The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Shan:

Show all comments by Shan.

Posted on entry Heads they win; tails we lose ::: April 10, 2008, 03:42 AM:
Ptrck @ 106 "...Y bgn, n #35..." n, ctlly, bgn n #31 --- bt bgnnng t #35 crtnly sssts y n cnstrctng th strw mn y prcd t bld.

Bck t th strt: yr cnmst cmmnt ws chp, yr "cptlsm" rnt n th rst f tht prgrph ws frnkly bfflng.

hv ttmptd t llstrt, twc, tht ntndd n "vngr" (t s th crtcl-yt-wlcmng wrd frm b @96 -- thnk y b) n pntng tht t, bt y nsst n sng nslt whr nn ws ntndd...

...whch msngly vldts vn n ncrrct rdng f my frst pst t #31.

*shrg*

ws plsd whn stmbld pn ths blg bcs t dscsss tpcs njy. wll cntn t lrk. My frst ttmpt t nggng n th fry sms t hv bn wsh, nd y'v xplctly sd 'm "nt wlcm" -- s wn't cmmnt gn.

Whch lvs y fr t cntn vwng m s th hrrbl d-hm trll y'v cnjrd frm yr mgntn. N hrd flngs.
Posted on entry Heads they win; tails we lose ::: April 08, 2008, 02:41 AM:
Back to the topic, I thought this was an ok primer (from today's Grauniad).
Posted on entry Heads they win; tails we lose ::: April 08, 2008, 02:20 AM:
Where do I "get off"?

I was simply pointing out that what begins as a strong post degenerates into name-calling in the last paragraph. Worse, confusing name-calling that detracts from your main argument.

Pointing out characteristics of the current crisis w.r.t. a historical perspective is useful. Rants about capitalism "not being about free markets" -- which immediately beg the question of what you mean by "capitalism" and "market" -- less useful.

Me trying to make sense of those rantings, I freely admit, possibly not useful at all.
Posted on entry Heads they win; tails we lose ::: April 07, 2008, 04:50 AM:
Bruce, you talk about the Economist's 'failings' as if there is something endemic about them, and as if I should share your view.

Is the Economist wrong? Sure. Who isn't, from time to time, including your present interlocutor?

But their reportage on, for example, dengue fever in Latin America (April, 2007) or correctly putting the boot into the BNP (May, 2006), or their constant championing of externality charges, find few peers in the larger main-stream media.

I don't understand people who clearly want nothing more than to listen only to people they agree with -- a disease of the mind that is rife in Bloggerland -- and only to attack the weakest arguments of their opponents, or worse, straw men.

I'm not saying this describes you, but it does describe some of the features of the last paragraph of Patrick's post. I note with interest that he's already accepting certain criticisms and redefinitions, particularly wrt his use of "capitalism" to mean "a species of crony oligarchy", which is clearly a definition of limited use outside his own head.
Posted on entry Heads they win; tails we lose ::: April 07, 2008, 01:27 AM:
"most of whom think the Economist is a voice of reason"

Not sure who, or what, this is sledging. The Economist? Libertarians? A variety of libertarians the author doesn't like?

Don't know anyone who thinks the Economist is a "voice of reason". Know plenty (including myself) who think it's a fine newspaper. Just like this is a fine blog...

...if you ignore the silly little ad-hom morons'n'megaphones stuff that creeps in from time to time.

Comment statistics for Shan on the Making Light blog

YearNumber of comments posted
20085

Total: 5 comments. View all these comments on a single page.