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

I agree with absent most of these threads wander off from the OP, just as chats face to face can do. And why not?

"Some of our greatest disputations were carried out in coffee houses, over a cup of (tea probably), and were probably regarded as a chat, but in reality were an exchange of intelligence, rather than ignorance.Pity we can't filter out some of the more specious remarks, and return to, "some subject or other'"

Whose 'disputations' are we talking about? Why were they 'an exchange of intelligence, rather than ingnorance'? Why can't people just chat without it having to be meaningful in some way? Why would we want to fliter out any of the remarks? We are a very mixed bunch and I hate the idea that this forum is only for some sort of superior intelligence. It is the difference between us all which makes it interesting.

What difference AlisonMA? You mean that some of us are super intelligent and some of us aren't?

Absolutely petallus and some tell us they are super intelligent quite often! The rest are more modest and hide their light I assuming that none of us are really stupid because I choose to!

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.

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.

No wonder we have lots of "lurkers"!

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.

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?

I think I have lost the will to live.

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.

absent -

Abs. Me tooo [chuckle]

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

Eh?

deserving could you dumb down a bit?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

Deserving nice response!

What's a lurker?

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.