I'm just Starting this New Post in Order to Continue the Discussion on the Earlier One. Towards the End Soapster Submitted a Whole Series of Comments all at Once, to the Point at Which I was having Trouble Keeping Up with him. I Published a Lot of it, but there are Still Four More and so I Have Decided to Start a New Post with his Comments instead of Allowing the Previous Thread to Keep Growing and Growing until no Body that just Arrived on the Scene will be Willing to Read it all. Here is some of the Earlier Dialogue...
Soapster said: "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
Lista said: "You are Assuming that the Goal of Laws is Total Prevention, or Perfection, yet Perfection can never be Accomplished because we Live in an Imperfect World."
Soapster said: "Actually, Lista, if you read what I wrote, I wasn't saying that at all!
"I was in fact stating the EXACT OPPOSITE, by pointing out that REGARDLESS, either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work.
"I pointed out matter of factly imperfection.
"It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards. It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"
Here's my Response to Soap's Above Comment...
Ok. Let's Look at that Quote Again...
Soap - "Regardless of the regulatory apparatus that is implemented, the fact still stands that either man could still take advantage over the other by performing shoddy work."
Me - To Me, this Means that Life is Imperfect Either Way and Even after Reading it another Time, that is Still what I see. The Fact that Life is Imperfect with or without Laws and Regulations is not a Relevant Fact Unless the Goal of Laws and Regulations is Perfection, yet since the Goal of Laws and Regulations is not Perfection, your Statement Holds no Relevance to the Discussion of Whether or not there should be Laws.
And as to your Last Paragraph...
Soap - "It is not for some middle man, some regulatory authority, some suit wearing bureaucrat to determine whether the farmhouse and the horseshoes have been made to satisfactory standards. It is instead up to each individual in the transaction to make that assessment"
Me - Due to the Imperfect Nature of Our World and the Fact that not Everyone has Equal Power in the Area of Self-Protection, a Third Party is Often Necessary in Order to Protect the Weaker from someone who is Stronger.
Well, that is the First of Soapster's Comments that I had Left in Moderation from Earlier Today. This One was Submitted at 6:13 AM. There are Three Others Still in Moderation, but I'm just Going to Focus on One at a Time in the Comment Section of this New Post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Ok, I'll Deal with One More of Soapster's Comments. I'm not Necessarily Dealing with them in Order. I'm just Doing this One, because I Felt that it Needs to be Responded to.
At 12:55 PM Today,
Soapster Said:
"Wrap the discussion up...
"Just when we were getting started. How about forgoing the comment moderation altogether, Lista, and letting others respond to comments without you having to weigh each and every single one before others have an opportunity to see it?
"That's how discussions flow and you merely 'starting over' with a new thread isn't going to ever allow you to 'get caught up'.
"I don't understand how you can get so bogged down. I can't imagine you on Twitter. LOL"
My Response:
My Purpose for Moderation is to Deliberately Slow Down the Conversation. I do this because I am Slow and become Over Whelmed Easily. I See no Reason to Apologize for that. Whether you Understand that or not is Totally Irrelevant.
Refusing to Publish Comments as Promptly as you would Like me to DOES INDEED help me to "Get Caught Up". What you do or do not Understand about how I Get so Bogged Down or about my Motives does not Change my Reality.
"Starting Over" Prevents Excessively Long Comment Threads that no Late Arriver is Going to Take the Time to Read.
It's a Good Thing that I do not Have to Check with you and Get your Permission before Making Decisions about my Own Blog.
I don't Do Twitter and it is my Right to Make that Decision as well.
You're a piece of work. Not only do you moderate cooments but you edit them. How's that 1st Amendment for ya?
Convenient how you left out the portion where I asked why, if the parties involved in the free trade agreement, themselves couldn't voluntarily decide whether or not they wanted a third party regulator.
Free-markets....u really do not understand the concept of free do you?
For your Information, Soap, I have Copied your Comments Word for Word. They have not Been Edited. I Went Back and Double Checked just Now to Make Sure. The Comment in the Above Post was Written by you Yesterday at 6:13 AM. The one in my Above Comment was Written by you at 12:55 PM. There is no Mention in Either One of them of the Paragraph that you Claimed I Left Out.
"u really do not understand the concept of free do you?"
And what you do not Understand, Soap, is the Concept of Anarchy, which is what Happens in the Total Absence of Laws and Regulations.
Further more, Moderation does not Interfere with the Freedom of Speech, for as Long as you have your Own Blog, you have the Freedom to Say what every you Want to and I Won't Even Complain if you Want to Leave a Link to your Blog Here on my Blog, as Long as what is being linked is Relevant to the Conversation.
I have Explained the Reasons for my Blogging Decisions. Whether or not you are Willing to Accept those Reasons does not Concern me.
I am "a Piece of Work" Only Because I have Made Different Blogging Decisions than you and the Only Reason why you are Arguing with me Right Now is because I am Refusing to do what I am Told, as if you are the One who has the Right to Tell me how to Run my Own Blog and as if I do not Have the Right to Ask you to Slow Down and not Throw so much at me at Once.
To Clear Up the Confusion, Soap, I Went Back to my Previous Post and Scanned for that which you Claim I have Left Out and it has Indeed been Printed. Something Similar to the Paragraph that you Claimed I Left Out is Included in a Comment that you Submitted on March 15, at 6:49 AM and Yes I did Post it. Here are you Words Again...
"Therefore, as a Libertarian, Lista, I will tell you how in a free society, such transactions would work.
"You would build me a farmhouse. In exchange for said work, I'd craft you horseshoes for your 2 horses. Each one of us would assume the risks of one another not fulfilling our obligation. If either one of us were apprehensive about our arrangement, we could, if we both agreed to it and its cost, mutually agree upon a private arbiter or private court to facilitate a judgment should the contractual agreement go sour."
The Comments that I Quoted in the Above Post and Comment, though, did not Include any More Information than what I have Quoted.
If you would Like to Know why I had not Automatically Remembered that you had Said this in a Previous Comment, it is Probably Due to the Fact that you Threw so much at me, so Fast, that I could Remember Everything that you said. But Apparently I have no Right to Complain about that, even though this is my Blog and it is my Stress that I am Moderating and such a Motive has nothing to do with Free Speech.
Ok. Here's One More and this is Soapter's Comment Quoted Exactly. I Promise.
On March 16, At 12:46 PM,
Soapster Said:
"'The less regulation we have had in the banking 'industry' (misnomer, IMO), the bigger the nightmare.'
"Not even close!
"The Federal Reserve Banking System was supposedly created to stabilize the economy. It sprang to being from the banking panic of 1907, with its alarming epidemic of bank failures.
"Since its inception (1913), it has presided over the crashes of 1921 and 1929; the Great Depression of 1929 to 1939; recessions in `53, `57, `69, `75 and `81; a stock market 'Black Monday' in `87; and a 1000% inflation which has destroyed 90% of the dollar's purchasing power.
"By 1990, an annual income of $10,000 was required to buy what took only $1.00 in 1914. That incredible loss in value was quietly transferred to the federal government in the form of hidden taxation, and the Federal Reserve System was the mechanism by which it was accomplished."
The First Sentence in the Above Comment was a Quote from Something that was said by P.J.Grath on March 16, at 6:29 AM. If anyone would Like to Read it in Context, they can go to the Next Post Down and Look it Up.
In Actuality, all that your Comment Does, Soap, is Reveal Exactly how bad the "Nightmare" can be without Regulation, which was the Point that Grath was Making.
I'm sure you're a sweetheart Lista but you really do drive me nuts. You talk about "nightmare" without regulation. Are you not understanding my post?
The Federal Reserve Banking system was established to "make things better" in the banking and finance industry. YET, since its inception the dollar has lost over 90% of its value and you're somehow praising this??!!!
90% of purchasing power POOF! Lost...gone...WITH the Federal Reserve central banking planners at the helm soaking the American tax payer dry.
Higher fuel prices. Higher food prices. Inflation, debt, lower standard of living....all under the Fed.
You Drive me Nuts too, Soap. What I was Wondering was rather or not you Understood the Statement from P.J.Grath, that you Quoted.
Neither Grath, nor myself, was Praising the Federal Reserve Banking System. Grath was only Suggesting that they should be Regulated and I agree with him.
You are Blaming the Problem on the Existence of the Federal Reserve. Grath was Blaming in on the Lack of Regulation of the Federal Reserve. Forgive me, but I Really Think, Soap, that you are the One who is Misunderstanding and not Reading Other People's Comments Carefully Enough.
Soapster said:
"You're a piece of work. Not only do you moderate cooments but you edit them. How's that 1st Amendment for ya?"
It's working perfectly here. This is Lista's forum. Lista controlls it. That is an expression of freedom of the press.
Just as you control yours.
Think about it: is it censorship every time the New York Times refuses to print a letter? Of course not. Such control over one's own "press" is an expression of the First Amendment, not censorship or a denial of it.
Lista, when I first came to your blog recently, I didn't know what to expect. These responses of yours impress me. You stand your ground, defend your rights, answer accusations, all without name-calling or insult. Both of you saying you drive each other nuts is clearly just a simple statement of fact!
I especially like what you say about slowing the conversation down. As far as I can tell, you are not excluding people. So often "discussion" degenerates into everyone yelling at once. The online dynamic is different, but even here it's easy for a comment string to go on and on with people failing to reply to each other, comments zinging in all directions, everyone talking about something different. You are truly moderating, in the best sense of the word, by bringing discussion back to where it started before it went off the rails.
We should have you in Congress!
And who's going to regulate them?
Presumably the government right?
Do either of you understand fractional reserve banking?
It's a quid pro quo don't you get it?
The government isn't going to regulate the Federal Reserve Bank for two very important reasons.
1. The government is owned by the banks; and
2. The government is not going to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Want evidence of this?
HR 459 only has 97 cosponsors.
Dmarks,
I have Printed Every Single One of Soap's Comments. I just haven't Done so in as Timely a Manner as he would have Liked.
Wow, Grath!!
Thank You. That's the Best Complement that I have Heard in a Long Time. You are so Welcome Here. Stay as Long as you Like and Comment as Often as you Like.
Soap,
The Government should not be Owned by the Banks. That Reality is a Mistake that Needs Correcting. I'm not an Expert on this Subject, yet I'm Opened to being Educated on it.
List said: "Dmarks,
I have Printed Every Single One of Soap's Comments. I just haven't Done so in as Timely a Manner as he would have Liked."
Exactly. And there's no newspaper around that prints letters to the editor the instant they appear.
And, what P.J. said!
Thanks Dmarks,
You and P.J.Grath are so Very Kind.
I didn't Know that One of the Themes of this Comment Thread was going to be Comment Moderation, but since we are on the Topic, I did do a Little Research Lately of what Exactly it was that Frustrated me and Caused me to Stop Posting Soaps Comment.
From March 12-15, Everyone was Submitting about 1 to 2 Comments on my "More Liberal Facts and Figures" Post, the One Below this One, on any Given Day.
On March 16, though, Soap Submitted 9 Comments. It was 11, if his Comments on Another Post were also Counted, but I'm Only Counting the Ones for the One Post that we are Discussing.
Now to be Fair, I Complained after 6, so here is what I'm Thinking. 4 or 5 Comments Per. Post, Per. Person is Probably a Good Number. 6 is Pushing it and 9 is Over the Top. Of course, if the Comments are Really Short, or if I'm not Particularly busy and in a Really Good Mood, then this Rule can Probably be Broken.
The Other Matter is the Length of Comment Threads. I don't Really Like Long Comment Threads because I Fear that Once the Initial Conversation is Over, Late Comers are not going to Read the Threads that are too Long. So how Long is too Long. Well, it Used to be somewhere in the 40s and I Started Complaining that we should be Wrapping Up the Discussion in Comment Number 42. That Comment Thread is now at 52.
Though I did Allow One Comment from Dmarks through Today, what I would Actually Like is if we could Continue that Discussion and Feel Free to Talk about anything Relating to that 52 Comment, Thread, here on this Thread Instead.
Your idea of how many comments per person per post is reasonable. I did find a post on one blog that had so many comments that it took me a whole morning to read them all. The fact that I did read all of them tells you how fascinating I found the discussion. The blog author, however, did not respond to the comments, just let them fly!
"The blog author, however, did not respond to the comments, just let them fly!"
Just an Obsession, I Guess. Can't Keep my Mouth Shut. Sorry.
Post a Comment