For Newsnight: should we end universal benefits for better off pensioners?

Orh , what will be the response to THAT !!!! [waits with bated breath ]

Well deserving ,I can only assume you came on Gransnet because you think
you are " WORTH IT ".....

Why was deservings' response nice?

Either she writes for Wikipedia or she is being rather disingenuous about her unfamiliarity with it!

Umm! as one of very limited intelligence, I don't quite get the message? What is it?
I know I've had a bad day and not at at my brightest, but what the hell is deserving rabbiting about?
Can one of you more intelligent lot explain to a bear of very little brain what's going on

Yours truly

Simple minded.

Deserving nice response!

What's a lurker?

Can"t stop laughing ! well as gransnet can"t give us any more emoticons , we should throw a few of our own into the pot . chuckle, chuckle

Well, you wouldn't notice the lurkers, by definition.

OK I give up! What does CSL stand for nonu?

Oh , my oh my , CSL , THis has got to be a wind up !!!!Hilarious

Quote from Wilipedia on the subject of 'flaming':

'Thus, online conversations often involve a variety of assumptions and motives unique to each individual user. Without social context, users are often helpless to know the intentions of their counterparts. In addition to the problems of conflicting mental models often present in online discussions, the inherent lack of face-to-face communication online can encourage hostility.'

I rest my case.

We are going again.
Wish I was a first year anything.
Havent noticed any "lurkers" yet, still the same input.
No need to dumb down that would be condescending,every one seems quite capable.As someone said the word Wikipedia,I was prompted to view it, and found it entertaining if not always accurate.
Don't think I have caused any offence, (but you can't see my face, or hear the intonation of my voice) and I am practicing brevity, (although it seems stilted)
Have not lost the will to live, and I assure you it is with all due respect.

As I said earlier on in this thread.."no wonder we have so many lurkers!"

Your input reads like that of an enthusiastic 1st year social sciences student, deserving. Is that who you are?

deserving could you dumb down a bit?

Eh?

Sounds like a précis of a Wikipedia entry to me. Perhaps deserving thinks we need educating?

Abs. Me tooo [chuckle]

absent -

So, deserving, we should think before we post and be careful not to over-state our opinions, or our reactions, because those who read them cannot see our faces, and may have their own bias to read into our words.

We should also read our posts before publishing them, rewriting anything which may cause unnecessary offence, and shortening anything long-winded and complicated.

Many who seem critical or unsympathetic have not followed these guidelines, nor have many who easily take offence.

I think I have lost the will to live.

Online conversations involve a variety of assumptions and motives that are unique to each individual user. Without social interaction (face to face) we don't really know others intentions, no clues from body language, facial expressions, intonation etc.thus we often get "flamers" rather than lurkers, lurkers initially being undetectable. Not having the clues obtained by social interaction creates an element of anonymity.Then some like minded assume a "perceived unfairness" or a lack of consideration on someones behalf, that is then aggravated because of the lack of non verbal clues all of which are missing online.It is then difficult, if you don't know the person to ascertain if it is the intention to provoke an angry response (flamebait) or if it is a legitimate response to a debate.If someone posts a contrary opinion, they may easily be labelled as a "baiter, "flamer"or "troll". Whilst the "lurker" who contributes nothing,but may be, initially, be of the same mind, waits to see which way the wind blows before committing.the lurking that is done to get the feel for the culture, or etiquette may be wise, for fear of making an inappropriate or redundant comment is better for them, than jumping in,
contributing, and be dammed.you never know you may have an effect on the environment?

The coffee houses of yesteryear sound great - for men!

Luckily these days women can go into coffee houses. We have a flourishing network of such, mainly frequented by women, in my town.

As for Charles 11 doing a u-turn, well some things never change.

No wonder we have lots of "lurkers"!

Yes, well, to quote John Aubrey, "In good Queen Bess's day …" I rather doubt that I can claim either "sparkling wit" or "brilliant conversation" and certainly now it is not "within the reach of all" – and probably wasn't then.

Apologise for my tardiness I have been helping a friend with a little R&R . Even a little respite seems to go a long way.
Was going to say that i have lost the thread, but apparently that doesn't matter.
It would be grim if we had no space for dissent or disputation. Disputation is often deflected onto questions of who said what to whom rather than why something happened.In a pseudo public sphere where politicians act out a travesty of democratic debate it is no wonder we are easily turned onto something else more entertaining, like "gossip" Gossip is more entertaining when we have someone to talk about, rather than to.Listening to the news teaches us a lesson every day, not so much a cognitive but rather an emotional lesson. What we are getting is "infotainment"or selective distortion.
Regarding "the coffee houses", they were often referred to as ' the penny universities"being places that people of all shades were able to afford a penny and mingle and "gossip" (if you wish) with, for example, in the Rota coffee house you would have such devotees as Milton, Cyriac Skinner,James Harrison (the founder and political theorist) John Aubrey, and Pepys, to name a few.
They had a swear box, they didn't discuss religion, there were no cards or dice, no betting and I'm afraid no women.Politics however were much discussed, and had their been universal benefits, a proposal to regulate them would no doubt have been discussed.
For a penny admission to the exchange of sparkling wit and brilliant conversation was within the reach of all. It was not long before the government became worried, and calling the coffee houses, " Seminaries of sedition"and Charles11 was asking how lawfully he might proceed against them.He finally issued a proclamation against them, in only eleven days he realised he had made a mistake and had to recant.