BS: How to have a civil debate

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:04 AM

After club we tried the Buck, the Dolphin and then the Endeavour.

More of the beer festival later

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:16 AM

The validity of views is not in question. I believe I have already said that, apart from some obvious obnoxious views, peoples opinions should be respected. I am not going to get into specifics as this is not what this thread is about. The point about being unable to make a reasoned reply has already been addressed. There is only so many times that a person will try reasoning with the unreasonable. At that point the reasoned responses have all been made and the person giving them has already proven the point. Being unable to give a reasoned response and being unwilling to bang your head on a wall any longer are two entirely different things.

I agree that outrageous lies have no place in civil debate but all I have seen on these debates are distortions of truth, manipulation of statistics and misleading statements. These are things that all politicians do and seem to be the accepted norm amongst many posters on here. Libel is a different matter and needs to be addressed in a court of law. I suspect a legal expert would reject any of the claims of defamation from here so, until such a time as a case is proven, I can only assume that this is another of those misleading statements.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:21 AM

Raggytash, could you please explain the purpose of your last post?

To me it seems to break the flow of the discussion, for no apparent reason.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:39 AM

Leading by example is a good maxim that is often broken. I had a mentor who used to say 'Do as I say, not as I do', which is, in my opinion, the next best thing. I seriously doubt that anyone involved in this debate has never cast a stone but that is beside the point anyway. We are talking about how we should have a civil debate, not what has happened before. I will continue to be civil or to take the piss as circumstances dictate. I do not hold myself up as a role model to anyone here and the fact remains that I have never tried to insist to anyone that my opinion is the only valid one, no matter how much I know it to be true. It is my choice to respect some views and reject others and that is often as much about how the argument is made as the opinion itself. Whether anyone learns anything from what I say matters little but I can honestly say that I am far more inclined to accept the opinions of those who do not insist that they are right than the views of those who cannot see that there are other possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:48 AM

I have already said I have seen the distortions of truth, manipulation of statistics and misleading statements that politicians use all the time but do not believe they are outrageous lies. They are merely mechanisms which are used in debates, civil or otherwise, to direct attention to a particular aspect of the facts while astutely ignoring other relevant circumstances. Everyone involved here has used these tools to a greater or lesser extent. Libel, slander and defamation of character are legal terms best left to those who know what they are talking about. I cannot say whether anything said has been libellous because I am not a legal expert and I suggest that other people follow suit.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:50 AM

Repeated, empty accusations of libel are useless. Telling people they have no right to comment, similar. Telling me that I've wriggled out of a question that I didn't know I'd been asked, silly. These are all far worse interruptions to civil debate than Raggytash and his pleasant, beery diversions.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:56 AM

I know the Dolphin well. Mrs G had a lovely bowl of soup in there once and we keep visiting but, alas, it has never been the same. I can place The Endeavour but have not been in. Can't place the Buck though - Is it once of the two at the seaward end of the old town, past the bottom of the steps?

Do please let us know more. In particular what involvement you had in making beer (Unless I did imagine that bit!)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 05:08 AM

I confess. I once called Steve Shaw a Muppet.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 05:51 AM

I am a muppet though.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 06:02 AM

I like the Muppets, especially Animal.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 06:04 AM

Mrs Steve thinks I'm an animal as well.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 06:13 AM

Too much information Steve :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 06:24 AM

Mna, mna, do-do-do-do-do

I think that, in general, the behaviour on this thread has been very civil. There has been the odd exception but that is only to be expected. I would say we probably deserve a pat on the back but it may be misconstrued :-)

Has anyone learned anything? If so, do you want to share? I can start the ball rolling by saying that I am hoping to make knee-jerk posts a thing of the past. It seems far better to consider what you are going to put and think about it more. If nothing else, it can make the insults more devastating ;-) I probably did know that already but must thank Steve for making the comment about this luxury being available to us here and we should be taking full advantage of it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 06:27 AM

BTW - Message to any mods interested. Thanks for staying with us and doing any policing required on this thread with no disruption. Have any of you any comments on how it went and did you get any new ideas for helping better the forum in the future?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:33 AM

Then your man is perfectly free to pursue it. But there is really is no point in his burbling on about it here all the time.

As for insults, Dave, I'm practising turning them more into barbs. They don't like it up 'em! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:52 AM

"had he or she read earlier posts they would have found that I have stated quite clear and logical reasons why abuse or incivility is sometimes necessary. I suggest that a measure of civility would be having read what has gone on earlier in the thread before raising questions that have already been answered."

It's a long thread, so I haven't checked, but what I understood you to say was that there are circumstances when, being human (as most of us are, I surmise), we allow ourselves to make those kind of replies, but that it's not really the right thing to do. I can't recall any clear and logical reasons why it might actually be necessary.

I would completely agree with that. I cannot conceive of any circumstances where abuse or incivility is actually the right response. That includes circumstances where we are up against bigotry, or verbal or even physical abuse. But of cours, we are human. Pope Francis was criticised recently when he said if someone insulted his mother he'd probably punch him, and I imagine most of us might do the same.

But I think that in a setting where we do not have to respond instantly, a greater degree of self-control should be expected than in a face to face confrontation.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

Going no further than the opening post, man means person. Only by default does it imply male. Changing manhole cover or chairman to personhole cover or chairperson is both ignorant & redundant. It's redundant because it's unnecessary. It's ignorant because doing it only shows you don't understand the language you speak.

I should, at this juncture, point out that I have a little understanding of Anglo-Saxon, which is the foundation of English. More importantly, I once met the author Kathleen Herbert, who has rather more. It was HER that that pointed this out to me. Man means 'person'; nothing more, nothing less; properly, it should be qualified. Inevitably, though, people get lazy, and then misunderstand...

It should be "Mr Chairman", "Madame Chairman" (or whatever gender-definitive pronoun floats your boat! ;-) ). As she told me, wife is merely a shortening of "wife-man". Wife being pronounced wee-fah - the man i.e person that weaves. And etcetera.

All hail to Dave for trying to persuade random bunches of pixels to behave nicely towards each other. Sadly, it has about as much chance of success as my preceding... :-/

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 09:01 AM

Then your man is perfectly free to pursue it. But there is really is no point in his burbling on about it here all the time.

You said that Ake's accusation was empty. That means you are saying that it was untrue. Why don't you ask your man if he made that accusation or not.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 09:21 AM

As has been discussed and is referenced in the opening link, Guest, the 'he said this, he said that' argument is pretty futile. If someone believes that they have been libelled they can take legal action. If, for whatever reason, they choose not to do so then there is little point in repeating the accusation. That is what I understood by it being empty but, as you have demonstrated, not everyone sees it that way. The English language is very flexible and, in this environment in particular, it is often difficult to glean the true meaning of what someone is saying. It would take a legal expert to compose a truly unambiguous statement at times and even they get it wrong! But that does bring us back to legalities. No-one on here so far has admitted to being such a legal expert so, unless you are and can let us know whether there was indeed any libellous rhetoric, we can only speculate. That does not do the discussion or anyone one it any good in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 09:23 AM

One practical suggestion, which can avoid unfortunate misunderstanding. When we respond to a post it is advisable to be specific about which post we are responding to. there can always be intervening posts.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 09:33 AM

It is not acceptable to allow slander and libel against an individual and just say they should go to law.

How is that a legitimate part of discussion?

There should be sanctions and consequences for anyone who attacks a member with gratuitous, unsubstantiated accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 09:41 AM

Not much beer making Dave, we did a brew on Friday morning but I had to leave before the process was complete. Basically 87 kilos of malt, a touch of copper sulphide to adjust the water ph and sparge that for a couple of hours, then transfer the mash to the copper and add the hops, boil that for a while, add some final hops and transfer the wort to the fermentation tank, adjust the temperature and add the yeast and allow to ferment for 4 days before transferring to the racking tank ready for barrelling. All good clean fun.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:05 AM

Please stop stirring, Greg.

So you're innocently "commenting" and I'm "stirring", Kevin?

Fascinating.

I seem to recall something from the dim past about beams and eyes.......

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:05 AM

Sounds great, Raggy. I must get to more beer festivals but, as they say, work is the curse of the drinking classes :-)

Slander and libel is not acceptable but, not being a legal expert, I cannot comment on whether such an act was committed. The point is, if a comment is defamatory, one has a choice. Either defend it in a court of law or robustly disprove the allegation amongst your peers. Just crying 'libel' is no defence, no matter how many times it is said. Besides, if your family and friends know the truth and it does not affect your real life in any way, what does it matter?

The rules of Mudcat debates are what they are. They have been discussed at length and I think we all agree that they are Max's business. This means that, regardless of how anyone feels about it, there are no sanctions for alleged defamation against either an individual or against a whole section of society. Some may not like parts of that but if sanctions are to be applied for attacks on individual members they should also be applied for attacks of minority groups. In fairness it should be applied to all or none.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:16 AM

I can't recall any clear and logical reasons why it might actually be necessary.

Yes, you are right, Kevin. My apologies. The clear and logical point was that there are times when reasoning just does not work and I actually gave a choice there - Either walk away or let your feelings be known. Why some people make one choice and not another is not logical and often unclear but to let, for instance, bigotry, stand and not do anything about it is a very difficult thing to do. So, clear and logical was the wrong choice of words. There are times when no amount of reason or logic will work. In those circumstances it may not be necessary to resort to invective but it is sometimes right. In my opinion that is.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:38 AM

Slander and libel is not acceptable but, not being a legal expert, I cannot comment on whether such an act was committed.

You do not need to be a legal expert to recognise an unsubstantiated accusation.
If I am accused of beating my wife or mistreating my dog, how can I "robustly disprove the allegation amongst your peers?"

If Mudcat does allow unsubstantiated allegations, we at least can show our own disapproval of such behaviour.
I have and I do.
Will you join me when it next happens Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:44 AM

Either walk away or let your feelings be known.

Are you not capable of letting your feelings be known without resorting to abuse and incivility?
I am, and most people on here seem to manage it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:58 AM

I tried one beer from the Allgate Brewery in Wigan. It's most charming name was Edith & Mabel. Not a bad drop either hints of Elderflower and Citrus.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:00 AM

Nowadays, my answer to rudeness is to withdraw from engagement with those who offend me. I regard ignoring someone who tries to provoke me as being far more insulting than calling them 'wanker' or 'thick cunt'.

There are a couple of pieces of work on this forum whom I hold, for various reasons, in the highest contempt. I try steadfastly to ignore anything and everything they say - far more satisfying than engaging in school-yard name-calling and, as a bonus, they are denied any satisfaction they may have gained from such an exchange of insults.

But, it's each to his own...

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:00 AM

I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not. Nor can anyone except the person against whom the allegation is made and, if it is true, the person making it. We only have one persons word against anothers. We do not have all the facts, which is why I suggest leaving it to people who know what they are talking about. I will not take sides in those circumstances.

I can, and often do, let my feelings known in a civil manner. Conversely, there are times when I feel, rightly or wrongly, that the uncivil route is the correct one. That is my prerogative and while we may ask people to behave in a civil manner, as we are doing on this thread, we cannot always enforce it. Show disapproval as much as you like but, like this debate, it is pretty pointless.

Far better to discuss things that really matter like the weather and beer.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:02 AM

And guitars.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:06 AM

IMO, If an honest comment is made against a person who uses a pseudonym, and that pseudo-person has an opportunity to correct the record, I suspect the success of a slander legal action would be limited (in most countries). If the impacted person does not feel it is worthwhile to persue outside Mudcat- it would be their choice (so be it).

Outside of that, IMO, it just seems "creepy" when Mudcatters move outside the community discussion to make personal comments about another member. IMO, this should not be actions that are necessary, nor encouraged. That being said, I see no positive point in folks making negative comments about any group of people.

However, as Steve noted, the Ake case seems to have been discussed in detail before, and, while it may be significant to raise, dwelling on it here does not seem to add much to the discussion at hand. Similarly, dwelling on ongoing disputes between two posters, or among posting teams seems to be mostly a fruitless pursuit.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:07 AM

But, it's each to his own...

Perfect BWM. If everyone had that attitude there would be far fewer arguments. Very few views are ever entirely correct or incorrect. There are always grey areas which can be used as a basis for discussion or for finding common ground. Which is what it should be all about but there are occasions on which I cannot see any common ground at all. I put it down as partly my failing but when the other party cannot see it may be partly their failing too I do tend to get annoyed. But, it's each to his own... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:17 AM

The problems with having civil debates with some people (not mentioning any names) is that those who complain the loudest about "abuse and incivility" are, more often that not, the most abusive and uncivil of us all.
If only we could debate to genuinely exchange ides, and not to "win" glittering prizes, eh?
('course I mean you - whoever you are)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:40 AM

At least you could never accuse me of that Jim.
I wonder who you did mean.

Dave,
I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not.

Of course you can!
Suppose you were accused of child abuse.
Unless the accuser produced court reports or some other evidence, it would be an unsubstantiated accusation, but hard for you to disprove it?
And, why should you have to?

I would not approve os someone doing that to you and would make my feelings known.
I am disappointed that you would not do the same yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:41 AM

Keep it factual and impersonal or say "This is my opinion" in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:44 AM

Sorry, small error that might be taken as deliberate.

At least you could never accuse me of that Jim.
I wonder who you did mean.

Dave,I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not.

Of course you can!
Suppose you were accused of child abuse.
Unless the accuser produced court reports or some other evidence, it would be an unsubstantiated accusation, but hard for you to disprove it.
And, why should you have to?

I would not approve os someone doing that to you and would make my feelings known.
I am disappointed that you would not do the same yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:47 AM

"I wonder who you did mean."
I wonder!!
Whoever it is - if the cap fits.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:08 PM

More correctly, Dave, most views are subjective - "My opinion...". Very few are objective; "The fact is..."; even when facts are involved (facts are often subject to interpretation, unless we're talking plain science which, strangely, rarely crops up here! ;-) ).

The real problem is that Mudcat suffers as the rest of the internet does. People treat it as a conversation. It isn't. There is no body language, no tone of voice. Emoticons do not properly replace facial expression (even if people remember to use them & agree on their interpretation). No-one takes their teeth home in a paper bag.

The reality is that Mudcat & all forums are a letter, not a conversation. A reality that very few people recognise, because communication is so fast. As fast as... a conversation. If you actually talked to the bloke down the pub the way you do here... Well, frankly, you wouldn't, and if you did, 99 out of a hundred, he wouldn't take you seriously, because he could see that that wasn't you meant.

Keith is probably a very nice chap. He has his opinions. Ake is probably a very nice chap. He also has his opinions. So do I, so does Steve, DavetG, Joe Offer, and many others. On the whole, if we nattered in a pub over a beer or few, there'd be little vitriol, even if one or two of us decided we didn't like X very much.

On the net? I can call you all the fucking names under the sun because it's patently obvious that you, a random bunch of pixels, are a cunt. I won't be carrying my teeth home in a paper bag. There's no meaningful comeback on the net. That's why civil debate is often hard to find. You need vigorous moderation to allow it. The problem, of course, being that vigorous moderation feeds its own opinion - you can only debate what the mod's already agree with.

Mudcat has always favoured letting people talk freely. That produces its own idiosyncracies. A good rule of thumb is to say "Why is this bloke trying to offend me?" You can find lots of reasons why he isn't. Takes most of the heat out of everything. There's one or two contributors to this thread who might do well to consider that. The trouble is, if I name them, they'll get on their very high horses. If I don't, they'll presume I'm referring to someone else.

I know! Why don't we ALL take a minute or two to stop & think!

Why is this bloke trying to offend me? Maybe this bloke isn't trying to offend me? Maybe I could have said my piece slightly differently, slightly more softly, so that I got my point across, instead of pissing him off?

And yes, mea culpa mea maxima ma culpa. I've been the wind up bastard throwing accurate barbs at unarmoured spaces. It's easily done. On the whole, I'd rather get my get my point across, though. Disagree all you want, I only wish you to understand what I think & why I think it. After all, if I'm entitled to my point of view, so are you. And I'll listen to you in return, even if I do profoundly disagree.

Isn't that really the point? A bit more of that & the net would be a rather nicer place, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:23 PM

Jim,
those who complain the loudest about "abuse and incivility" are, more often that not, the most abusive and uncivil of us all.

I complain loudly, but am not abusive or uncivil even when on the receiving end, so your cap certainly does not fit me.
Why so coy about who it is?
What are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: TheSnail
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:31 PM

Jim Carroll

The problems with having civil debates with some people (not mentioning any names) is that those who complain the loudest about "abuse and incivility" are, more often that not, the most abusive and uncivil of us all.

How very true, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:41 PM

"Slander and libel is not acceptable but, not being a legal expert, I cannot comment on whether such an act was committed."

You do not need to be a legal expert to recognise an unsubstantiated accusation.

An unsubstantiated accusation is not at all the same thing as slander or libel. An unsubstantiated accusation may well be true. "Unsubstantiated" does not mean "false". Dictionaries are available for the use of the uncertain.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:49 PM

Keith - I rarely respond to you directly. But all too many of the most unpleasant & poisonous threads I've read have YOU as a very active participant. Frequently, your contributions, by volume, swamp the responses of anyone else. You're on the way to doing it here (I discount DavetG's contributions - he started the thread, so he's entitled to respond to everyone).

See above - why don't you take a minute to stop & think? How many people do you think pay attention to what you say? How many do you think see "Keith A..." and react to that rather than to what you actually say? Is that why you are here? Do you want people to consider your opinion, or do you just like the sound of your own voice?

Me, I'd rather be understood than agreed with, as I've already said. You? I dunno... I'm sure you're a thoroughly nice chap, but as a random bunch of pixels, you've a hell of a track record at pissing off other random pixels! Just a thought... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 12:53 PM

I have been quite busy RT, and somehow missed this thread... which may be a good thing, since I would have neglected too much of my RT business... (is that Meta?)

I will say several things.... DtG is to be commended for trying to guide discussion/debate by referring to rules of civility. I did read his original link, and found it well stated and useful... especially this concept.
"Try your darndest to see the other side."

However, once you have decided you DO see the other side, the manner in which you respond to it defines YOU. There have been, for many years here, admonishments about 'reasonable behavior' in these discussions. This means...or should mean... discussing the issue, not the individual. I can't see any way to illustrate this except by one of the most obvious examples...
    Referring to someone's comments as "bigoted" IS essentially calling that person a bigot... which IS an insult, no matter how sincerely you believe it. This also implies you have the power to 'see' the intent and quality of a person's character- which is far beyond merely disputing his assertions or facts. This is one of the main reasons why threads get closed or comments deleted!
I have, on occasion, been admonished for NOT being harsher in my comments about certain people. I have also been called to task for NOT using a particular argument against 'my side' that I had used against 'the other side'...once in a thread I had not even ever opened!
There is a position called "righteous indignation", in which someone feels obligated to condemn some event, position, person or situation because.... well, because they feel "righteous" about it to the extent that they also feel no concomitant obligation to show restraint. I'm not sure what this feels like from the inside, but I'm sure that in many/most forums (fora?), unrestrained righteous indignation is dealt with by only slightly restrained moderation.

I have, for over 15 years, debated & discussed many issues here, and explained at length my reasons for my positions, as well as having explained my understanding about technical points of logic, syntax, reasoning and rhetoric. I intend to be here as long as Max allow this unusual forum to exist... even if it has to be limited to just folkish music.
I really hope that people with strong opinions can manage to 'share' those opinions using the approximate guidelines explicated in DtG's opening link. I will not hold my breath, as I don't look good when I turn blue....

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:04 PM

"so your cap certainly does not fit me."
Nobody said it does - methinks the lady doth protest too much
"How very true, Jim."
Nice that we agree about something Bryan
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:18 PM

Just to clarify, one of the libels was, that I had been "charged and found guilty of the crime of cruelty to animals, and that the greyhound authorities had banned me from owning or training greyhounds for ten year.....this was a matter of public record"

That's pretty specific! As I see animal cruelty on a par with child abuse I fail to see why I should have to defend myself in court as Dave suggests. The accusation is completely false, I own four racing dogs at present and have never at any time been in any sort of bother with the Greyhound racing board. The accuser has never posted any evidence to back up his accusation, because there is none.
These sorts of accusations are disgraceful, as Keith has said, what if you Dave were falsely accused of being a child abuser on this forum by someone who refused to give any evidence for the accusation?
I would not believe it AND I would condemn it.
You people stick together like glue, you haven't a clue what civil discussion involves.   Your tactics in this case are to intimidate, to silence, to shut down debate.......weasels to a man.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST, ^*^
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:25 PM

There are lots of sly mentions of old battles in this thread, some deleted, others ignored in an effort to keep it on the rails, but the flushing sound looms as the downward spiral gains momentum.

It was a valiant effort, Mr. Gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 01:50 PM

Wonderful posts, Raedwulf. Both of them. Thank you. Good stuff from Bill as well. Thank you, Bill. The thread is getting a bit specific in a couple of areas. That is not what I intended and, to be honest, I am getting tired of fighting a corner that some are trying to paint me in to, so I am taking a quick break. Busy day tomorrow as we are moving my daughters. There are a couple of points I would like to address before I lose my wits moving furniture though. They both hinge around the subject of unsubstantiated allegations so I can deal with them in one paragraph.

I do not know whether any allegations are substantiated. None but those involved can possibly know. I did make that point earlier but as it seems to have been ignored I am repeating it here. Neither am I going to go and check court records or any such thing about things that do not involve me. I am not going to take sides on something I do not know about

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:02 PM

Sorry, I am using a tablet and it seems to be causing premature ejaculation!

...I do not know about, nor am I going to comment on who I believe. You can check as far back as you like and you will not find any example of me doing so. What you may take heart in, and again this can be verified, is that I always think the best of people until they prove me wrong. Not many here have ever done so. You can rest assured that I do not believe any allegation unless it comes with concrete evidence. I will not deny that the one making the allegation may know something I don't, but unless they furnish that evidence I will take the allegation with an (in)healthy pinch of salt.

Hope this helps and send me all you strong vibes for tomorrow. I will need them :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:19 PM

The choice isn't really between just walking away, and letting our feelings be known, Dave. It's between different ways of letting our feelings be known. It can be more effective, and equally satisfying, to do it in a way that avoids raising the temperature. That is especially the case if you are dealing with someone who actually enjoys getting people to lose their cool.