DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 31 December 2013 Posted 31 December 2013 Now if I can persevere, then so can you. I have to wear a tin hat when I come on here! Got a new one for Xmas, as the old one was far too gone. Eyes front lad, and charge!
Babylon Posted 31 December 2013 Posted 31 December 2013 So in the true vein of Babylon and others, should I just pack this place in? It seems like I'm talking to myself. Just go off and do other stuff and pack it in for a few months. The place ground me down big time, now I'm only on sporadically I feel much better for it. Plus someone has to keep Col City on his toes.
Buce Posted 31 December 2013 Posted 31 December 2013 Most people have busy lives that often preclude spending several minutes reading a post and then replying to it. I sometimes write detailed posts or responses. If anything, I'm surprised that my posts aren't ignored even more than they are, for that very reason! I think that it's partly age-related. I've noticed that the others who write detailed posts tend to be older posters, like me. It's partly the difference between the generations that grew up pre-Internet/mobiles (and certainly pre-Twitter) and younger ones who are more used to expressing everything within a tweet or text message. There's something to be said for both, I think. If something can be expressed succinctly, then it should be - and the better among the younger posters achieve this. On the other hand, arguments for or against government economic policy, the EU or even a change in tactical formation often cannot be properly addressed within 140 characters. I do sometimes worry that younger people may become incapable of addressing complex arguments. On the other hand, I struggle to avoid verbosity, which is just as bad! New Year's Resolution: Snappier posts! Anyone who can use a word like 'verbosity' and spell it deserves the right to be verbose..
ADK Posted 31 December 2013 Posted 31 December 2013 Thanks for that, ADK (assuming it was meant for me - thanks embarrassingly withdrawn if not!). I reckon that it's usually more productive to debate with people you may disagree with than to engage in a load of mutual backslapping with the likeminded. I assume that's why I often find myself doing verbal battle with the more civilised "rightists" like MattP and Webbo, but rarely discuss anything with the likes of Finnegan or Rincewind, whom I'd probably agree with more. Nothing to do with personal likeability, though I imagine that I'd get on with all those people if I met them, regardless of opinions. Most people don't change their basic beliefs much after about 25-30, so I don't imagine that I'm any more likely to change, say, Matt's views than he is to change mine....small things, maybe. If nothing else, though, you get to hone your arguments better arguing with "the articulate enemy" than agreeing with allies. Plus, presumably some people may read posts but not respond. Mind you, views can change a bit. Compared to 20 years ago, I've switched to support nuclear power, would probably vote to keep the monarchy (for now) and am less sure that I'm pro-EU (there is a leftist anti-EU case that isn't often heard). Time for a beverage... Yes it was meant for you. Should have quoted. I actually prefer debating with people with similar views. That is because it can be nice to debate the finer points rather than the big issue. I often feel like I already know all the arguments over a topic and it just boils down to personal opinion in the end. I wonder what your leftist anti-eu argument is? Mine would be this: One of my favourite "left wing" principles is the concept of chasing full employment as an economic goal. This is something that hasn't really been explored seriously in politics during my lifetime but I believe it was a cornerstone of labour ideology at one point. However it's basically impossible to achieve something like that whilst we are signed up to the free movement of labour treaty with the EU. We would be flooded with all the unemployed from across Europe.
MPH Posted 31 December 2013 Posted 31 December 2013 No probs. He thought the others were weird but he was quite happy to have you in full leather sat on his back seat. Your dad is a bit kinky!
Merging Cultures Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 Thanks for that, ADK (assuming it was meant for me - thanks embarrassingly withdrawn if not!). I reckon that it's usually more productive to debate with people you may disagree with than to engage in a load of mutual backslapping with the likeminded. I assume that's why I often find myself doing verbal battle with the more civilised "rightists" like MattP and Webbo, but rarely discuss anything with the likes of Finnegan or Rincewind, whom I'd probably agree with more. Nothing to do with personal likeability, though I imagine that I'd get on with all those people if I met them, regardless of opinions. Most people don't change their basic beliefs much after about 25-30, so I don't imagine that I'm any more likely to change, say, Matt's views than he is to change mine....small things, maybe. If nothing else, though, you get to hone your arguments better arguing with "the articulate enemy" than agreeing with allies. Plus, presumably some people may read posts but not respond. Mind you, views can change a bit. Compared to 20 years ago, I've switched to support nuclear power, would probably vote to keep the monarchy (for now) and am less sure that I'm pro-EU (there is a leftist anti-EU case that isn't often heard). Time for a beverage... Yes it was meant for you. Should have quoted. I actually prefer debating with people with similar views. That is because it can be nice to debate the finer points rather than the big issue. I often feel like I already know all the arguments over a topic and it just boils down to personal opinion in the end. I wonder what your leftist anti-eu argument is? Mine would be this: One of my favourite "left wing" principles is the concept of chasing full employment as an economic goal. This is something that hasn't really been explored seriously in politics during my lifetime but I believe it was a cornerstone of labour ideology at one point. However it's basically impossible to achieve something like that whilst we are signed up to the free movement of labour treaty with the EU. We would be flooded with all the unemployed from across Europe. The economists full employment is not where everyone is fully employed. It's the optimal employment level for growth and low inflation. So do you mean the economists full employment or literally everyone working? Because the latter is not possible really.
ADK Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 Yes where everyone is working. I don't see how it can be impossible. You are telling me it is literally impossible for everyone who wants a job to have one?
BoneDog Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 Just go off and do other stuff and pack it in for a few months. The place ground me down big time, now I'm only on sporadically I feel much better for it. Plus someone has to keep Col City on his toes. I said that two weeks ago. Infact, I've ALWAYS said it.
Guest Col city fan Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 I think you just need to be yourself on the forum Mack and don't let others get you down. Im accused of being 'like a dog with a bone.' Fair enough, thats what Im like in my 'real life' if you like. The two main threads I've been verbal over, more than any other, were the Sven and Beckford ones. And I feel pretty vindicated on both. As long as you make a decent argument.. thats my big beef. There are so many posts regarding such and such being 'shit' or 'brilliant' without any explanation for why. For as many people agree with me there's those that disagree. I see this as a good thing personally because again, I think that reflects reality. People dont just agree with something I say because Im in some sort of clique. Im not. If they agree its because they genuinely agree. Keep at it Mack. Some of your posts I concur with, others I dont. Cest la Vie.
BoneDog Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 At the risk of opening up a very dodgy can of worms involving a Winston Churchill robot that went evil as some part of a zionist plot to put a lizardman on a fake moon: whose idea was it then? Nope sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're banging on about. Fake moon?! Lizardmen?! Churchill robot?!! For crying out loud laddo. Pulling those out is almost as weak a counter as the flying spaghetti monster is. Da Jooz. It's always Da Jooz. Not the Jews! They were amongst the many victims. The zionists are another matter though. Their collaboration with the nazis is well known for many years before WW2. They had the same goals. I was just pointing out that the holocaust wasn't exactly Hitlers idea, and had no intention of a debate so I'll say no more. Oh that's very bitchy. :xmaslaugh: Bravo! Maybe a bit bitchy, but it was totally irrelevant. He's learned those kind of arguementative skills at Darwin debates. That's how they roll. They never stick to the subject.
Guest Col city fan Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 I said that two weeks ago. Infact, I've ALWAYS said it. Meaning what exactly? Have I ever replied to one of your posts or have you got multiple accounts? I dont recognise you?
The Doctor Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 Nope sorry, I haven't got a clue what you're banging on about. Fake moon?! Lizardmen?! Churchill robot?!! For crying out loud laddo. Pulling those out is almost as weak a counter as the flying spaghetti monster is. Not the Jews! They were amongst the many victims. The zionists are another matter though. Their collaboration with the nazis is well known for many years before WW2. They had the same goals. I was just pointing out that the holocaust wasn't exactly Hitlers idea, and had no intention of a debate so I'll say no more. Maybe a bit bitchy, but it was totally irrelevant. He's learned those kind of arguementative skills at Darwin debates. That's how they roll. They never stick to the subject. Lizardmen are a popular consipiracy (see David Icke), fake moon - well, you insist the moon landing didn't happen and was recorded on a set (a fake moon if you want) and churchill robot, well that was just the time of history - holocaust occured during WW2, when Winston was in command. Oh, and the FSM is a simple enough point about evidence. It's not supposed to be this great argument, it's just a point to make. Bringing Darwin into this? - I've taken you apart on the subject of evolution before (helps when you're right to start with) and will happily do so again - but tbh Evolution isn't really debated, the scientists just present the evidence, the creatards ignore it and spout bullshit until their opposition get bored and walk off. Kinda like a game of chess with a pigeon. We stick to the subject though, its you lot who veer off into irrelevancy. So, anyway - whose idea was the holocaust if not Hitler? Who ordered the mass extermination of gays, gypsies, disabled people and jews under the pretence of being the Nazi party if not it's head? Meaning what exactly? Have I ever replied to one of your posts or have you got multiple accounts? I dont recognise you? It's El Empty under a new username.
MC Prussian Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 I can't remember who TBJS is Don't worry Ken, it's an age thing.
Tielemans63 Posted 1 January 2014 Posted 1 January 2014 Your dad is a bit kinky! Growing up in the Catholic faith does that to you.
Captain... Posted 2 January 2014 Posted 2 January 2014 Yes it was meant for you. Should have quoted. I actually prefer debating with people with similar views. That is because it can be nice to debate the finer points rather than the big issue. I often feel like I already know all the arguments over a topic and it just boils down to personal opinion in the end. I wonder what your leftist anti-eu argument is? Mine would be this: One of my favourite "left wing" principles is the concept of chasing full employment as an economic goal. This is something that hasn't really been explored seriously in politics during my lifetime but I believe it was a cornerstone of labour ideology at one point. However it's basically impossible to achieve something like that whilst we are signed up to the free movement of labour treaty with the EU. We would be flooded with all the unemployed from across Europe. Depends if the goal is full employment across the EU or just in the UK. The reason why the EU is failing is that we are unable to embrace a united states of Europe mentality and still view it as how it affects the UK and not how it affects the EU as a whole. Being a part of a united and prosperous Europe should be more beneficial than being an isolated state.
ADK Posted 2 January 2014 Posted 2 January 2014 I can't see a united Europe ever working. And I'm not sure it would be a good idea anyway.
Captain... Posted 2 January 2014 Posted 2 January 2014 I can't see a united Europe ever working. And I'm not sure it would be a good idea anyway. Don't think it is the thread for that debate, but the point is for it to work all member states need to be working with the aim of a stronger Europe and not trying to compete with other EU countries, when we talk about employment the idea is that with freedom of movement and work that when one country is suffering with high unemployment and having a lean time of things, and another is experiencing a bit of a boom and has a surplus of jobs then it is very easy for people to move around and meet the demand for jobs. The problem is that won't happen due to the disparity in wages, whilst benefits and wages, expecially the minimum wage in a country like the UK are so much higher than say Romania and Bulgaria, even if there is close to full employment in Romania and a surplus of jobs finding work in the UK is still a lot more desirable. Like I said, not the thread for this.
BoneDog Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Meaning what exactly? Have I ever replied to one of your posts or have you got multiple accounts? I dont recognise you? No offence Col, I just wanted to use your 'I always said that' catchphrase Bringing Darwin into this? - I've taken you apart on the subject of evolution before (helps when you're right to start with) and will happily do so again - but tbh Evolution isn't really debated, the scientists just present the evidence, the creatards ignore it and spout bullshit until their opposition get bored and walk off. Kinda like a game of chess with a pigeon. We stick to the subject though, its you lot who veer off into irrelevancy. I don't recall that! What I think must have happened is that you mistook what was said. That is pehaps my fault for lacking sophistication in getting a point across. Or it could be the routine Darwinists failing to look at contrary evidencitis bug. When I say evolution I'm specifically meaning Darwinian evolution or the morphing of one animal into another - land mammals to whales, or apes to humans for example - and common descent. You certainly didn't take anyone apart on the matter, and neither has any scientist. By showing evidence of variation, mutations or selection you are by no means proving Darwinian evolution. I thought I'd made it clear that I know variation, selection and mutations are observable. What is also observable are the limits to which these processes work. A dog will always be a dog, and a bug will always be a bug and so on. All I took from the last debate was you pulling out old disproved 'facts' like the Miller Urey experiment and other evolution textbook 'facts' that are still in the textbooks despite being outdated theories - such as the trees of life shown in textbooks that support Darwinism, which modern biology and paleontology are disproving. The phylogenetic and molecular trees are not pointing to common descent at all, although I suspect it will be a while before the new evidence is allowed to be discussed by the Academy, because the Darwinist faith utterly depends on such outdated evidence. You say you will happily crush me on the subject again - have a crack if you like.
Samilktray Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 Forum hasnt been the same since LD3 stopped posting.
Uncle Albert Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I can't believe I even came into this thread, what a melt. Forum has been on its arse since 08-10.
Donut Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I can't believe I even came into this thread, what a melt. Forum has been on its arse since 08-10. Perhaps a Liverpool forum would suit you more?
cityfanlee23 Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 This is going to sound a little bitchy probably but wanted an honest opinion. I think I'm up to about 5000 odd posts on here and am a passionate Foxes fan despite having the wrong accent and being born on the wrong place but to parents with the right club at heart. I've lived up here and been going regularly for about 16 years now rather than the sporadic visits prior to that as I lived in the south of the Country. Anyway sometimes I feel completely ignored on here, I make points, good bad or indifferent it just seems to get passed by and ignored. So in the true vein of Babylon and others, should I just pack this place in? It seems like I'm talking to myself. I tried to suggest a Christmas get together a few weeks back but I'm guessing that already happens for those in the know and the invited few. Maybe I'm just a dick and need to **** right off. Either way Happy New Year to everyone, lets hope it sees us back in the top flight I don't ignore you, you ungrateful bastard!
Jimothy Posted 14 January 2014 Posted 14 January 2014 I can't believe I even came into this thread, what a melt. Forum has been on its arse since 08-10. And yet you still post here with some regularity. Might say something about you?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.