I have nothing to say ...

[djtrev]

As the "wet blanket" that you chose to highlight perhaps I could explain my position with regards to stifling your threads.
I have to say that I have enjoyed reading lots of the heated debates of late,in particular,the recent spat between Tramp and Cerocjock and the subsequent mauling of Tramp with regards to his set on Monday morning at Southport.The Fletch thread made for an interesting couple of days and her attack on you,Andy M was well worth the read.
As I pointed out at the time, your opinion about a certain individual and certain teaching methods is well documented and it was becoming a tad boring.At this moment it doesnt look as though you are having too much luck in changing the situation and because it would seem to be a somewhat sensitive area I am sure there is a lot you could say but cant or wont for possibly legal reasons.Either way all you seem to be doing is repeating yourself.
BUT my problem is you Andy.You may well be a very nice guy but on this forum you come over as bombastic,self-righteous and argumentative.The final straw was your challenge to CJ to debate 'abortion' and you would take the opposing view to CJ.After reading that I immediately took the view that any comment put forward by you regard a thread would be based ,not on your true feelings for the subject but on whether could get any 'mileage' from it.

[ducasi]

This all about choice. And you don't have to look. Consider TV, there are many programmes you don't watch because you find them offensive

This isn't a TV programme, it's a public forum. You address and invite comment from the public. If the public is bored of listening to you, it's got a perfect right to say so.

Think of the word forum – the place where the Romans (or was it Greeks??) gathered to discuss the matters of the day. Don't you think that when the Romans gathered of an evening, if there were a bunch of people in the corner squabbling you would get people saying such things as (in the Latin patios of the time, of course) "gonnae gie us a rest?"

It's about making the environment of the forum a friendly, hospitable place, that will encourage people to come and stay and discuss things in a reasonable manner.

Your use of the word "police" to describe the job of a moderator is a good one, as, say, when people you know get into a "heated discussion" in public, unless it is turned really, really nasty you'll try to break it up without involving the police – they'd only get involved if things get way out of hand.

And so it is up to the public to calm down or shout down "discussion" it doesn't want to hear – the moderators are only there to step in when people go too far.

(Aside: Just don't try to tell the moderators how to do their jobs. It's fine to say that a discussion doesn't belong, it's insulting to say that the moderators should or should not have done something about it.)

Anyway, while some of us might like a bit of a bun-fight now and then, you won't find many who actually care for an argument for argument's sake. Perhaps there's a different forum for that.

[David Bailey]

OK, I've got some points:
1. Trying to calm a thread down never works, but I respect the efforts people make to try to inject some diplomacy into our dealings with each other. No-one likes to be told "can't we all just get along / agree to disagree", but that doesn't mean the person saying it doesn't have good motives at heart.

2. A virtual community is not an unemotional community. Individuals can and do get hurt and upset by others' postings; I've been both the receiver and giver of offense, as I'm sure many others have. Also, flame wars can damage online communities - I've seen it happen in Usenet groups. So call me a wet blanket-groupie, but anyone trying to avoid that has my respect.

3. If I ever try to defuse any animosity, it'll be by the now-classic "popcorn" trick ( to NewKid), i.e. attempting to point out to both parties that they're being possibly OTT, in a humourous and hopefully non-offensive way. Dunno if it works any better than any other, but that's what I'd do.

Oh and:

{ everything he said }

[Andy McGregor]

BUT my problem is you Andy.You may well be a very nice guy but on this forum you come over as bombastic,self-righteous and argumentative.The final straw was your challenge to CJ to debate 'abortion' and you would take the opposing view to CJ.After reading that I immediately took the view that any comment put forward by you regard a thread would be based ,not on your true feelings for the subject but on whether could get any 'mileage' from it.

That debate was never going to happen. It was used as a heavyweight counterpoint to the inconsequetial debate we were having. What we were discussing is as nothing compared to the big issues and that is what I was pointing out. I even said so later: something which djtrev seems to have missed. Come on djtrev get it right, I am argumentative, I am, occasionally bombastic. But self-righteous? Moi?

[Andy McGregor]

OK, I've got some points:
1. Trying to calm a thread down never works,

So why do it? Maybe because people like djtrev think they're the 'grown up' and should treat everyone else like children

My own opinion is that it's trying to be controlling. But I've no idea of the motivation.

[MartinHarper]

I find it strange when folks complain that some thread they're reading is boring, because being briefly bored is a mild punishment, and it's normally fairly easy to tell from a thread title whether a thread will be interesting. For example, "footwork for the first move" is unlikely to be interesting to people who don't share my foot fetish.

When folks complain (sincerely) that some thread they're reading is offensive, I can understand and sympathise. Sometimes I don't see why they find a thread offensive, and that can irritate me, but the general concept I don't have a problem with.

Maybe someone else can take a trawl through some threads and come up with some examples of wet blankets trying to stifle heated debate

Although I no longer post I do visit for a read once in a while and I thought I'd just pop in to say what a nasty divisive and insulting thread this is

[David Bailey]

So why do it? Maybe because people like djtrev think they're the 'grown up' and should treat everyone else like children .

I think it's more a case of trying to do the online equivalent of separating two "Oi! You looking at my bird?" fighters in a pub. That never works either, unless the antagonists want to be separated, but people still do it.

P.S. Martin, that's a vintage HarperLink that is

[Andy McGregor]

Maybe someone else can take a trawl through some threads and come up with some examples of wet blankets trying to stifle heated debate

Although I no longer post I do visit for a read once in a while and I thought I'd just pop in to say what a nasty divisive and insulting thread this is

Thank you Mr Harper for pointing out my mistake. I have been exhibiting 'wet blanket' behavior too. And I am willing to admit my mistake and try to change. Is anyone else willing to do the same?

[Andy McGregor]

P.S. Martin, that's a vintage HarperLink that is

I wish I'd done it myself it's such a beauty

[Gadget]

This isn't a TV programme, it's a public forum. You address and invite comment from the public. If the public is bored of listening to you, it's got a perfect right to say so.

:yawn:

Anyway, while some of us might like a bit of a bun-fight now and then, you won't find many who actually care for an argument for argument's sake. Perhaps there's a different forum for that.

Argument for argument's sake is actually quite fun... when it's about abstracts rather than people:

"Black is not black, just an absence of colour (or the mixing of all colours), which is also the definition of white - therefore black is white."
would be a good argument that I would argue for argument's sake.

Vs

"Your views are not mine so I opt out of any use of 'we' in any of your posts and replying to people while reffering to them in the third party in order to cross-examining them for hiden agendas is not condusive to a healthy forum"
Is just a provocative post that will just provide more of the same and is not anything I would want to read or participate in.

[Lou]

I find it strange when folks complain that some thread they're reading is boring, because being briefly bored is a mild punishment, and it's normally fairly easy to tell from a thread title whether a thread will be interesting. For example, "footwork for the first move" is unlikely to be interesting to people who don't share my foot fetish.

But what about those of us who perversely continue to contribute the same boring arguments to footwork threads? The pleasure's in the pain of the boredom of pointless arguing? Very masochistic...

Argument for argument's sake is actually quite fun...

I love Monday mornings.

Black is not black, just an absence of colour

Tell that to my wardrobe...

[Andy McGregor]

"Black is not black, just an absence of colour (or the mixing of all colours), which is also the definition of white - therefore black is white."

Isn't black the absence of visible light?

[David Bailey]

But what about those of us who perversely continue to contribute the same boring arguments to footwork threads?

Yes, why do you do that? It is profoundly boring...

The pleasure's in the pain of the boredom of pointless arguing? Very masochistic...

Where's that whip icon again?

[Dance Demon]

:yawn:

Argument for argument's sake is actually quite fun... when it's about abstracts rather than people:

"Black is not black, just an absence of colour (or the mixing of all colours), which is also the definition of white - therefore black is white."
would be a good argument that I would argue for argument's sake.

Vs

"Your views are not mine so I opt out of any use of 'we' in any of your posts and replying to people while reffering to them in the third party in order to cross-examining them for hiden agendas is not condusive to a healthy forum"
Is just a provocative post that will just provide more of the same and is not anything I would want to read or participate in.

I've read throught this posting......and can only find one spelling mistake!!!!! ................Who are you paying to post for you Gadget.........

[David Bailey]

I've read throught this posting......and can only find one spelling mistake!!!!! ................Who are you paying to post for you Gadget.........

2 - "reffering" and "condusive".

I think it's authentic Gadget allright, suffer no imitations

On that note, where's Fletch gone? Fletch, are you there? Talk to us...

[under par]

Isn't black the absence of visible light?

Isn't BROWN this years BLACK?




I feel a new thread coming on

[Andy McGregor]

Isn't BROWN this years BLACK?

Get with the programme. Brown was "the new black" 8 years ago. White is the new black for this summer - especially in Essex, where it's always been black*

*apart from underwear, which is worn as jewellery.

[Lou]

Yes, why do you do that? It is profoundly boring...
Where's that whip icon again?

I was wrong - it's not self-inflicted after all. The pleasure's in the boredom inflicted on DavidJames.

(Oh, and I donated the whip to DianaS.)

[under par]

Get with the programme. Brown was "the new black" 8 years ago. White is the new black for this summer - especially in Essex, where it's always been black*

*apart from underwear, which is worn as jewellery.

Obviously I was reading an old copy of VOGUE in the doctors surgery, I just didn't realise how old it was.

Is is really eight years....wow!

[Lou]

Is is really eight years....wow!

Fashion comes in cycles, you know....