BS: Emotional Subjects

Subject: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 02:19 AM

And so yet another thread gets closed.
A subject which many of us have thoughts and feelings and areas of ignorance that would bear discussion - but dammit here we go again - unable to lend any governance to our tongues in the freedom offered us by cyberspace.

Actually - a thread getting closed is not the worst of it
The worst of it is the number of people , who just look over our shoulders and say - I don't want to be part of donnybrook like mudcat - I'm off.

A couple of times, I've disappeared for a few months, driven away by jeers, amateur Paxmans picking me up on my political correctness on subjects close to my heart, but folk music (or my vision of it) has been my life and mudcat is a place I have a right better than most to occupy.

The point is that a lot of people don't come back.. They piss off and that's it - the last we see of them. Good people with interesting and different points of view from our own - divergent thinkers.

Often they are people who don't express themselves like some guarded politician with nothing more than a gobfull of platitudes to offer. They have lived close to the nexus of a situation and they see it and express it in stark terms.

You have the right to demand blandness, uniformity, conformity to every convenient truism designed to paint the world in magnolia and pacify the hard of understanding. but i wish you wouldn't.

if you never listen to other people, and take in the way they express themselves. you will never understand any other point of view than your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 02:34 AM

I have always respected what you are trying to do Al, but you really are asking a lot
None us us are skilled debaters, but most people bring something to these discussions, if it's only passion for the subject
I found the closure of the last thread unnecessary, but that's my opinion - I accept part of the blame for once more becoming exasperated over something that is very much a part of my life at present - not an academic subject but a part of day-to-day living
I've said we need to clean up our own act rather than rely on the mods to do it for us - so far, we've failed to do so
I have little doubt that this thread, if it is allowed to continue, will eventually degenerate into a blame-game and go the way of all the others
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 02:38 AM

if you never listen to other people, and take in the way they express themselves. you will never understand any other point of view than your own.

I agree with that 100%. As I have said over on the Brexit thread, I am happy to talk to anyone as long as they appear to be making a serious attempt to understand other's remarks. And to stress, understanding is not the same as agreeing.

But being passionate about a point of view should never blind us to the fact that other people can have a passionate point of view of their own that is different. If it does, we get into a row where one view tries to batter the other into submission, which never works, often turns into abuse and ultimately thread closures.

So if we do want to "understand", rather than "win arguments", we need to let other people have their say without feeling the need to attach everything they say, and trust to the intelligence of third parties to judge who has the better case.

There are cases where you have to take a stronger position, but they all happen in real life, not in forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:03 AM

Oh wouldn't it be excellent if all posters had the same wise and measured style as the three posters above? Discussions could continue ad infinitum, and we could reach interesting conclusions, learn about eachothers' viewpoints and have a lovely, informative thread. Sigh... if only...

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:17 AM

I concur. I find the statement about understanding rather than winning of particular relevance. This forum is not a debating society, it is for discussions and in discussions no one loses. Everyone should feel that they have gained knowledge, even if they disagree with the points made!

Unfortunately not everyone will agree and sadly, Al, when the ones who want to win get on here your well intentioned thread will most likely suffer the same fate as many others.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 03:58 AM

Wild unsubstantiated statements designed purely to goad have no place on this forum. It is not a difficult task to distinguish between fact and your opinion when posting. Deliberately mixing the two and tying to act the innocent when called out leads to unnecessary argument and strife.
Facts can always be checked and verified irregardless of source. Where these facts lead in the way of interpretation and opinion is entirely subjective and can lead to interesting discussion. It is entirely possible to debate opposing views without resorting to exaggeration, provocative, totally unsubstantiated labels and insults. To impose bigoted views on the forum and allow no counter view is guaranteed to kill a thread. This is in essence what we are repeatedly seeing.
It is not a game of winners and losers, it is a case of outlining your point of view and attempting to understand the rationale behind opposing views. Getting upset and creating progressively more inflammatory responses only achieves negatives. The thread closes and good people run away.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:20 AM

yes, i've pushed off a few times. recently it has become common to bicker about whether particular frequent posters should be ignored in the hope they will be encouraged to stop posting. i tend to post occasionally and rarely get any response at all - while reading all sorts of rubbish about intricate points of ancient squabbles and how best to ignore each other. it's not a very kind or interesting place really.....

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:21 AM

All excellent points.
There are ways (in real life as well as on a forum) of putting across a point of view in a discussion without being goady or confrontational.

For example, one can say, " However, I believe that..." rather than this or that 'is definitely the case and you're totally wrong'.

And to show one is listening and learning, one can say, "That's most interesting..." before giving an opposite idea.

Things like 'Have you considered?', 'That might be so but...'
'I respect your view, however I see it rather differently...' are much more polite than
'At it again (name)? More of your usual rubbish? You're an idiot/racist/anti-semitic/etc

The saddest thing is Iains' last point: 'The thread closes and good people run away.'

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:40 AM

Well there's already one post in this thread that's got me scratching my head in disbelief.

.............................................................................................

Sorry, Pete, but I disagree about ignoring repeat offenders. It's by far the best way of frustrating them and not getting drawn into pointless squabbles. I also think that, in an honest forum, we shouldn't pussyfoot around people who post intolerant, insulting, lying or bigoted things. Of course, there are diplomatic ways of handling those things, but a blanket "let's try to understand..." philosophy is pusillanimous. Some people just need to be told. Perhaps in a slightly nicer way than we sometimes manage. Sorry for denting the delicate tone of the thread, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:43 AM

Going back to my earlier point about this not being an formal debate, I think that 'wild unsubstantiated statements' are all part of the rich tapestry of discussion. If you know it is not correct it is easy enough to say 'I think that is not right because...' and leave it at that. No need for insults or requests for justification. As DMcG said let other people decide which point has more merit and don't try to browbeat anyone. Use the old salesman's rule - put up and shut up:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:43 AM

if you never listen to other people, and take in the way they express themselves. you will never understand any other point of view than your own.

I so agree Al, and I live by that.
I engage with anyone whatever their views and never resort to abuse or personal attack.

I also believe that the belligerence and abusiveness of a group here towards anyone who challenges their own prejudice and preconceptions deters people from contributing and drives them away.
Most people do not like to be so abused.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:47 AM

You're right of course Iain, there are ways of expressing yourself that upset no one.
But the point I'm trying to make is, the reason that there is a situation in NI, Israel/Palestine, cowboys/red indians , etc is that there is conflict.

you will not ever come to understand another person's view unless at some point you take on board what he is saying rather than poncing around saying - oooh that's not very nice! -if he expresses himself in language that he naturally uses, and the sheer depth of feeling inherent - which has its root somewhere in his/her understanding.

in a minute, the all important lie detector results.....

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:47 AM

steve, i think you have misread my post. i'm not talking about whether anyone should or shouldn't be ignored. i'm saying that it is a bit boring (for me anyway) to be forever reading about these squabbles - while being ignored myself

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:52 AM

Al, I did object to Jim's use of "prod."
I took that to be a sectarian term of abuse, equivalent to racism.
Sorry if I got that wrong, but are you sure that it is not?

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 04:55 AM

thanks, keith for immediately illustrating the point i was making. top squabbling!

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:02 AM

I am going to step back for a while and see how this thread develops.
I have some strong views on the subject of emotional subjects, but for now I merely observe.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:03 AM

Personally I believe that constant repitition, twists of logic, pre judging any individual or group as enemies and blatant dishonesty are far more off putting than robust rebuttals or ribald language. But others may well disagree. Others will never see anyone else's POV and try to force other people to agree with them. When that happens too often it is far better to just ignore them than engage in pointless, circular arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: peteglasgow
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:05 AM

what post got closed and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:12 AM

Like the statues argument.

The statue may be anachronistic. However - does that mean that the person and the reasons for erecting that statue were without honour or just cause?

And the same with language.

Oliver cromwell did all kinds of damage , vandalised all sorts of beautiful artefacts - even the crown of England. Churchill's wife ripped up the Graham Sutherland 's painting of the old man. Sutherland was a much greater artist than her old man.

We destroyed all the Nazi works of art we could lay our hands on after the war. But did we miss a truth hidden somewhere?

When we say - your mode of expression is so unutterably vile that we must stall the conversation. I think its a sort of defeat for us all.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:16 AM

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14781611.Use_of_word__hun__and__Jock__of_limited_concern_but__fenian__and__prod__is_unacceptable__says_Ofcom/

The link does work. try it.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:16 AM

"Wild unsubstantiated statements designed purely to goad have no place on this forum.
Nobody individual the right to decide what has a place here and what doesn't (within reason)
What you may regard as wild and unsubstantiated seldom are
Even if they were, nobody has any right to censor anything they don't agree with - statements are made to be challenged
What has no place here are hate postings; they need to be reprted and dealt with by those in charge
What is unacceptable is the serial abusing of other posters - one of the conditions of membership is that we respect each other's right to post; some people have been barred from this section for such behaviour; quite rightly
I am upset that the thread on Northern Ireland was closed - it is very much an ongoing issue
I intend to attempt to start another today and respectfully request that it is treated with the gravity it deserves
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:18 AM

Could be a reference to the second go at an abortion thread, Pete.

Pete, I've always respected your views and appreciate the measured way in which you put them across. If a post doesn't get a response it doesn't mean it's been ignored. I read every one of your posts,which is more than I can say about a lot of people's. Sometimes, if "you've said it all," a response may be superfluous. Backwoodsman is rather good at this: he's been known to tear me to shreds over the odd issue, but when he agrees (especially about brexit) he might just post "Amen to that, Steve!" Maybe a bit more of that wouldn't come amiss...

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:21 AM

Can somebody please ask Keith to stop posting his argument dfrom another thread before he closes this one
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:25 AM

I dunno Keith. I was doing a gig in Nottingham in a pub, and knowing next to nowt about anything, I was playing and singing On the One Road. The landlady rushed up to me and insisted that I stopped immediately in case her patrons and customers (whom presumably she knew) started fighting.

I was re-telling the incident to Bob Stokes (The Dublin Busker) and he said, that's a rebel song...? I never knew that! we all used to sing it when we were being marched to the swimming baths in a crocodile, when we were little kids...

I don't think the intention to inflame is always there with the song, or with the term proddy dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:37 AM

I second Steve's remark, pete. I have always read your posts when I come across them.   Whether I respond or not is much more related to whether I have anything that even I imagine is remotely worth saying than on the post I appear to be ignoring.

(I do try to read everyone's posts on threads I am active in, but if one is more than a screens worth, or there have been dozens appeared since I last looked, my patience may give out. That's my failing, not the posters.)

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:43 AM

"Pete, I've always respected your views and appreciate the measured way in which you put them across. If a post doesn't get a response it doesn't mean it's been ignored. I read every one of your posts,which is more than I can say about a lot of people's. Sometimes, if "you've said it all," a response may be superfluous. Backwoodsman is rather good at this: he's been known to tear me to shreds over the odd issue, but when he agrees (especially about brexit) he might just post "Amen to that, Steve!" Maybe a bit more of that wouldn't come amiss..."

Amen to that, Steve. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 05:44 AM

In the interests of economy and my sanity, I rarely bother with links that are posted without supporting remarks, or links to the Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes. I've generally found that these "sources" fail to distinguish between fact and opinion...

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:01 AM

Well....

Lets take it as its worst interpretration. This term me and my Catholic cousins from the green side of the family, and me and my orange ones have been using since we were five.

honestly Keith and Iain are you spluttering with rage. unable to continue, angered to the bone, reduced to speechless fury...

I mean seriously...are we buggery.

Fess up, it carries all the conviction of Jeff Thompson's appeals for LBW.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:04 AM

"Amen to that, Steve."
Amen to that Baccy :-)
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:18 AM

I used the terms prodydog and catlick on another thread with no censure. They were terms we used as kids in fun but if anyone was seriously offended I would have apologised and stopped. It is as much context as the terms themselves. Take the word 'Brit'. It can be a simple description of someone British or, in context, be derogatory. It is not beyond any of our wits to see how it is being used yet someone will undoubtedly take offence regardless of the intent.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:24 AM

"In the interests of economy and my sanity, I rarely bother with links that are posted without supporting remarks, or links to the Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes. I've generally found that these "sources" fail to distinguish between fact and opinion..."

Amen to that, with bells on, Steve! ;-)

On the subject of agreement with the views of those with whom one usually disagrees, or disagreement with those with whom one usually agrees, IMHO doing either of those things is not in any way a sign of 'weakness' or that one has 'lost' the argument. In fact, acknowledging worth in something your opponent in discussion has said, is a sign of one's own strength of character and strength of confidence. I've had strong disagreements occasionally with Big Al, Jim, Steve, and Musket(s), all of whom I'm generally in alignment with as far as our respective viewpoints go, and I've agreed with Teribus/Iains, whom I usually regard as being positioned slightly to the Right of Attila the Hun but who, in his more rational, lucid moments, is very capable of making balanced, thoughtful contributions.

Perhaps if we all tried to acknowledge the good, as well as challenge the bad, in others' posts, and respond to the entire content of posts rather than selective isolation of one individual point amongst a number being made in those posts, the level of heat might be kept within acceptable limits?

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:37 AM

"I used the terms prodydog and catlick"
Me too - one is a lighthearted taunt, "Prod" is an abbreviation and nothing more
There are far more vitriolic words to give offence if that is your intention
I have always made the point that my argument is with the church and the bigots - not the believers
Perhaps we can finish with this once and for all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:49 AM

Al, I did not splutter with rage. This was my whole post,
"I do not think you should use your sectarian language on here Jim."

Ofcom says that word is unacceptable too.

Jim, "Paki" is another unacceptable abbreviation.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:58 AM

I asked can we finish this - my posting was designed to do just that and stop people speaking up on my behalf
I suggest if you have problems with what other people are saying you open a thread - maybee you'd like to make it on all forms of abuse that people have to suffer in this intolerant wporld
Jim Caarroll

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 06:59 AM

You may totally disagree with the slant on events given by outlets like Daily Express, Daily Mail or Guido Fawkes, as is your perfect right.

However the factual content has to be correct otherwise they would be pilloried pillar to post. When does this happen? You may dislike intensely the political slant of a source but the factual content may often be the only place you will easily find it. Too many on this forum are too ready to condemn the messenger outright and are blind and oblivious to the message. Is this not short sighted? Even the guardian has something to say although it would give a met. forecast with a lean to the left despite the coriolis force.

As a very minor example Tommy Robinson. In his early days he was far more of a thug than an angel, there is no dispute on this. On the mainstream media he is still portrayed as a thug. However study the youtube talk he gave to the Oxford Union in 2015.(I believe) Then form your own opinion. At the moment the online petition for his release stands at 573,000 signatures.
Ask yourself the following.
Did people sign because they believe his mainstream depiction as a thug is accurate?
Or did they sign because they feel he has a valid statement to make and is being stifled?
Do you think his arrest was legitimate, or was he stitched up?

As I have said before bias exists in all reporting. If you refuse to acknowledge that the opposition may on occasions be more factually correct and therefore modify your previous convictions, then you are the one that is disadvantaged in the long run.


The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant. Maximilien Robespierre

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:13 AM

There is a huge difference between fact and opinion. The sources quoted do not differentiate between the two and an alternate version should always be given to aid balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: DMcG
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:32 AM

It is not a difficult task to distinguish between fact and your opinion when posting

There is a subtlety in that that is easily missed. It is indeed easy to distinguish between the original article and *your* opinion. Rather more difficult is when the original article freely mixes the 'fact' and the opinion. And then the facts themselves are not always easy to get at and understand. Financial and other economic data in particular is extremely sensitive to the time period chosen and the precise measurements taken and definitions used. Such bias in determining economic 'facts', intentional or otherwise, is commonplace.

The Sun, Express and Daily Mail tend to be more prone to mixing fact and opinion than most of the others, in my opinion, though all media is prone to it to a greater or lesser extent. You are entitled to disagree, naturally.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:45 AM

There is a huge difference between fact and opinion.

Yes but does the BBC, Times, Guardian etc always clearly differentiate. They are all equally guilty - some more than others.

On a related note referring back to the Robinson case. A 'D' notice was put in place to stifle debate. D notices were originally designed to cover security matters.To impose it on the Robinson jailing smacks of Orwellian abuse of power. Does that not worry you ? It has been discussed worldwide and also spread by alternative media, but initially not a peep from British sources. I recommend you read the article linked. Look at the reporting of the numbers involved in the protest outside Downing Street by various sources. Very interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 07:46 AM

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/05/tommy_robinson_case_gag_order_on_british_media_lifted_in_the_face_of_worldwide_prot

It helps to paste the link - Apologies

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 08:26 AM

I do not take any one source as being the end of the story. All news sources display some bias of either commission of omission. Some are worse than others. I do tend to provide links that are an alternative to the sources we are discussing purely for balance.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 08:30 AM

Why are we going over closed subjects ?
A sure-fire one to make this one of them
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 08:49 AM

well i think you have to show a certain circumspection when dealing with known villains.

I think it was wise to keep the bathroom door locked if George Joseph Smith had taken out an insurance policy on you.


https://soundcloud.com/denise_whittle/george-joseph-smith

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:05 AM

Ah yes, squabbling about squabbling, this is what the forum has devolved to. It's no wonder the smart ones have left.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:33 AM

oThere is a fair amount of wisdom and gold dust on BS,
but occasionally there are some large nuggets.

for example:
Creation doesn't "come from" somewhere. It is what you bring into being from nothingness, an act of aware will, POW! That's where inspiration comes from. Hooking up with enough of your lost, scattered, disconnected, discombobulated, or denied bits of awareness to bring some back together again with a rush of accompanying energy, a proper Shazaam of the soul. Why go around painting yourself as another power?

Amos on the care and feeding of muses.


We all know there are people who do not possess a flexible and open mind and feel assaulted if you call upon them to even temporarily adopt a new POV. Perhaps when conspiracy theories crossed over into the mainstream we all have become more callous to protect the truth in which we respect. I now have a President who says "Remember that shit I just made up, get to the bottom of it!" And there are people who will take that job.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:45 AM

" It's no wonder the smart ones have left."
You're still here Bobad - that's an admission of your own limitations I presume
It's comments like that that case half a good deal of the trouble,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:49 AM

There is nothing wrong with challenging nuggets in order to learn more. What if its only fool's gold?

Colbert invented the word 'truthiness' to describe a lie that feels so good its got to be true. When pilots make this kind of mistake they often crash.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 09:51 AM

Steve,
Sorry, Pete, but I disagree about ignoring repeat offenders. It's by far the best way of frustrating them and not getting drawn into pointless squabbles

If you mean me Steve, I am not in the least frustrated by your silly embargo.
You could never answer anyway, and that is the real reason for it.

What is a "pointless squabble?"
A discussion where you are unable to produce arguments in support of your case!

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 10:28 AM

At some point, these fights become 100% personal. That point is, with increased frequency, the first post.

"Pointless squabble" - click on Keith's name in his posts. These things can go on for years, with no resolution, and none intended. Just an excuse to bloviate, ad barfium.

It's the geezers meeting at the country store, the breakfast club, the pub, and just taking up the fight where they left off, and they figure if they sound passionate enough, people might think they actually care. If they sound knowledgeable enough, somebody might think they're smart. Newsflash: the likeliest thing people might think is "Oh, does he never shut up?!"

But then, the internet is a write-only medium. Nobody cares about who's doing the reading.

It's easy enough for me to ignore, but imagine what a newbie might think. I doubt the usual 5 or 6 combatants (with occasional drop-ins) care, and that is a shame.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 10:29 AM

Part of the problem is people who only come on to argue rather than to just chat to others and learn. Couple of prime examples have already been demonstrated on this thread and if it continues the thread will inevitably go toxic and be closed. Shame really but it was a nice try, Al.

Subject: RE: BS: Emotional Subjects
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jun 18 - 10:49 AM

Cross posted. Well said, Jeri.