27-10-2023, 04:27 PM
(27-10-2023, 02:55 PM)Sinewave Wrote: I think it's easy to get over heated, which is why I understand fully why politics is a no no in many places, online or offline. It's just a shame that before it was just halted or discussed properly, that some are branded as daily mail/sun reading pub bores just for having a differing opinion - which does appear to be a theme in many political discussions.
Onwards and upwards yes, to a degree, but I'm not sure how I feel about being branded a daily mail/sun reading pub bores. It doesn't matter who reads what, or if they go to a pub or not.
But onwards and upwards, I suppose.
Well look, I did explain in post #47 that I was simply responding in kind. I'm sorry to say it, but that is exactly how you came across in your original comments. And the fact you've brought it up again suggests to me that it touched a nerve. Certainly, if the same accusation was levelled at me, I would feel the same, but once the initial shock passed, I would reflect on what I wrote to cause someone who is normally very level-headed to say that. Perhaps you haven't reached that point yet?
However, I did explain in my long post this lunchtime (#60) that I was uncharacteristically (albeit only slightly) blunt yesterday because of the bad feelings this thread was creating. Post #60 was to address this issues with Jez's contributions to this thread - I wasn't sure until you made your most recent post if I needed to do the same for you (your use of humour in #54 suggested all was well). But I did close off my post with a general apology for my grumpiness yesterday. Do I need to apologise to you specifically for saying your comments sounded like the sort of thing I'd expect to hear from a pub bore?
Please note that I did not, to use your word, "brand" you as a pub bore. I simply said that your comments were the sort of thing that I'd expect to hear from a pub bore. I believe there is quite a difference, but fully accept that what you believe could well be different. Please note that I stated right at the end of post #60 that no offence was intended.
The conversation about ULEZ was not halted. But I do believe it would have been impossible to continue without straying even further into politics. If you wish to continue it, please feel free, providing you argue your points in a very balanced fashion, and bring lots of references to support your viewpoint, and do it in a way that avoids hyperbole and offence. And absolutely no politics (which I still think makes it impossible). I promise to consider your arguments if well made and well supported, and also promise to be more measured in my responses going forward.
Just as a general point to all, you'll note that I've dealt with all of this in the open rather than via PM. That was something that I agonised over this morning. A lot. In the past, we've tended to do things via PM, but we've found that often, it just doesn't help. At least this way, everyone can see my attempts to be fair and balanced. I haven't changed anything that I would have said via PM, and the tone would be exactly the same - I always want to work constructively with people, rather than take the easy way out of sanctioning or banning them. But people don't always see it that way - I understand that. But in this case, you're free to take soundings from impartial bystanders, who will hopefully agree that I'm being reasonable here.
All the best,
Mark
