Some poor innocent (who is media savvy enough to get an article published in a national newspaper) is in a state of shock after posting on Gransnet. A whole page in DM basically complaining that she posted on an internet forum and is shocked that not everyone found her as witty and amusing as she clearly thinks she is.
Shame on you grannies for upsetting the poor little flower! On the bright side though, she did manage to get her article published, so that was probably a nice little earner for her.
I don't agree with you Jings because in a certain mood, I can think one type of thoughts and then in a more positive mood, say, I think other types of thoughts, but I'm still me. I think I know what I mean .
Thatbags, thats just passing the buck saying that the poster and post are two different entities, which is not factual at all, think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
the poster has the original copywrite but once posted on a forum it then becomes owned by the site, as youve technically given the site permission to use it. Hence the difficulty when asking a site to remove your posts.
Those "philosophers" would be deceiving people Bags.
How, jings? How is it deceptive to present both sides (or multiple sides) of an argument and leave it to the people listening/reading to make up their own minds about a subject?
A good example is teaching about world religions. Well taught, the main beliefs and customs of all the major religions should be explained to students; the students should definitely not be told what to believe themselves.
I quite see thatbags point. People can (and do) post some provocative statements for all sorts of reasons eg to start a discussion or even just for a laugh. It doesn't necessarily follow that what they've posted is what they really think. Its entirely possible to know a wide variety of opinions but not actually agree with any of them. You are not necessarily what you post.