Online Safety Bill

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Thanks for explaining. It's a subject I'm interested in amongst other things. I contribute to a thread about Virgin Media TV, do you class that as an 'agenda' too?

Anyway, we aren't here to discuss me- play the ball not the man.

That’s a novel idea, but it ain’t going to happen on this forum. You may as well accept it!

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s a novel idea, but it ain’t going to happen on this forum. You may as well accept it!

<cough cough>

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You may try to deny the truth to suit your own political agenda and attempt to rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by trying to humiliate them, but people aren't stupid - they see what you are doing.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

We all knew what you meant, wouldn't have wasted my time explaining if I were you

This is incorrect and i'm grateful that an explanation was provided after the request.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

<cough cough>

I don't understand what you mean Hugh. Neuro diverse people understand hints, riddles etc. In order for them to understand what you want to say things have to be clear and concise (this is not the same as being rude or abrupt).

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Facilitator correction

Don't understand.

Cav.

[peanut]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This is incorrect and i'm grateful that an explanation was provided after the request.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------



I don't understand what you mean Hugh. Neuro diverse people understand hints, riddles etc. In order for them to understand what you want to say things have to be clear and concise (this is not the same as being rude or abrupt).

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Facilitator correction

Don't understand.

Cav.

Maybe just read the audience. If you're antagonizing everyone here with your views and continue polarizing yourself (You are on your own here). Then maybe it's not worth putting yourself in the firing line. Look elsewhere where there are like-minded people to converse with. It'll be good for you in the long run (and for us too). Please don't take what I've said horribly either.

If you wish you continue here, then fine by me, just don't expect anyone to agree with anything you say on this subject.

[RichardCoulter]

It's pointless talking in an echo chamber really.

People are free to disagree with the views of others and it's what makes for a good debate. As long as people are polite, understanding of the needs of others & respectful it can be enjoyable, educational and fruitful.

I don't take what you've said as being mean btw.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

This is incorrect and i'm grateful that an explanation was provided after the request.

---------- Post added at 11:02 ---------- Previous post was at 10:59 ----------



I don't understand what you mean Hugh. Neuro diverse people understand hints, riddles etc. In order for them to understand what you want to say things have to be clear and concise (this is not the same as being rude or abrupt).

---------- Post added at 11:05 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

Facilitator correction

Don't understand.

Cav.

The point I was making wasn’t aimed at you - it was in response to another poster lauding your comment "play the ball not the man", when they had recently just done the opposite, as shown in the quoted post…

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The point I was making wasn’t aimed at you - it was in response to another poster lauding your comment "play the ball not the man", when they had recently just done the opposite, as shown in the quoted post…

Oh I see, sorry, my mistake Hugh

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The point I was making wasn’t aimed at you - it was in response to another poster lauding your comment "play the ball not the man", when they had recently just done the opposite, as shown in the quoted post…

If someone is making personal comments and put-downs then such responses are inevitable. It takes two to tango.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If someone is making personal comments and put-downs then such responses are inevitable. It takes two to tango.

Pretty sure asking someone for to back up their assertions with evidence isn’t "making personal comments and put-downs"…

Paul said "I presume you have evidence to back this up" and "If you come into a topic and state "the moon is made of cheese" then you should be able to back that up if asked, its not up to others to provide "proof to the contrary" (of course, they can if they want)."

You replied with "Once again, another example of people who disagree with them hijacking your comments without providing any proof to the contrary. This is how one shuts down the discussion." and "You may try to deny the truth to suit your own political agenda and attempt to rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by ttying to humiliate them, but people aren't stupid - they see what you are doing."

If anyone in that conversation was making "personal comments and put-downs", it wasn’t Paul…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Pretty sure asking someone for to back up their assertions with evidence isn’t "making personal comments and put-downs"…

Paul said "I presume you have evidence to back this up" and "If you come into a topic and state "the moon is made of cheese" then you should be able to back that up if asked, its not up to others to provide "proof to the contrary" (of course, they can if they want)."

You replied with "Once again, another example of people who disagree with them hijacking your comments without providing any proof to the contrary. This is how one shuts down the discussion." and "You may try to deny the truth to suit your own political agenda and attempt to rubbish anyone who disagrees with you by ttying to humiliate them, but people aren't stupid - they see what you are doing."

If anyone in that conversation was making "personal comments and put-downs", it wasn’t Paul…

You are just perverse. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. If I or anyone expresses a point of view, it is not necessary to provide a link. But if you challenge that view, that is your opinion, and only becomes more credible than that if you provide a link to support that intervention.

Assuming, of course, that the link is a factual piece and not just someone else’s opinion.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are just perverse. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. If I or anyone expresses a point of view, it is not necessary to provide a link. But if you challenge that view, that is your opinion, and only becomes more credible than that if you provide a link to support that intervention.

Assuming, of course, that the link is a factual piece and not just someone else’s opinion.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. If you assert facts, or if you claim to be asserting an opinion that actually stands or falls on matters of fact, then it’s perfectly in order for someone to challenge you and ask for proof. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. The discussion can’t easily develop if all anyone does is shout conflicting opinions at one another.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are just perverse. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. If I or anyone expresses a point of view, it is not necessary to provide a link. But if you challenge that view, that is your opinion, and only becomes more credible than that if you provide a link to support that intervention.

Assuming, of course, that the link is a factual piece and not just someone else’s opinion.

So you’re saying that the post that started this discussion off was you stating an opinion/point of view, not a statement of fact?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Many Conservative ministers are frustrated by the deliberate stalling and pushback on policy issues by civil servants who are opposed to them. The government then has to take the brunt of these failures and it makes them look bad.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So you’re saying that the post that started this discussion off was you stating an opinion/point of view, not a statement of fact?

But it is a fact, and I provided a link. If you’re disputing that as being true, then provide a link of your own instead of interrupting the flow of debate.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. If you assert facts, or if you claim to be asserting an opinion that actually stands or falls on matters of fact, then it’s perfectly in order for someone to challenge you and ask for proof. This is a discussion forum, not a soapbox. The discussion can’t easily develop if all anyone does is shout conflicting opinions at one another.

https://otherweb.com/n/aBs4PuBS

The latest example of Conservative frustration with civil servants.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

https://otherweb.com/n/aBs4PuBS

The latest example of Conservative frustration with civil servants.

No its not, nothing in that article mentions "Conservative frustration" with civil servants.

It also has nothing at all to do with the "Online Safety Bill", the supposed topic of this thread.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

aBs4PuBS[/url]

The latest example of Conservative frustration with civil servants.

If you get rid of all the Eurocrats OB, then you become more dependant on the British Beuraucrats. Hence the increase in numbers. Your choice, as ever.