Registered On: April 2, 2014
‘Anyway, I think it’s a healthy discussion. Something we’re all capable of having. Hopefully without the saloon door opening and extremists from the left and right or pendants charging in.’
Agreed. It is a healthy discussion .. but a restricted one. I’ll stand at the saloon door and lob in my comment… I dont qualify as an extremist but maybe as a pedant(pendant?). BRI is correct in stating that non-football is less active and cites a couple of Deerey’s ‘extremists. No wonder. I have banged on endlessly in my brief flirtations with this forum about how narrow the tolerance levels are. How likely it would be to descend into a small cadre of like minded people rehearsing their grievances and agreeing with each other. A week or so ago I almost jumped in when Gurney labelled a perfectly articulate response from Bucks as ‘incoherent’ or some such nonsense. Why? Because he didn’t agree with it!! I am not saying that this predicted level of uniformity has now been arrived at .. the discussion above does have some amount of reasonable differentiation .. but the destination seems to me to have almost been reached.
Well, instead of slagging off the forum and its participants why not engage with some points of view of your own?
As for ‘incoherence’, as I understand it that means ‘confusing’ and ‘unstable in its line of argument’, which applied just as much to BI’s post as it does to many others on here.
Like for example those posts which were ripped off from American far-right religious sites, that were adverting ‘an evening with Enoch Powell’ amongst some other, very odd things, which were posted by, oh, was it Justiron or Lesgeo or Justles… and which were not only incoherent, but extremist in the extreme.
Is that your idea of balance and coherence? I think we should be told.