Arguing The Toss

[Pete Dickey]

So what are we going to call the new forum? Perhaps "Pussycats Discussion Group" or "Harsh Words Training Forum". Even "Polite Users Only" would be appropriate with an ageement to use only prose replies and not bad mannered replies which dissect previous postings point by point.

 

Pete

[JimLucas]

...an ageement to use only prose replies...

Seems arbitrary to me. In protest, I submit the following (put a tune to it, if you like):

 

...."Göran's Visit to Limerick" .

 

Some complain that I constantly carp

About buttons "too small" and "too sharp".

But just like Ralph Nader,

I think I'm a crusader,

Which is why I relentlessly harp.

 

I say it's a serious scandal;

Uncle Charles' design can't hold a candle.

Yet slavish "tradition"

And outright sedition,

Keeps makers from making my handle.

 

...and not bad mannered replies which dissect previous postings point by point.

But well-mannered dissections and replies which ignore the points of the previous postings to go off in completely different directions are OK?

Edited January 13, 2004 by JimLucas

[Pete Dickey]

(Jim: But well-mannered dissections and replies which ignore the points of the previous postings to go off in completely different directions are OK?)

 

 

 

I see from the mode of your answer

Which I found quite pleasant and meek

You think Goran nought but a chancer

But you replied to me tongue-in-cheek

 

Well whatever direction we're taking

In our postings to what and wherever

So long as we're plain and not boasting

And not rattling mere detail forever

 

Now however you want to present it

The sum of folk's knowledge is grand

A good posting will not be resented

And may even get a big hand.

 

 

(well it makes you put your brain into gear before you put your fingers in motion)

 

Pete

[Clive Thorne]

Dave,

 

Your ideas on stopping the thread Hijacking seem good to me, but unfortunately it only takes two people to keep an argument going, and we seem to have at least two who are willing to do that!.

 

It seems such a shame because 'ordinary' members will be discouraged from starting threads or contributing from threads for fear of creating another battle field. The other sad thing is that even within some of these ding dongs there are some interesting points made which get lost in the noise.

 

Thread drift itself doesn't bother me too much, because it can be a natural progression. After all if you were sitting in a pub chatting it would be natural for the conversation to go off at tangents. Its the descent into a two person war of aggression that annoys me.

 

 

Perhaps we should implement the 'pub chat' forum I half suggested, where thread drift is allowed but aggressive arguing isn't.

 

Regards,

 

Clive

 

PS: Apologies folks, but I don't do poetry!

 

Edited for spelling

Edited January 14, 2004 by Clive Thorne

[JimLucas]

Thread drift itself doesn't bother me too much, because it can be a natural progression. After all if you were sitting in a pub chatting it would be natural for the conversation to go off at tangents.

But we're not sitting in a pub.

 

And unlike in a pub, some of us occasionally look back at things said earlier,... because we can. This is much easier if the title of a Topic is at least vaguely connected to the subject matter. Do you consider the titles to be irrelevant?

 

Perhaps we should implement the 'pub chat' forum I half suggested, where thread drift is allowed but aggressive arguing isn't.

"Allowed"?!! The only mechanism for allowing or disallowing anything here is if Paul S. decides to interfere directly, which he is generally disinclined to do. (And if he did actively interfere, it probably wouldn't be the way you would, if you were in charge.)

 

PS: Apologies folks, but I don't do poetry!

"Apologies"? For doing us a favor?

[Clive Thorne]

Perhaps we should implement the 'pub chat' forum I half suggested, where thread drift is allowed but aggressive arguing isn't.

"Allowed"?!! The only mechanism for allowing or disallowing anything here is if Paul S. decides to interfere directly, which he is generally disinclined to do. (And if he did actively interfere, it probably wouldn't be the way you would, if you were in charge.)

 

Jim,

 

I was hoping, perhaps naively, that if the introduction to the forum specifically requested that people refrain from aggressive arguing, then that would be respected! Perhaps this is hoping for too much.

 

Clive.

[Clive Thorne]

Thread drift itself doesn't bother me too much, because it can be a natural progression. After all if you were sitting in a pub chatting it would be natural for the conversation to go off at tangents.

But we're not sitting in a pub.

 

And unlike in a pub, some of us occasionally look back at things said earlier,... because we can. This is much easier if the title of a Topic is at least vaguely connected to the subject matter. Do you consider the titles to be irrelevant?

 

[

Jim,

 

I'm not arguing with what you're saying, I was just stating that I personally find the aggressive argueing far more irritating than the subject drift. Others will think differently, and who am I to stop them? ... after all they are perfectly entitled to be wrong! (that is a JOKE by the way !!!).

 

I suppose that I was also making the point that thread drift is a natural tendency. It is not necessarily a deliberate attemp to Hijack a thread and take it in a different direction, although that obviously happens as well.

 

 

The idea of splitting off into new threads when a subject drifts is fine, but deciding exactly when to start a new thread would be difficult. If one is started for every minor deviation then we'd end up with a proliferation of near empty threads, if it's left too late then we get a thread that bears no relationship to its title, or the initiators original intent. Again every one will have a different idea as to when to make the move, and as you rightly say, only paul S can enforce such a step.

 

Clive.

Edited January 14, 2004 by Clive Thorne