[MD] BBC documentary 'the trap'

[Ian Glendinning]

Thanks John, you got me and my message about right I'd say.

Off topic, but since Dave raised it.
Since just writing my longer response to Dave ... I just checked on my
blog how often I criticised Dawkins specifically - scores if not
hundreds.
http://www.psybertron.org/index.php?s=dawkins
In fact I think the most positive thing I've ever said about him was
that "anyone who was a fan of Douglas Adams can't be all bad"

To quote Dave "jeez" get a hunch :-)
Ian


On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:51 PM, John Carl<ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
> Astute phraseology, Ian.  That seems to be the consensus  analysis of the
> way new formulations for figuring derivatives evolved.  On the one hand, the
> math was complicated enough to keep out common sense thinkers, on the other
> hand, the value factors in the equation were simplisticated beyond normal
> recognition as well.
> Over-intellectualism strikes again!
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> On top of that, I happen to be good friends with a tenured professor of
>> economics who also works as an associate at Rand. We talked about the model
>> of human behavior that comes out of Nash's equations and I can tell you that
>> they still form the basis of economic theory in this country.
>
>
> Yay economic theory in this country!  Nothing inspires me like the loyalty
> of the band playing while the titanic sinks.
>
>
>
> And if you want a "common sense" assessment, all you have to do is listen to
>> what today's conservatives are saying. They're giving voice to Hayek and
>> Nash's vision in the current health care debate and you can also hear it in
>> the voices of the conservatives in this forum. Platt's admiration of Ayn
>> Rand springs to mind.
>
>
> Ok, I didn't know about that.  Platt..??  Is this true?  An amazing woman in
> her own right, no doubt, but nobody worth  following in any meaningful way.
>  What would be the point of "following" Ayn Rand?  She's self-aggrandizing
> enough, she certainly doesn't need any reinforcement.
>
>
>
>> To suggest that these theories are no longer operable or that it's no
>> longer a problem, in my opinion, only shows that you're not paying attention
>> or that you don't understand how the implications of those theories continue
>> to play themselves out on a daily basis.
>> I mean, dude, you are swallowing some awful, awful stuff and apparently
>> don't realize how or why it's so rotten. Buy a clue, rent a hunch or
>> something, will you? Jeez.
>
>
> Well you sound a bit harsh here Dave, but that's just me filtering through
> my stylebook.  I sorta construed Ian's remarks as denigrating this thinking
> you also condemn.  And it seems to me that it has lost an awful lot of oomph
> lately with the way its all played out, so I agree with him.
>
> However you make good points about the entrenched momentum.  Once these
> static latches take strong hold, they take forever to shake off.  Hence
> violent and wasteful revolutions throughout history.
>
> Over-intellectualism strikes again!
>
> John the overcompensating under-intellectualist
>
>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________________
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>