I’m afraid you’ve rather misunderstood matters. I am simply me. Tim Worstall. When I write upon my own blog I am just that, just me saying what I think about this and that. I have no pretensions to being a “pundit” nor do I “represent” any powers.

Now it is true that I write at a number of other places as well (for example, I share the pages of Comment is Free with Richard, Prem and so on occassionally) and I do indeed get paid for such writing: as I’m sure Richard, Prem and so on do.

I would also note that my disagreements with Richard centre not on audit matters but on economic matters. Specifically, Richard’s very odd (to put it mildly) assumptions about what economics is, what it can be useful for and why we shouldn’t simply reject the mainstream views.

However, there is one crime which I really cannot fogive him for. He accused me of being a chartered accountant. Really, that is below the belt. ( “rank hypocrisy” “anti-social” “thugs and bullies like Worstall” “doublespeak” I take as mere love bites by comparison).

Thanks for the links and the attention on the Securities Law wrap-up yesterday.

I was sorry to see Richard coming under attack also in a strange blog called Dennis The Peasant. Richard, It’s better to be talked about then not talked about at all. No worries, mate.

I heard someone say on a program yesterday that Madoff is changing the attitude towards Wall Street much more dramatically than all the crisis and failure news before it for one reason – real, regular people are losing their life savings. It’s one thing for the banks and other institutions to go bankrupt or to lose value. That impact is dispersed in the general population. But when a very vocal and very connected constituency such as the Jewish community is victimized, you’re going to hear about it. And there are any number of individuals, not necessarily working class but not the all super rich, and many worthy institutions that have been wiped out by Madoff. The message is finally hitting home with the average guy.

You have had back a lot more than insults. Language is a powerful weapon, and it is important to ignore the insults for what they are.

I would suggest that it is you throwing “toys out of the pram”.

If the swearing gets in the way of the point a) it’s counter productive b) the point must be obtuse

And yes Dennis is right – I suspect my own annoyance reduces the quality of my arguments

But let’s be unambiguous: we’re trying to present arguments. Isn’t that more use than hurling insults, which is all I’ve got back, and why I’ve effectively disengaged

Richard Murphy