BS: How to have a civil debate

Subject: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 10:09 AM

How to debate politics civilly

In the light of a couple of recent spats I present to you the definitive guide on how to behave in a gentlemanly manner. The site is just for fun of course but some very pertinent points are made.

Sorry ladies. I looked for an equivalent but could not find one :-( Please feel free to post a link if you do and in the meanwhile please believe that by 'man' I mean as in a human of any gender, orientation, race, colour or creed.

I do not wish anyone to engage in any discourse on here without obeying the rules as this will only result in premature ejection...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 10:36 AM

Gentlepersonly?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 10:56 AM

I think that may discriminate against the not-so-gentle, Fred, but nice try anyway :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jeri
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 11:02 AM

Too meta: when a thread circles around and crawls up its own bum trying to analyze the quality of the shit it is about to dump.

Ban the Meta

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 11:09 AM

Sorry, Jeri, beyond me. Can you do it again so that a garden ornament of modest intelligence can understand please?

Ahhh - I'm not the only one it seems :-) Glad about that!

Meta. Bit of an explanation but I am not much wiser after it... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 11:33 AM

DTG. I thought that was the whole idea, excluding the not-so-gentle from the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 12:07 PM

The last deleted thread was a valuable one for the forum, people were beginning to explain their stances without vitriol.
I think we were all actually listening and the forum could have been a better place.

Then someone woke up and decided to undo everything....I think it's a power thing.

To be a moderator a little feeling for movement and direction is required.

"Too meta: when a thread circles around and crawls up its own bum trying to analyze the quality of the shit it is about to dump.



Ban the Meta".....................There you have it, take it or leave it!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 12:20 PM

i dunno - go out ,do a gig, when you get back you've missed all the fun...!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 12:34 PM

The gig would have been much more fun, Al.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 01:34 PM

yeh! twas good! still i cannot imagine how they got themselves into a mess over that one.

i thought Keith's remark that he'd never met an Irish person he didn't like was a classic - right up there with Lenny Bruce's How to Relax Your Coloured Friends at Parties....

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 01:39 PM

Good point Fred!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 01:47 PM

A classic meta post from a moderator who wants to "ban metas". Talk about going round in circles. Even worse, the irony was completely lost on that person. It's in your gift to ban metas. Just bloody do it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 01:49 PM

Comments on moderation will only lead to closure so may I suggest that we leave that topic alone please.

I will ask one thing of the mods though if I may. Would you please just remove any obnoxious posts rather than throw the baby away with the bathwater.

Thanks in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 02:05 PM

The thread seemed to disappear after my previous post - if it was offensive, could a kind Mod please explain why (by PM, if preferred).

I can see only a touch of wry humour in it, nothing that could in any way be construed as 'offensive'.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 03:50 PM

An interesting perspevtive on truth and some of the discussion differences on Mudcat BS.


In Mudcat, what is truth? 

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 03:57 PM

Has anyone actualy read the link I posted? I would like to at least try to hold a civil debate by adhering to the guidelines therein. Would anyone like to actualy discuss it rather than their own pet peeves? If not, maybe it isn't worth saving :-(

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 03:58 PM

The link on what is truth, isvtop of this
Link:

Tom Matriq-what is truth 

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:07 PM

Would you please just remove any obnoxious posts rather than throw the baby away with the bathwater.

Good luck with that.

The thread seemed to disappear after my previous post - if it was offensive, could a kind Mod please explain why

There is no need for them to explain why - its their party and their rules. Nothing to do with logic. Get over it.

But in the end, Truth is what REALLY is!

Goofus, you wouldn't recognize truth or reality if either of them reared up on their hind legs and bit you on the nose.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:15 PM

Greg, if we don't know and understand the current version of The Rules As Determined By The Moderation Team, how are we to ensure that we abide by them?

I posted a comment that, AFAICS, is perfectly acceptable, and the thread went away immediately. I just want to understand how and why I broke The Rules (if indeed I did).

Reasonable, yes?

---

Backwoodsman, if you tried to post in that other thread it didn't stick, it wasn't deleted. No rules were broken by you. --muderator

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:19 PM

Greg, Greg, Greg! I thought you may follow the spirit of the thread at least :-( Why would anyone come to a party that says 'smart casual only' in fancy dress?

Sigh.

Well, I did try and it is obvious where it started to fall apart at least.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:22 PM

BWM - I was hoping that by following the guidelines laid down in the link there may be no need for moderation but I guess I am just fooling myself. I agree it would be nice if we knew all the rules though. Try emailing Joe or Max to see what happened to your post and why. Quite often it is just a glitch in the software.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:23 PM

some good suggestions on link, dave. I shall look forward to constructive communication with you in future then.....

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:29 PM

And yes, Dave - the article you linked to sets good rules for civilised debate. I like it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 05:55 PM

"But in the end, Truth is what REALLY is!"

Actually, "truth" is what you perceive it to "really be" (lower case) - from your perspective, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 06:07 PM

That's important, Ed. It is terribly easy to assume we 'have the truth' so everyone who disagrees is wrong. To my mind that impoverishes the person who had the truth: people, by and large, are not stupid and so if they have a different view to you they probably have a good reason for thinking what they do. Understanding their view will not necessarily show you to be wrong - though it might - but it will almost certainly allow you to understand your own position better.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Stanron
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 06:19 PM

Because this thread is a meta thread, ie about itself and not about political ideologies, there should be no need to abuse those you normally do abuse as a result of their political beliefs.

Wouldn't it be nice if this were to happen. A kind of mudcat equivalent to a Christmas day football match.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 06:46 PM

Greg, if we don't know and understand the current version of The Rules As Determined By The Moderation Team, how are we to ensure that we abide by them?

And therein lies the problem. The "rules" are a moveable/situational feast. Any attempt to discern what they are at any particular time is an exercise in futility.

I just want to understand how and why I broke The Rules

That way lies madness.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 06:47 PM

I see the recent thread about civility and incivility wasn't just closed down, which can be fair enough when threads go toxic (though that didn't really seem to be happening the last time I looked). It seems to have been conpletely deleted - the posts don't even seem to show in the log of past posts.

That's the first time I've seen that happen in the 16 or so yearsI've been co ing to the Cat. I'd say it's definitely a step too far for any moderator to do that. Individual posts,and even posts responding tp them, there could be a case forthay, but a whole thread... No way, if that's what's happened. Though perhaps it was just some unwanted glitchin the software of the Cat. I very mich hope that was the case.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 06:48 PM

"Don't raise your voice, improve your argument."
Nelson Mandela

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 06:57 PM

"At first, they'll only dislike what you say, but the more correct you start sounding the more they'll dislike you." 
― Criss Jami, Killosophy

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 07:09 PM

That has happened to several threads lately Mr McGrath. I mentioned it to Joe a couple of days ago and he suggested that it could be to do with "thread overheating" but that certainly was not the case in any of the deleted threads.

What Ed said above seems nearer the mark.

Joe has said that he does not like to see whole threads removed by admin,

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 07:13 PM

Look, Aerin, preparation is only half the challenge of winning a debate."
"And the other half?"
He had her now. "You have to choose the right side."
"Your side, you mean." She bristled.
"No, the losing side."
"What?"
"Always choose the weaker side."
"Why would I do that?" Doubt edged her voice, but now she was sitting erect, her feet flat on the floor.
"Because then you have further to go to prove your case." He eased the feet of his chair down. "In a debate, there are two sides. If both make a good argument, then the less popular side wins because that side had further to go to prove its point. Simple logistics."
"If you don't care which side wins." She frowned.
"It's a debate. It doesn't matter which side wins."
"You mean it doesn't matter to you." The tone in her voice unsettled him. Or maybe it was the fact that that her criticism disturbed him at all.
"It's a class," he said. "The point is to flesh out the different sides of an argument."
"And you don't care if the truth gets lost in the shuffle. Don't you believe in anything?!" 
― Anne Osterlund, Academy 7

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 07:27 PM

That's the difference between a debate and a discussion. A discussion isn't about winning, it's about discovery. A debate is a kind of argument done as play. In an argument you are trying to win, but you actually care about it. In a debate it's a sort of game, rather than a fight.

Debates can be fun, but by definition they are trivial. Arguments can be fun, but they can be really nasty. I prefer discussions, but they don't stay discussions for all that long here.

I also see meta discussions as an excellent way of diverting an argument from getting too nasty. I'm puzzled why they evidently aren't approved of here.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 08:14 PM

Most forums dislike meta discussion. Live with it. You can be as civil as you like here in such debates, but there's a moderator (or two - who knows?) who will use any such debate as an excuse to shit on the Brits here. Worse, they lack the judgement to get rid of bigotry whilst simultaneously deleting the protests against it. I can't deny that I've taken against and despise this particular person for the manner in which they behave (see ultra-childish post at 11.02am). However, this rather shallow person has the power to obliterate what they see as embarrassing/insulting/left-wing/anti-bigotry/Brit/you name it posts/threads at the touch of a key, and there's nowt we can do. It's their gig (never did work out whether it's a he or a she) and they can do what they like, and I doubt that they have any sort of daily wise overseer. As I said, it's the way towards making this forum a graveyard. Without the spark of below-the-line, we're doomed. Also, as I said, just take a look at Chiff and Fipple. A cautionary tale indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Aug 15 - 10:12 PM

I can't see any particular distinction between "Brits" and others when it comes to these kinds of issues. There are obsesssive and illmannered people on both sides of the Atlantic, and thoughtful and interesting ones on both sides as well.

The same kind of things happen in threads about UK politics and US politics. Both are just as liable to degenerate into shouting matches and partisan exchanging of insults, and when that happens closing them down can be the best thing to do ( though nevet deleting a whole thread under any circumstances, I would say).

Seeing this in terms of prejudice against "Brits" (a term. I detest, most especially if it is ever misapplied to me) seems mistaken. That would even be true if a close analysis indicated that a higher proportion of posts affected were from people from Britaiin - prejudice is not the only reason for such differences, if indeed they do exist, which I am very far from accepting as being the case.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 02:40 AM

McGrath of Harlow: "That's the difference between a debate and a discussion. A discussion isn't about winning, it's about discovery."

AMEN!!!!

Are you listening, Susan?????

GfS

P.S....but some people just don't like Sanity!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:07 AM

There are good reasons for thread deletion which need not and sometimes cannot be divulged. As Steve says, like it or not, it is not your gig. Complain to Max if you have an issue.

On the subject of meta discussions, now I understand the term a bit better, do we not think that a lot of the heated discussions are now becoming meta? They start off as one thing, move to another and we end up arguing over who has scored more points via quotes from 'reliable sources'. The point of the debate seems to become lost in the rush to get one over on someone or prove them wrong. It all seems very 'my Dad is bigger than your Dad' to me. Maybe that is not meta but the worse threads, the ones that get closed, end up in a closed loop arguing about the minutiae of the argument rather than the topic.

Or is it just me?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:32 AM

I want to register my support for the moderators, they are volunteers and they do a good job
the fault does not lie with the moderators it lies with people who throw childish insults around.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket ish
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:59 AM

I suppose there is a difference between awful disgraceful comment wrapped in cotton wool and a bit of good old Anglo Saxon with which to challenge it.

It does tend to be those who should take a deep introspective who squawk at reactions to their less savoury comments.

If people want to debate reasonably, perhaps they should bear in mind the rubicon and the crossing points first. I for one will chat merrily with anyone this side of it but happily throw rocks at those on the other bank. I know Musket takes that even further and I support him in it. Musket on the other hand is a bit like me really. Serious thread? Stay serious. Absurd thread? Cover me in axle grease, I'm diving into the pond.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:17 AM

Good article DtG (apart from the spelling mistakes!) - sums it up perfectly.

Not in favour if wholesale deletions of threads. Is it not possible to delete an individual comment deemed too offensive to stay, but leave in its place "comment deleted"?
This is what several of our newspapers do in their comments sections.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM

end up arguing over who has scored more points via quotes from 'reliable sources'.

If that is directed at me, I refute it.
It is reasonable to support your case with evidence, but obviously it cases resentment by those who have none to present.

When discussing history, the only evidence comes from the historians.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:32 AM

I went down to Olympia last week for the Great British Beer Festival. Over 900 beers, ciders and perries!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:33 AM

"When discussing history, the only evidence comes from the historians."
Now there's a way to conduct a civil debate!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:51 AM

Skipton beer festival did not have that many but it did have a stag party dressed as wrestlers having a whale of a time :-)

May I draw peoples attention to the points about sticking to facts, not using inflammatory language and finding common ground.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:52 AM

I cannot envisage any circumstances in which it can be right to retrospectively delete a thread, as opposed to deleting particular posts which might be libellous or disclose stuff that shouldn't be disclosed, such as private information.

Some forums when deleting posts leave the "name" of the poster but indicate the post has been removed. That seems like good practice to me.

A meta discussion as I understand it is, for example, when we back off from an argument, and try to explore why it is it is getting heated. For example in a domestic setting you realise that the main reason you are rowing might be because your blood sugar is getting low, and you need a bite to eat.. Going meta can be very helpful, though we need to recognise that it can be seen as infuriatingly evasive. In the Mudcat context it can make a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:19 AM

Kevin, were it just aggressive and ill-mannered stuff that got squished it would be more understandable. But, like lots of others, I've lost perfectly reasonable posts just because they were in threads, commonly started by Brits, that the moderators took against. Deleting threads that contain thoughtful and measured posts is offensive behaviour. And the fact that the mods are volunteers, etc., doesn't absolve them from behaving appropriately. But if this really gets to you, you really do need to get a life. Just remember that hardly anyone out there is actually listening.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:22 AM

I should have said that if this really gets to one, then one really ought to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:48 AM

On the Guardian website when a post is deleted they leave the name in place, but replace the post with "This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs."

I'm very doubtful about the suggestion there's a "Brit-hating" rogue moderator around. Maybe it's truue that posts that don't merit censoring get censored, but I've never had a post deleted so far, to my knowledge, apart from in that deleted thread. Maybe I've just been lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:49 AM

If people were to remove the image they have of others and actually listen to what they are saying rather than instantly being against it, it may help considerably. There are those who, no matter how much you listen, still talk rubbish but there are occasional gems amidst the detritus.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket crossing his fingers
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:56 AM

Please please please? I'll pay to fumigate the forum and get the cleaners in when you've gone.



"The only evidence comes from historians"

I thought the word "historian" meant a bit more than just "anybody at all." I do try to dumb down, I really do but the dim intellect of those with reactionary views of any flavour just prevent normal people from taking these debates seriously. I'm no Einstein but lowering your debate to such a level isn't something 90% of us on here should be doing just to accommodate suspect ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM

Joe Offer, 2009 (you can find the source yourself):

At Mudcat, you are free to say pretty much what you like - as long as people know who you are. We review and control all Guest messages, but we generally do not review the content of messages posted by people with consistent identities. We do respond to specific complaints about personal attacks or outright racism, but we try to allow this community to regulate itself by nonaggressive self-policing. We figure that as long as people in this community are known by consistent identities, most people will behave in a civil manner - and those who do not behave will not earn the high regard of their fellow participants, and they may learn to behave in order to win that esteem. It also requires the community to learn to tolerate or ignore minor misbehavior, and not to allow it to ruin the train of discussion. It doesn't always work, and we do have to intervene at times; but in many ways, it works amazingly well.

We fully realize that this is not the way that most Internet forums work, but we rather like it this way. Monitoring the content of messages posted in this forum would be an arduous, tedious, arbitrary, and near-impossible task, so we focus our editing on ensuring the identity of posters.

As stated above, we do not usually allow Forum discussions of Mudcat policy; but we are happy to discuss policy matters by personal message or e-mail, because private communication allows us to give an honest response.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:48 AM

I thought the word "historian" meant a bit more than just "anybody at all."

So do I.
I have always been careful to explain what I meant by the term, and have only referenced eminent professionals.

When discussing history, you have to refer to the people who research and write it.
That is not being uncivil.

Deliberately getting a thread closed with a deluge of inane comments about the weather, to avoid being proven wrong, is uncivil.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:51 AM

It is 6 years or so since then though, Rap, and things have changed considerably. It remains to be seen if it is for the better or worse but, at the moment, it can seem to be on a downward path. I know about the none discussion of moderation policy and, for those that need to know why the previous thread was deleted, I can only suggest you contact 'the management'. No point in speculating on here and, I suspect, if the reason were to be given publicly it would not change anything anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

How to have a civil debate or a civil discussion - address what is being said. If you make a statement and that statement is challenged then address that point without getting personal.

Keith A made a statement that did actually warrant an answer Gnome - instead of that we got comments on beer festivals - hardly civil

Unfortunately Mr Shaw people also post here after umpteen pints down the pub and end up spouting remarks they must surely regret on reflection later.

As to discussing events in history that predate those taking part in the discussion then it is both logical and reasonable that historical works and articles relating to the subject under discussion form a large part of the basis for that discussion.

Another point is the scatter-gun approach of those who when they obviously are losing the argument resort to throwing baseless accusations about as a sort of smokescreen to withdraw behind and when called to back those accusations up resort to total silence.

I would predict that this thread too is bound for closure.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM

The Champion Beer, Cwtch, came from the Tiny Rebel Brewery.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:59 AM

Re post of 20 Aug 15 - 06:57 AM


See, there he goes and when his posts are deleted and threads closed he mewls on about the mods being anti Brits.

"Oh to see ourselves as others see us"

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:00 AM

That's fine, Rapparee, except that it is abundantly clear that the bulk of what you posted, the unemphasised bit, is nothing like what happens here. It would be a simple enough matter to ensure consistent identities, by making all posters log in before posting and by insisting on unique usernames. This requires little or no overseeing on every other forum I'm on: the software takes care of it. I know that anonymous guest trolls are not the only problem, but they are a very large part of it. It's all about ethos, after all. A few rotten apples and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:01 AM

Deliberately getting a thread closed with a deluge of inane comments about the weather, to avoid being proven wrong, is uncivil.

Sorry, but that is just speculation. As we have just been saying, no-one but the moderators know why threads are closed but I am pretty sure it has nothing to do with any inane comments. Nor does anyone but the poster know exactly why some comments are made. I cannot speak for anyone else but I have never made one single comment to get a thread closed. Apart from asking the team to close a thread I had started because it had got out of hand. But that is a different kettle of fish!

I refer back to the original linked article and would suggest that a civil debate will stick only to facts that have been thoroughly vetted as true.

I am more than happy for anyone to discuss the weather or beer on here. In a civil manner of course.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:09 AM

I'm sure they do, Teribus, but it's hard to pin that one on any particular person or any particular post. As for addressing what has been said, that can be done civilly or uncivilly in equal measure. Perhaps stripping away aggression from responses would help. What is said quietly and without bluster can be cuttingly effective. Nothing personal, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:10 AM

Keith A made a statement that did actually warrant an answer Gnome - instead of that we got comments on beer festivals

Sorry, Teribus, but I cannot find where that happened. I cannot find a question by Keith addressed to me and the only time I have mentioned beer festivals was in answer to Raggy's comment about Olympia. Is on this thread? Can you point me at it please so, if what you say is true, I can correct the issue. If what you said is not true can you tell us why you said it?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:12 AM

The revived Irish famine thread was allowed to continue for seven days.
When a gang of you withdrew from the discussion and started posting about beer and weather instead, it was suddenly closed.

You were quite deliberately stifling debate if not deliberately working to close the thread, which I doubt.
Either way it was most uncivil behaviour in a serious discussion of a grave issue.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:17 AM

Dave, my post of 20 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM quoted you and responded to your statement.

Raggy responded with a comment about beer and you joined in.
Most uncivil.
You both behaved exactly as you did on the Famine thread to stifle unwanted discussion that was not going well for you.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:21 AM

You were quite deliberately stifling debate if not deliberately working to close the thread, which I doubt.

This is speculation which, as we have seen before, is the cause of so much nastiness on threads. Opinions and speculation can be disputed. Facts cannot. Neither do I see small talk as stifling, but that is, of course, only my opinion and you are welcome to dispute it. Small talk will often find that common ground that the opening article speaks of. Music, beer, weather, holidays, anything. They are all part of what and who we are and the more we discover about each other, the better we will get on.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:27 AM

Hey, it's not me, it's him!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:33 AM

So, the facts are:

1. Keith responded to my statement.
2. As far as I can see that did not warrant any further action. Apologies if I was wrong.
3. I responded to a completely unrelated comment from someone else and 4. I am then accused of being uncivil.

I am having some difficulty understanding what seems to me that leap of logic. Maybe someone can explain how small talk has suddenly become uncivil? Can anyone from the moderation team confirm that thread drift is no longer permissible? PM would be fine and I will keep it confidential as I fully understand that moderation policy is not be discussed in public.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:43 AM

Fact 1. I went to the Great British Beer Festival

Fact 2. The Champion beer this year was Cwtch from the Tiny Rebel Brewery

Who can possibly object to facts that are provable??

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:44 AM

BTW - I am beginning to get a better handle on 'meta'. I guess discussing the argument itself is a better example of meta than the original concept of discussing how to argue. Is that correct? If so, I don't really see a problem with it but I am always happy to learn about why others see it as an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:52 AM

Did you mentioned making beer as well or did I dream that? If you did, how did that go? I went to Olympia on a trade show for a computer company once. Probably one one of the occasions when there is as much drinking as at a beer festival and far more bollocks talked! I don't remember much about it... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 08:56 AM

I'm off for a beer shortly I'll answer your questions later if that's OK

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:03 AM

Black Horse or Elsinore?

and don't call me shortly... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:08 AM

Neither at first, Fishermens club for starters then who knows. I meet up with one particular mate most Thursdays and we tend to sample pubs we do not normally frequent, just for a change of scenery.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 09:50 AM

There's a danger in making sneering comments about people we disagree with. Stuff like "I'll pay to fumigate the forum when he's gone". It doesn't matter if we have what seems to us excellent reason for feeling that way. It's counterproductive. When Gordon Brown sneered at Gillian Duffy as "a bigotted woman" all he did was make her a national treasure, and encourage people to overlook reservationsthey might have about some of the views associated with her.

Often people seem to think that courtesy in the context of controversy is a kind of hypocrisy, insincerity. It isn't. It makes it possible to focus on the real points of difference rather than on posturing and slapstick.

And it's important to be quite rigorous about looking at what we post. Too easy to start a post sincerely going on about how important it is to stay calm and reasonable, and a paragraph or so later fall ito lashing out at someone with whose views we are at odds. That's why it's so important to look critically at what we have written before posting. Which is a lot easier to say than to do. Too often my own typing errors indicate that I haven't done it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:18 AM

Well said, Kevin, and in the spirit of this thread. I think there are some good reasons reasons for being dismissive, sneering or downright hostility in some cases but you are quite right about it being counter-productive. The reasons I would, and have, resorted to such tactics are where people are so entrenched in their views that to even attempt a rational discussion is in itself counter-productive. There is a point where you realise that you are banging your head on a wall and you either cut and run or make your feelings well known. The former is the right option but, sadly, we are all only human and a good cussing can sometimes make us feel better even if it seems to be irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 10:59 AM

Of course it's counter productive Kevin. Or at least it would be if this were a moderated debating forum.

But it's not.

So all bets are off and until moderators understand that, bigotry and hatred will get the usual contempt from decent people (and me. I was called indecent the other day, and on reflection, given the joke and audience, I was guilty as charged.)

Did anybody notice the "you lot" by Keith? The charge has morphed into "gangs" now. Of course, my faith in human nature overall means it's one hell of a gang that he gets paranoid about....

Only historians eh? Don't judge others by your own limitations Keith, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 11:18 AM

people are so entrenched in their views that to even attempt a rational discussion is in itself counter-productive.

It might be because they are right, know they are right, and can prove it.
In that case, whose is the incivility?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:01 PM

It might be because they are right, know they are right, and can prove it.

Or, it might be because they are ignorant, uneducated, irrational, pigheaded, and think that belief equals proof.

I hope you recognise yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 01:17 PM

I do find the 'I am right so I will not brook any other view' attitude quite uncivil. Whether the person is right or wrong. I am not talking, on this thread, about any particular incident or demonstrably right or wrong opinion. I believe in discussing civility we are discussing human nature which most of us could learn a lot about. Not, as Steve has pointed out, incivility as in simple invective or bad language or even, to a certain extent, taking the piss. But simple civility like listening to another persons views and acknowledging that it may have some merit. There are particularly obnoxious views that do not have any merit at all. They are the ones that I will have a go at. Fortunately, they are few and far between and I will always acknowledge that views on politics, religion, economics and all the humanities will be polarised. Whether I agree with another's view or not is not relevant. In this thread we are talking about simple civility and interaction with other human beings.

'I am right and I can prove it' is a challenge. 'I believe I am right because this is my understanding but I am happy to take on other views' is an invitation to share knowledge. I know I react better with the latter and I suspect many other people do to.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:13 PM

I agree Dave.
In debate and discussion I always read all points of view and respond respectfully, even when I am subjected to abuse and ridicule as now from Greg.

But, on the famine thread, my point that the facts are disputed was proved by quoting historians disputing them, and others saying that theirs was the dominant view.
Where do you go from there?

On the WW1 threads I quoted a number of historians supporting my view, and none could be found disputing them in the last twenty years.
I kept civil in the face of ridicule and abuse, not least from you Dave.

You said you only went on the thread to abuse and ridicule me, and said I should live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:24 PM

even when I am subjected to abuse and ridicule as now from Greg.

Well, ya see, there's yer problem. Its not abuse and ridicule- its fact.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 03:53 PM

I visited the beer festival on "trade day" and thus did not have to meet with the vast crowds who attend. Lots of decent beer but nothing that made me say WOW!!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:20 PM

Thank you Rapparee, for posting your post, in Joe's own words!!!

Regards!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:30 PM

Dwelling on past threads is a sure route to insanity and one that is certain to lead to the circular arguments that seem to ensue in these situations. I do not think there is any benefit in it but as there are points that I will be taken to task for not addressing I do feel obliged.

Firstly, civility is relative. Whether calling someone a wanker is worse than calling them a Muppet I am not qualified to say. It is my opinion that both are insults but, in the right circumstances, they are not necessarily uncivil. True incivility is a complete disregard of other peoples feelings, not a few choice swear words.

Secondly, I do feel the issue is not so much what is said, but how. There are ways of doing things in a civil manner even when introducing a contentious subject. The best narrators and orators do it well. The worst will not be believed if they said water was wet. I, and most other people I know, will not accept being told something by someone who's opinion fails to generate any respect no matter how much 'proof' they provide. A good navigator of debates knows exactly how and when to change tack. I am not good myself. There are some who are far better but many are so set on their course that they cannot avoid capsizing the thread.

Finally, I have already said where I would go if I felt I was not getting anywhere. If someone was so entrenched in their opinion that it was counter-productive to attempt reason and would not concede the slightest point, then I would take the piss. It is probably wrong of me but I have done it and make no apologies as I will continue to do so. May seem uncivil but, to me, playing games with what other people have said gets what it deserves.

At that point I feel I have said all I need to say about past debacles. If anyone feels the need to dredge anything else up please feel free but I am unlikely to respond. If anyone wants to take the discussion forward rather than back I will be only too happy to oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:45 PM

I had two absolutely wow 'craft' beers from the beer shop in Ilkely last week but for the life of me can't remember what they were called. Pity really. Means I will have to pop in and have another look ;-)

Where did you end up then?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: kendall
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 04:53 PM

No amount of belief can create a fact.

My ex and I had a simple rule for "Discussions". No name calling, no personal attacks, and no "YOU" statements.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:00 PM

"No amount of belief can create a fact"

I don't actually that stands up if you examine it too closely, without being heavily qualified. Belief is an essential element in creating all kinds of facts.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:25 PM

This reminds me of a record player whose needle has got stuck.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:29 PM

Why is that then, Dick? I am sure we would all like to know of a better way to resolve differences but we have not come up with any better ideas yet. Rather than making the odd cryptic quip maybe you could make a positive contribution that we would all welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:31 PM

No amount of belief can create a fact.

Certainement.

Belief is an essential element in creating all kinds of facts.

Now THAT may be the most completely asinine ststement I've seen on this forum in years - and it has some pretty stiff competition.

Keith take note.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:45 PM

If you don't believe you can learn to play a guitar are you ever going to learn to play it?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 05:53 PM

Whether calling someone a wanker is worse than calling them a Muppet I am not qualified to say

Why the need to call anyone anything? Just address the points in the post and curb the personal insults. Is it really that hard for you and those who seem unable to control their impulses? What do you think calling people childish names says about you all?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:15 PM

If you don't believe you can learn to play a guitar are you ever going to learn to play it?

And that's even more inane & irrelevant than the first.

Congratulations.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:19 PM

It says we are childish. There are worse things than that we could be, but it gets irritating.

And in a thread about how to have a civil debate stuff like that really doesn't belong. As in the old western films we really ought to leave our guns at the door, even if they are only pea-shooters.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket laughing
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:23 PM

The more you read, the more you feel you can trust your own judgement.

Keith seems to describe himself far better than I can.

A pity for him then that not everybody is as intellectually challenged.

Hey guest! At least Keith has a name! Keith A of Hertford. Further qualification would be unnecessary.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:27 PM

"Akenaton. You pretend to be civil yet your posts are often full of ill-considered and downright uncivil content.

I never "pretend" to be anything other than what I am, what you see and what you read is what you get.   Come up to Scotland and ask anyone who knows me, I am the most "unpretentious" person in the area.
I treat everyone the same, from the local Laird to the local bin man.
You have an opinion on me, that is all, and your opinion is very wrong.

Regarding what I write, I make sure that I quote reputable sources, I am never uncivil......unless severely provoked or libelled by Team Musket or their minions.
I would be more impressed by your sincerity, if you or any of your pals had the guts to condemn the libellous statements made or the insulting remarks, which amazingly are still being used on a thread about civil discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Greg F.
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:34 PM

As in the old western films we really ought to leave our guns at the door

As long as one doesn't leave intelligence, reality and facts at the door as well.

As some here consistently do.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 06:49 PM

Well, in my lexicon, pretending and being pretentious are entirely different things. Rather typical of you to deliberately misrepresent.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Aug 15 - 07:20 PM

Please stop stirring, Greg. If you disagree with something I have written here, fair enough. but there is absolutely no reason to be uncivil. It certainly does not make a positive contribution to a thread about "How to have a civil debate".

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket of the Mc variety
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:23 AM

There's a bloke from round the loch who is known to a few around here who tends to be known as "here he comes" or "there he goes."

I couldn't help laughing when I made the connection.

There again, treating everybody the same means something different to the little people.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:57 AM

I was rather hoping that the thread would focus on how to have a civil debate rather than provide a springboard for old wars but, seeing as it has gone down that route, how about we at least concentrate on the issues rather than the people? If we must address personalities let us leave the idea that there are gangs of people and acolytes conspiring to do others harm. I know for a fact that, other than the odd email or chance meeting, there is no conspiracy amongst the people described as teams and minions. Facts are what matter and referring to non-existent cabals is both insulting to both the targets and the intelligence of most readers.

In answer to the guest who asks why there is a need to call anyone anything. It is a good question and one that I would agree with in the main but 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.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:00 AM

focus on how to have a civil debate rather than provide a springboard for old wars

Dave, the old wars show that you are not well placed to lecture the forum on the need for civility.
By your deeds shall you be known.

We should move on. I look forward to a new Dave more like the old one that I thought of as a friend.

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.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,modette
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 02:27 PM

Personally, I find any poster who uses the phrase 'you people' to abhorrent.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:00 PM

to 'be' abhorrent.

Apologies for the omission.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:09 PM

Steve, you contrasted these two statements,
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.

You should have contrasted these three,
I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not.

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:14 PM

"The first rule about fight club is you don't talk about fight club… " -Chuck Palahniuk, movie Fight Club

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 03:29 PM

Modette, what a strange aversion.
I often use that expression myself to save typing out a list of names.
Perfectly civil.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM

Keith, I think you will find Modette has more of an aversion to truth than any form of words.
I don't think Modette has any connection to admin.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:44 PM

Ya' think???????

GfS

P.S. Hi, Ake....Warmest regards to you!!

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 04:47 PM

Hi Sanity! :0) Don't tell me you're Modette???

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 07:28 PM

I did not contrast any statements. I pointed out the glaring non sequitur you made. I am quite clear than unsubstantiated does not mean false. The English language is such a wonderful thing.


Which does not mean that I am always keen on unsubstantiated statements, though they can on occasion be forgivable. Liverpool are the finest team in the land, for example. Others claim that there is such a thing as a God. I think you may be one of those people.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 07:43 PM

Actually, when I come to think of it, one of the irritating aspects of some of our debates is misrepresentation. When you have to waste time trying to tell the forum that what has been said about you, or about what you've said, is off-beam, it can be very annoying. Sometimes it looks like a deliberate wind-up. You have just done this to me, Keith, haven't you, so I've just had to waste posting time putting you right, not for the first time. I'd rather post just giving my opinions, but people like you often get in the way by forcing this distraction on us. Says a lot about your intellect and about your motives, it does, one could surmise. It wouldn't be half so bad were my English poor or full of long and difficult words, but I don't think I'm too bad in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:29 PM

years ago i did a degree with a bit of a history module.

one of the things they taught us was that what someone told you who had been at a battle was a primary source.

what the historian, who had not been there, thought about the battle was a secondary source.

and primary sources beat secondary sources hands down.

could a historian - a professional one - tell me if the thinking on that has changed?

Keith seems to think so. I would like it rubber stamped by someone who can clear up this point.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 08:29 PM

"You people" pretty well always tends to have a distancing, dismissive and even contemptuous ring to it. "All of you" is a better way of collectively addressing a number of people, if "you" might be misleading (since we use the word for single people as well, English having very strangely abandoned using "thee" and "thou").

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 10:07 PM

You're welcome, Dave tG... evidently you are the only one who noticed I said anything. Most are too busy sparring and defending to spend any time contemplating.

I would not be surprised to see this thread closed as folks push the limits in their efforts to wave their own flag.

Ah well...

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Janie
Date: 21 Aug 15 - 11:31 PM

In the fwiw department, Bill, I noticed. Also noticing McGrath's comments. Thank you both.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 02:18 AM

All this tosh about "unsubstantiated". Coming from Keith, that's a bit rich, seeing how he claims I don't even exist.

Can't wait to see Keith's take on Al's point that historians can only ever be secondary source. His faith in his cherry picked list of historians is up there with "you people" and "I'm right so you are wrong."

On other matters.

The Great Gonzo beats Animal hands down. When he plays drums, he uses live chickens.

Mind you, now that Goofus has weighed in, we can suspend reality for once and for all. If he and Akenaton start kicking off again with their absurd claims about people, it puts "civil" in a whole new dustbin (or garbage can in Goofus's mother tongue.)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 03:12 AM

Animal on the drums.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 03:29 AM

As I understand it, Historians produce a mixture of fact and analysis of those facts; quite often, they carry an agenda (revisionist history), which adapts their findings to prevailing circumstances- hence the widely varying accounts of the same subjects.
One thing is certain, in order to understand the subjects under discussion, it is necessary to have put in some time into reading them up -
It is not acceptable to scoop up out-of-context quotes to fit pre-conceived notions, ignoring the subject as a whole.
Nor is it acceptable to fall back on claims of "not being a historian" - none of us are, to my knowledge.
It is completely outrageous to express a disinterest in a subject, then continue to argue on the basis of both self-declared ignorance and disinterest, often swamping the discussion out of existence.
THat is what has killed thread and has caused uncivil debate.
We come here to learn and to exchange ideas, not to "win".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 04:18 AM

"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"

OK Dave, so you think that if I were to go round the threads saying that you had been charged and found guilty of the most heinous crimes and that it was all a matter of public record, that we should all accept that as part of civil discussion because no member knows for sure whether the accusation is right or wrong?

That does not make sense, nor do any of your other utterances on this particular subject......you are simply unwilling to admit that people who behave in this manner are not fit to take part in civil debate.

I have seen the people you support make snide references to "operation Yew Tree" investigations, or references to dementia aimed at older people who have bettered them in debate. That is a Team Musket favourite.

The only reason these tactics are used, is that they are cornered, have run out of answers, and have not the guts to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 04:43 AM

Al,
Keith seems to think so.
I do not.

Kevin, I will say "all of you" in future."

Musket,
Coming from Keith, that's a bit rich, seeing how he claims I don't even exist.

I do not, but have expressed the opinion that all Musket posts are by the same hand.

Steve, you expressed an opinion about that club, not an unsubstantiated accusation.
Dave said, Dave,I cannot tell whether any allegation made on here is substantiated or not.

I replied,
"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 of someone doing that to you and would make my feelings known.
I am disappointed that you would not do the same yourself."

Would you Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 05:01 AM

Clarifying my position on history.
I learn it from history books.
They are written by historians subject to intense peer review to do the research to support their findings.

On the famine, I showed that historians dispute the issue of blame.
Jim denied that fact, but it is a fact.
Sorry Jim.

On WW1 I showed that, for the last twenty years, a consensus had emerged about certain issues.

I listen with respect to people who believe the historians are all wrong, but I think they know rather more about it.

Al, a statement from a participant is a primary source.
There are many thousands documented and used in historical research.
The findings are now in the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 05:19 AM

"I learn it from history books."
You cl;early stated on The Famine that you are have read nothing on it nor does the subject interest you.
Having openly said that, you have no grounds whatever of claiming what you claimed and it is outrageous that you should do so, and then indulge in the string of abuse you did, much to the amusement (and embarrassment of all involved - you were asked on numerous occasions top stop, yet you persisted until the thread closed.
Quoting historians requires having read and understood them to some degree - and - most of all, being interested in the subject under discussion.
I deliberately avoided mentioning names as such behaviour is widely known enough not to have to - "historians" has become a standing joke throughout this forum .
I have no intention of spoiling this useful thread by trawling over old ground with you - that does not make for civil debate, but, if you persist in such behavior, reasonable discussion will not be possible and threads will continue to be closed.   
I have said what I have to say on your behaviour - as far as I am concerned, the matter is over here.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 06:06 AM

We had a whole raft of beers at the festival. From Abbeydale Brewery, Sheffield we had Belfry 4.5% made with Cascade hops. From Blue Monkey Brewery, Nottinghamshire we had Sanctuary 4.5%. From Butts Brewery, Hungerford we had Jester a 3.5% session beer.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:04 AM

And your claim is based on, Keith? You say I don't exist and that another Musket is a liar. Any reason why I should be civil to you? Any reason why I shouldn't point out your childish stupidity on threads? Or your disgusting bigotry?

Belfry isn't bad at all Raggytash. I was drinking it at Coal Aston Village Hall recently, and confused it with a weaker one they do. My second set wasn't my crowning moment...

Yes but although Animal is great drummer and is based on Keith Moon, The Great Gonzo was artistic in his use of chickens, although other references in the show to him and the chickens might make Operation Yew Tree raise an eye lid. Or would had he been over here....

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:23 AM

What club?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:24 AM

I don't usually respond to Team Musket posts, but how can you acuse Keith of "childish stupidity" whe 3/4 of you share a username just "to wind folk up"?

That signifies to me that you and your associates are the childish ones and more importantly, wish to impede debate on this forum.
The same tactic is being used at this moment by your supporters who are trying to derail the discussion by the posting of messages with no connection to the subject being discussed.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:34 AM

We also sampled Hopping Toad 4.1% from Castor Ales in Peterborough, Mosaic Gold 4.2% from Coastal Brewery, Redruth and a fine Yakima Gold 4.2% from Crouch Vale Brewery.

Crouch Vale was where my buddy learnt his skill and he was head brewer there when they won Champion Beer with their Brewers Gold in 2005 and 2006 using a recipe developed by him. The only brewer every to claim that distinction twice.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM

See?....they could easily open a thread on the relative merits of different sorts of beers....or could they?

Well maybe they could get their mums to do it for them   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM

Chalky's Bite, developed by that great man at Sharp's, Stuart Howe, is superb. But can anything better a cold bottle or four of Duvel? Answers referring to pasteurised bottled beers will be scoffed at...

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 07:46 AM

:0)

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:06 AM

Musket,
And your claim is based on, Keith?
What claim?
I made no claim about you.

Jim, I have read extensively on WW1.
I have not read any books on the famine, but it is easy and quick to find that facts are disputed by historians of the period.
I also quoted historians saying that those who apportion blame are actually a minority.

Can you challenge a single thing that I have said on the subject?
You have not so far.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:11 AM

Jim,
it is outrageous that you should do so, and then indulge in the string of abuse you did, much to the amusement (and embarrassment of all involved - you were asked on numerous occasions top stop, yet you persisted until the thread closed.

That is the opposite of the truth.
I was called all manner of abusive names by you, but I remained above that.
There was no abuse from me so obviously I was not asked to stop, never having started.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:25 AM

So what exactly are you doing now?

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:27 AM

In a real sense all historians are revisionist, and so are all scientists. Even if the process of reviewing the evidence and the way it can be interpreted ends up as more or less confirming existing prevalent beliefs, this process is essentially revisionist.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:28 AM

We then moved on the Dawkins Ales brew named Bristol Blonde at 3.8% a Chocolate Cherry Mild at 3.8% from Dunham Massey and an Elgoods EPA at 4.3% which was rather disappointing.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 08:43 AM

It seems Keith intends to continue every battle he's ever lost on any thread he can lay hands on so I would suggest that, if people are interested in having a civil debate, they leave him to it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:14 AM

"No thoughts had I of anything,
Or at least that's what I thought;
I even thought I couldn't think,
But, now I think I never thought." 
― Christopher Miller, At This Point in Time

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:18 AM

""They used to call it the 'Great War'. But I'll be damned if I could tell you what was so 'great' about it. They also called it 'the war to end all wars'...'cause they figured it was so big and awful that the world'd just have to come to its senses and make damn sure we never fought another one ever again. 
That woulda been a helluva nice story.
But the truth's got an ugly way of killin' nice stories."" 
― Max Brooks

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:27 AM

Keith intends to continue every battle he's ever lost on any thread

I would posit that resorting to name calling and other forms of abuse are signs that one has lost the "battle". There are several posters here who employ this tactic considerably more than does Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: How to have a civil debate
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Aug 15 - 09:40 AM

Jim, you and your friends raised the issue of historians today.
I merely responded to the points all of you put to me.
You say, ""historians" has become a standing joke throughout this forum."

How can you discuss history without referring to history?
That is the joke!
Historians are the source of our knowledge of history.

All of you found that your cherished beliefs are rejected by the historians, so you rejected the historians.
Musket said, "those historians should know better."
That was a real joke.
All of you accepted it. Only Teribus and I saw it as ridiculous.