Tuesday, September 18, 2012

I Was Wrong About Daily Bell Comments

I have decided to write this only because my earlier post regarding my speculation regarding the Daily Bell’s comments section is one of the highest read posts on this site.  It is appropriate that I recognize publicly what appears to be an error in my thinking on this widely-read topic.

I have previously given my speculation about why the Daily Bell stopped taking comments several months ago.  In summary it seemed a remarkable coincidence that the comments section was taken down shortly after one of countless rants by one specific troll – followed a few days later with an Anthony Wile editorial on topic regarding the subject of those same rants.

About two weeks ago the comments returned at the site.  As always, I visit the site regularly, spending time on the articles I find of interest – this usually includes Anthony’s Saturday column and the Sunday interview, as well as any article about money, banking, etc.  At the same time, I check on the comments, in order to see the flow of the dialogue.

It seems I was wrong about my speculation regarding why the comments section went away in the first place (while the reason why I stopped posting two months before that event continue.  The reason behind both events is the same).

A perusal of the comments in this thread will explain this better than anything more I could say.


  1. I felt it was another matter at the time. I chose not to question you because I can only speculate. But the reason I felt it was taken away was another person who went on and on with even more posts, painting the elves in a nasty light. Then he got another website involved in the ruckus. It was very ugly. I am sure you can know who I am talking about.
    Or perhaps it was me. I love the Bell and the feedback, but I am just a pest, really. I cannot offer anything to the site.

    1. Yes, I believe I know the situation to which you refer. This could be, however, no one trolls the way Ingo trolls. Others would be warned after three or four repetitive posts. Not Ingo.

      In any case, this is what happens when no answers are provided by the site. Speculation and theory. I can tell by how popular my original post has been that this topic is important to many people. It would be nice if one day Anthony explained the facts.

  2. I honestly don't think I had much to do with the Daily Bell's decision to stop taking comments.

    First, the comments were stopped immediately after a series of feedbacks by Bischoff, and I hadn't been particularly active in the last 2-3 weeks before this happened. Second, as discussed by bionic mosquito, Weebley, myself, and others, Anthony Wile's first editorial after the comments were stopped referred directly to Bischoff's arguments.

    In any case, I am under no illusions about the Daily Bell at this point.

  3. memehunter, I don't believe it was you or anything you introduced either. If the stoppage was due to a feedbacker-acting-as-troll, there is only one possibility.

    It only strikes me that, given the fact that Ingo's voluminous and repetitive posts are allowed to continue, I was wrong about my initial speculation. However, I still find it too coincidental that Anthony's immediate editorial seemed to address Ingo's irrationality directly.

  4. Well, as I said, I can only speculate. Perhaps it was a combination of feedbackers, or some other issue we cannot begin to see. The Daily Bell does such a wonderful job of pointing out memes, I wonder they are not a target of the elite.
    Ingo did get carried away, but what he promotes can be used by the staff as teaching moments. And it is quite different attacking your "money" analysis than attacking your character, your religion or the Mises school.
    I did see the discussion you refer to above, memehunter. I have read your comments on Weebley's site, Lila's, and others. You insinuated I was being dishonest when I stated you were speaking unfavorably of the Bell on other sites. I would only ask this: How many warnings were you given? Bb

  5. @ Anonymous (Bluebird)

    "And it is quite different attacking your "money" analysis than attacking your character, your religion or the Mises school."

    I don't think it is necessary to rehash that debate. But I don't know what you mean by attacking a "religion". Zionism is not a religion, and it is (hopefully) not the Bell's "religion". As for attacking the "Mises school", in spite of the Daily Bell's constant belittling of my work, my research on the Austrian school was based on actual facts and has been republished on several other blogs and generated a lot of discussion, for better or for worse (depending on your perspective).

    I am looking for truth, and I thought until about 9-10 months ago that the Daily Bell was looking for the same thing, before slowly realizing it was not always the case.

    They do a good job, yes, but only up to a certain point. Then, when you point out that some of the things they are saying don't hold up to careful analysis, they attack the messenger instead of revising their views (and this didn't happen only with me, the only thing is I was more persistent than others).

    Like I said when you said that I was speaking unfavorably of the Bell on other sites: please find comments by "memehunter" on Lila's blog or other websites from that period (aside from my articles on Makow and Real Currencies, and not counting the current period where I'm obviously active on Real Currencies and the Daily Knell). I don't think you will find any (at least not by this "memehunter").

    Finally, what do you mean about the "warnings"? Last time I checked (a week ago), my account was still active at the Daily Bell. But I'm not interested in commenting there anymore.