Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[the fox]

The problem with socialism is the fact that humans are human. You can't control an individual's way of thinking or dictate his emotional state and how he feels towards the group. You can't force a human that way, you can't program him like that because he's not a machine. 

 

Socialism might be built on rational theory (for the most part), it is however, in need for rational practice. and here is where the human plays a part. 

 

I'm not a big fan of socialism nor am I an advocate for capitalism. All I'm saying is, there's no perfect system. You have to sacrifice a thing to get another. 

[Wymsey]

Some women can be sexist as well as men (although it significantly seems that the media believe sexism only comes from men).

Not a sexist comment, by the way. ?

[Langston]

Wymsey has put a spoiler within a spoiler, inception at its finest.

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Some women can be sexist as well as men (although it significantly seems that the media believe sexism only comes from men).

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Not a sexist comment, by the way. ?

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Women can use sexist language and hold sexist views, of course.

 

The difference is in the degree of power sexist men and women mostly have to make those views a reality for a lot of people.

[Sampson]

Anyone over the age of 14 who still claims to be a Socialist has never actually considered how a Socialist society would work.

 

I'd like to hear ozleicester's description of how his Socialist society and government is actually set out.

 

Most people who claim to be socialists would instantly regret it the moment they have to work longer hours for less money and then when they just want to go home and relax by watching tv or play computer games they can't, because they don't own their tv and computer and it's not their alloted time to us it.

 

Socialism is and always has been a middle-class movement from people who want to be the ones making the decisions and who (as ozleicester demonstrated) talk down to the intelligence of the working-classes to try and get them to follow them.

Edited 8 February 2019 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Anyone over the age of 14 who still claims to be a Socialist has never actually considered how a Socialist society would work.

 

I'd like to hear ozleicester's description of how his Socialist society and government is actually set out.

 

Most people who claim to be socialists would instantly regret it the moment they have to work longer hours for less money and then when they just want to go home and relax by watching tv or play computer games they can't, because they don't own their tv and computer and it's not their alloted time to us it.

 

Socialism is and always has been a middle-class movement from people who want to be the ones making the decisions and who (as ozleicester demonstrated) talk down to the intelligence of the working-classes to try and get them to follow them.

Pardon me if we've covered this in one of our previous discussions, but you clearly are well versed on the topic and I wanted to ask: do you believe there is any non hierarchical/competitive social system at all that humans could adopt that would, in your view, "work" in so far as it guarantees the freedoms you clearly value?

 

Or do you think the present model is as close to non dominant/hierarchical as we're going to get?

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Anyone over the age of 14 who still claims to be a Socialist has never actually considered how a Socialist society would work.

 

I'd like to hear ozleicester's description of how his Socialist society and government is actually set out.

 

Most people who claim to be socialists would instantly regret it the moment they have to work longer hours for less money and then when they just want to go home and relax by watching tv or play computer games they can't, because they don't own their tv and computer and it's not their alloted time to us it.

 

Socialism is and always has been a middle-class movement from people who want to be the ones making the decisions and who (as ozleicester demonstrated) talk down to the intelligence of the working-classes to try and get them to follow them.

Again, hardly an unpopular opinion is it?

[Wymsey]

13 hours ago, Langston said:

Wymsey has put a spoiler within a spoiler, inception at its finest.

Cut me some slack please slightly, would you?

Have noticed the manner in which you've responded to my posts, in recent times, seems to appear that you're keen to have a pop at me for whatever reason* (and am not the only poster in which this style of yours has been a 'victim' of).

 

Quite unnecessary and no need, really. 

 

*Can understand you want to try to impress in front of other posters, but it comes across as slightly arrogant...

Edited 8 February 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[Langston]

1 hour ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Cut me some slack please slightly, would you?

Have noticed the manner in which you've responded to my posts, in recent times, seems to appear that you're keen to have a pop at me for whatever reason* (and am not the only poster in which this style of yours has been a 'victim' of).

 

Quite unnecessary and no need, really. 

 

*Can understand you want to try to impress in front of other posters, but it comes across as slightly arrogant...

 

Only a joke mate – apologies if it's come across any other way.

[Stadt]

Albrighton isn't consistent like most posters on here say, he works hard every week but he can be great on the ball in one game but absolutely honking on it the next.

Edited 8 February 2019 by Stadt

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Langston said:

 

Only a joke mate – apologies if it's come across any other way.

Don't worry, Wymsey is a little strange at times and his views can be quite extremist without him realising it, I think, then he comes across as a victim. He confuses me so much I've put him on ignore so that I don't get in trouble. 

 

Of course this may be an unpopular opinion, so it's in the correct thread.

 

3 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Albrighton isn't consistent like most posters on here say, he works hard every week but he can be great in the ball in one game but absolutely honking on it the next.

So you're saying that he consistently works hard - doesn't that make him consistent?

 

right need an unpopular opinion to finish off:

 

National service (but community and not military) needs to be re-introduced to England. All people on leaving secondary school should be forced to do 9 to 15 months service before they are allowed to continue in Education, get a job or become unemployed. They all should be given a minimum wage during this period. Anyone refusing to do the service should be refused any "financial" support, including free health care by the government.

[Wymsey]

33 minutes ago, FIF said:

Don't worry, Wymsey is a little strange at times and his views can be quite extremist without him realising it, I think, then he comes across as a victim. He confuses me so much I've put him on ignore so that I don't get in trouble. 

 

Of course this may be an unpopular opinion, so it's in the correct thread.

 

So you're saying that he consistently works hard - doesn't that make him consistent?

 

right need an unpopular opinion to finish off:

 

National service (but community and not military) needs to be re-introduced to England. All people on leaving secondary school should be forced to do 9 to 15 months service before they are allowed to continue in Education, get a job or become unemployed. They all should be given a minimum wage during this period. Anyone refusing to do the service should be refused any "financial" support, including free health care by the government.

Speak for yourself..

You'd be regretting the 'strange' comment if you actually met me in real life as I've been told that am a respectful, empathic and good-natured individual..

Don't judge someone just from the internet, as it can sum yourself up back for sure.

 

If moderators, and it seems be have been a lot of times with yourself (say no more..) over the past year or so, feel that your comments are worthy of a ban (which you admittedly announced to most members on here) - it's within their right to ban you or anyone else.

-

I don't class myself as extremist (!), although yes I can come across as strange (like you, but you wouldn't admit as for some reason you feel you should be exempt from all punishments so that your comments, sometimes controversial and looking for a reaction from others and you know it..) at times - admittedly with my view points sometimes not the 'norm' view on certain things).

 

As mentioned before, if Mark etc feel as if my comments overall are becoming a trend in terms of so-called 'trolling', sensitive, annoying etc - am sure they'd notify/warn me about it.

I don't pay a good amount of money each month towards the costs of this forum with any intention to "continue to get let off with each post you believe is 'strange"..

 

 

Am very sorry my posts often confuse you, - really apologise for it, Sir..

 

Edit: if others feel they have a problem with my posts, am open for them to mention it - as certainly don't to be perceived as strange/controversial/annoying even from another few people.* 

Posters in particular I can think of are yourself, @Langston, @Samilktray, @Facecloth in particular who unfortunately see myself as any/all of these..

Edited 8 February 2019 by Wymeswold fox
Stop here, Wymsey.

[Sampson]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Pardon me if we've covered this in one of our previous discussions, but you clearly are well versed on the topic and I wanted to ask: do you believe there is any non hierarchical/competitive social system at all that humans could adopt that would, in your view, "work" in so far as it guarantees the freedoms you clearly value?

 

Or do you think the present model is as close to non dominant/hierarchical as we're going to get?

I'm not suggesting non-competitive models wouldn't work necessarily, though I agree they wouldn't work as well and I think people would gradually become too comfortable, take too many shortcuts and no one would contribute to society out of their "goodness of their heart" - maybe for the first generation of people who experienced what was before they would - but once people are born into the system and don't have any recognition of what came before w . Competition is a natural product of people having different skills - people only have limited labour hours and they always need to be negotiated in some way - and different people have different skills which are more or less in demand - this will always lead to some form of conflict of interest and competition in some way.

My issue with capitalism vs socialism is more about the private ownership and private enterprise side of Capitalism rather than the competition side though - I don't believe Socialism is a utopian theory which doesn't work, I believe Socailism a downright nasty theory which has played out exactly as it is intended in the real world - the fundamental distrust of private ownership and private enterprise is the fundamental distrust that people can go about private transactions peacefully and share things and help others on their own without needing any help from the state or a collective or a syndicate or whatever the alternative model is; and it's a fundamental distrust that people can't make their own individual decisions and so decisions need to be made collectively at a micro and macro level. 

This isn't to say there aren't many, many issues with Capitalism - there are. But those are issues that need to be worked out within Capitalism - and many of them have been over the centuries, I don't see how you jump from the very real problem of say, poverty or cartels and decide that the only way to solve that is to do away with private property and private enterprise and exchange for profit - the fundamental tenants of Capitalism i.e. private ownership and private enterprise and which people can buy and sell objects, services and property for profit are good ones, the system is far from perfect and needs regulating and constantly tweaking in a lot of lot of ways for sure, but the idea that that suddenly need to overhaul the system, take individuals and business' liberty to own their own things 

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

Don't worry, Wymsey is a little strange at times and his views can be quite extremist without him realising it, I think, then he comes across as a victim. He confuses me so much I've put him on ignore so that I don't get in trouble. 

 

Of course this may be an unpopular opinion, so it's in the correct thread.

 

So you're saying that he consistently works hard - doesn't that make him consistent?

 

right need an unpopular opinion to finish off:

 

National service (but community and not military) needs to be re-introduced to England. All people on leaving secondary school should be forced to do 9 to 15 months service before they are allowed to continue in Education, get a job or become unemployed. They all should be given a minimum wage during this period. Anyone refusing to do the service should be refused any "financial" support, including free health care by the government.

I actually think it's more benificial,if the community service,was while they have work***..and some short experience in life...

But not just secondary school,also Students. 

18 months...up to the individual or employer,whether they take it at once or 6 monthly ,3 monthy stints.!!! 

And not forced into a service,but everybody should be given choices what areas they would like to help...

 

*** Or again given the choice..on timing,especially if they have a chance of definite work.

Unemployed,also given a choice of timing,and with consultation...and local-union support,I

maybe chances of finding employment,in the various community Services..

All companies should also be part of the scenario...Probably helping to organise or  be part of the local community-services.

 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

I'm not suggesting non-competitive models wouldn't work necessarily, though I agree they wouldn't work as well and I think people would gradually become too comfortable, take too many shortcuts and no one would contribute to society out of their "goodness of their heart" - maybe for the first generation of people who experienced what was before they would - but once people are born into the system and don't have any recognition of what came before w . Competition is a natural product of people having different skills - people only have limited labour hours and they always need to be negotiated in some way - and different people have different skills which are more or less in demand - this will always lead to some form of conflict of interest and competition in some way.

My issue with capitalism vs socialism is more about the private ownership and private enterprise side of Capitalism rather than the competition side though - I don't believe Socialism is a utopian theory which doesn't work, I believe Socailism a downright nasty theory which has played out exactly as it is intended in the real world - the fundamental distrust of private ownership and private enterprise is the fundamental distrust that people can go about private transactions peacefully and share things and help others on their own without needing any help from the state or a collective or a syndicate or whatever the alternative model is; and it's a fundamental distrust that people can't make their own individual decisions and so decisions need to be made collectively at a micro and macro level. 

This isn't to say there aren't many, many issues with Capitalism - there are. But those are issues that need to be worked out within Capitalism - and many of them have been over the centuries, I don't see how you jump from the very real problem of say, poverty or cartels and decide that the only way to solve that is to do away with private property and private enterprise and exchange for profit - the fundamental tenants of Capitalism i.e. private ownership and private enterprise and which people can buy and sell objects, services and property for profit are good ones, the system is far from perfect and needs regulating and constantly tweaking in a lot of lot of ways for sure, but the idea that that suddenly need to overhaul the system, take individuals and business' liberty to own their own things 

Thanks for the take, can definitely see what you mean about the possibility of humans not helping out of the goodness of their hearts, which rather leads me into the bolded part:

 

That same possibility - applied differently - is exactly why that fundamental distrust you speak of exists, and human history is full of it. Humans can and will take advantage of each other for their own ends in order to make their own lives easier in the course of their private business. That cannot be denied as, again, practically every instance of warfare and/or criminal activity is exactly that. Before societies evolved in a way that meant lots of people could live together (the development of agriculture being big on that one), what did you have? A series of tribal hunter-gatherers where the "law", such as it was, was the guy with the biggest stone axe.

 

Many humans, even in the modern era (I would say a likely majority but I couldn't be sure) are, sadly, not beings normally predetermined to peace or sharing things or helping others on their own, and the decisions they make are often a net negative for their own future and that of those around them. As such that mistrust that you speak of is, IMO, entirely justified and real.

 

And the way I see it, we either accept that and let the dice fall where they may, or try to mitigate it, and often the only way to mitigate it is through the collective actions of other people.

[Kopfkino]

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Pardon me if we've covered this in one of our previous discussions, but you clearly are well versed on the topic and I wanted to ask: do you believe there is any non hierarchical/competitive social system at all that humans could adopt that would, in your view, "work" in so far as it guarantees the freedoms you clearly value?

 

Or do you think the present model is as close to non dominant/hierarchical as we're going to get?

 

Personally, the problem is to see present society as a 'system of competition', it's rhetoric. You can easily flip it to say that it's a system of voluntary collaboration.

 

Anyway, until someone comes up with a system of governance (surely that society needs governance is proof enough it can never be non-hierarchical) that is 'better' than democracy (widespread rather than just exceptional cases like Singapore) then no. It was has been discussed on here before that maybe there are alternatives - epistocracy or noocracy or possibly an EU-style technocracy for example. But whilst 'ideal' government is formed by competition then the entire social system will be. And even with the alternatives, what are the incentives to reach the top?

 

Similarly whilst resources are scarce (or at least scarce enough) then how does a non-competitive system operate without someone planning the use of those scarce resources?

 

Wherever opportunity costs exist, there is competition. Whenever you're invited to two different events at the same time by two friends, you have to choose one over the other. You wouldn't call friendship competition. 

 

What connects it all? Free choice. Is it desirable to trade away free choice?

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Personally, the problem is to see present society as a 'system of competition', it's rhetoric. You can easily flip it to say that it's a system of voluntary collaboration.

 

Anyway, until someone comes up with a system of governance (surely that society needs governance is proof enough it can never be non-hierarchical) that is 'better' than democracy (widespread rather than just exceptional cases like Singapore) then no. It was has been discussed on here before that maybe there are alternatives - epistocracy or noocracy or possibly an EU-style technocracy for example. But whilst 'ideal' government is formed by competition then the entire social system will be. And even with the alternatives, what are the incentives to reach the top?

 

Similarly whilst resources are scarce (or at least scarce enough) then how does a non-competitive system operate without someone planning the use of those scarce resources?

 

Wherever opportunity costs exist, there is competition. Whenever you're invited to two different events at the same time by two friends, you have to choose one over the other. You wouldn't call friendship competition. 

 

What connects it all? Free choice. Is it desirable to trade away free choice?

 

 

Perhaps I'm looking at it through too narrow a lens, but then perhaps I look back at history and all the shit that has been done in the name of dominance and competition of one power or another by humans and I get a little jaded. (And more to the point, how that same aspect of history is often venerated.)

 

Mutual collaboration is the way forward and what we have right now allows for that, I guess.

 

Scarcity is also a big thing, as you say - solve that (that *is* possible) and things might change pretty fundamentally, barring the influence of those who would apply artificial scarcity to keep things as they are.

[Guest MattP]

The Cardiff fans collective grief over Sala is very weird given the never met him, really knew him or ever saw him play. 

 

Banners saying forever a bluebird are just ridiculous.

[Guest]

Slavery is the ultimate destination of capitalism.

[The Bear]

57 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Cardiff fans collective grief over Sala is very weird given the never met him, really knew him or ever saw him play. 

 

Banners saying forever a bluebird are just ridiculous.

Agreed. 

[Sampson]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks for the take, can definitely see what you mean about the possibility of humans not helping out of the goodness of their hearts, which rather leads me into the bolded part:

 

That same possibility - applied differently - is exactly why that fundamental distrust you speak of exists, and human history is full of it. Humans can and will take advantage of each other for their own ends in order to make their own lives easier in the course of their private business. That cannot be denied as, again, practically every instance of warfare and/or criminal activity is exactly that. Before societies evolved in a way that meant lots of people could live together (the development of agriculture being big on that one), what did you have? A series of tribal hunter-gatherers where the "law", such as it was, was the guy with the biggest stone axe.

 

Many humans, even in the modern era (I would say a likely majority but I couldn't be sure) are, sadly, not beings normally predetermined to peace or sharing things or helping others on their own, and the decisions they make are often a net negative for their own future and that of those around them. As such that mistrust that you speak of is, IMO, entirely justified and real.

 

And the way I see it, we either accept that and let the dice fall where they may, or try to mitigate it, and often the only way to mitigate it is through the collective actions of other people.

Conflict of interest will always exist regardless, unless you live in a system with an overbearing entity which takes away individual choice - which is what many Socialist states have tried to do.

 

As Kopfkino says, I think you're using a too narrow net of "competition" - you're thinking of it of Isreal vs Palestine, Tesco vs Sainsburys or Labour supporters vs Conservative supporters at the level of governments, huge business and nations - which is fine, but that's a tiny, tiny fraction of it.

 

Conflict, conflict of interest and competition will always exist as long as people are allowed to make individual choices, we all make hundreds of these a day - as Kopfkino says this can be everything from deciding between meeting 2 friends, deciding whether to walk or cycle somewhere, deciding to walk round a slow walker in the supermarket, slow down peacefully or slow down and chunter behind them.

 

The problem is we all have limited time - and we all have to decide how to use these - split between work, education, leisure, spending time with family/friends and rest - and the thousands of decisions we make a day in our own individual idea of how to spend these hours based on our DNA and life experience (I don't believe in Libertarian free-will but you can throw that in too if you do, which is fair enough) - and this will always come in conflict with other people who want to spend this time a different way or have different DNA and life experiences as they will often want to choose different things. Isreal vs Palestine or Tesco vs Sainsbury's or Labour supporters vs Conservative supporters are just expanded versions of this - they ultimately started of conflicts of interests of a few people - 2 sets of people believed a land was historically "theirs" - 2 originally small sets of people wanted to sell similar things - 2 small sets of people originally felt their ultimate political belief (which is now greatly different and unrecognizable from modern Conservative or Labour supporters)  was more helpful than the other. These just built up over time, but they ultimately started as conflicts of interest because some people wanted to spend their time differently - and Economics, after all, is much more about how people choose to spend their time than how they choose to spend their money.

 

Btw, this sounds like I think humans are individual animals rather than communal animals which I don't - I think humans are pack animals. Most people will be selfless or even prepared to sacrifice themselves for their family and friends - and most conflicts of interest imcluding I'm sure Isreal vs Palestine, Tesco vs Sainsbury's or Labour vs Conservatives all happen or started largely because people are/were trying to look out for or look after their own individual friends and family rather than what's best for themselves or society as a whole - and people will always tend to prioeitise their own individual family and friends above the rest of society or even often over themselves. It's why most people would rather hang out with their friends and family rather than work or why (based purely on anecdotal evidence, not any scientific study) it seems to me that the biggest motivation for people to work longer hours, to try and progress in their career etc. is not solely for money or for themselves, but to try and create a better life for their children, their partner, parents or siblings. I don't believe most people are materialistic (not that I think there's anything wrong with being materialistic) after a certain age- it's understandable that people often are in their late teens or early 20s when they first have their own money and no family to support but I find people generally would rather spend money on experiences with their families and friends rather than on material items.

[Heathrow fox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The Cardiff fans collective grief over Sala is very weird given the never met him, really knew him or ever saw him play. 

 

Banners saying forever a bluebird are just ridiculous.

I think there are way to many one minute silences at football matches in general.One minute silences should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.Having too many devalues its significance.Less is more.

[StanSP]

33 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

I think there are way to many one minute silences at football matches in general.One minute silences should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.Having too many devalues its significance.Less is more.

is a player dying suddenly in a plane crash on the way to moving to his new club not an exceptional circumstance!?

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Conflict of interest will always exist regardless, unless you live in a system with an overbearing entity which takes away individual choice - which is what many Socialist states have tried to do.

 

As Kopfkino says, I think you're using a too narrow net of "competition" - you're thinking of it of Isreal vs Palestine, Tesco vs Sainsburys or Labour supporters vs Conservative supporters at the level of governments, huge business and nations - which is fine, but that's a tiny, tiny fraction of it.

 

Conflict, conflict of interest and competition will always exist as long as people are allowed to make individual choices, we all make hundreds of these a day - as Kopfkino says this can be everything from deciding between meeting 2 friends, deciding whether to walk or cycle somewhere, deciding to walk round a slow walker in the supermarket, slow down peacefully or slow down and chunter behind them.

 

The problem is we all have limited time - and we all have to decide how to use these - split between work, education, leisure, spending time with family/friends and rest - and the thousands of decisions we make a day in our own individual idea of how to spend these hours based on our DNA and life experience (I don't believe in Libertarian free-will but you can throw that in too if you do, which is fair enough) - and this will always come in conflict with other people who want to spend this time a different way or have different DNA and life experiences as they will often want to choose different things. Isreal vs Palestine or Tesco vs Sainsbury's or Labour supporters vs Conservative supporters are just expanded versions of this - they ultimately started of conflicts of interests of a few people - 2 sets of people believed a land was historically "theirs" - 2 originally small sets of people wanted to sell similar things - 2 small sets of people originally felt their ultimate political belief (which is now greatly different and unrecognizable from modern Conservative or Labour supporters)  was more helpful than the other. These just built up over time, but they ultimately started as conflicts of interest because some people wanted to spend their time differently - and Economics, after all, is much more about how people choose to spend their time than how they choose to spend their money.

 

Btw, this sounds like I think humans are individual animals rather than communal animals which I don't - I think humans are pack animals. Most people will be selfless or even prepared to sacrifice themselves for their family and friends - and most conflicts of interest imcluding I'm sure Isreal vs Palestine, Tesco vs Sainsbury's or Labour vs Conservatives all happen or started largely because people are/were trying to look out for or look after their own individual friends and family rather than what's best for themselves or society as a whole - and people will always tend to prioeitise their own individual family and friends above the rest of society or even often over themselves. It's why most people would rather hang out with their friends and family rather than work or why (based purely on anecdotal evidence, not any scientific study) it seems to me that the biggest motivation for people to work longer hours, to try and progress in their career etc. is not solely for money or for themselves, but to try and create a better life for their children, their partner, parents or siblings. I don't believe most people are materialistic (not that I think there's anything wrong with being materialistic) after a certain age- it's understandable that people often are in their late teens or early 20s when they first have their own money and no family to support but I find people generally would rather spend money on experiences with their families and friends rather than on material items.

Well, I'm not entirely sure our worldviews and those on humanity align...but you make some very good points, and it's always a pleasure to talk about this kind of stuff with you.

[Facecloth]

18 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Speak for yourself..

You'd be regretting the 'strange' comment if you actually met me in real life as I've been told that am a respectful, empathic and good-natured individual..

Don't judge someone just from the internet, as it can sum yourself up back for sure.

 

If moderators, and it seems be have been a lot of times with yourself (say no more..) over the past year or so, feel that your comments are worthy of a ban (which you admittedly announced to most members on here) - it's within their right to ban you or anyone else.

-

I don't class myself as extremist (!), although yes I can come across as strange (like you, but you wouldn't admit as for some reason you feel you should be exempt from all punishments so that your comments, sometimes controversial and looking for a reaction from others and you know it..) at times - admittedly with my view points sometimes not the 'norm' view on certain things).

 

As mentioned before, if Mark etc feel as if my comments overall are becoming a trend in terms of so-called 'trolling', sensitive, annoying etc - am sure they'd notify/warn me about it.

I don't pay a good amount of money each month towards the costs of this forum with any intention to "continue to get let off with each post you believe is 'strange"..

 

 

Am very sorry my posts often confuse you, - really apologise for it, Sir..

 

Edit: if others feel they have a problem with my posts, am open for them to mention it - as certainly don't to be perceived as strange/controversial/annoying even from another few people.* 

Posters in particular I can think of are yourself, @Langston, @Samilktray, @Facecloth in particular who unfortunately see myself as any/all of these..

You seem obsessed with this notion that certain posters (including myself) post in order to get a reaction from other posters, when in fact people are mostly just saying what they think. Of course you want some kind of reaction, it's a forum to discuss things, but I know in my case certainly, I'm not posting to push people buttons. People are allowed to disagree, to argue, to put across their point of view, as long as they don't troll or throw personal insults (which you could say fif has done by calling you strange, but also you do every time you accuse someone of being an aggressive poster). I've often seen you disappear when challenged on your view or if someone questions you, and that not what a forum is for, if you stop replying there is no forum. When people challenge your view or question you they are interested to see how you got to the view you did, running away doesn't give them that

 

You also seem obsessed with Webbo quiting and have at times speculated on the reason being certain posters pushing him away. That's pure rumour and find it disrespectful to Webbo as you have no idea what occurred in his private life that may have made him want to take time away from here. Webbo seemed a decent guy, but could also be a massive troll and he knew it, I don't get why you're so hung up on him quitting. Just let him be, hopefully he'll be back, but if not then so be it.

 

All in all though Wymesy, it's just the internet, don't take it too seriously. The only reason I've replied to your post is because you've had a go me directly 4 or 5 times now, otherwise I'd just ignore it as it's not worth wasting time on. You keep posting how you want to post, and so will I and FIF and everyone else, just understand if you make controversial remarks, such as you have regarding homosexuality in the past, people will challenge you on them.