Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed
Log In to post a reply

86 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
keith a
9572 posts

Re: Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed
May 12, 2011, 16:21
Merrick wrote:
You said what i said was crass. You were invited to elaborate and responded that it was sick. I asked you to elaborate and you gave a dictionary definition of 'crass'. My problem, as I suspect you realise, is not that I don't understand what your word means; it's that I don't see why it applies.

You said it was not 'rational', and when asked to explain you chose instead to say 'there is no point carrying on this conversation'. That is, in itself, carrying on the conversation; it would have been a matter of seconds more to have said what your problem actually is.

Rhiannon pointed out that this is a discussion board and asked if you would respond as it had been presented logically. You acknowledged the logical point and still - having been asked four or five times do do so - refused to elaborate.

By raising points and not explaining them, you're not actually discussing anything. To merely repeat or paraphrase yourself doesn't help anyone understand your point or agree with you, and so negates the purpose of saying anything in the first place. But that is still more communicative than - as you've done more than once on this thread - telling people that what they've said is what they've said, which as a response is something akin to barking.

The purpose of discussion boards is to set out points so that we disabuse one another of misunderstandings and falsehoods. Even if someone's own position is too cherished to be relinquished, it's a public forum with far more reading than participating, so if you're right then you can persuade the reasonable independent third party of your view.

Coming on and going 'bad!' then when being asked why you think that saying 'bad!' again doesn't convince anyone of anything, except that you are unwilling or incapable of giving your reasons. It makes your perspective look unfounded and actually serves to reinforce the position you oppose.

If there are sound reasons for what you think on an issue being discussed, let's hear them. If there are not, and you wish to avoid appearing foolish, then perhaps it's better not to post anything on that topic.


First of all let me just say I've re-read all the entries after reading your message and not all of what you say above is strictly factual if you want to re-read them yourself. But anyway...

I was expressing an opinion that I thought what you had written was crass. I replied as I saw fit. Sorry it appears like 'barking' to you, but I was awaiting some rather important news that day and was unable to get wrapped up in some big on-line discussion.

If disagreeing with you means I look foolish in your eyes, so be it. I just thought you entry read like some Sun-style sensationalism. And as you're the person who wrote the matter I objected to I don't really see how you can write "It makes your perspective look unfounded and actually serves to reinforce the position you oppose." I'm opposing you so of course you think my perspective look unfounded. Doh!

What do you want me to elaborate about? I think the sentence "All but one were lucky enough not to kill someone" was crass. You're saying every single police officer who was on duty there that day was 'lucky' they didn't kill someone. I'm sorry but I find that a ridiculous statement. I don't know what else to say! Someone else said it was a "fairly imflamatory comment". Go back and ask him to explain in great detail why he thinks that if you need everything explained in such great detail.

Rhiannon didn't see why I had an issue with it. That's her right. At least one other person clearly did. Rhiannon gave her explanation about it but just because she argued it logically doesn't mean I have to agree with her / you or conversely that I had to get into some big argument with her. But once we get into the theoretical medical conditions of every person attending then surely you have do that from a protester point of view, too. Are protesters who pushed someone else in the crowd, who threw something, damaged something, hit or kicked a police officer 'lucky' they didn't kill someone? If someone suggested that you'd rightly have something to say about it.

And please don't have a go at me about repeating myself. Kettle? Black? But lest there be any confusion, Merrick, I still think that what you wrote was crass.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index