If you look back Yorkie you will find you were the first to bring it to the personal level on here again. You know that most people will attack back if attacked. What ever happened to your Buddhist thoughts? Do they criticise others or look for good in those around them? Every comment you make like that fuels the fire. Do you want to ban SH - because it seems you do - why not be honest and ask the MOds to do that if you cannot read his comments without attacking him?
Personally I prefer a board with a variety of opinion even if some of it is written in a style I would not use. When SH is not around it is 50 shades of grey. What is wrong with posters on this board that they areunable to respond to points made and ignore the somewhat controversial style ?
I agree about the last sentence Leo. However I cannot draw back from it. I cannot ignore the use of rhetoric like 'masses' or, on other occasions, 'hords' used to describe people who are in no way different to you and I. The assumption is that Britain should have special conditions in order to 'protect' itself against these masses. This is well known on the continent - and we, who live there, have to live with the fact that our country has voted largely because of xenophobia - this whole thing has dragged our status in the World to rock bottom - and we have to live with this on a daily basis. There was a time when I could have a certain pride in my nationality here - but those days are gone. Can you give me one good reason why Britain should have special conditions ? Can you give me a reason why I should ignore the same xenophobia when it appears on these boards ? No, I do not withdraw a single sentence.
What you call a 'controversial' style involves, at best, snide comments intended to produce a reaction, and, at worst, direct insults - as at least 10 posters on here can testify over the years. I agree that his style has changed from the direct frontal assault, to the more snide version. His 'controversial' style also involves classifying whole groups of people - whether based on their politics or their nationality, in a detremental fashion. I have no problem with people expressing their views, but take exception to a poster whose sole purpose on here appears to be to create discord.
I too cannot accept the painting of people, who are different, with what i experience as deprecating and smearing remarks... and look back and I took offence at his stereotyping Blair... and then he moves on and before you know it it becomes personal he and others were quick to complain about myself and others talking about certain Tories in that way and I have not done it since.... but with him and another they seem to think it is Ok to make such comments I think most of us know that in a debating chamber such remarks would be our of order .. .so again why should they be allowed here? It is the principle for me... and each time I raise it there are complaints about me.... 'man up' etc..... the point is completely missed... Everyone who knows me will know that i am not the person that responses seem to make me out to be... BUT if we are to continue with great debate and repartee we have got to have a way of communicating that is acceptable to those who are members of the board...
So instead of making cogent argument and explaining that people are not hordes or masses you prefer to attack the player. As I said for the moment I will not engage with you on the real argument as it is being sidelined by those of you who prefer to cry into your sleeves as you are offended by someone else's phraseology. Someone clever has written that nobody has a right NOT to be offended. So you prefer to turn this board into a war zone again because you "cannot draw back from it". Fine - but see what you get as a result. I have always supported the bullied not the bullies and will continue to do so. I hate pack attacks and that is what I see on here.
I am going to say one more thing and then go and enjoy Fathers Day. I believe that if posters on here ignored the tone that many of us use (we don't see our own prejudices) and commented only on the issues - and vigorously criticised arguments that can be shown to be false we would have a much better debate. If you are unable to dfeat the argument with your own then simply attacking the player is futile. Either someone's arguments can be refuted or they cannot. Stifling debate because we are PC about the style in my opinion is the worse course.
No pack attack from me.... i have not made one single comment around the debate over the last week. In fact i have been impressed by the level of the debate..left me high and dry as i am more a phenomenologist than a political person But I have raised my concern about the language and inferences used It is hard having been called unpleasant things in the past... to stay in my own room so to speak when I can 'hear' things I find offensive being stated in the next room Furthermore as this is a written forum allowing each other to get away with untruths or abuse then seemingly condones the continued use of such language. I am more than happy for the debate to continue and i will take little part... but i find it very hard when i see stereotyping and abuse etc etc.
Agreed... and perhaps each and every poster reflect on the impact of what they write on those who read it
It could be that you are seeing the accumulated results of a long history of abuse Leo - only part of which you have witnessed. As I said many of us have been subjected to insults from him in the past - many of which have been far worse than what you have just witnessed from me. On any other forum he would have been banned several times over, yet has led a charmed life - maybe because of his politics. Where do you see the evidence of a pack attack here Leo ? Both Yorkie and myself responded at around the same time - are we a pack ? Yorkie has been on the end of some repulsive insults from SH. in the past, which were seen by many on here, yet SH. not only denied having done it, accused me of lying over the matter, and deleted the evidence. Yes, there is bad blood which goes back over quite some time - you are witnessing the results, but this bad blood only came from one source.
Yes it is true.... one really foul insult to me was then deleted..... and then innocence is claimed.... But I would much rather we all move on.... can we not all learn from this.
I'm quite happy to disappear again to leave the clique,(as accurately described by W-Y,) to discuss micro topics within the narrow range allowed. I can now see why it is impossible to have a serious discussion in the UK about immigration without the usual insults spoiling the debate.
Perhaps SH you too can look at your own behaviour and see why most of us don't want to 'play' with you......
Like Cologne you are very quick to use insults. I will leave you now so you can carry on 'playing' with yourself.
Isn't Fathers Day supposed to be when Father get to rest and be waited on by their offspring? Not here - was dragged into the garden to move about ten thousand bird feeders as the ungrateful birds kept leaving their calling cards on a newly painted trellis. I like the idea that an individual could be a pack I agree with you that in general the debate has been a good one but I put that down to contributions from EVERY poster. I suspect that I have been subject to as much abuse if not more than almost anyone else on here. Some public but the most vile in PMs. Is there one of us who does not react angrily to it? Anyone who thinks that an attack on another poster will not lead to an argument that has nothing to do with subject matter is naive. All it does though is turn the forum into a battleground that causes many people who enjoy reading a good debate (many read but don't participate) to avoid it. If posters here now are so outraged by SH's style that they have to attack him personally they cannot then complain when he retaliates and this is what we end up with. I can tell you that I dislike his style too - but I dislike the style some others use here - and know some dislike mine. None of us are perfect. It seems to me people have a choice. They can object to language like hordes and masses and keep fights going. Or they can accept that SH will not change his style and choose to engage and not rise to the bait over language. I still feel that you "win" an argument not by criticising another but by defeating the points made with better points of our own. The third option of course is to seek a ban as one or two of you seem to favour. For me that is total defeat - when you can only debate with people you like then you lose the ability to interact with many others.
Agree - it's actually the only way in which this thread can work to the relative satisfaction of all. In fairness to SH his comment about Merkel agreeing to tie players' legs together during penalty shoot outs was a corker
