I'm sure it is very exasperating to have newcomers come in and re-raise issues you thought had been sorted out and settled for good - but in the real world everything is continually being re-invented. All organisations try to initiate newcomers into their history and tradition and culture - and create a back catalogue of founding documents, key milestones, seminal works etc. - i.e. this is where we are coming from and how things are done around here.

However don't forget that newcomers here also have a past, and for all I know The3rdColumn is a world renowned expert on comparative state welfare dependency studies.  Maybe he too has reason to take certain things for granted and chooses to focus on other issues.  It's always very dangerous to personalise any argument for that very reason.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

Newcomers can check the list of most-commented-ever diaries for evidence of divides among the old-timers, most of which continue to exist. For example, the Danish cartoons issue revealed two incompatible views that fought themselves to a standstill. Then there is the nuclear evergreen. An issue with looong history is referendums on the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, where as Colman says there are (at least) three sides, that view the others as more or less giving support to the enemy (Eurosceptics), didn't move an iota in two years and repeat the same points on occasion of any new EU development. I myself feel a minority of one among old-timers with the position that neolibs aren't Eurosceptics (and that that matters). We give each other a hard time a lot, but it seems to go under the radar for some (can happen easily if the theme is not interesting to them).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}