501. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284012 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 5:28 am

"In it, Green commits his usual combination of hatred and hypocrisy. The man is a fool. He reminds me of the Conservative Party of the late eighties and 90s with their "Family Values" and "Back to Basics" campaigns. Euphemisms both for intolerance and oppression."

LOL!!! They backfired spectacularly. Anyone remember Viz's parody - "Baxter Basics, the Tory MP who loves to dump his load".

Um, Stephen O'Bigot, the rape fan that loves to dump his load in Waterstones.

502. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284000 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 4:54 am

Hungarianelephant "My point exactly."

I think you have missed the point. It is a critical form of advertising. It's no different from a product launch in any sector and is usually make or break for the success of the book/product.

Abandoning product launches is little more than a guarantee that the book/product will not be brought to the public's attention.

In publising it is a prime method of getting the reveiwers and the press to know the product and its author.

503. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283991 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 4:31 am

Hungarianelephant "No, selling books is what Waterstones does for a living. Launches are for publicity."

Still wrong - advertising is core to the act of selling and all the launches are is one of many forms of advertising. Exactly what Richard Dawkins and his publishers are doing on the home page of this site.

504. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283987 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 4:21 am

Heck, there is something wrong here. Waterstones yesterday were claiming that the were reacting to the actions of CV, now they are saying they were reacting to Patrick Jones's behaviour.

Well, which is it? We now have two contradicting statements from Waterstones.

505. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283986 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 4:16 am

"However, it would appear that shortly before the event took place, the author deliberately took provocative action to create a furore around the publication of his book. These actions were taken without prior discussion with the store or their consent and altered the nature of the pre-agreed event."

Well precisely what was this "provocativbe action". Seems like a passing the buck claim. Does anyone know the email address of the author so that we can pin down what really happened?

506. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283984 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 4:11 am

Hungarianelephant claims "If I were them, my response to this would just be not to arrange launches of "controversial" books in the first place."

All of the books it launches are, in some way, controversial to someone. Launching books is what waterstones does for a living. Heck, the Nibles it has in stock are controversial to just about everyone in this forum. They are even controversial to the religious. Every science book on theor shelves is disputed by cretinists.

Even the computer manuals in Waterstones are objected to - the Plymouth Brethren have a religious objection to computers.

Heck, the very existance of this forum is a result of Waterstones selling a "controversial" book, TGD, that many object to.

That is the very nature of books.

507. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283964 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 3:42 am

"If threats were made, they have a primary duty to protect their staff, and a few dozen angry letters from atheists won't make a blind bit of difference."

Irrelevent. If their staff we being threatended by Christian Voice, it should be a matter of calling in the police and taking action against CV under either criminal or civil law. CV is preventing Waterstones from doing business.

The way Waterstones has behaved allows CV to threaten staff and customers in the future, again and again and again. Waterstones has done nothing to stop the problem.

What looks to have happened is that CV launched a mass spam against Waterstones coupled to what looks to be a breach of the peace on private property that threatended both staff and the general public.

It's a "green light" to CV to enter anyone's private property and stop whatever it thinks should be stopped. It is far worse than just demonstrating outside of a theatre (which is everyone's right).

Having failed in using the law to attack the BBC, CV is now taking the law into its own hands.

508. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283923 by Roger Stanyard on November 14, 2008 at 2:42 am

Some background. The "patron" of Christian Voice is Lord Ashbourne (proper name, Gibson). He is also president of the cretinist group The Creation Science Movement.

It all sounds a bit grand having a "lord" on the letterheads but Ashbourne is a non-entity. His title was not earned - it's heriditary and he no longer has the right to sit in the House of Lords. The title is a 19th century one and he is not an aristocrat.

He's also an old man - born 1933 - well passed retirement age.

509. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283599 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Dead Yeti "Waterstones never replied to email - probably shouldn't have told them i used to work for them, now they must have me down as crazy."

It's not you that should be worrying right now but the CEO of Waterstones. You've done your job.

I've seen this issue years ago. The one thing a CEO hates, beyond all belief, is what this group is now doing.

It is an utter distraction to them. They are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to get profits up. The last thing they want to deal with is irate customers.

Look, if you buy a falty product or service and want compensation, the golden rule is to go straight to the CEO. Just to get rid of you, it's worthwhile for the CEO to pay you off well above the odds. He's probably on £400 or even £1,000 an hour - the lowly person in Waterstones in Cardiff is on £6 an hour. The CEO just doesn't have time tomorrow or next week to handle this problem. So force him to sweat and make a decision asap. That's his damn job. The buck stops with him.

510. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #283582 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Szymanowski claims "Waterstone's are a business not a protector of free speech, and they do indeed have an obligation to protect their staff and customers."

Nope, they are in the business of free speech. Their very existance is dependent on it. It's what their customers demand and its what Waterstone's does for a living.

Unless, of course, you think books have nothing at all to do with free speech.

511. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283318 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 12:06 pm

Well, I've no idea what Oxford thought of Anderson. He appears to have been there during the late 90s and the early part of this decade. I did ask around a couple of years back in the RD Forum but nobody knew him.

Hasn't had much of a profile since. Ran a church from his front room and with space rented in a local drill hall for a couple of years and then buggered off to Kenya to carry the white man's burden and save souls.

512. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283305 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 11:54 am

Jabber - Yep, saw the whole shooting match from day one. It's worse than it sounds because the jerk involved tried to get the police to "investigate" my "nefarious activities". As fair as I can make out, they told him to shove it.

The bloke is called David Anderson. He's a pastor/missionary in an extreme fundamentalist Baptist sect. You can take it for granted that he's a complete nutter - the lot, creationism, biblical literalism, appears to hate Catholics...

He's ex Oxford University, btw. Did post grad in maths and then went and did a degree awarded by Britian's lowliest university - Glamorgan. Same theological "college" as attended by Ian Paisley.

He's currently claiming to be a missionary in Kenya and also describes himself as a logician.

What I have never believed is that he set up and ran that blog solely on his own initiative. My guess is that he was paid and supported by the creationist movement in the UK. I've asked him at least six times who else was behind it. Never got even an acknowledgment of the request.

The bloke was bragging some opmnths back that he was thinking of showing his three toddler children live animals having their heads hacked off of. Apparently it will do the kids good because they are "sinners".

(Yet again we see not an ounce of humanity in fundies.)

Anderson tried to satirise Richard. Fell flat on his face. IIRC Richard thinks he's a twerp as well.

Still Anderson was a good recruiting agent for BCSE.

Roger

513. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283292 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 11:23 am

This is a long shot idea in response to Jabber's worries.

How about writing to Waterstone's with the "suggestion" that on the RD Forum, many books that are sold through Waterstones are reviewed (uusually favourably) and the forum participants are frequent purchasers. Then, um, mention the number of people registered with the forum (dunno the number but I guess Josh does) and suggest that given the affair in Cardiff that the forum advises its participants to purchase elsewhere.

I suspect that there are tens of thousands of people signed up to this web site. When it comes to Waterstone's bottom line, they matter. They are its customers. It's not blackmail - every customer is free to ask for better service. it's the chief executive's job to make sure we are happy with what we get. Right now as a frequent and long term customer of Waterstone's I most certainly am not.

514. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283279 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 11:07 am

Jabber,

I'm thinking out what to do. I have drafted out something to email to Waterstones but right now want to sleep on it because it is only repeating what others have done.

I also have in mind contacting one of my contacts in the national press to draw his attention to the matter and detail what has been provided by you and others re Green.

The wicked thought has entered my head that there is copious room for good satire about Waterstones - not that I would EVER do anything like that (slaps wrist at the thought). ;-)

Give us a bit of time.

However, I must give a hearty thanks for what you have done so far. It's invaluable. It may take months or years to have an impact but that should not detract from your sterling efforts. That's the way Internet works in getting information to have an impact (see Freakonomics).

515. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283268 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 10:50 am

Anyone here a member of the National Secular Society? IIRC it has a track record in handling Stephen Green. Could be worth contacting them. If no joy there, let's try the British Humanist Association (Richard's involved with that).

516. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283260 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 10:34 am

re Green's Statement of Faith: 4. We believe all government to be under the authority of God and that its purpose is the maintenance of freedom and justice solely in accordance with Biblical principles.

What he is calling for here is a theocracy (he does it elsewhere) with him and his pals (and nobody else) in charge. He's extreme by even the standards of American fundamentalists.

He's an Ayatollah Wannabee.

The Waterstone's affair is just part of his tactics and strategy towards that end.

Now he has got way with it in Cardiff, he will see it a (to use a pun) "green light" to step up the action on censoring books, people and the media in general.

I did some reserach some years back to find whether or not he was a creationist. I drew a blank both ways.

Neveretheless, now he's got away with murder in Cardiff, I suspect that he will try the same trick with other new books and authors that he believes are "blasphemous" or contradict his religious opinions.

That means a huge number of books and authors are now possible targets. Just about all main stream science books and books for children that include science, anything and everything that criticises religion or offers an alternative to his religious opinions, feminist books, books by and about gays, books on liberal politics, children's books that involve ghosts, fairytales or whatever....

Waterstones may end up with a whole chain of book stores with only the Bible on the shelves.

Green,incidentally, does not appear to be the most erudite of beings. As far as I can recall, he has not been to university and certainly has no theological qualifications (i.e. he knows diddly doo about religion either). It seems he got a bit lucky with the Tory party briefly in his obscure career and has used the experience to set himself as a professional Wahhibist.

As with nearly all these fundamentalist Ayatolloh Wanabees, there is a common pattern in what they think. There is only one thing they hate more than liberals and atheists - it's other religious believers (see Green on Muslims, Kohmeini on Americans, bin Laden on Jews).*

* I lie. It's seeing other people enjoying themselves. Green no doubt is a happy man when a woman is raped, given AIDS and consequently has a baby that carries the AIDS virus. It appears that his idea of a good marriage includes one that is utterly loveless, brutally violent and cruel. It takes humanity to hope that people enjoy themselves.

517. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283074 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 5:54 am

Jabber, did Waterstones give any indication of what the threats were - violence, intimidation of staff, criminal damage to property?

I assume Green thought he could get away with this as the author is obscure. Had it tried it on with The God Delusion, all hell would have been let lose.

One wonders who the coward is, Green or Waterstones.

518. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283054 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 4:58 am

Peacebeuponme - thanks. Looks to me that Green is unequivocably advocating the legalisation of rape.

It's worth digging around here because he also appears, as an anti-abortionist and anto sex-education advocate, to be also advocating that the raped woman must then carry the child if she becomes pregnant.

I also assume that he advocates that the raped woman cannot leave the rapist and divorce him.

Anyone know what his position is on contraception?

I would love to know if he is advocating that the rapist not use contraception during the rape.


Nice man.

PS to all: Why is it, when I dig around a bit on them, that fundamentalists all seem to lack any humanity whatsoever?

519. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283051 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 4:44 am

Titania,

I would like to participate in the event, especially on Section 5. I guess it is gonna have to be in a private capacity rather than as a spokesman for the BCSE. I'll discuss that with BCSE members in the meanwhile.

I'll tentatively pencil in the dates in my diary. The big problem is money - the economy is rapidly going into deep recession and I suspect money will be very tight next year. A few days for us Brits in Dublin doesn't come cheap.

Any ideas how costs could be kept down, such as cheapo acomodation and cheap flights into Dublin?

520. In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition

Comment #283044 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 4:15 am

Peacebeuponme "EDIT: this is Stephen Green again. A man who supports rape, and has said so on his own website."

Do you have a precise URL for where he says this?

Does anyone know where he is calling for the vandalism of the atheist adverts on London buses. That's a criminal offence.

I would be a good idea if some of us signed up with him to get his email messages to his "supporters". Such action is always a good idea to find out what the extremists are up to. When it comes to fundamentalists they are usually too stupid to keep their big mouths shut.

521. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #282987 by Roger Stanyard on November 13, 2008 at 2:11 am

Titania "Roger, I wonder how Mitchell will analyze your personality based on your avatar."

Perhaps he should toddle over to the web site of Landover Baptist Church to get the jist. My identical twin brother works there. ;-)

522. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282674 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm

DP yet again illustrating his utter dumb ignorance: "Do any of you european socialist know if the european union is thinking about lowering taxes?"

Um, the EU neither sets tax rates nor collects tax.

"Not sure if its income tax or corporate tax though."

DP showing us his wackjob understanding of the real world again. The EU is financed by neither corporation tax nor income tax. Its financed by member governments through import duties into the EU and a cut of value added tax (1% IIRC).

Additional finance also comes from non-EU states.

523. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282667 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 2:28 pm

D'Arcy, I wouldn't want to argue either way with that. All I would say is that most people on the left have long accepted the idea of a mixed public/private economy.

Much what I have been trying to say is that in a modern economy much of what the state or public sector does is done by it because, in terms of economic efficiency, it is better at doing so than the public sector.

That is actually an apolitical position. In essence this is my dispute with the Chicago school of economics (and DP, for what it is worth). It is not a dispute about politics. (DP appears to have no training in economics and cannot distinguish between the two.)

If you go back long enough, say to the 1950s or earlier, the left also used the efficiency argument to justify state ownership of the means of production. In the UK that, in practice, involved iron and steel, coal mining, the railways and aviation and a fair few other sectors.

I think we've moved on from all that but the issue still remains in other sectors. At the end of the day health care and state education (both vastly greater as a proprtion of GDP than 50 years ago) are centre stage - accounting for about a fifth of GDP.

Seems to me that the state taeover of banking and financial services will mean another 6% of the economy being in public hands.

Add on everything else that the sate is required to do such as defence (2.5%), the justice system, roads and other bits of transport and even without redistribution of wealth from the rich to the less well off, over a third of the economy is basically not for proft state-owned services.

This is essentially what DP doesn't get. He can scream and whinge about commies and tax but even a right wing system, with no social welfare, in the modern world is a mixed economy.

It's a fact of economic live that the demand for basics such as food and manufactured goods is declining as a percentage of household expenditure. However, in real terms, the demand for healthcare is increasing enourmously and may do so for several generations. The demand for education continues to grow substantially.

They both require huge increases in taxes to meet the growth in demand. Within a generation, a third of the US economy is likely to be in the provision of healthcare.

Methinks in the next decade America is gonna have to make a choice. Either it has lower taxes and a much lower standard of living or significantly higher taxes and a better standard of living. Same in the UK.

Like physics, economics can be very counter-intuitive.

524. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282625 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 1:06 pm

root2squared - sorry I didn't realise that you were Indian. I assumed that you were American and didn't get the Westminster system.

IIRC the Indian arrangements are partly modelled on those on the Republic of Ireland.

525. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282610 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 12:55 pm

root2squared "By the way, I find the idea of royalty in a modern nation like Britain very disturbing. Do they benefit from taxpayer money?"

Yep, its not really a democratic way of doing things but the issue is really about the Westminster model of democracy. She doesn't have much power and is, in effect, a titular head of state. The Republic of Ireland essentially has the same system but the head of state, the President, is elected. The Irish head of state has very little power either.

The system is nothing like that in the USA or even France (a sort of half way house between the British and American arrangements).

I suspect few people in the UK object at the moment because the Queen is basically well-liked as a person. Moreover, the nature of the monarchy has changed dramatically in the 55 years since she became queen. It used to be dreadfully aloof and remote.

I guess public opinion may change if and when Charles Windsor or his eldest becomes king.

526. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282583 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Goldy "The UK has had queens and female prime ministers (often together)."

Well, actually, just once.

By all accounts the Queen loathed Margaret Thatcher.

527. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282581 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Steve "I am actually not sure if DP isn't someone having a joke. There are changes in writing style that are suspicious. He may be a right-wing atheistic version of Wooter."

Interesting. Perhaps DP is actually Sooty with Wooter's hand up the glove manipulating him.

528. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282575 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 12:19 pm

DP's internationallly famous wit and wisdom again: "Yes, lets take socialism the farthest it can go. Nothing belongs to anyone. Everything belongs to the collective and government should distribute everything equally to people, whether or not they had anything to do with it."

Yep everyone who isn't a wingnut is a raging commie bastard and too ignorant to understand economics to boot.

Wait a minute.....DP IS an ideologue, the same as commie bastards, Trotskites, Maoists, Marxists Leninists, fundies, Birchites, McCarthyites...

529. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282469 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 9:01 am

Epeeist - we've only just got the full report. Being looked at now.

530. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282452 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 8:15 am

root2squared - Yep, I too am looking in amazement at the staggering greed and stupidity of the financial markets. They've failed and still don't get it. Those banks and financial institutions that have been bailed out by the taxpayer need to fire their management pdq, not provide them with "performance bonuses". They are failed, incompetent, management!

It's not as if there is a shortage of "talent". The world is now awash with financial services executives that have been either sacked or laid off.

The one thing I can guarantee is that the rest of the business world will not be recuiting these allegedly talented high performance people. They are simply not up to the job of working in the real world outside of the cloud cuckoo land of financial services (well, apart from selling The Big Issue).

531. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #282420 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 7:43 am

Hawt4Dawk comments : On the contrary, DP in the US and in many other countries it is the rich stealing from the common wealth of all the people. Business use our interstate highway system, our internet, our scientific and medical establishment, our communications systems (satellites included), our schools, our airline system, and much more. I say "our" because, we, the taxpayers, own these assets. Our great-grandparents, our grandparents, our parents and we, ourselves, have invested our tax money into them."

Yep, you recognise the obvious that the wingnuts have no comprehension of. We live in mixed public/private sector economies. Their 30 year daydream of the public sector disappearing never was in the slightest bit realistic and is now well and truely over.

Time to recognise that the world has moved on from them. They have failed in their ambitions.

DP? He's just an ideologue who can't distinguish between was is and what should be and blames everyone else when his crapola is shown up to be what it is.

532. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #282398 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 7:20 am

Decius - he's my identical twin brother, a family embaressment.

I'm far too modest to use a photograph of my handsome self and show him up as being so ugly in comparison.

533. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #282388 by Roger Stanyard on November 12, 2008 at 6:41 am

AllanW - thanks for that URL. It also sums up how the markets work in the City of London as well. Financial markets have been full of sleeze and incompetence for years. Lloyds, for example, or financial services selling pensions in the 1980s and early 1990s. Remember Allied Dunbar? Universally known as Allied Crowbar.

Anyone working in financial services today needs to be polishing up their CV and planning for retraining (as baliffs - plenty of jobs going there as a consequence of their own stupidity. Either that or selling The Big Issue).

The party is well and truely over, world-wide.

534. The 'Great Debate' in Texas

Comment #281543 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 3:10 pm

"To which Berlinski replied that he doesn't believe a word of it, but is happy to cash the checks the Discovery Institute writes him. Strangely enough, this would be consistent with Berlinski's odd statement early on in which he admitted that his own ethical orientation was focused on living as contentedly and as selfishly as possible."

Hummmm - breach of the ninth commandment. Standard practice amongst creationists.

He also seems to be coverting his neighbour's Ox - in this case the DI's bank account.

535. The 'Great Debate' in Texas

Comment #281447 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 10:33 am

LOL!!! The Discovery Institute looks to be desperate! They blew their own brains out at Dover and it shows. A bunch of intellectual prostitutes.

The British fundamentalists have tried to pull Desi Alexander to pieces. See http://mothwo.blogspot.com/ for acres of turgid crapola from them.

536. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281269 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 4:19 am

Disparacist comments "Though obviously economists in Chicago aren’t unique in confusing uncertainty with risk. It would probably help if all economists studied core science and philosophy before even opening an economics text book. The difference between uncertainty and risk is as fundamental as distinguishing between precision and accuracy, or systematic and random errors. Yet even Nobel prize economists have missed this essential fact."

It seems to me that, de facto, central governments world-wide have been forced to address the issue. In effect, they have, this year, taken on the role of udnerwritting uncertaintly in financial markets. The fantasy world that DP is living it utterly igniores what has happened. It's too late to return to "freemarket" economics. They have gone as far as they go and and now proven beyond a=l, doubt to be wanting.

The "free market" financial markets have now had one sixth of the world's annual GDP allocated to underwritting them this year. the figure is around 50% i the UK.

The price for the financial markets is that they are now politically accountable to the public (as everyone without exception pays taxes). There is now no going back. It's too late. It's a done deal.

The wingnuts like DP are utterly clueless as to what has happened. An ostrich with his head buried in the sand.

He's not alone. The management of the Royal Bank of Scotland don't understand the implications of being 60% owned by the state.

Both left and right haven't fully realised the implications either.

Me? My guess is that the failed financial sinstutions (half of British retail banking) should be turned into mutuals where they are no longer accountable to theor shareholders but to the people that lend them money or borrow money from. The public, in other words.

I note with more than passing interest that not one of the not for profit financial institutions in Britain has needed to be bailed out by the public this year. Not the mutual building societies, not the cooperative bank, not the credit unions...

Lets look at some of the financial organisations that have been de-mutualised and turned into profit making companies - Bradford and Bingley, Northern Rickm TSB, the Woolwich - all bailed out with vast sums of taxpayers money.

Yet the not for profits were all competing in the same amrkets for customers.DP's grasp of economics is so limited that he appears unaware that free markets can include not for profit enterprises. What's happened here in Britain is that the not for profits have shown themselves to be considerable better at the job than the corporate sector.

537. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281260 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 3:48 am

Disparacist says "Though obviously economists in Chicago aren’t unique in confusing uncertainty with risk. It would probably help if all economists studied core science and philosophy before even opening an economics text book. The difference between uncertainty and risk is as fundamental as distinguishing between precision and accuracy, or systematic and random errors. Yet even Nobel prize economists have missed this essential fact."

I think you are right on this although I must say that as an undergraduate in economics, the difference between the two was drummed into us (likewise at post-grad level).

However, it wasn't until I was in the workplace (insuring satellites) that the stark difference becamne apparent. I suppose there it was a matter of understanding a branch (or branches) of applied physics that brought the message home.*

In the UK part of the problem is that we specialise in education at 16. Ecomists are simply not exposed to science after then. The august London School of Economics has no natural science departments, for example.

* I'll leave others to comment on this but I guess it involved five areas of applied physics/science - mechanical engineering (launchers, mostly), electrical and electronic engineering, RF engineering and mathematics (Shannon information theory, for example).

538. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281252 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 3:32 am

Tyler Durden comments about fairness rules in broadcasting.

Strange, isn't it, that the Repugs/Bush administration screamed like hell about the bias of Al Jazerra, so much so that they set up up an completly biased TV channel in opposition to it (and which nobody in the Middle East watches).

Well, I know a bit about Aljazerra. My business interviewed its chief executive a few years ago. The station is modelled on the BBC (it emplyed a lot of former BBC employees). Yep, it reflects Middle East culture, society and politics - exactly as US TV channels reflect US culture, society and politics and European broadcasters similarly.

Fox News, btw, is not just an American channel. It is available world-wide, including in the UK. As it does not meet fairness rules, it is actually breaking UK regulatory rules. Still, as no one watches the rubbish in the UK, Ofcom has decided not to bother with the matter.

Strange, isn't it, that Fox News is a byword in bigotry whereas Sky News, Murdoch's UK all news channel, is subject to fairness rules, is highly respected by broadcasting professionals and widely watched.

My guess is that Murdoch and his family will now "revamp" Fox News given that the Repugs have well and truely been shown the door by the American electorate. When it comes to political influence Murdoch will sell his own grandmother to the highest bidder.

539. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281242 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 3:03 am

Obama:
-8 years as Ill. senator
-First term senator with no major legisltaive accomplishments

Palin:
-8 years as mayor
-First term Governor who has done more in 2 years than Obama has in his 2 years as US senator.

Mayor of Wasilla - town councillor of small town/large village. Big deal.

Senator in Washington DC - experience at the very centre of power, representing millions.

Gov ernor of Alaska - experience does not extend to knowing that neighboring Canada is part of the same trading block.

Experience of reading newspapers and magazines to keep her informed of politics, current affairs, business and economics - zero apparently. No better that might be expected from a 14 year old whose experience of grown up life is limited to masturbation.

Guess who in this forum knows all about intellectual masturbation?

540. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281239 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 2:53 am

DP yet again demonstrates his cloud cuckoo land knowledge of history and politics "Atheism seems to equal left/socialist/democrat here but it doesn't with me."

Tony Blair an "atheist"? The Labour Party not founded on Methodism and chapel? The cooperative movement was atheist? The Puritans/Pilgrim fathers not on the left during the 17th century? Perhaps you should read up about what happened in Putney Parish Church or about the Levellers.

Still, I suspect that DP has no idea where Europe is on a map. Probably thinks it is part of the nation state of Africa, as visible from Sarah Palin's backyard.

No wonder the rest of the world thinks that the average American wingnut is as daft as a brush and with an exceedingly large mouth.

541. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281235 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 2:40 am

DP yet again shows that he has no idea how the real work works: "Well its tough discussing things with someone who has no idea what the difference between family and a complete stranger is. Its almost shocking that you don't know the difference. I can't sit here and explain to you that family is suppose to take care of each other because If you haven't learn that yet then you never will. I almost pity you for that. Point for me."

Public welfare for people who fall on hard times is a right because we all pay taxes for it - down to the lowliest of dossers begging on the street. Yep, DP, they are taxpapers as well

Moreoiver, public welfare has been around since Roman Times (half the population of Rome were depdendent on it).

Before the reformation, public welfare was provided by the Catholic Church in Britain. State provision, which now dates back hundreds of years, was the substitute after Henry VIII confiscated most of its welath.

The idea that only families "should" provide welfare does not stack up with how the real world works.

Let's spell it out very bluntly. If all welfare is limited to provision by family members, DP should expect to get murdered in his bed. Recall another nutter who didn't get it - Marie Antoinette (spelling???) with her infamous statement "let them eat cake". Guess what happened to her.

Brownie points to DP: Nil.

542. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281222 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 2:19 am

Phil Rimmer states "(We capitalists are switching away from the poor service afforded by the lousy banks and working increasingly with private equity that can bother to do due diligence on their own risk and thereby on ours also. They make great, informed partners.)"

I know the feeling! Ironically, one of the people that has been working with Richard is Claire Enders (who I know back from the 1980s, a formidably lady and exceedingly bright).

Claire has her won business, Enders Analysis. It provides business research and has made its impact because Claire concluded that "honest" research was needed. She set it up and an alternative to the crapola coming out of the financial institutions in the City of London.

Surprise surprise, the quality business press such as the Economist and the Financial Tiumes turns to Enders Analysis (time and time again) for informed opinion. It would not surprise me if Enders Analysis was by far the most quoted amongst the business analysts in Britain.

543. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281219 by Roger Stanyard on November 10, 2008 at 2:06 am

DP States "No actually its been you left-wingers who have done most, if not all of the insulting."

News to me I am "left wing" (whatever that means to Americans - I assume DP thinks Ghengis Khan was a left wing liberal). I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue. That's why I object to creationism and religious fundamentalism.

544. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281081 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 3:45 pm

DP claims "But I would just like to say that I appreciate you completely ignoring that long post I posted, as well as the article."

It was not ignored. My claim is that it is irrelevent. How the heck does federal govt "interference" in the mortgae market explain why AIG went belly up. It as an insurance company. How the heck does it explain the Royal Bank of Scotland went belly up.

Whether I am American or not is irrelevent. Most of the people in this forum are not American. Why should you think otherwise? Richard Dawkins is a British citizen resident in the UK.

Let me ask again, presicsely on what grounds are you professionally qualified and/or experienced to claim to be an expert on economics?

remember, you made the idiotic claim that liberals don't understand diddly doo about economics. The onus is thus completely and utterly on you now to show that you do. So far you have failed miserably.

Don't bullshit again and avoid the question or cut and past. Answer it.

545. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281072 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 3:18 pm

DP "Here is the full article is any of you want to actually read it. I doubt you will because it will prove you wrong but just in case you have the intellectual honesty to admit to yourself that you are wrong about governments involvement, here it is:"

it's utterly irrelevent to economics, it applies wholly and soley to the USA. Economics and high finance are international issues.

546. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281070 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm

"Listen, I have gone through this many times and it seems to never sink in. So instead I will post an article that gives a long history of how this mess came to be. "

Oh, brillaint DP. Except it is the whole wrotten crap that has gone belly up world-wide.

DP is yet another pig ignorant American who thinks that the only place that exists is his own country. Some republican idiocy that produced Sarah Palin who thinks that Africa is a country and has no idea what the member states of NAFTA are.

No wonder the rest of the world thinks that Bush and his apologists are idiots.

Tell us all DP as you claim to understand "socialist" ideas, what countries you have ever worked in. Have you ever been in a communist country? If so, which one and when?

Before you start patronising, yes, I have been in the USA many times, mostly as part of my job.

Wanno know some of the names of the US companies I have advised on strategic management and economics - here are a few - NCR, Boeing, Intelsat, Comsat, Microsoft, Loral Space and Communications, Worldcom, AT&T, Motorola....

And you?

547. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281067 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm

DP claims "1) What this economic mess shows is what happens when government gets involved in telling banks how to do business"

And,, er, precisely when did the evil, incompetent government tell Bear Sterns, AIG or the British baks that have failed how to do their business?

Do tells us the precise dates, and the instructions inbvolved,

DP claims "2) I have read all your posts and it you really has no idea about how economies work."

Wrong, I do it for a living and have spent 30 years at it - including advising Wall Street financial firms.

DP claims "You have not said anything that would show you know what you are talking about except whine and complain and insult."



Neither have you. Go on, them, stop bullshiting and tell us all precisely what your qualifications and experience of economics are. Do tell us all the names of the companies that have used your expertise in this sector. Do tell us all where you got your knowledge of economics from. Chicago, Harvard, Yale?


DP states "Which are the characteristics of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about but wants to join in on the conversation. It seems like mommy and daddy have let you play on the computer for to long."

Patronising pig ignorant pilloch. Don't bullshit. It's your knowledge of economics that is under question.

PS to everyone - I bet he runs away from all these questions. Watch him evade and and avoid them.

548. ELECTION DAY IN THE USA. GO VOTE.

Comment #281014 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 9:36 am

Peacebeuponme - LOL!!!, it's like something out of Monty Python's Life of Brian!

Keep chin up and always look on the bright side of life.

549. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #281013 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 9:31 am

Of coure, the other issue of Life of Brian is the contrast with the film that the fundies all wet their knickers and rave about - The Passion of the Christ.

Which would you prefer to have your children watch, a gentle, mocking humour or a feature film jam-packed with utterly sadistic violence?

Still, a huge element of the fundamentalist movement is a dealth cult, utterly inhumane and unaware of it.

See the Rapture Ready web site.

550. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #281010 by Roger Stanyard on November 9, 2008 at 9:15 am

Kit Finn says "Although the film does laugh at the way cults form and the stupidity of religion as a whole, is the figure of Christ really mocked that deeply... he's just not talking loud enough!"

One central element of the film is that it is also a lampoon of the political left of the 1970s - the revolutionary liberation/freedom movements, the in-fighting between different factions and their complete incompetence.

Indeed, it is a lampoon of ideology - whether religious or political. No wonder the fundies don't like it.

Like the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it's a very English and, indeed, gentle, humour. Both utterly lack the bog-standard (and bizarre) Hollywood mixture of violence and sentimentality.