Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

June 20th, 2011

It’s time again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpits, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Donald Oats
    June 30th, 2011 at 15:39 | #1

    What the? In the 21st Century we still have this whackiness of exorcism rites? Gordon Bennett! What is even more bizarre, are the beliefs of the psychologists mentioned in the article. How can letting someone replace one delusional belief with another delusional belief be a good thing – does it really help to replace mud with quicksand?

  2. John Quiggin
    July 1st, 2011 at 09:24 | #2

    Fran, I’m going to leave your last comment, and some replies, in moderation.

    I request that you adopt a less combative tone and focus more on constructive discussion. This request applies to all commenters, but I’m making it to you in particular because it seems that you are getting involved in lots of discussions that end like the one just above.

  3. Fran Barlow
    July 1st, 2011 at 09:39 | #3

    I note with a mixture of modest and grim satisfaction the resort by Ms Gillard to the formulation: what Tony Abbott likes to call a carbon tax.

    I’d like to think that my campaign writing to senior ministers and blogging about the matter of the so-called carbon tax and its role in polluter-driven propaganda campaign has finally borne fruit. I’ve no evidence of my role in this at all, but I’m going to take this as a modest win.

    It would have been far better of course if, four months ago, Ms Gillard had figuratively slapped down the first person to misname the ETS a carbon tax, and in an erudite and teacherly way, explained why, rather than inviting people to think of her as a liar, but I suppose it’s better late than never. (In this case, the advantage is only marginal).

    Unsurprisingly this morning, when LNP apologists on #theirABC, Fran Kelly and Michelle Grattan, came on this morning they were not slow in endorsing the LNP counter-attack on Gillard as being “tricky”. Grattan made the rather absurd claim that her standing as untrustworthy with the public made this a bad move — whereas as I saw it — this perception — if true — means there is no real downside to this. Most of those convinced that Gillard is a liar will continue to do so. Those not wedded to the idea may put an asterisk next to it. Grattan asserted that if she’d been seen as honest, it would have been easier, but this would have had downside risk as some might have changed their minds.

    The real problem now is consistency. Spending four months smiling and implicitly endorsing the idea that you are shifty, uttering the phrase “effectively a carbon tax” makes it hard to backtrack. I did note though that if nothing else, it stopped Grattan and Kelly from uttering the term “carbon tax” other than in scare quotes, and that is a small victory. It was all “carbon price” this morning. Gillard’s turn on this was a metaphoric IED under the wheels of The Murdochracy‘s shock and awe propaganda campaign.

    I can’t wait to contact #theirABC and say I told you so.

    Mind you, Marius Benson and Phillip Coorey obviously hadn’t got the message on Newsradio — uttering the term twice without qualification. Baby steps.

  4. Fran Barlow
    July 1st, 2011 at 09:52 | #4

    PrQ

    I am often polemical (which is another term for combative I suppose, but looking back over what I wrote I see nothing obvious that would violate the commenting rules as best I understand them. I think I was entitled to at least put the question about the rationale for insistence on terminology in the open form I did to the poster in question. I was entitled to question the muddying of the boundaries involved in the qualification “broadly defined”.

    Much as I wish to observe the culture and tone you are entitled to insist upon here, it’s obvious that as long as I stay within the rules I can’t reasonably be held to responsible for how others respond.

    If you’d prefer that I ceased posting here of course, you needn’t ban me. You merely need to ask.

  5. John Quiggin
    July 1st, 2011 at 17:06 | #5

    @Fran The most obvious problem is with my request to take lengthy side discussions to the sandpits, which clearly hasn’t happened here. While you aren’t the only one at fault in this respect, you have ignored my request. If you want to engage in a lengthy side discussion and there isn’t a sandpit open, ask me for one, or else take it to email.

  6. Fran Barlow
    July 1st, 2011 at 17:13 | #6

    Fair enough PrQ … I’ll keep that in mind … My apologies for infringing.

  7. Fran Barlow
    July 1st, 2011 at 17:17 | #7

    Brilliant Wikileaks Promotion:

Comment pages
1 2 9880
Comments are closed.