Moos

Ooh, do you think the guilty horses might get stripped of their medals?

Hmm, I wonder if there could possibly be a 3rd way. Jamma, to put it politely, you would benefit from improving your listening skills. Not everyone who posts in response to you is against you. Here's your post, with the potentially offensive words highlighted (my opinion, my highlights. Not fact) So I'm faced between walking away and allowing Monica (against whom I have nothing personal) and the other woo merchants to spout the dangerous guff that they spout or I try and challenge it and fight it aware that I'm unlikely to make much progress. I'll choose the latter on the off chance that something I say will stick. Emotive language isn't necessarily irrational. And if someone is a nutjob it's not emotive or irrational to call them a nutjob. It would be irrational to tiptoe round them and respect their stupid beliefs. They have the right to believe in woo, I absolutely have the right to point out that their woo is utter tripe. And Keef don't bring Dawkins into this. He tends to polarise opinion and distract from the real issues these days unfortunately. Do you see what I mean? It's not that I disagree with your stance per se. But if you put your case politely and listened to others you might not - er - polarise opinion quite so much. People might want to engage with you. They might listen to you, and there's a better chance that what you say might stick. I've been trying my best to be polite in this exchange but I can no longer refrain from bringing emotion into it myself (that's what happens when strong and aggressive language is used.. it generates strong and aggressive language, and reduces listening on both sides). I dislike the tone of your posts, and it makes me dislike you. I'm sure you don't care and why should you, you don't know me. But this is why you should care - it makes me want to disagree with you, and it significantly reduces my respect for your opinion. So if you are trying to make converts - I use religious analogy once again, because it seems to me that you are a genuine evangelist, a believer - try using honey combined with steel. It's a powerful combination. None of this is fact - it's just my opinion. But I've banged on long enough.

Been meaning to say for a while that my sprog loves Trish's Sing and Sign class - very relaxed, lots of fun.

Yes, I've long thought SeanMac a bit... well, tacky. Don't you think?

Please, please oh please for the love of God will you let this thread die? It's just going round and round in circles.

So what are the risks if any of putting your identity on the Internet? We're always being urged to be super-careful with personal details, but with what I hear is called the 'Mosaic Effect' (thanks Asset) we on the Forum are all giving away little details here and there (what road do you live on...do you have kids...what do you do for a living...what train do you catch to work) to make ourselves identifiable. And quite a lot of people happily put their real names, phone numbers and so on here. And that's quite apart from Forum socialising in person! :-$ I'd be interested to know what people think are the risks, and what we should do to be careful. Or am I just paranoid? Moos Secret Agent

To Louisa :))

Nice one Louisa, but wouldn't everyone be pissed off by the absence of affordable transport?

...pooing on your doorstep, however, is Going Too Far.

So unreasonable people don't listen to reason, and therefore what? To whom, then, are you preaching? For a scientist and someone supposedly keen on impersonal argument, you use a great deal of emotive and thus irrational language. If science is your religion, then you speak the language of the enemy.

.

.

goodness me, no - I meant that sex and alcohol are messy fun NOT available to kids. Your nanny aside. And, well, anyway - let's leave the subject there, shall we?

pk, I've wondered the same, but thought I must be wrong! Thank goodness that's cleared up... now bugger off the lot of you. >:D

As our resident verynearlyabridegroom His Honour Mockney Piers once said, spleling is difikult.

If after struggling through the swamp that is the Internet and finding a damn medal for a horse I only get a draw, then I'm not going to bother - an unresolved argument is already a draw. I may be reduced to mocking you for writing know-one instead. Poor, I know.

2 words for you, VBC - sex and alcohol.

Dessie could arguably have been the Steve Redgrave of horses, although I don't think he was an Olympian so perhaps not. Now this is an ever so slightly complex argument involving more than one element, so listen carefully. The rider is in charge - directing the horse with skill - but the horse is also involved (hence the (alleged - I really must find out) medal), and there is teamwork between the two. Besides, your argument is thoroughly inconsistent, as I suspect you know, both in the Olympics and sport more generally. Cyclists get to use their own bikes, Formula One drivers don't get to fight over who gets the Ferrari, and David Beckham gets to wear his own (or his wife's) lucky pants to play football, he doesn't have to grab them from a pile in the locker room. Must go off and find out about that medal.

PGC, do you think we are being fair, picking on poor young David at the same time? I am happy to retire gracefully from the lists if you feel we are not upholding the Olympic ideal.

I thought the horse did get a medal. So if that's your only argument, here's me with my medal-decorated argument bazooka, blowing your ass away. Oh, sorry, there is another argument. So, do you also think the hockey teams should line up and pick one another at random, with the fat kids at the back getting picked last? Isn't it about training as a team?

Good point, VBC. They may look cute, but children are walking (or crawling, or wriggling) plague pits. No decent immune system, no sense of private space, a far too keen interest in poking at or eating whatever revolting filth they can find, and then they hang out with other non-immune, huggy, poo-poking plague pits to share the fun.

d_c - and I mean this in the nicest way - you are spouting bollocks. Horse riding is very difficult and skillful for both horse and rider. Directing a bike is one thing, directing an animal with a mind is another. And re: boxing, I see your point on the judging - perhaps it should just be a knockout elimination - but I still think the historical precedent stands. I have no issue with them competing naked if necessary! That said, some of the ancients thought boxing was against the Olympic ideal of the all-round gentleman making the very best of his body - boxers were thought to be crude specialists with ugly physiques. Edited - we crossed posts. Before you ask, I don't ride, and I don't particularly like horses, although they are very nice to look at. I did go through a liking-horses phase when I was about 9 but it wore off when my mother explained to me that we couldn't keep a horse in our shed.

Boxing!? Boxing was in the Olympics when it was held in Olympia!!

Sorry to hear you're feeling rough, Nero. If you do diagnose an intolerance, try buying wine from Vinothentic who sell mostly wine without sulphates. We get a lot of our wine from them, and that is one benefit: good price, personal service and supporting a small business who in turn buy from small vineyards are others. Edited post reading Mark's post - not sure what the differences are between sulphates, sulphites and sulfites and I've also read something similar.. but perhaps someone may be able to tell us.

Sean, no matter what your employer or profession, slashing your tyre is a horrible thing to do. I challenge anyone to think of a profession everybody likes. But I can understand you'd get sick of taking the flak for Foxton. Edited-crossed with OtherSean (Mac)