I’m sure he’s heartbroken, but could you please show me where I said this?

Richie, on the other hand, can’t even use the apostrophe correctly (“reason’s”, “families”, etc.) and can’t tell the difference between “proceed” and “precede”.

It’s not difficult: you just need to remember a few basic rules and be able apply a bit of logic. Since Richie can’t do this for simple English, is it any wonder that he’s completely unable to grasp complex finance and economic issues?

Let’s face it, he’s just a bit thick. And like many thick people, his intellect isn’t up to comprehending its own limitations: he’s an intellectual in the same way Adrian Mole is. We’d pity him if he weren’t embedded in a position to stir so much political shit.

Richard,

It is interesting to note that, despite your response being 3 or 4 times as long as my post, you didn’t bother to address the one question in it. I asked “why might someone have a right not to be abused?”. Instead of answering it, you provided a list of typical characteristics which often serve as a conductor for abuse. Such a list is of no more consequence to questions of extinguishing free expression than is a list of aesthetically offensive clothing items provided to explain why they ought to be banned.

Now, there are indeed people whose discourse is less than polite. And there are people who might be put off discussion with such people because they seek to avoid such impoliteness. But this is a measure of individual preferences and how they interact with one another. Extinguishing freedom does not guarantee freedom. It extinguishes it.

There can be no right not to be abused in a free society. The price of such a right is liberty. While you may argue that freedom of expression should be extinguished for the greater good of the reich and its social harmony, it is frankly barking mad to argue that extinguishing freedom of expression guarantees freedom of expression. That’s the stuff of Alice in Wonderland.

And you say I suffer from “perverted logic” for not believing that crushing freedom guarantees freedom. Completely barking!

It doesn’t matter how many rude words and offensive analogies DK uses, no one is forced to read them or pay any attention. Everyone is perfectly free to ignore them.

You say that what you amusingly call my “perverted logic is that associated with the political fringes, usually these days of the far right.” So what if it is? An idea is right or wrong on its merits. It is quite depressingly childish to consider the identity of the messenger when assessing the message. Would you change your mind and think something was right if only one lot of people stopped believing in it and another lot started? I suspect you might.

And you accuse others of ad hominem attacks.

Speaking of which, “I’m not suggesting Tim has anything to do with them, or their racist opinion, but”. This sounds like the mirror image of “I’m not a racist, but”. There’s nothing like alluding to racism for closing down a debate, a favourite tactic of the left.

“As I’ve said before – I am not accusing those who have linked here of physical thuggery – but it is the next step from the position you take. And the attitude you take is profoundly dangerous to large numbers in society – who have the right to live in peace without being menaced by anyone.”

Here you demonstrate more muddled thinking, or perhaps ill-concealed duplicity. To ‘menace’ is to threaten someone with harm, according to Webster’s online dictionary. Now, either Tim and DK are physically thuggish (including threats) or they are not. I don’t recall either having disputed that people should have the right to live in peace without fear of being menaced by anyone. But being unpleasant and abusive is not the same as being threatening and menacing. Interestingly, you don’t seem to mind people being menaced by agents of the state for expressing themselves.

John,

It’s not just a strand of thinking here which ‘confuses’ liberty with licence. Your dictionary and thesaurus will, too: “freedom which allows or is used with irresponsibility”. Freedom of speech isn’t about allowing people to say things you find agreeable. It’s about not restricting people from saying things you find disagreeable.

Hmmm… Please elucidate. The last time Obnoxio commented was on the ACPO piece on 19/12/08 and he certainly said nothing like that. You last commented on 13/12/08 – there is nothing after that beyond the one comment made by Obnoxio on the 19th.

I spent a few minutes trawling back a bit further in the vague hope of enlightenment, but decided that I had better things to do – not least, because if I did find the comment before your last input, it would contradict what you are saying here.

Bottom line, people can do as they like on their own webspace – If Murphy wants to delete comments that’s his affair. However, he is factually incorrect when he claims to be protecting freedom of speech when he does so. You either value freedom of speech – in whicjh case, you defend the right of people to say things that you find repugnant or you do not. If you do not, you cannot claim to be upholding free speech.

Murphy is advocating censorship and uses the age old tactic of smearing his political opponents in doing so. The histrionics also underline what a pompous little man he is. If that’s the mainstream, then I want no part of it.

You are also mistaken if you think that swear blogging is the preserve of one part of the political spectrum.

“Yeah right Obnoxio you have made Mr Christensen’s point for him.”
John’s point was that being called names in a blog’s comment section was like what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. I am not sure that Obnoxio has made that point. In fact I would go so far as to say he has not made the point any more than John did. You on the other hand have made Tim’s point for him which is that some people have no sense of perspective whatsoever.

Which is something you never find on left-wing blogs, ofc… *rolls eyes*

And you failed to answer the question of just who you think is ‘failing to get a good hearing’?

Oh, and DBC Reed: kindly do me the immense favour of taking a flying frosted fuck at your patronising fatuity.

My, could you get any more condescending? I think you’d have to take lessons to do so….

“You are failing to get a fair hearing … “

Who is…?

I’m missing the point, too, I think.

I understood that the problem wasn’t that Tim, The Devil and Obnoxio were standing outside Murphy’s front door, lobbing bricks through the window and warning ‘Next column’s your last, sunshine…’

It was that each time this moron committed himself to print, they gleefully (but methodically and accurately) tore each of his points to pieces.

That’s not ‘attempting to shut people up’, now is it?

Nothing wrong with a good rant especially when good points are made. I reckon the swearing is for emphasis and effect. Except when government ministers are in the frame, then it is entirely accurate.

So now a few obscure bloggers start applying that treatment back to the left, and the left immediately goes crying that they need government protection. Well, fuck you, you fascists — have a taste of your own medicine.