That's because of the content of what he posts. He deliberately posts that sort of provocative material, so should expect provocation in return.
"Oh god, where's the block button?" was the first thing you posted to me.
Because of the way you were before and your very aggressively pro-lockdown stance. You still hold it, I still oppose it. And I'm not prepared to go soft on your views because I think they threaten really fundamental liberties. You can disagree with that - fine. But if you hold and express controversial views as I do then expect to be challenged.
I only draw the line at veiled threats to report people to employers or anything similar. That's totally unacceptable but if you express views others strongly disagree with them you will be challenged.
"Oh god, where's the block button?" was the first thing you posted to me.
Because of the way you were before and your very aggressively pro-lockdown stance. You still hold it, I still oppose it. And I'm not prepared to go soft on your views because I think they threaten really fundamental liberties. You can disagree with that - fine. But if you hold and express controversial views as I do then expect to be challenged.
I only draw the line at veiled threats to report people to employers or anything similar. That's totally unacceptable but if you express views others strongly disagree with them you will be challenged.
This is a forum for civilised debate amongst people who will have many disagreements. Or at least it used to be for many years, and still is in parts. You appear to be saying you don't want to read something because you don't agree with it. Dok obviously put over an argument that favoured the lockdown (which incidentally had majority support amongst the public, so hardly anything extreme) and never aggressively.
Because of the way you were before and your very aggressively pro-lockdown stance. You still hold it, I still oppose it. And I'm not prepared to go soft on your views because I think they threaten really fundamental liberties. You can disagree with that - fine. But if you hold and express controversial views as I do then expect to be challenged.
I only draw the line at veiled threats to report people to employers or anything similar. That's totally unacceptable but if you express views others strongly disagree with them you will be challenged.
This is a forum for civilised debate amongst people who will have many disagreements. Or at least it used to be for many years, and still is in parts. You appear to be saying you don't want to read something because you don't agree with it. Dok obviously put over an argument that favoured the lockdown (which incidentally had majority support amongst the public, so hardly anything extreme) and never aggressively.
I said exactly the opposite. I will challenge, rather than use the block button, but doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ deliberately provokes those he disagrees with and then kicks off when they respond. Your own views coincide with his, which is why you perceived it as nonprovocative.
This is a forum for civilised debate amongst people who will have many disagreements. Or at least it used to be for many years, and still is in parts. You appear to be saying you don't want to read something because you don't agree with it. Dok obviously put over an argument that favoured the lockdown (which incidentally had majority support amongst the public, so hardly anything extreme) and never aggressively.
I said exactly the opposite. I will challenge, rather than use the block button, but doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ deliberately provokes those he disagrees with and then kicks off when they respond. Your own views coincide with his, which is why you perceived it as nonprovocative.
Is that your response to trying to improve the atmosphere on the Forum?
Really?
When I came back, Mike's response was "Oh god, where's the block button", Boogs has called me "the reason why a joke worked", and Richard has called me all sorts. I don't need a barometer to see how the atmosphere is a toxic now as it was when I came back last year.
This forum was (should still be) a happy place. A certain little grouplet of men ensure it's bleak and bitter and negative.
Unhelpful but avoidable.
Keep to psephology as you once promised.
If you can't do that please do not provoke, trail a coat, troll and provoke people. It always ends in unpleasantness and tears. It is not just one-sided and you must see that?
When I came back, Mike's response was "Oh god, where's the block button", Boogs has called me "the reason why a joke worked", and Richard has called me all sorts. I don't need a barometer to see how the atmosphere is a toxic now as it was when I came back last year.
This forum was (should still be) a happy place. A certain little grouplet of men ensure it's bleak and bitter and negative.
Unhelpful but avoidable.
Keep to psephology as you once promised.
If you can't do that please do not provoke, trail a coat, troll and provoke people. It always ends in unpleasantness and tears. It is not just one-sided and you must see that?
"Carlton wants more graphs in byelection threads," got it 😉
If you can't do that please do not provoke, trail a coat, troll and provoke people. It always ends in unpleasantness and tears. It is not just one-sided and you must see that?
"Carlton wants more graphs in byelection threads," got it 😉
Oh yes! Always loved those graphs. On record as to how much I love them. The soul of art is ambiguity and complexity.
Because of the way you were before and your very aggressively pro-lockdown stance. You still hold it, I still oppose it. And I'm not prepared to go soft on your views because I think they threaten really fundamental liberties. You can disagree with that - fine. But if you hold and express controversial views as I do then expect to be challenged.
I only draw the line at veiled threats to report people to employers or anything similar. That's totally unacceptable but if you express views others strongly disagree with them you will be challenged.
This is a forum for civilised debate amongst people who will have many disagreements. Or at least it used to be for many years, and still is in parts. You appear to be saying you don't want to read something because you don't agree with it. Dok obviously put over an argument that favoured the lockdown (which incidentally had majority support amongst the public, so hardly anything extreme) and never aggressively.
Can we please avoid every thread on here turning into a discussion on doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ ?
Most of us will be well aware of Dok's history on here and will be aware of the mental health issues which he has not sought to hide.
I believe I speak for the Admin Team (and the overwhelming majority who post on here) in saying we would like this place to be one where robust debate is encouraged but in a polite and reasonable manner.
If you don't like what a poster writes feel free to debate the substance; if you don't like an individual poster please ignore them or use the block button.
Please do not loudly proclaim that you are going to block someone and then keep engaging with them.
Please do not call people "cunts" (or similar). You can debate the issue, or you can report a post if you think it is inappropriate.
There are few rules on this Forum, but you should not be doing any of the following:
"Outing" somebody's identity (or personal characteristics) without their specific consent. Suggesting people are drunk. Suggesting people are mentally ill. Trying, or threatening, to involve a poster's employer, family or contacts in acting against a poster. Goading other posters, whether that is by using names they do not wish to use or by trying to trigger an over-reaction.
Banter is one of the better features on here, but do not cross the line into harassment or bullying.
And with that can we get back to the fascinating subject of this thread ... er, Cllr Wallace.
Last Edit: Jul 13, 2021 12:08:14 GMT by gwynthegriff
EUsceptic Liberal Democrat. Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative. Semi-retired hack.
One of the reasons I was reluctant to move an amendment to the posturing piece of nonsense that is the carbon budget is that it might be seconded by a Seventh Day Adventist climate change denier who might "agree with Cllr Wallace, dinosaurs perished because they missed the Ark"
Speaking of posturing on carbon ...
The BBC ran a piece today which involved a team going to Fort William to interview a 13 year old who has been leading "school strikes" protesting against climate change.
"To minimise our carbon impact we hired an electric car"
er, why not go on the train or the Citylink coach?
Or phone her ...
Don't trust this guy but he makes a good point.
EUsceptic Liberal Democrat. Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative. Semi-retired hack.
Can we please avoid every thread on here turning into a discussion on doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ ?
Most of us will be well aware of Dok's history on here and will be aware of the mental health issues which he has not sought to hide.
I believe I speak for the Admin Team (and the overwhelming majority who post on here) in saying we would like this place to be one where robust debate is encouraged but in a polite and reasonable manner.
If you don't like what a poster writes feel free to debate the substance; if you don't like an individual poster please ignore them or use the block button.
Please do not loudly proclaim that you are going to block someone and then keep engaging with them.
Please do not call people "cunts" (or similar). You can debate the issue, or you can report a post if you think it is inappropriate.
There are few rules on this Forum, but you should not be doing any of the following:
"Outing" somebody's identity (or personal characteristics) without their specific consent. Suggesting people are drunk. Suggesting people are mentally ill. Trying, or threatening, to involve a poster's employer, family or contacts in acting against a poster. Goading other posters, whether that is by using names they do not wish to use or by trying to trigger an over-reaction.
Banter is one of the better features on here, but do not cross the line into harassment or bullying.
And with that can we get back to the fascinating subject of this thread ... er, Cllr Wallace.
Can we please avoid every thread on here turning into a discussion on doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ ?
Most of us will be well aware of Dok's history on here and will be aware of the mental health issues which he has not sought to hide.
I believe I speak for the Admin Team (and the overwhelming majority who post on here) in saying we would like this place to be one where robust debate is encouraged but in a polite and reasonable manner.
If you don't like what a poster writes feel free to debate the substance; if you don't like an individual poster please ignore them or use the block button.
Please do not loudly proclaim that you are going to block someone and then keep engaging with them.
Please do not call people "cunts" (or similar). You can debate the issue, or you can report a post if you think it is inappropriate.
There are few rules on this Forum, but you should not be doing any of the following:
"Outing" somebody's identity (or personal characteristics) without their specific consent. Suggesting people are drunk. Suggesting people are mentally ill. Trying, or threatening, to involve a poster's employer, family or contacts in acting against a poster. Goading other posters, whether that is by using names they do not wish to use or by trying to trigger an over-reaction.
Banter is one of the better features on here, but do not cross the line into harassment or bullying.
And with that can we get back to the fascinating subject of this thread ... er, Cllr Wallace.
You mean that drunken crazy old cunt Alexander Wallace (that's what the redhead and the staff at Sainsburys told me anyway)
Can we please avoid every thread on here turning into a discussion on doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ ?
Most of us will be well aware of Dok's history on here and will be aware of the mental health issues which he has not sought to hide.
I believe I speak for the Admin Team (and the overwhelming majority who post on here) in saying we would like this place to be one where robust debate is encouraged but in a polite and reasonable manner.
If you don't like what a poster writes feel free to debate the substance; if you don't like an individual poster please ignore them or use the block button.
Please do not loudly proclaim that you are going to block someone and then keep engaging with them.
Please do not call people "cunts" (or similar). You can debate the issue, or you can report a post if you think it is inappropriate.
There are few rules on this Forum, but you should not be doing any of the following:
"Outing" somebody's identity (or personal characteristics) without their specific consent. Suggesting people are drunk. Suggesting people are mentally ill. Trying, or threatening, to involve a poster's employer, family or contacts in acting against a poster. Goading other posters, whether that is by using names they do not wish to use or by trying to trigger an over-reaction.
Banter is one of the better features on here, but do not cross the line into harassment or bullying.
And with that can we get back to the fascinating subject of this thread ... er, Cllr Wallace.
Well what on earth am I supposed to call the cunts then?
"Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth." - Lucy Parsons
2020 has been a fairly awful year, I think we can all agree, even if we disagree on why and in what way.
I hope the Forum will forgive the self-indulgence but this thread is rather about me, so I will use it as the thread about me. In 2021 I intend to lose a bit of weight. You can't really help with that.
I also hope to be less rude. You can help with that. I shall insert a poll in this thread, entitled Is Boog avoiding being rude. The options will be yes and no. Votes will be visible at all times and you can change your vote as often as you see fit. If you vote that I am not avoiding being rude, then you may perhaps wish to quote the current example of me being rude. The poll will be open for the duration of 2021.
If you would be so kind as to clear up one small matter (more about guidelines for the vote than anything else).
The poll currently shows one "yes" vote and no "no" votes. Does this mean that you are voting in this poll? Or does it mean (in the absence of any data regarding the identity of the sole voter) that you have an (at least currently) anonymous admirer?
(For the absence of any doubt about my own position - I have not myself voted in this poll so far, and do not intend to do so at least until it has been running for at least long enough to make a statistically informed opinion.)
The poll seems to have disappeared like the snows of yesteryear (despite our still being well within "the duration of 2021"), but I think that I may now be in a position to make an informed opinion.
At least for the first few days after the poll was posted, I think there were some signs that Boog was at least trying to avoid being rude, but unfortunately largely not succeeding, in large measure for reasons most ably expressed at the time by a fellow member of this forum:
I think Boogs has genuinely been trying to avoid being overly rude in his normal way and should be encouraged in that attempt, but that it doesn't come naturally to him. That this threads exists at all is a symptom of that. There is a tendency to put himself at the centre of things when, truth be told, he is not that important( I know, I have had the same accusation levelled at me), and there is a certain latent aggression in the way the question is put, like " nobody has given me instances", etc, which he doesn't seem to be able to avoid.It is subtler than the an expletive ridden condemnation of anybody and everybody we might otherwise expect from some quarters.
Since then, Boog's new year resolution seems to have dissipated, like most such resolutions, and I find it difficult not to conclude that, over most of the current year so far, he has generally not managed to avoid being rude.
It is therefore probably not surprising, nor worthy of more than the mildest of clarifications, that people who were absent from this forum around the start of this year might feel some incredulity about the episode. However, I should acknowledge with some pleasure that Boogs himself has not been among the people here over the past day or so who have felt a need to rudely over-clarify this matter. So I should possibly concede that, at least on this occasion, he has indeed avoided being rude.
Can we please avoid every thread on here turning into a discussion on doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ ?
Most of us will be well aware of Dok's history on here and will be aware of the mental health issues which he has not sought to hide.
I believe I speak for the Admin Team (and the overwhelming majority who post on here) in saying we would like this place to be one where robust debate is encouraged but in a polite and reasonable manner.
If you don't like what a poster writes feel free to debate the substance; if you don't like an individual poster please ignore them or use the block button.
Please do not loudly proclaim that you are going to block someone and then keep engaging with them.
Please do not call people "cunts" (or similar). You can debate the issue, or you can report a post if you think it is inappropriate.
There are few rules on this Forum, but you should not be doing any of the following:
"Outing" somebody's identity (or personal characteristics) without their specific consent. Suggesting people are drunk. Suggesting people are mentally ill. Trying, or threatening, to involve a poster's employer, family or contacts in acting against a poster. Goading other posters, whether that is by using names they do not wish to use or by trying to trigger an over-reaction.
Banter is one of the better features on here, but do not cross the line into harassment or bullying.
And with that can we get back to the fascinating subject of this thread ... er, Cllr Wallace.
Well what on earth am I supposed to call the cunts then?
You might want to consider using the phrase, "I think you may be person who is self identifying as a vulva".
Don't Take Life Too Seriously, Nobody Gets Out Alive Anyway!
Can we please avoid every thread on here turning into a discussion on doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ ?
Most of us will be well aware of Dok's history on here and will be aware of the mental health issues which he has not sought to hide.
I believe I speak for the Admin Team (and the overwhelming majority who post on here) in saying we would like this place to be one where robust debate is encouraged but in a polite and reasonable manner.
If you don't like what a poster writes feel free to debate the substance; if you don't like an individual poster please ignore them or use the block button.
Please do not loudly proclaim that you are going to block someone and then keep engaging with them.
Please do not call people "cunts" (or similar). You can debate the issue, or you can report a post if you think it is inappropriate.
There are few rules on this Forum, but you should not be doing any of the following:
"Outing" somebody's identity (or personal characteristics) without their specific consent. Suggesting people are drunk. Suggesting people are mentally ill. Trying, or threatening, to involve a poster's employer, family or contacts in acting against a poster. Goading other posters, whether that is by using names they do not wish to use or by trying to trigger an over-reaction.
Banter is one of the better features on here, but do not cross the line into harassment or bullying.
And with that can we get back to the fascinating subject of this thread ... er, Cllr Wallace.
Well what on earth am I supposed to call the cunts then?
