TV Forum Watch News and Information Board

onetrickpony · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.50

I know people will always back you up Pad and not me, but i feel that i have a point this time.

I think i better leave it at that.

Anonymous · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.51

Sput wrote:SO pad, to answer my question on the other page there, the answer would be "yes"?

No, actually. I am quite willing to discuss something with anyone and enjoy a healthy debate with many views and sides. I prefer those to one-sided debates, who wouldn't?

I just can't bear Shaun. Sorry if that pains you Sputty boy.

onetrickpony · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.53

In my original post PAD i posted in two sides - bad (Max/Stacy) and good (May) so where have i gone wrong?

Sput · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.54

pad wrote:
Sput wrote:SO pad, to answer my question on the other page there, the answer would be "yes"?
No, actually. I am quite willing to discuss something with anyone and enjoy a healthy debate with many views and sides. I prefer those to one-sided debates, who wouldn't?

I just can't bear Shaun. Sorry if that pains you Sputty boy.

But isn't the nature of having separate threads for support and praise the epitome of a one-sided discussion? Those that don't like opposition can hide away from it in such a system, their beliefs never challenged.

B.E. El-Zebub · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.57

Bloody hell. This argument makes me want to stick my head down the toilet.

Gavin Scott · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.58

Jings this is all getting rather heated.

The truth is that the original Banks thread was impossible to have a reasonable debate in - and I'm sure you know that I'm capable of that, Sput. Its all very well being sneery about us not being able to handle opposing views, but to be accused of being "closet fans" because I keep watching takes the biscuit.

And let's not even mention the outrageous "25 years and still going strong" subtitle.

Split threads was a necessary evil. I couldn't bear to post in the original thread any more.

Anonymous · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.08

Bartholomew Beelzebub wrote:Bloody hell. This argument makes me want to stick my head down the toilet.

By all means go ahead :roll:

I think Gavin summed up everything there and he's the sort of rational guy who knows what he's on about.

onetrickpony · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.11

Pad, i'm glad (i hope) that the air has been cleared now. I know were not always going to see eye to eye - but i hope in the future we can both be civil about discussions in the future.

Gavin Scott · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.11

pad wrote:
Bartholomew Beelzebub wrote:Bloody hell. This argument makes me want to stick my head down the toilet.
By all means go ahead :roll:

I think Gavin summed up everything there and he's the sort of rational guy who knows what he's on about.

Except when I'm highly irrational.

Ask my colleagues

Nick Harvey · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.16

Gavin Scott wrote:it does seem to be mentioned in full in both places.

That's what's getting to me.

It's like trying to avoid BBC3 at 10 o'clock.

Sput · Tue 10 Apr, 2007 12.45

Gav, you seem to be suggesting it's a move to deal with the sympton of morons on the forum rather than the cause, would I be right? Of course, that would smack of poor moderation and I'm SURE no-one here would ever DREAM of levelling such an accusation!

To me, it still seems ludicrous that you could have a reasoned discussion about anything by insulating opposing views from one another.