OT - the current crisis

[Geoff Parkstone]

Nope, read it four times and still dont understand it

[swaledale]

Personally I think its the "good German" syndrome, most think it will affect "the other person" not them. Its one of the amazing achievements of the Conservatives, to persuade people whose interests they do not care about to vote for them and against their self interest.

I put it down to what I would describe as "lottery syndrome" everybody knows that the likelihood of their hard work resulting in them becoming rich is not very high, just as they know that spending £2 or whatever it is on a lottery ticket is unlikely to win them a huge amount of money, but they would rather live in hope and than live in relative comfort.

Now what you need is some serious rabble rousing like the French, and if things get sticky come the Autumn we might just see that happen.

[ramAnag]

IMO because there aren't enough 'us's' around. Too many people who are clearly 'thems', aspiring to be 'them's', at a level where they side with the 'thems', at a level where they aren't bothered about them and us, not bothered about them and us regardless of level, will side with the thems come what may etc etc. Now for decades the movement has gradually been themwards, maybe the current crisis will tip the scale. Just my crudely elocuted opinion

Hmmm...perplexing. You seem to have been doing a particularly good impression of one of the ‘thems’ for the last few years, AF.

[Andy_Faber]

Hmmm...perplexing. You seem to have been doing a particularly good impression of one of the ‘thems’ for the last few years, AF.

Not sure why it’s perplexing rA, if you understand it just take it as intended, an observation. If you dont, as GP doesn’t, fair enough.

Re the second comment, don’t understand but please DON’T expand

[ramAnag]

Not sure why it’s perplexing rA, if you understand it just take it as intended, an observation. If you dont, as GP doesn’t, fair enough.

Re the second comment, don’t understand but please DON’T expand

Lol...well there’s a nicely created ‘Catch 22’, AF...well done. Can hardly explain why it’s ‘perplexing’ if you don’t want me to expand on my original explanatory comment can I?

Let’s just say it all fits in with your regular recent strategy of issuing vaguely controversial edicts and then backing off at great speed. Personally I just don’t get it but if you won’t or can’t justify what you write that’s your problem. Not sure what’s happened to you.

[Andy_Faber]

Lol...well there’s a nicely created ‘Catch 22’, AF...well done. Can hardly explain why it’s ‘perplexing’ if you don’t want me to expand on my original explanatory comment can I?

Let’s just say it all fits in with your regular recent strategy of issuing vaguely controversial edicts and then backing off at great speed. Personally I just don’t get it but if you won’t or can’t justify what you write that’s your problem. Not sure what’s happened to you.

Its not that I back off rA, I usually just don't have the time in my day to respond and when I do, my original comments are (I believe often deliberately) skewed/misunderstood and responded to in that manner, and there quickly comes a point where I know there is no point continuing.

So, being constructive:

I responded on the assumption that your comment was in two distinct parts, and that the first, single word sentence 'perplexing' was about my earlier post. If so, please explain what's perplexing about it. My observation? The fact that such categories of people exist? the source of my observation?

I then assumed that the second part of your comment was a more general comment about me personally. I don't think its constructive for the sake of the forum to expand on that, you can by PM if you want


If I didn't read it as intended you need to have another go.

[ramAnag]

Its not that I back off rA, I usually just don't have the time in my day to respond and when I do, my original comments are (I believe often deliberately) skewed/misunderstood and responded to in that manner, and there quickly comes a point where I know there is no point continuing.

So, being constructive:

I responded on the assumption that your comment was in two distinct parts, and that the first, single word sentence 'perplexing' was about my earlier post. If so, please explain what's perplexing about it. My observation? The fact that such categories of people exist? the source of my observation?

I then assumed that the second part of your comment was a more general comment about me personally. I don't think its constructive for the sake of the forum to expand on that, you can by PM if you want


If I didn't read it as intended you need to have another go.

Why thank you Sir!

It’s perplexing AF, because, certainly since 2019...and possibly since the Referendum, you have been the arch proponent of a ‘keep your head down, don’t rock the boat, I’m alright Jack, no time for discontent, mustn’t challenge the statue quo...’ mentality...or at least that’s how it’s appeared to me.

It maybe that you don’t make your points as well as you believe or it may be that I have, never deliberately, misinterpreted them...and yet here you suddenly are supporting MA who, although undeniably one of the most responsible posters on here who I regularly agree with, was calling for ‘revolution’ a few days ago.

Whatever you are you aren’t one of life’s ‘revolutionary thinkers’, and you have become something of a contradiction in many ways over recent months in a way that I find very perplexing.

[Andy_Faber]

Why thank you Sir!

It’s perplexing AF, because, certainly since 2019...and possibly since the Referendum, you have been the arch proponent of a ‘keep your head down, don’t rock the boat, I’m alright Jack, no time for discontent, mustn’t challenge the statue quo...’ mentality...or at least that’s how it’s appeared to me.

It maybe that you don’t make your points as well as you believe or it may be that I have, never deliberately, misinterpreted them...and yet here you suddenly are supporting MA who, although undeniably one of the most responsible posters on here who I regularly agree with, was calling for ‘revolution’ a few days ago.

Whatever you are you aren’t one of life’s ‘revolutionary thinkers’, and you have become something of a contradiction in many ways over recent months in a way that I find very perplexing.

Thanks for the reply

Not got time (genuinely) to respond to the first sentence ATM

Regarding the current 'discussion', I think (happy to be corrected) that you have treated my observation-based response to MA's comment as being partisan in some way rather than 'just' an observation. I hoped for a respnse along the lines of 'yes, I see your point', 'no, I see it differently', 'ah but what about...' or even (GP's) 'what the **** are you on about?' - basically offering something to expand on MA's comment to create a point for discussion. I've done this a number of times over the past few months and immediately been the subject of attacks for having an opinion not shared by one or more other posters. I'm usually only offering an observation, based on what I am grateful is a wide variety of folk I come across in my 'gig economy' semi-retired-but-not-quite life, which again I have tried to explain before.

Regarding the MA element of your comment, I see no problem in supporting a poster's well made comment or question, which I thought I did, whilst disagreeing with another comment by that poster (I thought the 'revolution' comment was a bit unrealistic/idealistic/daft/whatever, but let it pass as I don't respond to everything). Part of the problem with sensible debate we've had here is that stances have been taken for/against posters rather than for/against comments (and we all have become guilty of it)

Not sure what 'revolutionary thinkers' means to you but if you define it I'll agree or disagree and comment on whether its a good or bad thing

I definitely don't agree with the contradiction thing, again examples would be great

[MadAmster]

Revolution. It really might be time for one. Civil Rights eroded. Human Rights idem ditto. Worker's Rights also. A Home Secretary that proposes draconian immigration rules that would have seen her parents refused entry (if only.... ) . A Chancellor who "hits" companies with a windfall tax and immediately gives them some tax breaks down the road which will see them claw back, in a few years' time, more than he's just taken off them and also admits to having diverted cash away from poor areas and giving it to Tory voting wealthy areas. An outgoing PM who wouldn't know the truth if it hit him squarely on the jaw. Two PM candidates who are doing their level best to "out right wing" each other totally ignoring people's wishes. Lining the pockets of friends, family, donors and local pub landlords with contracts despite those people knowing nothing of the subject matter.

If there wasn't a "them and us" before, there, IMO, most certainly is now. It's not going to get any better, whichever of the incompetents ends up in #10.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Of course the beauty for you is that you are neither an us nor a them, but rather a Cloggie. Can we all come and live in your windmill until the heat dies down.