Page 83 of 844
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.50
by onetrickpony
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.51
by Anonymous
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.53
by onetrickpony
In my original post PAD i posted in two sides - bad (Max/Stacy) and good (May) so where have i gone wrong?
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.54
by Sput
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.57
by B.E. El-Zebub
Bloody hell. This argument makes me want to stick my head down the toilet.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 10.58
by Gavin Scott
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.08
by Anonymous
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.11
by onetrickpony
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.11
by Gavin Scott
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
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11.16
by Nick Harvey
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.
Posted: Tue 10 Apr, 2007 12.45
by Sput
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.