OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

So there's the dilemma? Silence the opinion makers, or silence the cause?

We disagree (again), GP. I don’t think that’s the ‘dilemna’ because I can’t think of an example where it’s best to ‘silence the cause’.

Always best to get the participants to show a measure of restraint while recognising that tempers may occasionally become frayed when discussing controversial issues be they football or political.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I think that there is some consensus here, you prefer to silence the opinion maker, rA, if I read his words correctly thins the same, I can live with it.

But its a bit like Alan Sugar refusing to fire that useless Akshay in the current series of the Apprentice. He's the guy in the black hat who brings in the audience to swear at the TV while watching him. They have one every series, always the same, a gobsheit as the Irish would say

[ramAnag]

I think that there is some consensus here, you prefer to silence the opinion maker, rA, if I read his words correctly thins the same, I can live with it.

I don’t set out to ‘silence’ opinion makers GP so much as to win the argument.

There are some opinions, many more ‘benign’ than others, where it matters and some where it doesn’t...some one can’t win and some one can hardly fail to win

For instance...MA’s football formation theory. It can’t, imo, be won or lost because both points of view have arguments in their favour and it really doesn’t matter very much.

Then there’s Brexit. Personally I think it’s an exercise in national self harm voted for by the gullible. Again I can’t win because the ‘proof will be in the pudding’ but it won’t stop me debating because I fear that in the meantime - maybe fifty years (!) according to figures as diverse as Tricky and Rees-Mogg - we, as a nation, are on the road to ruin.

Finally there are the easy ones...those seeking to defend child ***ual abuse, animal cruelty, racism and the like. Anyone seeking to put forward an argument in support of such matters has lost already because to adopt a stance in support of any of those stances has lost before they’ve begun. They are all demonstrably wrong and thus arguments that are impossible to lose...and no...that’s not a challenge.

[Trickytreesreds]

I don’t set out to ‘silence’ opinion makers GP so much as to win the argument.

There are some opinions, many more ‘benign’ than others, where it matters and some where it doesn’t...some one can’t win and some one can hardly fail to win

For instance...MA’s football formation theory. It can’t, imo, be won or lost because both points of view have arguments in their favour and it really doesn’t matter very much.

Then there’s Brexit. Personally I think it’s an exercise in national self harm voted for by the gullible. Again I can’t win because the ‘proof will be in the pudding’ but it won’t stop me debating because I fear that in the meantime - maybe fifty years (!) according to figures as diverse as Tricky and Rees-Mogg - we, as a nation, are on the road to ruin.

Finally there are the easy ones...those seeking to defend child ***ual abuse, animal cruelty, racism and the like. Anyone seeking to put forward an argument in support of such matters has lost already because to adopt a stance in support of any of those stances has lost before they’ve begun. They are all demonstrably wrong and thus arguments that are impossible to lose...and no...that’s not a challenge.

What about MM? Personally, he should get a knighthood,

[MadAmster]

What about MM? Personally, he should get a knighthood,

.... there's only one Mel Morris

[Geoff Parkstone]

There's only one Mickey Mouse or Melinda Messenger

[Geoff Parkstone]

Or Mick McManus

[Geoff Parkstone]

Or, for the dyslexic, there's only one Max Bird

[Andy_Faber]

Such comments have nothing to do with the nature of the thread...they’re to do with the individuals concerned. I have little idea how the card system works on here. Surprised you’re still ‘on a yellow’ but, as I’ve already said, it surely proves that AF already has the means to penalise anyone who ‘crosses the line’ without threatening to close down threads which survive entirely because of the interest and comment they generate.

Moderators have many 'means' and closing a thread either permanently or temporarily is something I've done before on this forum, including with this thread and the three or four other 'putting the world to rights' threads over the past few years. I've done it loads of times on the music forums I moderate on facebook, its a great way of cooling the temperature of a debate without sanctioning individuals. I'll probably do it again, especially when 'debate' becomes 'abuse'. Recently, 'ignore the ***' and 'what an utter **** you are' (mods can see the words) overstep the mark from debate into abuse.

[swaledale]

That must be a record
What a twonk

Says the guy who posts links to barmy idiots on youtube and reports by the Express as "proof", the guy who has in the not too distant past threatened and bullied other posters on here and the Forest site, who when having had his opinions and so called facts completely disproved, continues in the sme old vein. Jeeze you do make yourself looks stupid and if then absolutely proves what a Neanderthal he is by repeating, not for the first time a threat as to what would happen if I said it to his face down his local!

As if I'd be bothered by you!

[swaledale]

Moderators have many 'means' and closing a thread either permanently or temporarily is something I've done before on this forum, including with this thread and the three or four other 'putting the world to rights' threads over the past few years. I've done it loads of times on the music forums I moderate on facebook, its a great way of cooling the temperature of a debate without sanctioning individuals. I'll probably do it again, especially when 'debate' becomes 'abuse'. Recently, 'ignore the ***' and 'what an utter **** you are' (mods can see the words) overstep the mark from debate into abuse.

Well you could lead by example and admit that

I refer you to my post #7913 Not sure how he could have used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.

It was GP who poured scorn on MY suggestion that this was the case, so hardly "my entrenched world view"

So wrong again.

Thats twice in this thread in the last few posts - not that you have acknowledged that your previous statement that I was
‘factually and significantly wrong’, to state "that not even all those who still post regularly voted remain" was incorrect because at least one poster voted Leave.

I look forward to the acknowledgement from you of your errors.

[Andy_Faber]

I refer you to my post #7913 Not sure how he could have used "cheaper" EU staff? If he was complying with the law, he would be paying at least minimum wage, therefore whoever he employed would all be earning the same.

It was GP who poured scorn on MY suggestion that this was the case, so hardly "my entrenched world view"

I look forward to the acknowledgement from you of your errors.

'entrenched world view' is an opinion, it may be considered right or wrong by you and/or others but if I meant it, which I did, it can't be an 'error' so I can't acknowledge it as such

[swaledale]

'entrenched world view' is an opinion, it may be considered right or wrong by you and/or others but if I meant it, which I did, it can't be an 'error' so I can't acknowledge it as such

Indeed it is but when you state an example of what you consider to be my "entrenched world view" which was not actually what I posted (in fact I'd posted the opposite) then your wrong and can acknowledge that, but you won't.

Nor indeed the fact that my statement "not even all those still posting on here voted remain" was absolutely not as you said "Factually and significantly wrong"

These are not opinions they are statements and false statements, but any fool can see that except it seems the one who made them.

[ramAnag]

Moderators have many 'means' and closing a thread either permanently or temporarily is something I've done before on this forum, including with this thread and the three or four other 'putting the world to rights' threads over the past few years. I've done it loads of times on the music forums I moderate on facebook, its a great way of cooling the temperature of a debate without sanctioning individuals. I'll probably do it again, especially when 'debate' becomes 'abuse'. Recently, 'ignore the ***' and 'what an utter **** you are' (mods can see the words) overstep the mark from debate into abuse.

I’m sure you have...doesn’t actually make it right though, does it?
It doesn’t actually ‘cool’ debate though...it terminates it.

[Andy_Faber]

Indeed it is but when you state an example of what you consider to be my "entrenched world view" which was not actually what I posted (in fact I'd posted the opposite) then your wrong and can acknowledge that, but you won't.

That sentence has more twists and turns than John Lennon's effort in I Am The Walrus, you really need to be clearer about what's eating you if you want a response