I have tried to contact HQ regarding this fora. Cant access

Not particularly in this instance Gracesgran, but on some threads.

Yes, I understood Elegran's post (I hope) but I don't really understand your response to it djen, sorry, as it didn't seem (to me at least) at all what Elegran was saying.

But if you needed to ask the question in order to clarify it in your mind, then that's fair enough.

I don't agree that it has been 'turned round' Jelima but perhaps you can explain why you think it has been. I am happy to be corrected.

I just didn't share the view it seem to offer.

Staying with religion for a moment, there are many who see the good face of religion and its bad face, and who can see that many of those who have gone overboard either for or against it see only the face they choose. Evangelists for either side push hard to get conversions, and assume that the "uncommitted" are either irrevocably ranged against them (so are "the enemy" to be fought) or are ignorant heathen barbarians who will be won over if they repeat their slogans at them often enough.

As the evangelists are unlikely to change their allegiance, it would be a waste of effort for the middle-of-the-road to argue with either, and their ears get bruised from the sermons or rants of believers sceptics - so they stay away in droves.

In case the analogy is unclear, that happens on the political threads too. The enthusiasts can say that it shouldn't, but that is the reality.

... and? I am still not sure what conclusion you are drawing from that other than that you see politics and religion as very different. What is the equivalent "hellfire" sermon you are presumably thinking happens on politics and news threads?

Equally, I certainly feel I definitely been sermonised about religion on GN. Usually by those who believe only they are right - something they often have in common with their political views.

Not misconstrued Jalima just not agreed with.
but wouldn't someone then say 'sorry, but I don't agree with what you posted'? I think 'this'.
which is fair enough, absolutely, I agree.
However, turning around someone's post to mean something different to what they actually said is quite different.

As two people seem to be puzzled by my post (Jalima, did you understand it?) I shall expand it a bit.

On the topic "Religion" (or even "News and Religion" if you want a direct analogy to this topic) how many would post if they knew they would get a hellfire sermon in return for a mild observation? There would be posts from ardent believers and even more ardent sceptics, but the middle-of-the-road majority would leave them to it.

Sorry, Elegran, there were not that many more words. I just wanted you to clarify what you meant.

Are you suggesting that religion is not political?
Is that better.

I think you twisted what I asked.

Not misconstrued Jalima just not agreed with. I am really beginning to see a much louder voice from those who cannot deal with that.

Why do you (and some others) so often take out of a post what you would like the poster to have said instead of what the words say?
That has often puzzled me too Elegran, why posts are often misconstrued.

Perhaps separating News and Politics would mean that it would not happen so often, as posters could chat about something in the news without political views being introduced.

Substitute religion for politics, and how many would post if they knew they would get a hellfire sermon in return?

The whole point is that religion (not faith) is politics. Like Jen I am not sure what you're are saying here (and that is said quietly and politely). Feudalism, for instance was able to continue because of the ideology of the then view of religion. As soon as you start saying you are right and nothing other than your views can be - both followers of Brexit and Christianity have done this - you have an ideology and you have politics.

You brought it up Elegran. Did you think no one else might see it differently?

I am saying what I said. No more and no less. Why do you (and some others) so often take out of a post what you would like the poster to have said instead of what the words say? Is it so that you can then use the corrupted version to further your own rhetoric? Or is it a version of that interview answer, "I am glad you asked me that . . . " which goes on to make some other point entirely which has no connection with the question.

Are you saying religion is not political?

Substitute religion for politics, and how many would post if they knew they would get a hellfire sermon in return?

I'm very uncomfortable with some posters picking up on other posters spelling or grammatical errors. There is absolutely no need to do that, no-one is perfect. It's so easy to hide behind anonymity.
It's the content of the original post, which should be discussed, not an attack on a poster's use of language.
Having met jollyg, who kindly gave the use of her home for the Burns meet up, I do hope that she is not unwell.

Perhaps jollyg has not come back for any number of reasons. We don't know, it happens.

However, I do take the point about the political threads - even if one posts something innocuous or even friendly, it is often met with a very snippy remark from another poster just because they they disagree with something you may have posted previously.

Yes, its unpleasant to witness. That is why some don't feel comfortable with it happening in every thread.
Its also quite uncomfortable to see people commenting on somebody's spelling. No buttons are being pushed, because the op 'hasn't bothered' to come back to the thread.
Anyway, that's my two pennys worth.

Agree wholeheartedly with your post MissA. I take issue with where it's becoming apparent that a poster is deliberately baiting and hounding another by demanding more information, or demanding that they explain themselves further and further. But when a posters family members are dragged into it too, that's cheap bullying and below the belt.

I understand that, Varian, but not everyone uses gransnet for verbal jousting. I see very, very many personal comments, particularly on the political threads. Fine, if you are robust enough to enjoy, tolerate, or give as good as you get. Not everybody wants to though.

No, there is nothing wrong at all with discussing why people hold the opinions they do. It wouldn't be a discussion otherwise. I do object to being told I have a 'sad life' though, the first time I post on a thread. Even this one, the op "hasn't bothered" to come back to. What's the necessity for that comment? What has it to do with whether news and politics should be separated?

I totally agree with you MissA about sneering and personal attacks but what has happened in the last two years since the EU referendum campaign seems to have created such deep divisions that folk on either side of the argument have clung to their position with a passion to the extent that any factual statement relating to which type of people voted which way is interpreted as a personal attack.

In response to the research finding that Leave voters tended to be less well educated, we got an irate poster proclaiming "I voted Leave and I've got a double first from Cambridge" as if the disproved the statistical evidence.

If personal comments weren't made
Agreed (even though I know I'm guilty if pushed..)

...if members weren't pressed constantly to explain this or that to other members.

Now, that's the interesting one. I like to know why people have the opinions that they do. There's not always any need to argue with them about them; it's possible that an explanation of 'why' may enable other posters to see things in a different light. Or are we just going to accept that our thinking is set in stone and can never change?

That would be fine, if political discussions didn't mean people told they're "sneering". If personal comments weren't made, if members weren't pressed constantly to explain this or that to other members.
It seems to be how every political thread ends up, which means nobody wants to venture to make a comment. I don't see why that should be allowed into every other thread. Frankly, its tedious.

If any GNetter was to suggest that political comments were to be banned from all other forums other than "News and Politics", I doubt whether any forums would survive. Politics is about life. I can hardly imagine any subject which cannot possibly have a political dimension.

Good news on the NHS thread.