Coronavirus

[Bentley Bullet]

Skippy, that's true in that we are independent of each other, but we are not a group! That doesn't mean we don't agree with each other often, it simply means we don't need each other as a unit to support the battles against your little lefty clique.

Your little lefty clique, on the other hand, does!

[SydneyRover]

And I thought trump was mad.

[belton rover]

Careful Belton bb doesn't like people piling in it's tribal or cavalry or something or other

I have little choice but to ‘pile in’, Sydney. I’m still trying to get my head around the idea that no one is playing political point scoring games with the pandemic.
Unfortunately, I can’t engage with the person who made that statement because he’s not talking to me. Again.
Too busy telling others to grow up, I imagine.

[SydneyRover]

I find it strange that the few that cannot get their heads collectively or individually around having a reasonable conversation on the forum appear to be yourself bb and a couple of others, the rest of us seem to get along quite ok. I don't expect everyone to agree on all things and wouldn't expect nor want it.

[Ldr]

Got my vaccination today, watch this space....

[SydneyRover]

better with it than not ldr, I get the flu vaccine each year and pneumonia vaccine this year.

[belton rover]

I find it strange that the few that cannot get their heads collectively or individually around having a reasonable conversation on the forum appear to be yourself bb and a couple of others, the rest of us seem to get along quite ok. I don't expect everyone to agree on all things and wouldn't expect nor want it.

That just isn’t true (speaking only for myself, of course). I made an absolutely genuine statement on here apologising for any part I may have played in this forum becoming what it has.
I was and still am determined not to continue that.
I honestly feel that recently (and again, I am only speaking for myself) that things on that score have really improved - to an extent.
It’s interesting that you mention me and BB by name and anyone else as ‘others’.

Would you mind naming the ‘couple of others’ who can’t get their heads round reasonable conversation? Just so I can try to understand what you mean?

[andy didcott]

About time this virus buggered off.

[SydneyRover]

I find it strange that the few that cannot get their heads collectively or individually around having a reasonable conversation on the forum appear to be yourself bb and a couple of others, the rest of us seem to get along quite ok. I don't expect everyone to agree on all things and wouldn't expect nor want it.

That just isn’t true (speaking only for myself, of course). I made an absolutely genuine statement on here apologising for any part I may have played in this forum becoming what it has.
I was and still am determined not to continue that.
I honestly feel that recently (and again, I am only speaking for myself) that things on that score have really improved - to an extent.
It’s interesting that you mention me and BB by name and anyone else as ‘others’.

Would you mind naming the ‘couple of others’ who can’t get their heads round reasonable conversation? Just so I can try to understand what you mean?

No, as I don't think it will help, but some do appear to want to argue or chip away rather than debate, everyone goes over the top occasionally and I'm no different on that score. Robust debate shouldn't be stifled, provided it's a debate with a purpose and hopefully an end. I'd rather have a debate or discussion with you than a meaningless argument so if it helps I will withdraw my comment about you and apologise.

I find the political debates here interesting and instructive and remind me of how differently we all see things, but they do involve passion, even so shouldn't involve ad hominem attacks.

[belton rover]

I find it strange that the few that cannot get their heads collectively or individually around having a reasonable conversation on the forum appear to be yourself bb and a couple of others, the rest of us seem to get along quite ok. I don't expect everyone to agree on all things and wouldn't expect nor want it.

That just isn’t true (speaking only for myself, of course). I made an absolutely genuine statement on here apologising for any part I may have played in this forum becoming what it has.
I was and still am determined not to continue that.
I honestly feel that recently (and again, I am only speaking for myself) that things on that score have really improved - to an extent.
It’s interesting that you mention me and BB by name and anyone else as ‘others’.

Would you mind naming the ‘couple of others’ who can’t get their heads round reasonable conversation? Just so I can try to understand what you mean?

No, as I don't think it will help, but some do appear to want to argue or chip away rather than debate, everyone goes over the top occasionally and I'm no different on that score. Robust debate shouldn't be stifled, provided it's a debate with a purpose and hopefully an end. I'd rather have a debate or discussion with you than a meaningless argument so if it helps I will withdraw my comment about you and apologise.

I find the political debates here interesting and instructive and remind me of how differently we all see things, but they do involve passion, even so shouldn't involve ad hominem attacks.

I agree with your comments about discussion Sydney.

It’s interesting though that you think it okay to name BB and I, but not the other ‘couple’ because it ‘won’t help’.

I can only assume why that is.

[Filo]

I find it strange that the few that cannot get their heads collectively or individually around having a reasonable conversation on the forum appear to be yourself bb and a couple of others, the rest of us seem to get along quite ok. I don't expect everyone to agree on all things and wouldn't expect nor want it.

That just isn’t true (speaking only for myself, of course). I made an absolutely genuine statement on here apologising for any part I may have played in this forum becoming what it has.
I was and still am determined not to continue that.
I honestly feel that recently (and again, I am only speaking for myself) that things on that score have really improved - to an extent.
It’s interesting that you mention me and BB by name and anyone else as ‘others’.

Would you mind naming the ‘couple of others’ who can’t get their heads round reasonable conversation? Just so I can try to understand what you mean?

No, as I don't think it will help, but some do appear to want to argue or chip away rather than debate, everyone goes over the top occasionally and I'm no different on that score. Robust debate shouldn't be stifled, provided it's a debate with a purpose and hopefully an end. I'd rather have a debate or discussion with you than a meaningless argument so if it helps I will withdraw my comment about you and apologise.

I find the political debates here interesting and instructive and remind me of how differently we all see things, but they do involve passion, even so shouldn't involve ad hominem attacks.

I agree with your comments about discussion Sydney.

It’s interesting though that you think it okay to name BB and I, but not the other ‘couple’ because it ‘won’t help’.

I can only assume why that is.

Did you not read the part where he withdrew his comment about you?

[SydneyRover]

Assume away Belton, you appear to be a regular on the forum if you can't see I can't help you.

[belton rover]

Filo, I actually didn’t see it on the first read. Thanks for pointing it out.
Sydney, I apologise for missing that part of your response and accept all that you said.

I do see it, I really do. And I think everyone else does too. If they are totally honest with themselves.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

I am not interested in discussing with you, because you habitually and obsessively misrepresent what people write. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to be gained from discussing anything with someone who does that, and refuses to accept they do that, or retracts it when it is unequivocally pointed out to them.

It's a black hole, where words are distorted to mean what you choose them to mean. I have stupidly allowed myself to get dragged in too many times, but the last one the other day was the final straw. If you are unable to accept that you are doing this, I do seriously worry about you and I will not be part of it.

That last exchange went precisely like this.

1) I was discussing a topic with someone else.

2) You joined in, and central to your point was a total misrepresentation of what someone else had said.

3) I asked you to substantiate that.

4) You launched into an extended diatribe about how I had poisoned the atmosphere.

That, more or less, is a template for pretty much every interaction we've had, this past six months. Once would be annoying. Twice would be bizarre. Eight or ten times is actually very unsettling. It won't be happening again.

[belton rover]

Belton.

I am not interested in discussing with you, because you habitually and obsessively misrepresent what people write. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever to be gained from discussing anything with someone who does that, and refuses to accept they do that, or retracts it when it is unequivocally pointed out to them.

It's a black hole, where words are distorted to mean what you choose them to mean. I have stupidly allowed myself to get dragged in too many times, but the last one the other day was the final straw. If you are unable to accept that you are doing this, I do seriously worry about you and I will not be part of it.

So you keep saying.
You are wrong in just about everything you say about me. It’s your opinion, but wrong. Dressing it up as fact doesn’t make it fact.

Please, either accept what I say or, once and for all, do not engage in any discussion with me, either through current threads or by continuously regurgitating old conversations.

But bear in mind, whatever you decide, I will continue to be a part of this forum, and if that means I comment on something you might write in an open debate, then so be it.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

You seem.incapble of differentiating between opinion and objective fact. That's another regular theme.

My issue is NOT about differences of opinion. It is about you,consistently reading what people have written in black and white, and insisting they have written something else. Over and over again.

I have provided copious evidence of you misrepresenting.

You have refused EVER to engage with it. You insist it is a difference of opinion. It is simply impossible to discuss with you if you do that. If I say something clearly and you respond to something I haven't said, what on earth is the point of the discussion.

Let me make it simple.

Do you accept that, in our last interaction, you were categorically  wrong to say, "It’s a very clear point, Billy. Wilts asked me if I had evidence to support my personal experiences, and than pushed for further clarification that I had no evidence."?

Just a simple yes or no.

[belton rover]

Billy. Thanks for making it simple. I really appreciate it.
I addressed that point to Wilts. After all, it was about a conversation between me and him. I wouldn’t have thought Wilts needed a spokesperson.

So I suppose the simplest answer is yes, I already have. Just not on bended knee to you.

Now, let ME make this simple for YOU

Are you prepared, like me, to try to ignore our past differences and move on, like everybody else I have had, shall we say, overheated discussion with in the past, seem to be able to do?

A simple yes or no.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Belton.

I truly do not understand this. You continue to misrepresent and then say can we move on.

Let me be really clear and simple again.

YOU wrote to ME with that misrepresentation.

I asked you to substantiate what YOU wrote to ME. You refused to do so, claiming you could "see what I was up to".

You are now saying I was at fault for getting involved in the discussion.

Do you get the problem I have with that as an approach?

I am, as I have always said, happy to discuss anything with anyone who discusses sensibly. But if you're still coming in from this angle, then I will not be discussing anything with you. Because you are still doing the same thing.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ! I've just noticed the "bended knee" comment. All makes sense now!

[belton rover]

I take it that’s a ‘no’, then?

[belton rover]

And I never mentioned you being ‘at fault’

[BillyStubbsTears]

And I never mentioned you being ‘at fault’

No. My mistake. You expressed surprise at my needing to get involved.

See! It's really easy!

[belton rover]

Christ! I've just noticed the "bended knee" comment. All makes sense now!

Thank goodness for that - finally!

[BillyStubbsTears]

And THAT is why I really don't want anything to do with you Belton.

You have convinced yourself that I'm in this to belittle people, to embarrass them, to demand submission. You've used those words, or words meaning the same thing over and over again. I assume that's why you reckoned you "could see what I was doing" the other night. I can only assume you think that admitting that you have made mistakes in exchanges with me is a sign of failure or weakness. I simply cannot see any other reason why you would refuse to do so when it was pointed out to you. Unless you were deliberately trying to cause trouble, which I genuinely don't think you are.


What I'm actually doing is trying to have grown-up, evidence-based discussions, in which my interpretation might be right and might be wrong. You, however, in every single interaction, are viewing things through this lens that I am on some sort of power trip and only interested in being right at other people's expense.

I wish you well but while ever you're coming from that angle, I will not be responding to anything you write.

[belton rover]

I form an opinion on the words I read. Of course some words can be misinterpreted, but that’s often  just as much the fault of the writer as the reader.

You constantly use belittling language towards many posters. Justified by you because of your frustration that people disagree with you, or don’t debate on the same intellectual or moral or experienced level, or solely from the left (I am as certain as I possibly can be that if I had a Labour membership card in my wallet, you wouldn’t think of me as you do).

Now, that might not be who you really are, but it’s all you give on here.
Maybe you’re a keyboard warrior who sees this as a bit of escapism.
Maybe you are a narcissistic control freak.
Maybe you are misunderstood because of false expression in your writing.
Maybe you’re a WUM

You can control who you are perceived to be on here, just like I can. I’ve made mistakes on here in the past which I have tried to address. I think I’ve allowed myself to be perceived as something I’m not. Something I am trying to get back on track.

If you really don’t like it that people think you are something you are not, then do something about it (and let’s be honest, It’s not just me). If you don’t care what anyone thinks, then continue to fill your boots.

[Ldr]

Got my vaccination today, watch this space....

18 mins from parking up to leaving site, well oiled machine

[ravenrover]

Where was the location, and don't say in your arm

[Ldr]

Freeman Hospital, Newcastle

[BillyStubbsTears]

Nice one Ldr. Watch out for Bill Gates using wi-fi to make you piss your bed.

[Filo]

Nice one Ldr. Watch out for Bill Gates using wi-fi to make you piss your bed.

Or wait til you get an update and you’re left hanging for hours on end