforming” the ABC to serve all Australians, which could mean they gut it and a good thing as far as I’m concerned.

    He also needs to revisit the labor markets problems and move it back to a freer market and perhaps ensuring the funding loop from the unions to the ALP/Greens (particularly the public sector) is eliminated by having members vote on political donations.

  40. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    I note the Greens are pushing some kind of media ownership ‘public interest’ test – can someone tell me what the heck ‘public interest’ means? Does it effectively mean, ‘we don’t want anyone owning media who believes things that we personally don’t believe are in the country’s best interests?’ And who decides? I am confused.

    They decide and then make a determination if the new owner is politically friendly. I find this whole thing amusing because the moment they start demanding special conditions on potential buyers it impairs asset valuations even further as it reduces the range of potential buyers. Even successful buyers would keep this in mind if they bought media assets. In other words it impairs Fairfax’s valuation and aggravates the situation for them. Lol.

    T

    hat being said, I certainly don’t want Rinehart pushing her own personal agenda in media which she controls. For that matter, I don’t want any individual pushing his or her own personal agenda in our media, regardless of what that agenda is. I detest being pushed into an agenda. I like a diverse range of viewpoints.

    Lets say she does turn it into her own personal plaything. That would mean that say 50% of potential audiences in the big cities would be up for grabs. I don’t see that hole being left unfilled for very long.

    Ultimately, I hope that Rinehart’s commercial enough not to try anything as foolish as that. I won’t be buying her papers if she tries any stunts. Mind you The Age lost me five years ago anyway (see post here)…

    I think there’s more than a little East West divide in all this that we’re not really aware. But like you I haven’t read the Age for about 5 year now. It’s too boring and predictable.

  41. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Read this LE. This is what independence is like at Fairfax.

    by Miranda Devine

    This column is based on my experience and on recent conversations with current and former Fairfax journalists, editors and high-ranking executives.

    When I arrived at the Herald it was controlled by a handful of hard-Left enforcers who dictated how stories were covered, and undermined management at every turn.

    “At one extreme, they could be likened to the KGB’s Cambridge recruits at MI6,” recalls former editor in chief Alan Revell.

    “More generously, I think they saw themselves as ‘the keepers of the flame’, whose job it was to resist the approach that I (and others) had, which was to encourage a ‘broader church’ of opinion.

    “In my view, the paper was not serving its market: its readership was predominantly on the north shore and in the eastern suburbs, not in Balmain and Glebe.”

    Another former high-ranking executive described the newsroom collective as “sabotaging the paper and some very good journalists. It’s a crying shame”

    The collective, or “nomenklatura”, as one of my Fairfax colleagues described them, were not household names. They rarely had bylines because they did very little of what you might call journalism. They were too busy policing what the real journalists did.

    Their tactics against me included bombarding my screen at deadline with poison messages about previous columns, or recruiting friends to lodge complaints about my work.

    I was not alone.

    Source: Miranda Devine Blog

    Charming independent people from what I see.

  42. Posted June 27, 2012 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    LE@47

    Would you really say (as JC infers) that you haven’t read The Age since you stopped your subscription to the hard-copy paper?

  43. Posted June 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    LE @ 51

    Yes, given the intimated introduction of their own particular pay-wall model, that is going to be a crunch moment for many of us, and for Fairfax as well.

    I, for one, (grudgingly) took up a free offer from The Australian but I found I hardly exercised it in the course of the month for which it ran.

  44. Mel
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 5:01 pm | Permalink

    A selection from today’s comments on Catallaxy’s Wednesday 27 June 2012 open thread:

    IT: “And you’re a whiny little bitch. We all have our cross to bare.”

    JC: “These fucking, disgusting filthy vandals sprang out 400 million on a dud deal that we won’t even proceed with.

    This gets me so freaking angry I want to break something.”

    JC: “Okay fuckface, so it’s $300 million then. 300 million for a deal that never went through to correspond with the ALP’s intentions … Stop being a fucking dickhead all the time. .”

    JamesK “Who gives a fuck what you “notice” twerp?”

    JC “You stupid prick, Stepford. You stupid, stupid prick.”

    The only women who show up at Catallaxy these days have beards and a lush coating of back hair.

  45. Kahmal
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

    Mel

    Having read through a number of the posts over at catallaxy, I think my powers of observation are fine. It seems about 90% of the posters are Christian far-right activists. Even the site’s manager (SD) is catholic. I’m not sure where you get the idea they are libertarians.

  46. Mel
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    “Even the site’s manager (SD) is catholic. I’m not sure where you get the idea they are libertarians.”

    Not sure if Sinclair Davidson is a Catholic but he is certainly an IPA gun-for-hire who churns out typical libertarian column fodder.

    Samuel J, Steve Kates, Rafe, Alan Moran (another IPA hack) etc are not Christian activists.

  47. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    I hardly know you there in your tuxedo, Mel. Lol

    As against your comments during the times you were there, when you began to accuse people of molesting children because of their religious background. I christened it Catholic hour in your honor. Recall? It usually started at 12 am and went most of the night and then blamed your insomnia for going bonkers to the site owner. Recall?

    “i’m sorry it’s my insomnia and a bad dose of pills”. lol How many times did you try that excuse with Jason? Most of us thought you were seriously bipolar.

    The site owners got rid of you numerous times to the point when one of them was considering a court order. You continued showing up under other monikers. You also were banned from LP! LP which is leftwing is quite an effort. For a blog with open slather you were too disgusting even at the Cat, you meathead. Congratulations.

    The only women who show up at Catallaxy these days have beards and a lush coating of back hair.

    lol Have you joined the temperance movement these days? Please, your behavior was the most disgusting I’ve witnessed. Enough with the one side tuxedo Mel, as you entire rear is exposed and it’s not a pretty site.

    ————————
    Kahmal

    Having read through a number of the posts over at catallaxy, I think my powers of observation are fine. It seems about 90% of the posters are Christian far-right activists.

    If you think that, I wouldn’t trust your powers of observation to cross a dirt road in the middle of the Simpson Desert Kahmi. You would invariably get hit with the only truck using the road for the day.

    Even the site’s manager (SD) is catholic.

    You’re wrong, you doofus.

    I’m not sure where you get the idea they are libertarians.

    Ron Paul is quite strongly Christian from what I have understood and the only person that would question his libertarianism would be someone as dopey as you from my observation.

    In fact I would question your own, as you don’t seem to either understand what it means or your intolerance of other people’s private beliefs would exclude you.

    Libertarianism is essentially people recoiling from state power or intervention and against people wanting to use state power or intervention, which is exactly what 99.9% of the people at catallaxy say.

    Furthermore there were years of Christian bashing that went on at the Cat. You can ask Scepticlawyer about Mel’s behavior there to get an idea how bad it was (and with him it was pretty dreadful in addition to making commenting unpleasant because of his disgusting lowrent blog personality).

    As for the Catallaxy style, yea, it’s really anti-left these days. It’s a good thing as this government is despicable, the lies are despicable and the individuals involved are despicable. I’m guessing that pretty soon I’d be Finkelsteined from saying such a thing, if you get my drift.

    So lower your nose Kami as that bullshit doesn’t give you any credibility.

  48. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    LE

    Just so you know the anger that Mel, with the one sided tuxedo posted, is about the bozos we have called the government having signed the Malaysian agreement without any escape clauses apparently. This forces Australia to take 4000 of their refs and we pay them $300 million. Imagine that deal without an escape clause.

    In other words the High court scuppered the Malaysia deal and these morons, these imbeciles we call a government are still in the hock to pay Malaysia the money and we take in 4000 people.

    This is the circle jerk of incompetent imbeciles populating the government benches in Canberra. I’m no concerned about 4,000 people as the country is big enough, but the $300 million I do care about. That’s why I said I wanted to break something. I cut a cheque each quarter to the ATO and about to again at the end of June. So I really get pissed off when that sort of money is literally pissed against the wall by a bunch of former no hoper union slobs. It so wrong on so many levels.

    People like Mel of course don’t really care about losses like this because he’s been on welfare for years. He thinks doesn’t really impact on him. It’s also why he goes hyper angry when people begin discussing welfare cuts. It would mean he may have to find a job.

  49. Kahmal
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:35 pm | Permalink

    Mel

    Yes, it appears that catallaxy’s manager is a libertarian rather than a radical christian right partisan. But you are wrong that he is not a catholic. He is a catholic. Reading catallaxy nowadays most of the posters are those god botherers who Andrew Bolt froze out. I’d say SD has turned catallaxy into an Australian version of christian right astroturfing. I scanned the current live threads, and I’d say 90% of catallaxy is christian right, with just about all of them extreme catholics. I don’t think SD’s occasional article on lowering tax rates balances this extreme christian right takeover.

  50. Mel
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    I love it when JC whispers sweet nothin’s in my ear :)

  51. Mel
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    kahmal 58:

    “Yes, it appears that catallaxy’s manager is a libertarian rather than a radical christian right partisan. But you are wrong that he is not a catholic. He is a catholic. ”

    Your comment makes no sense as I never denied SD is a Catholic. I said I don’t know about his religious beliefs. Again, if you can’t comprehend a simple sentence I’m not inclined to give your evidence free claims about Catallaxy any credence.

  52. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

    Kamal

    You have the observational powers of a severely retarded mongoose.

    Yes, it appears that catallaxy’s manager is a libertarian rather than a radical christian right partisan. But you are wrong that he is not a catholic. He is a catholic.

    You idiot, Camel, he’s, I think a non practicing Jew. I’ve known him for years been to drinks and other stuff and not once has the issue of religion ever come up. So I’m really guessing and going from memory about his religious background before he took over the site.

    Reading catallaxy nowadays most of the posters are those god botherers who Andrew Bolt froze out.

    Really? Do you have supportive evidence or do we rely on your observational inabilities? Frankly Cam, I’m going to have to ask for evidence. I’m trusting my instincts ion this one.

    I’d say SD has turned catallaxy into an Australian version of christian right astroturfing.

    You even know what you’re saying?

    I scanned the current live threads, and I’d say 90% of catallaxy is christian right, with just about all of them extreme catholics.

    How about this then. You’re a flake, a complete and total flake.

    I don’t think SD’s occasional article on lowering tax rates balances this extreme christian right takeover.

    90% of the pieces there are about economics, you doofus. That’s mostly what the specific threads are about. Check it out. Go back for the three months and number them category then report back here.

  53. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm | Permalink

    I love it when JC whispers sweet nothin’s in my ear

    No you don’t, you’re lying as usual Mel. You haven’t changed one bit.

  54. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Mel

    I think the Kamster wants your support and you turned him down. Fine weathered friend you turned out to be.

  55. Mel
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm | Permalink

    Oh come on JC, remember when we danced in Paris, had brunch in Brussels and held hands on Santa Monica beach? A little argy bargy now and then can’t destroy the platonic bonds we’ve forged over the years ;)

  56. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:14 pm | Permalink

    Kamel

    Here, I’m helping you get through this Catholic thing you seemed to be imbibed with. I went through the site to the 15 June.

    These were the topics and the number of pieces

    Tech 2
    Economics 25
    Crap 6
    Law 7
    politics 11
    Business 6

    One of the law postings was about the High court decision on the Chaplaincy program which was supportive of the court.

    That’s it, other than the open forum which I didn’t count. Now where are all the recitations of the Hail Mary and threads on the Our Father, you doofus?

    I think you’re trying to think with your brain stem far too hard and not giving the frontal lobes a chance.

  57. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:18 pm | Permalink

    Mel

    You know how I’ve always respected your opinions and stuff like that. Honestly :-)

    You know what your trouble is Mel, you get all hot and bothered about libertarian types and simply can’t stand their belief system. I’m the same about lefties, so try a little tolerance at times.

  58. JC
    Posted June 27, 2012 at 9:52 pm | Permalink

    Camal.

    I asked who the Catholics are over there and so far one dude has fessed up to being a proto.

    Still waiting.

    Follow the conversation there if you want. No one will know you’re lurking anyways.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/06/27/wednesday-forum-june-27-2012/comment-page-6/#comment-514994

    Go to 11.38

  59. Posted June 27, 2012 at 11:41 pm | Permalink

    Moderation, anyone?

  60. Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:20 am | Permalink

    Mel and JC: perhaps we could both calm down a little? Buddhism is, after all, the doctrine of compassion ;)

  61. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:52 am | Permalink

    I’m very confused. I thought Mel@53 was quoting from the Vegemite is better than Marmite post over there. So are we now saying that Catholics like … which?

    Anyway, I expect Buddhists have one with the lot ;)

  62. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    Why me, Lorenzo? Mel started it and the bigoted urine drinker seems to have a hide talking about other religions when he comes from the most bigoted racist place on earth.

  63. Posted June 28, 2012 at 6:47 am | Permalink

    My, this got out of hand a wee bit. Just so you know:

    1. I am currently working in the Office of the Solicitor to the Scottish Parliament.

    2. As a consequence of this job, I have had to sign the Official Secrets Act 1989. I have also had to sign other non-disclosure documents in addition.

    3. Right now I can’t say boo to a bloody goose.

    4. I will be back here when I return to the happy world of private practice and MY OWN BLOODY OPINIONS.

    5. I have had to bunk off like this once before — during the Hurley trial in 2007 — and everyone at Catallaxy was extremely decent and played very nicely until I came back, and that was a 3 week murder trial! It’s a pity that period has disappeared in the great Catallaxy-server-shall-eat-itself-implosion. JC may even remember it :)

  64. Sinclair Davidson
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:10 am | Permalink

    Mel – I think you are misrepresenting my views on marriage. See the question and answer here. The argument you refer to was made by Peter Saunders.

  65. Jc
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:35 am | Permalink

    Oh yea sl I recall that time. You were helping the judge in a murder trial and we’re all stoushng about politics.

    That was really funny when you brought it up like that.

  66. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:52 am | Permalink

    Getting back to the topic of this post, I just want to thank Lorenzo for forcing me to reinforce my correct spelling of buddhism and Maribyrnong. And I look forward to his next post on the results of the Gularganbone conference on the economic merits of the Stochastic Indicator.

  67. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    Yep: It’s the Christian Right we really need to worry about, hey Kamel? Not the nice Chavezista-like totalitarian left we have in government these days.

    Federal cabinet is set to approve and present to Parliament a tough public interest test for media ownership that could vet investors such as Gina Rinehart and the expansion plans of Rupert Murdoch’s News Ltd.

    Labor MPs have been told to sell the idea of a media crackdown to their electorates over the next six weeks after allegations involving the media’s role in the Peter Slipper affair galvanised cabinet into “fierce backing” of the controversial test.

    Cabinet is also backing a new regulator to make media “more accountable” and force outlets to run apologies, retractions and rights of reply.

    Support is also growing within Labour for a third inquiry into the media like the one prompted by the hacking scandal involving News Corporation newspapers in the UK…

    Labor believes that it will be able to justify a media crackdown when Mr Ashby ends his case.

    http://afr.com/p/national/labor_to_impose_public_interest_hnbmtCtrJErJegNcdQCcUN

    You pathetic idiot, Kamel. Our rights are disappearing before our very eyes with the Alliance about to finkelstein the media and you’re here debating if one of the site managers at The Cat is a Catholic and why they don’t the Australian left much these days.That’s a bigger concern.

  68. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    Any response from other lefties?

    How about you marcellous, as you seem more than eager to close down debate. You want to have a go at defending the Australian version of Chavismo.

  69. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    oops

    And why they don’t like…..

  70. Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    marcellous, I think it’s pretty clear that some people aren’t capable of doing things in moderation, at least not commenting on internet blogs.

  71. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    So, let’s avoid the fact that the Australian Left is attempting to finkekstein the media and copy directly from the Chavismo playbook.

    No comment either Desipis. Interesting and depressing at the same time.

    In the not too distance future I’m sure you’ll be able to ask a finkelstein truth commissar to ensure this stuff is discussed even on blogs and opponents are effectively finkelsteined.

  72. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    WTF is this obsession with “finklestein the media” etc.? Is he your brother in law, unrequited pickup, didn’t contribute to the last round of drinks? Or have you shorted media stocks and there’s a pressure point coming up?

    I agree with depisis, but also, as someone who Mel might term a “rightie” I really wish, JC, that you’d just stfu and get off my lawn.

  73. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    See, now I’ve mis-stated another commenter’s name – and I f’ing hate doing that because it is disrespectful. FU JC. Pick another sandbox to p-ss in.

  74. Posted June 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    Calm down all. Sorry I haven’t been around to hose this down; I have a full time job to do and have been off doing it.

  75. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    LE this discussion is just a pointless petty puerile joke, talking about the ‘finkelsteining of the media’ which I guess is some sort of pathetic whinge about increasing government media control, and yet not a word from these defenders of the true faith about the permanent proroguing of our parliament which you yourself pointed to via this link on another post.

    I wonder which ill Mr Abbott will rush to fix in 18 months’ time? Neither, I expect.

  76. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 2:48 pm | Permalink

    KVD

    Please put you your kiddies club down as that sort of bravado has next to no impact on me.

    WTF is this obsession with “finklestein the media” etc.?

    Just small things like the right to speak freely. Why your lack of interest in something so important?

    Is he your brother in law, unrequited pickup, didn’t contribute to the last round of drinks? Or have you shorted media stocks and there’s a pressure point coming up?

    There’s an art to the funnies. You need lots and lots of practice, squire.

    I agree with depisis,

    And?

    as someone who Mel might term a “rightie”

    Anyone to the right of Mel, would be to the left of Pol Pot, so call me unimpressed.

    I really wish, JC, that you’d just stfu and get off my lawn.

    It’s not your lawns squire. You’re just one of the commenters here like me.

    My comment relates to the earlier comments made by a couple of people here about how un-libertarian is the Cat, according to Mel. Then Kamel chimed in with his bigotry disguised as deep “analysis” wanting to discuss who there is a, a, a Catholic unaware of his own urine drinking heritage (by the appearance of his name) that other people can do a better tango than he can if he really wants to dance “the bigot”.

    I contrasting that while some people like Kamal, posters at the Cat were at least looking at issues currently confronting the country, such as the Chavez-like attack on free speech. Consequently I was wondering if some of the leftwingers here wanted to comment.

    Kvd, I’m picking you as a Hi alanist. That’s a running joke at the Cat about leftwing trolls who call Alan Jones pretending they’re rightwingers and then whine in support of leftwing causes. Am i guessing right? and seriously, put the plastic club away as it makes you look silly being a grown up.

  77. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    See, now I’ve mis-stated another commenter’s name – and I f’ing hate doing that because it is disrespectful. FU JC. Pick another sandbox to p-ss in.

    Yea it’s my fault you didn’t proof read your own swill.

    No, you don’t pick the sandbox.

  78. Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

    I’m with Munch

  79. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    DB@89 wish I’d just said that.

  80. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:33 pm | Permalink

    KVD,

    Grow up. Carrying a plastic club and screaming is not a good look for an adult. It’s even worse if you’re trying that routine wearing an adult diaper.

  81. Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    This isn’t great art, but it’s certainly relevant.

  82. Mel
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

    Well I had a pleasant Thursday ploughing the fields behind my two faithful mules, Ronnie and Nancy.

    Tomorrow I’ll sow some black-eyed peas and with a bit of luck my Obama scarecrow will keep the pea eating ravens at bay.

  83. Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

    For those breathlessly waiting for the US Supreme Court to knock down a key element of Obamacare 5:4, this post has the relevant precedents likely to be invoked.

  84. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    JC I drive past Elizabeth Farm – Charlieville most days on the way to earn an honest dollar. He is an embarrassment to you or, more specifically, to anyone with more than three brain cells.

    You rabbit on about ‘finkelsteining the media’ yet support such a caricature of free speech. You need to take a long hard look at your heros.

  85. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    JC I drive past Elizabeth Farm – Charlieville most days on the way to earn an honest dollar.

    That’s very interesting, kvd. Hope it’s a nice drive and few traffic lights.

    He is an embarrassment to you or, more specifically, to anyone with more than three brain cells.

    You lost me. Who’s embarrassing to me?

    You rabbit on about ‘finkelsteining the media’ yet support such a caricature of free speech.

    Actually KVD, what I did was ask lefties and people like Kamel what they thought of attempts by the government to finkelstein* the press and linking an AFR piece showing that it seems to be on. This squalid government is actually going to finkelstein free speech. Honest question I thought.

    You need to take a long hard look at your heros.

    What heros? Have i mentioned any heros?

    You’re deeply confused, squire.

    * Finkelstein a pejorative word that can be used as a noun or verb to define the attempt to curtail free speech.

  86. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    JC I assure you that if I’ve “lost you” it was entirely deliberate, and quite a relief.

    Exit, Pursued by a Bore ;)

  87. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

    JC I assure you that if I’ve “lost you” it was entirely deliberate

    Yes, I can see how you try to make incoherence deliberate. There doesn’t seem to be another choice for you.

  88. Mel
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Where have all the flowers gone?

  89. kvd
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Where have all the flowers gone?

    You gave them to Ronnie and Nancy – and I hope you have remained faithful. Ploughing the fields, plighting your troth, etc. etc. but no detail (esp. pics) required ;)

  90. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    The only women who show up at Catallaxy these days have beards and a lush coating of back hair.

    Wrong there, sweetie. I’ve been commenting on the Cat for over a year now and no sign of any pelt on my back as yet. I don’t think it comes with the territory. If I was writing for RSVP I’d say I’m female, blonde, blue-eyed, toned and petite, not religious either and quite libertarian.

    If your interest is back hair, I refer you to my significant other. Hairy, and male.

  91. Posted June 28, 2012 at 7:44 pm | Permalink

    EB@101 I believe Mel is already taken. I am not aware of how hairy his partner is, or colour of said hair, but I understand said partner is, indeed, male.

  92. Posted June 28, 2012 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

    JC If kvd and Mel are both giving you a hard time, that is a sign that you are not in a good place and am likely trying the patience of the blog moderators.

    You are certainly trying the patience of this one.

  93. Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    Just did my first trashing of a non-spam comment (from a new commenter). Play nice people.

  94. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

    Interesting, Lorenzo because it seems it’s okay shit on other people’s beliefs here but the moment the shoe is on the other foot it’s not really a good place, right?

    What exactly would I be trying your incredible patience? Mine was tried with the unfair comments about the Cat and the pathetic comments that were posted about the Cat particularly by Kamel attacking Sinc in that unique way of his in addition to other stupid comments he made.

    Let’s here what SL and LE have to say as I’d rather hear it from them…. Lorenzo.

    Thanks for the comment.

  95. Gab
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    Just did my first trashing of a non-spam comment (from a new commenter). Play nice people.

    Oh dear, my comment was obviously too hairy for you.

    But this is apparently acceptable:

    The only women who show up at Catallaxy these days have beards and a lush coating of back hair.

    Case of you can dish it out but can’t take it.

  96. John H.
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:01 pm | Permalink

    Well JC and Gab, go back to the Cat and stay there. Glory in your “robust debate” and hatred of the Left. I’ll stay here thanks, where people are respected as people not as holders of certain political opinions. I’m pretty much done with The Cat because 50% of the time I post something I am abused. I want to discuss ideas not waste my time dealing with other peoples’ desperate need to hurl abuse.

  97. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:07 pm | Permalink

    Hey, I am not offering my Hairy Ape to Mal for anything other than a technical trichological observation. Although not sure if trichology covers back hair as well as scap thatch, and it was back hair that was the topic, was it not, not black hair? The colour was irrelevant. We must get the details right in this fascinating exchange, n’est-ce pas? As I just said on the Cat, how boring is this site, moderated as it is so ferociously by one Lorenzo that he can’t tolerate Gab’s ‘hairy’ and ‘feminism’ in a lock-step? Protective of your infants, teacher? Hi ho, hi ho, into moderation now we go. (it’s more fun on the Cat guys, you get straight up, no shit, how libertarian is that?).

  98. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm | Permalink

    Whooo. Got straight up. One for you.

  99. Gab
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for your enlightening comment, John H., especially when you did not even see my first comment, which was neither political nor abusive.

    I took the liberty of a wee retort at the females at Catallaxy being hairy comment here. Mea cupla.

    Legal Eagle, my apologies and your comments noted.

  100. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Legal Eagle, I do not think I wish to engage with this site because I find your tone and the whole tenre of your approach, as outined in 108 and 112, extremely patronising and irritating.

    I hope you have the grace to regard this as an intelligent comment. I am not generally known for my lack of intellect, nor for any inability to engage in serious discussion. I left univeristy, and university research and teaching at a fairly senior level, some time ago. 112 is rather like sitting in an extremely suffocating tutorial once more, or engaging with closed-minded academic colleagues in pussy-footing ‘debate’ that gets nowhere. This is your site, so obviously your rules. But not with my presence.

  101. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

    Well JC and Gab, go back to the Cat and stay there.

    John H, I hardly know you. I think I’ve always had pleasant dealings with you and we’ve never exchanged a bad word each way. In fact I always praised you on the stuff you brought over and shared.

    Glory in your “robust debate” and hatred of the Left.

    I don’t glory in it as you suggest. I’m actually really upset to see this circus unfold.

    I’ll stay here thanks, where people are respected as people not as holders of certain political opinions.

    Well and good. However I think your beef is perhaps to do with the way James treated you a few times suggesting you were peddling junk science. I never thought you were by the way. James is a doctor as you know and a pretty gruff Irish bastard, but I think you always added value at the Cat, John. You always referred to yourself as moderately left and I can’t even recall a time you were ever attacked for your political views which to be honest seem quite moderate and well thought out.

    I’m pretty much done with The Cat because 50% of the time I post something I am abused.

    Ignore James. If he says something negative about the stuff you present tell him to fuck himself and that he’s only a doctor anyway and doesn’t really know much about the research stuff. Be thick skinned with him.

    I want to discuss ideas not waste my time dealing with other peoples’ desperate need to hurl abuse.

    True, but I never ever abused or said a bad word about you. I don’t think even Gab did to be honest… or can’t recall. The only person who has was Mr Gruffy pants and I even recall standing up for you.

    John H, my temperance has changed because of the stuff I’ve seen from this government that I think will only hurt us more in them long run. In other words I’m upset and pissed at their apologists both at the Cat and in general.

    I’m sorry you feel that way about me, I honestly am and hope you change your mind. If James pisses you off ignore him.

    Remind me, weren’t you at the cat only this week posting comments and links about the argument between to evolutionary scientists? It not as though you’ve been gone for oceans of time then is it?

  102. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    LE,

    No problems. You’ve always been fair a truly decent person. You can take the bat to me now if you want.

  103. JC
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

    In any event I often get accused of being anti left. However that’s not entirely true. What I have is a intolerance towards stupidity.

    For proof of my bi-partisan good nature I actually praised Paul Krugman today at the Cat no less and didn’t receive any boos. People actually agreed with it

    This is what i said with the link to his speech.

    Talking about Krugman.. I have to say that when the bearded tool puts on his economist hat and isn’t fucking around, setting up plays for the Demolitionists he really is an excellent economist.

    This stuff is first rate. Now you may not agree with his treatment, however his prognosis is absolutely first rate economics.

    Now, I’m not kidding, I know a bit about this stuff as we spent the entire 90′s talking, reading about and speculating in large licks on the European Monetary System, the advent of the Euro and what it meant. The krug gets it.

    See here. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/revenge-of-the-optimum-currency-area/

    It’s really flawless.

  104. Movius
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

    http://i.imgur.com/KNyjQ.gif

  105. John H.
    Posted June 28, 2012 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    JC,

    A long time ago on an internet far away there was the Usenet. I was actively involved in a number of forums there including bionet.neuroscience, sci.med.immunology, ai.comp.philosophy, sci. immunology, sci.anthropology, sci.anthropology.paleo. Then the ranters and abuse came. Those forums are gone.

    I benefited a great deal from those forums. Even today I still benefit. About one month ago I uncovered a very puzzling set of associations that left me with a seemingly intractable mystery. Fortunately one former participant on the neuro forum was a specialist in the field so I emailed him for help Within 3 hours I received a brilliant response. Not surprising, the bloke has done some brilliant work, check out the graphic on his web page. That is stunning stuff, at least to me.

    http://neuro.wisc.edu/faculty/jones.asp

    In his email Matt advised me he had long ago left that forum because of the ranters and abusers. That’s the tragedy, when a forum becomes dominated by ranters and abusers many good people go somewhere else. It may take one year or 5 but eventually the forum collapses into a bunch of true believers who pride themselves on kicking the crap out of anyone who disagrees with them. Reminds me of some International Socialists I used to argue with in the pub.

    Yes, I did post something recently. No response. Two years ago that sort of comment of mine may have attracted a lively discussion on the subject but now it is a different Cat.

    Do what you like with The Cat but some of us want to learn something and not have to waste time reading yet another tirade against so and so.

  106. Posted June 28, 2012 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

    Bad news. I’m back and I now have my machine.

    JC – you’re being boring. Shut up. Consider yourself sin-binned for 24 hrs or until SL or LE rescue you – whichever is the shortest.

    To everybody else – I don’t go over to Catallaxy much any more so to be honest I don’t really care what’s going on over there. If you have comments to make about something on THIS site, feel free. If not, then it’s not really relevant to post to one of the threads here.

    Now play nice or I’ll bloody spank you.

    (Sorry, computer withdrawal… I’ll be all right in a couple of hours.)

  107. Mel
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 10:37 am | Permalink

    John H @119:

    I always enjoy reading your accounts of neuro/ medical research.

  108. Fleeced
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    I did post something recently. No response. Two years ago that sort of comment of mine may have attracted a lively discussion on the subject but now it is a different Cat.

    John, I too enjoy reading your comments at the Cat, but your knowledge is very specialised, and even if I understand/find it interesting, will often have nothing to respond with – it just isn’t my field… I think you shouldn’t take things too personally.

  109. kvd
    Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Another vote for Mel’s comment @122 – and also what Fleeced just said, esp. the link between brain chemistry and intelligence/learning capability which I find fascinating. And I bet I just got that wrong ;)

  110. Posted June 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm | Permalink

    Segue on learning/intelligence … and I suppose it’s still the weekend chitchat thread until tomorrow … a lovely little “parable” on looking at things and where ideas can come from … kind of tying in with buddhist “make me one with everything”

    http://lifehacker.com/5922070/staring-at-screws-how-i-find-ideas-in-trivial-details

  111. Posted June 30, 2012 at 5:22 am | Permalink

    Libertarianism is big on free speech. Good. Everybody who has visited this thread appears to have grasped this basic point. The other thing on which libertarianism is big is property rights.

    Which means, our property, our rules.

  112. Posted June 30, 2012 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

    LE and I having had a side discussion of this issue, the binned comment was a borderline case where my chivalry reflex probably erred on the side of making a point. (In a classroom, it is usually a bad idea to be the next student to push the envelope right after the warning has been issued, said the freelance teacher.)

    I am still feeling my way in being one of the moderators, so a learning experience all round.

    But generic insults, not a good idea folks. Particularly so if you don’t actually know the ideological (or other) stripe of people you are insulting, or who might be caught in your category. Been known to have made that mistake myself, but that does not make it any less a mistake.

    We are aiming for a certain breadth of views and civility of comment–two things that go together. People being offended by tone or feeling insulted is not a good basis to elicit broad and open discussion. Abuse being, after all, both in intention and practice, a way of attempting to police views.

    There is a distinct difference between policing tone and policing views, especially as failing to do the former tends to end up, in effect, doing the latter. We will police tone because we want to encourage folk to participate.

  113. Gab
    Posted July 1, 2012 at 8:12 pm | Permalink

    Good lord, all this fuss.

    Look next time anyone is inclined to insult the females at the Cat, just call us furry :)

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*