tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post5391914401613734648..comments2024-03-28T10:46:35.575+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Culture : the root cause of voodoo statistics and the sudden urge to write 10,000 word dissertations?James Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-54901365906363496932010-06-10T15:58:55.442+01:002010-06-10T15:58:55.442+01:00Circa 1994/5, I dare say you'd have said the s...Circa 1994/5, I dare say you'd have said the same thing about "socialized medicine".James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-71839907465453367682010-06-10T15:31:09.128+01:002010-06-10T15:31:09.128+01:00the day of the gun is drawing to a close. It may n...<i>the day of the gun is drawing to a close. It may not happen in your lifetime, but I think in your heart of hearts you know which way the wind is blowing - hence all the endless sound and fury.</i><br /><br />Really? Reality, at least here in the U.S., disagrees with you. We're seeing record firearms purchases over a period of YEARS, more women & young people joining the ranks, and an explosion in the number of Americans getting CCW permits. Oh, and anti's are getting their butts kicked in the courts.<br /><br />It's obvious to any rational thinker just which way the wind is blowing.Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-90549834852313365372010-06-10T15:26:46.438+01:002010-06-10T15:26:46.438+01:00I also refute the argument that 'guns don'...<i> I also refute the argument that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' by pointing out that it would simply not be possible for an individual to kill as many people in a short space of time with virtually any other weapon, whatever their degree of murderous intent.</i><br /><br />You refute nothing here. You claim that having the gun alters the <i>efficiency</i> of the killing. That in no way invalidates the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.<br /><br />Perhaps you need to lookup the definition of "refute."Mike W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03425962910696301026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-27510229056942096932009-05-15T00:20:00.000+01:002009-05-15T00:20:00.000+01:00I've regrettably now - for the very first time sin...I've regrettably now - for the very first time since I started this blog - not allowed through comments for reasons other than the standard ones of spam, swearing or outright abuse. Nobody should feign shock or outrage over this - I made clear several times I was not going to allow this interminable debate to proceed any further on this blog, which I set up a year ago to discuss very different subjects. All five comments I've rejected have been (as usual) from Kevin's devoted fan base, and they all essentially just wanted to go round all the same houses we've already been round a million times before.<br /><br />And to 'Linoge' who said <I>"allow me to say this much, assuming it will not violate your whimsical and flexible commenting policy"</I> - well, sorry not to play along with you and your friends' heartrending martyr routine here, but if you'd bothered to properly read the crystal clear statements I'd made on comments (both on this thread and on previous ones), you'd have known I was never going to let yours through. What parts of <I>"if anyone feels strongly that they want to comment on anything I've said here or in previous posts, they have the opportunity to do so at Kevin's blog"</I>, and <I>"no further comments on this particular topic will be allowed"</I>, and <I>"my position is now that the debate is closed on this site"</I>, and <I>"I will not let any further comments through on the issue, no matter how well-argued or well-mannered"</I> did you not understand? My characterisation of those statements of mine would be not so much 'whimsical' and 'flexible' as, well, 'extremely direct'. But to avoid any further 'confusion' on the part of any befuddled members of the KB fan club who are <I>still</I> scratching their heads at this point, I shall simply do what I've done with a handful of previous threads and close it to all further comments. I'd like to assure this blog's small regular readership (if they haven't all been driven away by now) that I'll still accept comments as usual on all other topics, and I hope to be able to remove moderation altogether eventually if Kevin is true to his word about finally letting this stunt of his - for that's all it ever was from the word go - die a natural death.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-84818215171995702322009-05-14T17:41:00.000+01:002009-05-14T17:41:00.000+01:00Kevin, you have what I believe is known in your co...Kevin, you have what I believe is known in your country as an <I>attitood problem</I>. Let me explain the position to you again <I>slowly</I>. You decide the comments policy on your blog, and I'll decide mine. That's the way the world works - tough to accept I know, but there it is. <br /><br />And may I just say you've been 'wonderful' as well, darling - a wonderful example of what it is about right-wing zealots that is quite so objectionable. For casual readers of this blog who don't come across the likes of you and your cheerleaders very often, I suspect it's been a highly instructive experience.<br /><br />If this really is the end (and it's more the end for me than it is for you because I'm not a gun blogger), I'll just make this observation - the day of the gun is drawing to a close. It may not happen in your lifetime, but I think in your heart of hearts you know which way the wind is blowing - hence all the endless sound and fury. And when it does happen, your descendants (if you have descendants) will look back and wonder what on earth all the fuss was about.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-52844229717311789742009-05-14T17:18:00.000+01:002009-05-14T17:18:00.000+01:00Interesting. When I checked this link last night,...Interesting. When I checked this link last night, there was no way to comment. Not even a "comments are closed" announcement.<br /><br />As to closing comments after five days, I understand that when people have old posts that get slammed by spammers. I've seen it. Closing comments because you're tired of responding to them is something else entirely.<br /><br />I will, however, revise the post to correct my error.<br /><br />However, <A HREF="http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2009/04/only-freedom-ill-ever-understand.html?showComment=1239723540000#c4035617958629189886" REL="nofollow">you DID close your comments earlier</A> - <I>"I have now reached the point of utter mental exhaustion. My position is now that the debate is closed on this site, and I will not let any further comments through on the issue, no matter how well-argued or well-mannered . . ."</I> When I saw no way to comment on this post, I concluded that you had decided to preempt any further discussion.<br /><br />Have no fear, I'm done with you now. Thanks for participating. You were wonderful!Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10324035824298948422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-14284911781291222582009-05-14T15:47:00.000+01:002009-05-14T15:47:00.000+01:00Rachel, I'm not a horse, and I see no reason to 'w...Rachel, I'm not a horse, and I see no reason to 'whoa' there now. I didn't intend to get into an argument with you, merely to point out (accurately) that you do not allow every comment through, and therefore Kevin was being a tad hypocritical in coming out with this smug criticism of me ("reasoned discourse") without applying precisely the same tag to people he's rather more keen on (such as yourself). I correctly stated that you close comments after a certain period - I made no suggestion at all about what your reasons for doing that might be, and I didn't have to because Kevin seems to feel that such a policy is always utterly wrong. As for the reasons you might delete comments, I actually read your comments policy before I posted anything (does that make me unique?) and I have to tell you it's somewhat more forbidding in nature than what you've posted above. I quote - "This blog is my property. It is not a news site, a public square, or your own personal punchbowl to take a **** in. It is not my obligation or my duty IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER to protect your First Amendment rights, because they don’t apply here. Look at it this way: this blog is a restaurant that is open to the public. Since comments are open, you are free to walk in. But since it is still PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT I OWN, I am equally as free to refuse service to you and kick your *** out if you behave in a way that I don’t like. Do you expect to be able to walk into a pizza joint and wipe **** on the walls, without the owner kicking you out and cleaning your **** off the walls? I didn’t think so." I think I'm safe in saying most people would regard the comments policy I set out myself as being at least rather less hostile in tone, even if it's not very different in essentials.<br /><br />"Any comments using the name 'Anonymous' that I actually choose to publish, I’ll edit it to give you a name. And you might not like it." 'Choose' to publish - an interesting choice of word. Does that warrant you putting the word 'moderation' in inverted commas above? It sounds awfully like straightforward moderation to me.<br /><br />"Extremely long, rambling, or off-topic comments will be edited down to an acceptable size if not deleted outright." Again, does that warrant you putting the word 'moderation' in inverted commas - deleting or editing down comments for being, among other things, 'rambling'? That's a rather broader definition than 'abusive' or 'completely inappropriate'.<br /><br />I reiterate at this point that I have no complaint about your policy - I just don't see why you're complaining about my entirely accurate characterisation of it in my post above. And, just FYI Rachel (to let the record show and all that), as of 15:35 BST today, I still have only deleted comments for one of three reasons - spam, bad language and outright abuse (including one today, fairly predictably). If anyone's interested in seeing just how tolerant I've been in the past of borderline abusive comments, take a look at some of Unix-Jedi's behaviour on the threads where this debate took place - I think a great many bloggers wouldn't have put up with that, but I haven't deleted those comments and don't intend to. As I stated above, I am now reserving the right not to allow comments on this thread if people are trying to start up the argument on guns again, but people can hardly complain that I haven't given them fair warning that I'm going to do it. I think there's a rather big difference between me saying 'no further comments on this particular topic will be allowed', and just selectively editing out the comments I happen to disapprove of.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-70443316551054675052009-05-14T11:51:00.000+01:002009-05-14T11:51:00.000+01:00Whoa there now. You say:
"Rachel Lucas - the own...Whoa there now. You say:<br /><br />"Rachel Lucas - the owner of the blog in which this 'debate' commenced - takes precisely the same view. She moderates comments she finds offensive, and closes threads to new comments completely after a certain period of time. Evidently Ms Lucas is a staunch believer in 'reasoned discourse'."<br /><br />The only comments I "moderate" are those that are completely inappropriate and abusive. NEVER because they disagree with me. You will note I've never moderated your comments on my site, nor will I ever.<br /><br />The reason I close them completely after 7 days is because of SPAM. I noticed several months ago, when I was getting about 200 spambot comments every single day, that they were all on very old posts, never on posts from the preceding week or so. So I installed the plugin that shuts them down after a week, and my spam has gone from 200 a day to maybe 1 a week. <br /><br />Just FYI. Let the record show, and all that.Rachel Lucashttp://www.rachellucas.comnoreply@blogger.com