Doodledog
I don't know if it's me seeing a different side of you since the election, or if I just didn't see it before, but I used to see someone calling out passive aggression on trans threads (I'm not sure that we shared a presence on other ones very often) but now you seem to be the worst offender at exactly that.
That’s a very well put description of how your posts appear to me since the election Doodledog.
We used to have a poster (ex-poster? I won't name her in case that is against the rules, but am happy to do so if not - her name could be 'Purple Airspace' if in a crossword - who used to hint at things that 'some people' did, and pretended that she could see both sides of everything and was the reasonable person on every thread. We could all see that this was far from true, however.
???
You’ve just asked me to name somebody from another thread, but you won’t do so? How is that reasonable?
It is very rare that anyone other than the Dalai Lama can claim to be the voice of reason, see both sides, sit in the middle etc, however much people think they do so.
I agree, but who are the people think they do so you mean?
I don't think for a moment that you are fair to both sides since Labour won the election, and neither do I think that you are somehow 'in the middle', any more than Purple Airspace was when it came to trans issues.
What you think is your opinion.
What I think is mine. I think I’m fair and unless there is a new rule I’ve not heard of about who is allowed to have an opinion . . .
That doesn't matter, as far as I am concerned. I have friends from all political persuasions, but as I believe in democracy I accept that people don't have to agree with me.
???
If someone argues, I will argue back, though. I only get personal when people attack me, however. There are historical reasons for that. I try not to let them influence my responses, but don't always manage. I do know that if people simply disagree, I just disagree back, and don't to the 'tit for tat' thing that you seem to revel in. Even people with whom I usually disagree will accept that, I think. People can, of course, feel free to come up with examples if they think I am wrong.
???
As you know, it is easy to go back through threads and pull up examples, so please don't do the 'I know what I am but what are you?' thing? It's not clever to try to 'Gotcha' people, and try to trip them up with 'you said this, so you must mean that' accusations, particularly when they are in code, or hidden in more complex posts.
You keep going on about gotcha, but it’s in your mind or interpretation. I don’t bother doing that.
As I've said, I can't be bothered with GN presently, so if you decide to use this defence to try to get me banned, I won't be too upset. I am not looking at leaving of my own volition, as I enjoy the company of a lot of people (whether political 'friends' or not) but it all feel so toxic just now that it feels like more trouble than it's worth.
I don't, and haven’t ever done reporting to try and get anyone banned. It’s much better to leave the comments to stand, but if you’re happy to make that accusation, so be it.
I have things going on in my private life that I might once have come here to ask advice about, but now I wouldn't dream of it because of the spite that moves from thread to thread. The Starmer hatred has killed the sense of community that used to be here, I think.
I think the constant rebuttal of any criticisms of Starmer are equally contributing to the loss of community.
What colour car do you have or did you used to drive?
A drop in the ocean in the great schemes of things....but replicated by how many more
