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.