Eaarth

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

The entire content of it is a highly partisan piece, extremely one-sided.

No - nothing to do with the politics. Its just bollocks.

EDIT - I thought this thread was dead, could it be - please ?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

No - nothing to do with the politics. Its just bollocks.

EDIT - I thought this thread was dead, could it be - please ?

Some folks want to advance an ideological agenda. Isn't that what is keeping it alive?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Some folks want to advance an ideological agenda. Isn't that what is keeping it alive?

I suggested a thread on politics, which could be adapted perhaps to ideology, so the debates could go there.

The "collective" (oooh, socialist or perhaps democratic ?) view of the membership who replied was that this would be a bad idea.

I agree with the collective, or the majority. Whatever.

So no, its just bollocks keeping it alive.

Thread please die, die now.

Or someone please kill it.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Some folks want to advance an ideological agenda. Isn't that what is keeping it alive?

Douple post - if you two want to, take it to PMs. I've had really good debates there

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Douple post - if you two want to, take it to PMs. I've had really good debates there

Let's have this understood, and not pretend the extension of this thread is caused by anything other than what it is.

Frank posted the latest Yahoo "News" piece, and it is pure editorial propaganda, written to advance an ideological agenda. The disclaimer of the piece even admits that.

"I" am NOT the one who is continuing this thread. I didn't post the provocative piece, Frank did. I am merely responding to what amounts to this renewed 'stirring of the pot', by pointing that out.

If you don't like it, take it up with Frank. But your chronic whining to the moderators to close a thread (seen here and in other threads) because you are disturbed by its content seems childish. If you can't handle a discussion it's time to stop complaining about it and simply refrain from reading it.

[Arragonis]

Thyme, you seem to read more into my posting than was intended. You and Frank have had long running debates on several subjects on several threads now - maybe you could go via PM which was my idea. You like to engage in this. I'm not sure where I attacked you.

I have asked about this thread being closed. I did suggest elsewhere that we have a place where these arguments could go and I would be happy to debate you in a none "chronic whining" way but the majority of the board suggested not.

So I respect that. Maybe you could to.

I've come to the conclusion that in fact the key issue is you and your ideas around debate. It seems that anyone suggesting anything outside your tiny and enclosed envelope of belief becomes someone who is just engaged in "chronic whining", whereas Frank just puts it out there "Frankly".

So to be honest, just bog off - there's a good chap.

(BTW you can tap a reply, but being 9 hours ahead, I'm off to watch Spooks and sleep - enjoy )

[Frank Lee]

Thyme's been on "ignore" for quite some time so I don't know what he's said, although I can guess and probably be spot on.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Thyme's been on "ignore" for quite some time so I don't know what he's said, although I can guess and probably be spot on.

Who do you think you are kidding, Frank?

If you hadn't been reading the posts you wouldn't have responded to it.

If you are going to play "agent provocateur" at least own up to it. You revived the thread so you are to be held accountable for doing so.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Thyme, you seem to read more into my posting than was intended. You and Frank have had long running debates on several subjects on several threads now - maybe you could go via PM which was my idea. You like to engage in this. I'm not sure where I attacked you.

I have asked about this thread being closed. I did suggest elsewhere that we have a place where these arguments could go and I would be happy to debate you in a none "chronic whining" way but the majority of the board suggested not.

So I respect that. Maybe you could to.

I've come to the conclusion that in fact the key issue is you and your ideas around debate. It seems that anyone suggesting anything outside your tiny and enclosed envelope of belief becomes someone who is just engaged in "chronic whining", whereas Frank just puts it out there "Frankly".

So to be honest, just bog off - there's a good chap.

(BTW you can tap a reply, but being 9 hours ahead, I'm off to watch Spooks and sleep - enjoy )

Thyme, you seem to read more into my posting than was intended.

If you are going to make statements such as this I will demand an explanation, without which your statement has no credibility.

You and Frank have had long running debates on several subjects on several threads now - maybe you could go via PM which was my idea.

Maybe I don’t want to and I simply won’t. Too bad for you.

You like to engage in this.

That is only your opinion. I can and will respond to any provocation in a civil manner. I may or may not like to do so. You cannot be the judge of that. However, you will not prohibit me from doing so.

I'm not sure where I attacked you.

No one said you attacked me, nor have I attacked anyone.

I have asked about this thread being closed. I did suggest elsewhere that we have a place where these arguments could go and I would be happy to debate you in a none "chronic whining" way but the majority of the board suggested not.

Perhaps they are wiser and more tolerant than you are to let it unfold in a public forum. I certainly think that is the situation here.

So I respect that. Maybe you could to.

Oh, I do, but once there is dissent in the discussion you want it NOT to be in public view. Only you are calling for censure and an end to any response made to a recent provocation. You call for an end to extension of the thread, but you only complain about MY response - never the provocative post that revived it.

I've come to the conclusion that in fact the key issue is you and your ideas around debate.

Yep. I disagree, therefore in your mind I AM “the issue” (or the problem). But you cannot silence me for responding, only the moderators can, by locking down the thread. And unfortunately for you, they are not as disturbed by dissent and discussion as you obviously are, so all you can do is continue whining, moaning and petitioning them in the hope that they will cave in to your demands, just as a petulant child would

It seems that anyone suggesting anything outside your tiny and enclosed envelope of belief becomes someone who is just engaged in "chronic whining", whereas Frank just puts it out there "Frankly".

I think that is known on e-mail lists such as this as an “attaboy” -and a call for support, whithout which you are defenseless.

So to be honest, just bog off - there's a good chap.

Your saying “just bog off” is the equivalent in American English of saying “bug off” (also Brit in origin), or being just shy of saying go “f--k off”.

(BTW you can tap a reply, but being 9 hours ahead, I'm off to watch Spooks and sleep - enjoy )

My response to you in trying to keep it civil (or exactly on the same level of insult as you have invoked), is this: “Same to YOU, fella!” You can "enjoy" reading this tomorrow morning, if you haven't already.

“(T)here's a good chap.”

When all else fails, you become arrogant and condescending.

Your name befits you well: arrogant, antagonistic, Arragonis.