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

[Geoff Parkstone]

It will be a shame to lose a poster like Swale, who I don't always agree with (!) as he brings a different perspective - although rA also brings the same one and can come on as substitute. But he seems to be trying his hardest to provoke cards by clearly quite deliberately having another abusive rant against a fellow poster.

If we all thought the same, this would be a very dull place, but please can we at least disagree in a respectful manner? rA and I may disagree on a lot of things, and may want to call each other many things, but we dont, it stays civil if somewhat "tense". Swale, you may think its fun to be abusive towards a fellow poster but I, for one, fail to share the humour.

I may not agree with all of TTR's views, but I will defend his right to express them, as Voltaire might have said when viewing this forum.

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

[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.