hi wavydog,
could be. i don't really care if the wingnuts go elsewhere as they usually don't have anything interesting to say. just claims that they cannot justify or defend when challenged. eg on the impact of tort reform on health costs. and sometimes the underlying assumptions folks bring to the party turn out to be either unpleasant or indefensible. eg blaming the unemployed for their condition during a depression: "sink or swim, mate. whoops. you're dead." and sometimes the hypotheses folks present fail in real time. eg the post-crash hyperinflation theory that died a thousand deaths during the post-crash deflation crisis, taking republican economics with it.
folks tend to skidaddle when exposed, rather than defend something they are embarrassed by when it is revealed. whereas a strong argument justifies itself with robust sympathies and a legion of relevant and supportive facts.
frankly, i have never wanted this to be a high volume board. just an interesting one. as i've said previously, i am happy enough to entertain visitors who enjoy the culture. if you don't, there's plenty of room elsewhere in cyberspace. better that than complaining that this board doesn't suit your sub-Limbaugh broadcast dogmascape.
i'd recommend to anyone who has a dogma that they cannot substantiate that they go off and study. it's a better response than most alternative ones to coming up empty when challenged. know it is embarrassing. sorry about that. that's the price of echoing other people's theories and not knowing why the folks you take your theory from think the way they do.
those who try to support their ideas - however bizarre those ideas are - receive a different kind of welcome. even wingnut theories are okay if someone makes a decent attempt to substantiate them. i still have hopes for you, wavydog. but you have to deliver.
ps i just returned from vacation. coincidence re low volume the last two weeks? ha ha.
| 