At 3 o'clock this morning, waiting an hour for the delayed start of a cricket match, I took to pondering what the fuck makes me get up at 3'oclock in the morning to watch a cricket match. I had difficulty separating my desire to watch a good game of cricket from my desire for England (at any sport) to do well. What is more important to me? Supporting my team or enjoying my sport? Hoping it was the latter, I decided I would simply support the batsman, irrespective of what team he was playing for. Eight hours later, I realised this was a complete waste of time. There's no room in cricket for bicameral loyalty.

But could this work in, say, football? Could you get pleasure from only ever supporting the team playing, say, left to right? Or the team at the 'Kop' end? For example, in the first half you would support team x (tallying the score at half time) and then in the second half (minutes 45-90) you would support team y (tallying their score for goals scored minutes 45-90). So, a 4-0 win to Manchester United against Colchester – with two goals in each of the halves – would be only a satisfying win to Man U, but it would be a thrilling 2-2 draw to me. What pleasure could I get from this? And for what other sports would this be applicable? If I kept my own tally of a darts match where I switched allegiance leg to leg and then set to set, would that make me happier? Or what if I only supported the coloured balls in snooker?

I have a feeling, as I can't imagine any outcome where I would experience any joy for the winner (being as I would be totally confused by the end of any match), the only way you would 'win' as a supporter under this system would be when the two sides draw. Is this not, in fact, a more philosophically satisfying approach to sport?

You've got to hand it to the lad. 'S textbook. All the classic moves in place. As an example of cutting down an argument without addressing any of the matters in hand, it couldn't be bettered.

Let's go over to Alan and Gary for post match analysis, to take a closer look at what made that article so superficially effective.

Rule #1: PLAY THE MAN NOT THE BALL: What do we learn about me, as opposed to my position, from Benet's post? Firstly, I am ignorant. I am unaware that socialism developed from Marxism; I simply sloganeer. I have a soundbite, and I'm sticking to it (never mind that I hiss it, and that I do it too closely to people's faces) Odd, too, that this saying might be considered the "catchphrase of the Marxist radical" being, as it is, one of the founding principals of the British Labour Party. If you compare a photo of Keir Hardie to one of Marx, you will notice that the former has a slightly shorter beard. Alas, in Benetworld, this would seem to be the only difference between them.

My ignorance and political naivety, however, you will be glad to hear, are tempered by a lovely mushy sentimental compassion. I have no interest in political reality; merely a desire to hug every puppy I meet. Some might argue that, say, to use taxation of the highest earners in society, in order to move towards equalising opportunity for the poorest, is a pragmatic, sensible solution to some of the inequities of society; not me. I just saw an ickle bunny wabbit. Particularly cuddly (and, how awful, my constantly bleeding heart means I cannot bear even to consider the implications of this idea, according to our friend from the Middle Temple) is my ingrained idea that the alleviation of poverty might somehow be part of the responsibility of government. But Benet is forgiving of all these faults; he knows I only want the best for the world! What a shame I am too ill-informed and too squeamish to think through my ideas! All in all, then, in claiming to force me to state my position, what Benet actually does is seek to undermine my bona fides in stating it. I can only applaud.

Oh, I also advocate state control of everything, apparently - of which more later.

Rule #2: EXPLOIT - AND IF NECESSARY TWIST - RECEIVED IDEAS

Most boring of all being that Marxism and socialism are by and large the same thing. The British radical tradition - even if we date it as comparatively late as the Diggers and the Levellers in the 17th century, or the Chartists in the early 19th - significantly predates both the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. (Must get round to reading them sometime. Oh, hang on, I have.) The failures of Marxism as a practical solution to resolving (a) the feudal and patronymic system it was born from and (b) the unequal distribution of human potential are well-documented, and I won't rehash them. Like Benet, I find it sad that they are unworkable. Unlike him, I recognise that to throw out several babies with the tarnished bathwater might be a little foolish.

Capitalism; there's another one. It's not Capitalism per se that socialists object to. Benet's definition is by and large correct. It's rampant free marketism. Which is a very different, and much more harmful, beast.

At this point, I would also like to register my disappointment with the use of the phrase 'communism-lite', a cousin to other such journalistic nastinesses as '(whatever) on speed' or '(whatever) is the new (whatever)'. If I wanted to debate in these terms, I'd have embarked on a conversation with Tony Parsons.

RULE #3: CONDEMN WITHOUT SUGGESTING ALTERNATIVES

Here's the biggie. Let's first of all take the idea that social welfare hands out money without considering the consequences, or how deserving the recipient might be. It is of course the responsibility of government to balance the books - surely nobody assumes that anyone believes otherwise - and I fail to see how a Welfare State in the socialist sense, as enacted by the postwar Attlee government in the most straitened of circumstances, would be any less able to export or indeed manufacture. As far as how much people might 'deserve' to be given the basic essentials of living by their government, well, I'm sort of with Hamlet on this one; "Use every man after his desserts and who shall 'scape whipping?". Perhaps Benet might like to tell me what rank of deservingness would be in place in his ideal society, and how we would decide who didn't deserve to have enough to eat, a decent education, and a roof over their heads.

And, above all, this question of the State and its control over all our lives. Who among us does not vote for a legislature? Not Benet, apparently: to do so would be 'bizarrely [to] trust our politicians to know what is good for us and to efficiently dispense those goods in a fair way'. I don't, of course, trust our politicians to do any such thing. I do recognise that that purports to be their job. The alternative under a free market philosophy is to trust the highest bidder to do the same thing. The key point around nationalisation vs. privatisation is not an idealogical, or even a financial one; it is one of accountability. I find it astonishing that people whinge about a privatised railway valuing profit over safety: its executives would not be doing their jobs should it not. The advantage of having crucial public services run by the government is that if they cock it up they will be unceremoniously dumped in the polling booth. A privatised utility has no such worries. Ah - you will say - but they are accountable to their consumers. Well, nope. People will always need to use trains, however rubbish they may be. There will always be a need - a 'market' for prisons, and (heaven help us all) air traffic control. Although it's piquant to look at how much public money was poured by successive governments into the ostensibly 'private' Railtrack.

All things considered, then, Benet - nice try. But hell - what would I know?

Weight: 14' Tabs: 22 Hours spent contemplating the internet rather than working each day: 1/2 Conclusion: Swings and roundabouts.

I think that James would still like blood, and since Jon has carefully weasled his way into a position where he has the much easier task of merely attacking my arguments instead of building up his own I have decided to go on the offensive. Take a position, stand by it, and may the best man win. In doing so I have ascribed to Jon various beliefs - he may choose to disagree with my summary of them. That is his privilege.

But first my eternal gratitude to Mr Glover, who by his timely intervention established that I wasn't just gabbling when I mentioned the labour theory of value. Apparently Jon is NOT a marxist but a socialist (aka communism lite) and therefore unable to comment on this fundamental aspect of marxist theory.

I find this ignorance on Jon's part odd. He appears quite capable of making references to various different versions of the Communist Manifesto and their pros and cons. He is perpetually leaning in slightly too close to my face to hiss, 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need', which saying might almost be considered the catchphrase of the marxist radical. Yet it would appear when push comes to shove, when we get down to brass tacks, when we separate the wheat from the chaff, etc - Jon isn't able to muster any serious knowledge of marxist theory despite the fact that it lies at the root of his professed political persuasion - socialism.

I think I know the reason for this. Jon is a good man. I mean this in the sincerest and best sense. He wishes good for everybody. He wishes to act so as to bring this about. Jon is not alone in this desire. In fact I would say that the vast majority of the population also desire this goal. I know I do. Contrary to perception it is my sincerest desire to see everyones standards of living, education and well-being raised. This is why Jon and I agree on so many issues. Why then do we label ourselves with different political tags?

Again I think I know the reason. Such is the degree to which this desire and the empathy that underlies it is manifest in Jon's person that he cannot bear to think beyond it to the details. He sees someone without food, he feeds them. He sees people without much money, he hands out the cash. Little considering where the food will come from to feed them once the food he has to hand has run out; or whether it is good for a person to receive wadges of cash in return for nothing (just think of any trustafarian twat that you know for the answer.) It is enough for him to subscribe to a philosophy that promises to ensure all the good words come about - equality, an end to poverty, opportunity for all. This is why he constantly mouths slogans in my direction that seem to promise so much - give all that you can and you will get all that you want. Jon seeks to alleviate the symptoms without looking for a cure and in doing so exacerbates the problems.

Am I about to propose that the political philosphy I espouse offers a solution to all the world's problems? Certainly not, I save my arrogance for my personal life not my political musings. I am however going to suggest that my proposals have always sought to achieve the same ends as Jon's but to my mind in a more effective way. Where my proposals have flaws it is because we live in a flawed world where change comes slowly and in fits and starts rather than in the crashing thunderous revolution I sometimes suspect that Jon longs for.

I must however be more concrete in my complaint. I believe that the State is not the best vehicle for achieving most of the positive goals that one might have for society - better living standards, better education, better medical care and so forth. Moreover when it comes to giving people what they want the State is inherently flawed - to achieve that goal the state would have to operate in as many different ways as there are people and their desires in that polis. Jon disagrees, he loves the state, he bizarrely trusts our politicians to know what is good for us and to efficiently dispense those goods in a fair way. He believes this despite over two thousand years of sound empirical evidence that shows that the state (outside of limited roles like security) is fundamentally incapable of operating in a fair or efficient manner. I suspect, (nay j'accuse), that Jon remains in ignorance of the theory behind his political philosphy because it would be too emotionally painful to acknowledge that it promises so much yet fails to deliver.

It is perhaps for this reason that Jon and others rail against 'capatilism' in terms that imply that it is itself a political philosophy opposed to socialism. See for example Jon's facile jibe 'Go away starving beggar - this is my money'. Capitalism is no more than a way of ascribing values to goods. It makes no moral choice about them, it prescribes no politics in order to operate it, it merely gives people a way of rating various goods and services. Its benefit is that it is effective at doing so. No more. Capitalism doesn't make a man poor, it merely identifies the value of the goods in his possession.

It is for this reason that I say of Jon that he is a good man and a compassionate man. It is however no longer enough to be just those things. And I give warning, the next time that someone patronisingly rolls their eyeballs in my direction as if to imply that I am neither good nor compassionate I shall tell them this: I AM both a good man and compassionate - but unlike them I have thought through the best ways of turning that nature into action. Good intentions are no longer enough.

Details of my 12-step course 'Practical Compassion' will be supplied in due course.

And on that note...Jon

Hi.

'the labour theory of value'

The idea that adding work to raw materials increases their value - Marx, or one of that lot, was fond of this one. I think it neglects the possibility that work can also convert useful raw materials into rubbish. The other problem, of course, is that economics isn't a zero-sum game either, and it's possible for materials to have different value depending on where they are (this point, also allegedly missed by Marx, is claimed to be why the former USSR had such a lousy transport infrastructure (if it does)).

'the idea of value by scarcity'

Basically, 'market forces' - if there are only a few items of a particular type, and many people want them, they'll compete for them by driving the prices up. See also paintings by dead artists.

Oh, and about time - I'm not that sure that it is a purely human construct, as otherwise everything would happen at once...

cheers

Steve Glover

If invective is what James wants, heegoddit. I would like it to be made known to all here present that Benet Brandreth smells of wee and has silly hair. He is also a speccy four eyes: I leave it up to you all to determine which of these statements may be untrue.

Now then - on to the meaty stuff.

Firstly, I would ask anyone who has the faintest clue what Benet means by the labour theory of value, or the idea of value by scarcity, to enlighten me. I am aware that this is an admission of ignorance on my part. I also suspect that the only person reading this who will be qualified to do so will be Mr. Brandreth. He’s awfully clever. I will leave this point be, pausing only to observe that a democratic socialist perspective recognises that Marxism is indeed highly flawed - whilst allowing the possibility that its ideas might be a better aim than a political philosophy which states, at root, 'Go away, starving beggar - this is MY money.'

Next! To come over all transatlantic for a second. Like, duh, of course time doesn't exist. It is a construct invented by humanity to put into words the essentially unquantifiable. Other things that don't exist in these terms are compassion and cakes.

I go for looks AND status, and achieve neither. I have spent years trying to work out what I am biologically predetermined to do, and have come up with nothing more tangible than, to quote Gide, 'A rather timid itch for a bit of cock.' Does cock count as looks or status? I'm tempted to say both. Anyone agree?

Stop being facetious, Jon. As far as the idea of objective morality goes, I suspect that those of us without a grey-bearded deity to tell us what to do (Benet and I both being in that category) come up with a personal set of morals, based on the world as we see it, which is as close to objectivity as anyone's going to get; after all, these morals belong to us, and we can call on them whenever we choose. Why stick to a personal moral code, I hear you cry? Why not change it with the prevailing social morality of the time?

Well, indeed. Why not. And I would say (a) that seems to me to be the responsible thing to do - times change, and people with them; and (b) it seems to have worked over the last 450 years for the Church of England...

And a final thought: is it not better to love your neighbour because you feel you ought, rather than because you might be fierily whipped by succubi if you don't?

So there we are. My thoughts on Benet's challenges. Some of them facetious and flippant, others facetious and flippant. But all of them, to a greater or lesser degree, meant.

Weight: 14st 4; Cigs: 15; Hours spent imagining faces out of cracks on office wall instead of working: 2; Verdict: Some improvement

I have indeed generated some excitement on Witty Banter. Indeed I was referred to as elitist - a charge that those who know me well will recognise as palpable poppycock.

It seems that my decision not to continue participating in their discussions caused some resentment. To leave the debate was apparently a sign of weakness, an indication that I had been overwhelmed by the power of their arguments. It had not been intended in that sense. It was not that I lacked respect for their comments (well apart from the postings of one or two people), rather it was an acknowledgement that we were unlikely to make any further progress. There is only so much time one can spare and devoting it to the lengthy task of reasoning my online opponents round to my point of view did not seem like a judicious use of time - even if it were possible at all. To do it properly would have required a careful and fulsome expression of my arguments and a painstaking examination of the points that I took issue with. Jesus - think of the work that would involve - I feel limp just considering it.

Which, when you pause to consider it, could be a problem here also. James apparently wants snarling, eye-gouging rhetoric to please the masses. My concern is that airing a topic adequately would take reams of... (or whatever unit of measurement applies to websites)... paper. It was also be as boring as a visit to the Post Office. The alternative is to produce some facile surface review of a serious topic that by virtue of being designed for easy consumption would ultimately trivialise the issue (think of any documentary you have ever seen.) My personal preference, as should have become apparent thus far, is for the longer and more fulsome variety of debate. According to our friends on Witty banter the attention span of the average internet surfer cannot cope with this. I am not sure that this is true, perhaps it is just Americans.

Be that as it may, I am caught on a cleft stick and really I want to pass the buck. I hoped the readers would have prompted a topic, I prayed that Jon would fill the gap or that James would raise himself from the lazeeboy recliner where he seems to be lounging, eating peeled grapes, and whipping Jon and I on like a dissolute debauched emperor and make a suggestion. Alas none of these things have come to pass and it is my turn once again to churn out some drivel to give you people some temporary relief from the grotesque mundanity of your mediocre lives.

I have therefore decided to try and produce controversy and argument but do so in as short and confined a space as possible. Think of it this way, next time you are at a party and some loud mouthed bore is lecturing you at length on some pet interest of his or hers, these little pithy lines should silence them with a certain degree of rapidity, produce an impression of great learning and erudition, allow you to change the topic, or mire you in the depths of an even longer conversation.

The labour theory of value is flawed because it ignores the concept of value by scarcity. In relying upon it Marxism as a theory is undermined.

Time does not exist. Time can be described in only two ways. Time can be thought of as a series of events each bearing the property earlier than or later than adjacent events (call this series A). Alternatively the series of events can be thought of as having the property of being in the past, present or future (call this series B). Time is the medium of change, but series A does not allow for change because all the events are isolated from each other and unchanging. Series B however is impossible because any one event will have more than one property e.g. an event in the future will become present. The same event cannot be both in the future and in the present therefore Series B should be rejected. Since these two theories must be rejected so must Time itself.

Men go for looks, women go for status. These are biologically predetermined preferences.

It is clear that there can be no objective morality (in the sense that what is good is something external that exists in the world). This can be understood by considering where the objective reference point would be.

I think that should get you started. One final point - if you find yourself in great difficulty in an argument you can always rely on that old debating standby - 'the Hitler gambit'. If you feel yourself losing the battle simply state, 'of course that was Hitler's view too.' Instantly you gain the moral high ground and your opponent will feel duty bound not to argue for the same view as Hitler. You may of course substitute any major dictator of your choice.

Enjoy.

Good morning gentlemen. You may sit.

First, of course, there's the necessity to define precisely what we're doing here; in which quest the trusty, dusty pages of Merriam-Webster can be called into play (yes, I know it's a website but that doesn't sound very researchy: I want you imagine bookstacks and mildew rather than modems and mice).

I did not need to look up 'dialogue'. I am an expert on the subject. Every rejection letter I've ever had begins 'Dear Jon, loved the dialogue' (do the F***ING play then... sorry, I digress) For 'Socratic', M-W yielded:

philosophical method of systematic doubt and questioning of another to elicit a clear expression of a truth supposed to be implicitly known by all rational beings

Now, this is a bit disingenous, isn't it? When I see 'systematic doubt and questioning' I conjure up a mental image of somebody vaguely Paxman-like listening to a long and passionately expressed speech and cutting it down to size with a devastating 'Says YOU.' I think it's the 'systematic' part that sticks in my craw. With its suggestion of pernickety attention to detail, it calls to mind the famous and probably apocryphal story of the don overheard, while crossing an Oxford quad with a colleague, saying to him 'And ninthly...'

The fact is, systematic argument is a hell of a lot less fun than incoherent, passionate blether. More rigorous; more stimulating; more useful; but less joyous. My favourite way of questioning the world is at full volume, pint in hand, at length and with total intellectual sterility - agreeing to disagree with one's adversary four hours later without either person having listened to a single word the other has said. The US site Benet mentions (he should, strictly speaking, refer to it as InterBanter as the 'debate' forum is only one part of the site) is, of course, a rich vein for such blether. Much of it is, I am proud to say, provided by me. Remember, kids, synthesis is our enemy. The fun arguments go 'Thesis, Antithesis, Thesis again but louder, Thesis and Antithesis simultaneously, Insult, Offence, Apology, Taxi.'

But let's not reject the Socratic model out of hand. A further peek into M-W's musty virtual depths gives us the following definition of Socratic Irony:

a pretence of ignorance and of willingness to learn from another assumed in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning

Now this, of course, is much more like it. Here, the rarefied and intellectually pure field of philosophical debate is healthily sullied with a nice dose of deception. 'A pretence of ignorance and of willingness to learn' brings to mind the classic teenage boy/shirt ironing gambit ('Mother, I'm going to Ritzy's tonight and wish to look dapper - could you show me how to iron a shirt?' Repeat until aged 21, at which point she twigs that you're making her do all your ironing). What is particularly appealing about the concept of Socratic irony is the twist in the tail - 'in order to make the other's false conceptions conspicuous by adroit questioning'. This is so gloriously sneaky: sitting there fluttering your eyelids and leading your smug interlocutor into dangerous territory before suddenly turning Rottweiller and tearing their flimsy argument limb from limb. The turning point in any conversation where Socratic Irony is being deployed will always be the moment when participant B moves from saying 'I don't understand' to saying 'But, surely...'. If you have been talking to someone who seems to need a lot of explanation, and feeling proportionately self-satisfied, beware the words 'But, surely.' The only appropriate response, if humiliation is to be avoided, is to invent a prior engagement, leave the room as soon as possible, and avoid the other person for the rest of your life. If they are someone you are likely to see again, emigration is probably your best bet.

Of course, there is a serious underlying point here, and no amount of flippancy will remove the need to address it: how to approach a debate in the face of intransigence and/or the refusal of others to take on board one's arguments? Benet's response to some of the more irritating elements of IB (the US debate site) was, quite justifiably, to throw his hands up and say 'These people aren't listening to me. Therefore they don't deserve my input. Can't be bothered.' I wish I were able to disengage that easily. Despite a lot of evidence to the contrary, I believe (maybe 'hope' would be a better word here...) that however little attention someone is paying, a good point well made might just time-bomb its way into their subconscious, ready to explode at a moment of Damascene revelation some time in the future. The points BXB1000 and jondt made on IB may have been dismissed by some of the members, but a stubborn insistence not to let things drop encourages others at least to maintain the pretence of taking one's argument seriously. My refusal to bow out of IB, I must confess, also stems from the tendency, whenever a member stops posting, for various other members (one in particular) to indulge in onanistic high fives and self-congratulation along the lines of 'Yeah, saw off another pussy who couldn't take the heat'. The idea that simple boredom at the prospect of another six paragraphs of head/brick-wall interface might have been responsible for the disappearance is not even considered, or at least rapidly dismissed. I'm not having such a cosmic misrepresentation of my behaviour published on the www for all to see; because I am childish, stubborn and vain.

But lets us return to the matter in hand. Of course, on some level, everyone who engages in any kind of debate is deluding him or herself. Benet and I, for example, have on many issues, diametrically opposed opinions on which we will never agree, but it doesn't stop us hashing them out from time to time, both simultaneously hoping to change the other's mind and knowing that we won't. And, indeed, our time might be better spend turning inwards. Benet is a right-wing libertarian and I am an old school socialist - perhaps instead of arguing with each other we should join forces to savage the sheep-like centrists who dominate the political arena to the extent that the kind of debate we're talking about has all but disappeared from public life.

On to practical matters. I can only concur with Benet's excellent advice to 'Concerned Mother', adding only that she needs to beware any apparent inability to remember how a shirt is ironed. Also, speaking as one with some experience in this matter, I suspect she may have spawned, or at any rate fashioned, a homosexual. The sure-fire test to this is to mention the composer/lyricist Stephen Sondheim and gauge your son's reaction. If he has never heard of the man, start knitting bootees - you WILL be a grandmother.

On a number of occasions I have been at a party (dinner - or otherwise) and been confronted by a bumptious individual who declares with all the ennui of youth - 'I am tired of all this small talk why don't we discuss the great things of life.' The response is invariably 'But of course - why don't you start.' Inevitably silence follows. To spontaneously generate some deep reasoned debate on a worthy and interesting topic is amongst the hardest tasks of the modern world. It is however precisely this burden that James has pressed upon me.

It seems that despite my plea, in an earlier edition of this weblog, for James to return to his God-given task of providing temporary mental diversion on the Internet he has not the energy or the interest left to do so. I know I was not the only one left emotionally bereft by his gradually waning output. I would therefore be but the meanest of men if I did not at least try to provide some alternative source of banter. But still... it is no easy thing. Fortunately it would appear that Jon Taylor - actor, poet and ideologue - is willing to join me in the quest. If I am not fatally distracted by the gleam from his faux-leather trousers and gold painted versace shirt we may yet together achieve the goal. The Don Quixote and Sancho Panza of the Internet.

Perhaps I should explain that this is not the first time that Jon and I have joined forces to provide reasoned witterings over the ether. Jon introduced me to a website: Witty Banter, populated largely it would seem by earnest and intransigently right wing Americans. It seems that he had been scouring the web for provocative chat sites and here he had found gold. It's a strange place, somewhat of a family affair. It veres between the friendly and the down-right offensive.

It also has a theme, a philosophical thread that runs through it, against which Jon (under the guise of JonDT) and I (under the guise of BXB1000) dashed ourselves repeatedly. The denizens of this website hold dearly to the belief that they are the only truly rational creatures on the planet. Every argument is met by the cry that what they put forward is logically consistent. All true of course. What these Sophists forget however is that the logical consistency was only valuable as long as one accepted the premises upon which their arguments were built.

To suggest that you disagreed with the premises was met by a kind of mental blindness. For example, a lengthy debate about abortion was confronted by my suggestion that if you did not agree with the proposition that all life was sacred and should be preserved at any cost (and that sometimes it was legitimate to rate the welfare of a fully developed woman higher than that of the potential life of a zygote) the rest of the argument fell down. This suggestion was studiously ignored in favour of shocked statements about how disgusting it was for a mother to put her good before that of her children. Another example, a long-running discussion about whether homosexuality was natural was met by Jon's suggestion that whether or not something was natural was no guide to its moral value; a suggestion treated with shocked indifference and restatement.

In the face of such intransigence I retreated from the fray. What was the point in continued debate? It was clear that these people could not be persuaded to shift from their positions. There was some value to be gained from continued reading - I was forced to refine a number of my long held beliefs in order to meet their legitimate criticisms; (not to mention the entertainment that can be had by reading some of the postings in the chat rooms at Best of the Christian Web.) Ultimately, however, when confronted by a group whose views were non-falsifiable continued resistance seemed more an act of hubris than of valour. (Jon disagrees and fights on. You may wish to lend a hand.) I did however recognise that there was something good about airing these issues. Provoking discussion and deeper thought. Something worth recreating here perhaps?

I mention this also to indicate that Jon and I have had practise at this kind of musing. Will this experience avail us in our current task? Let us hope so. Which brings me back to the point that I was making at the beginning of this rambling missive - what are we going to talk about? I propose to allow you - the reader - to chose. Rather like a Socratic dialogue by the discussions that ensue we may all grow to greater understanding. Of course the Socratic dialogue is a somewhat dated form; in order to be truly contemporary we must bring it up-to-date and present it in its modern incarnation: the advice column. Though in this case it will not merely be a source of information about unusual sexual fantasies, gardening tips or cooking skills - it will be a chance to work through some of the great issues of life. Bumptious youths are welcome.

Naturally since there has been no opportunity for you to write in as yet I have had to dredge up this old letter that I was sent whilst I was doing a summer-job for FORUM magazine earning £50 a letter. I hope that I will not have to have recourse to these sources in the future.

Dear Benet, My son Simon is nearly 22 now and yet he continues to behave in an unruly ways. I have had strong words with him about his behaviour and he has promised to act in a more mature manner. I fear however that he only acts maturely around me and like a bell-wearing fool when on his own. How can I be sure he has grown up? - A Concerned Mother.

Dear Mother, A sure fire test for maturity is to lock a usually open door. If when your son attempts to open it and fails he does not immediately attempt to use enormous force to pry it open but rather stops to check if it is obstructed - then he is mature. Though might I suggest that he will never grow up to be truly independent with you shrewishly nagging him all the live long day. Kind Regards Benet

On that note I hand you over to Jon.