 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's called freedom of speech." ... ... ☮️ Sadly some get melty when others dare to voice their opinions. Others are able to get on with it and accept that there are going to be differences of opinion.... on an internet forum. These posters are the backbone and deserve credit 🍍 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s the same on a lot of public forums now. Same old folk spouting the same old tropes. It’s a good filter to identify those to be ignored/avoided. "
I always assume their regurgitated talking points are their version of dirty talk. It's their wife chat/pantie chat. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corbyn is no longer a Labour Party Man though." Is he starting the Steptoe Party then.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU ruined Doctor Who and gave us Mrs Brown's Boys, pahhhhh" It’s a fair argument well made to be honest. 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So much Farageaphobia. There should be a law against it!" I suspect it is in their manifesto | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's called freedom of speech." Doesn’t mean it cannot be criticised. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I the only one who has noticed a strong uptick in reformbot3000 activity? No matter the thread a random account appears and has to make it about immigration. Favourite Ice-cream flavours? Doesn’t matter with all these bloody migrants Where you going on holiday this year? You’ll not manage to get there because of the immigrants The weather is good today? Bloody Starmer has given the French control of our rain. " On another thread you castigate the contribution of another user saying “oh look a reformbot3000 programmed to make everything about undermining the government”. As I pointed out there, the profile in question was that of a long-standing site user. By referring to them as “reformbot3000” are you trying to suggest this is somehow a fake profile? Is the implication the user is not real but a “bot”..? After all a “bot" is generally understood to mean software designed to perform automated tasks and imitating or replacing a real person. By referring to other profiles as “reformbot3000” - what are you actually implying? That these are profiles which have been created on the site only to raise talking points for Reform? They aren’t real users? Their contributions should be considered invalid because of this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have seen a couple of posts I think might have been bots. User not on line no verification. Few or no pics. Fairly extreme views and subject a little off post. Generally though, the reform supporters I see here are I think people with genuinely held views. " Which, if anything is even more worrying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I the only one who has noticed a strong uptick in reformbot3000 activity? No matter the thread a random account appears and has to make it about immigration. Favourite Ice-cream flavours? Doesn’t matter with all these bloody migrants Where you going on holiday this year? You’ll not manage to get there because of the immigrants The weather is good today? Bloody Starmer has given the French control of our rain. On another thread you castigate the contribution of another user saying “oh look a reformbot3000 programmed to make everything about undermining the government”. As I pointed out there, the profile in question was that of a long-standing site user. By referring to them as “reformbot3000” are you trying to suggest this is somehow a fake profile? Is the implication the user is not real but a “bot”..? After all a “bot" is generally understood to mean software designed to perform automated tasks and imitating or replacing a real person. By referring to other profiles as “reformbot3000” - what are you actually implying? That these are profiles which have been created on the site only to raise talking points for Reform? They aren’t real users? Their contributions should be considered invalid because of this? " No, I don’t believe these are necessarily fake accounts, but the account holders are taking on the mantle of a reformbot. It may be a personal choice, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t think there are any ‘bots’ on this site. Some boring robotic like users though. I’m not sure why LGBT people would want Reform as one of their councillors had the rainbow flag removed from the town hall. Tells people what they think of showing solidarity. " It may be because many gay and bi people don’t see the LGBT cause as something at the forefront of their identity or priority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t think there are any ‘bots’ on this site. Some boring robotic like users though. I’m not sure why LGBT people would want Reform as one of their councillors had the rainbow flag removed from the town hall. Tells people what they think of showing solidarity. It may be because many gay and bi people don’t see the LGBT cause as something at the forefront of their identity or priority. " Like David Bull - Reform Chairman | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Almost no topic can be discussed without an opinion, from either side, being dismissed as an unthinking sign of tribal allegiance. " Certainty in forums I would agree with that. However that isn’t the point of this thread. My point is around people trying to turn threads into reform rants which have absolutely nothing to do with the topic whatsoever. The kindest thing you could say is that immigration as a topic lives so rent free in their heads they cannot help but talk about it, even in a thread dedicated to the best jelly flavour for trifle. It could be accurately argued the tactic is to try to sow disharmony at all opportunities because reform’s only argument is that everything is terrible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I the only one who has noticed a strong uptick in reformbot3000 activity? No matter the thread a random account appears and has to make it about immigration. Favourite Ice-cream flavours? Doesn’t matter with all these bloody migrants Where you going on holiday this year? You’ll not manage to get there because of the immigrants The weather is good today? Bloody Starmer has given the French control of our rain. On another thread you castigate the contribution of another user saying “oh look a reformbot3000 programmed to make everything about undermining the government”. As I pointed out there, the profile in question was that of a long-standing site user. By referring to them as “reformbot3000” are you trying to suggest this is somehow a fake profile? Is the implication the user is not real but a “bot”..? After all a “bot" is generally understood to mean software designed to perform automated tasks and imitating or replacing a real person. By referring to other profiles as “reformbot3000” - what are you actually implying? That these are profiles which have been created on the site only to raise talking points for Reform? They aren’t real users? Their contributions should be considered invalid because of this? No, I don’t believe these are necessarily fake accounts, but the account holders are taking on the mantle of a reformbot. It may be a personal choice, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical. " “No, I don’t believe these are necessarily fake accounts…” … “necessarily…” … this implies you have clear scepticism they are real. “It may be a personal choice…” implies that you think there is the possibility it is not a personal choice, and that someone is forcing [?], paying [?], programming [?] these profiles to comment on immigration or topics you think are supporting Reform. The fact you find it so bizarre that users might post comments on the site that support Reform that you have elaborated a whole conspiracy theory about their accounts being “bots” is extraordinary. The extrapolated results of the 2025 Local Elections gave a national vote share to Reform of 32%. In line with most polling as the year has continued. That means a third of voters are currently indicating support for Reform. You may not like that. You may find that perverse. But to find comments on this Forum that support Reform cannot be surprising… the surprise would be if there none at all. For all sorts of factors this Forum will not be remotely representative of the UK as a whole, so a third of our users here will not be Reform supporters. (Don’t be like the Scottish user and independence supporter on the Nicola Sturgeon thread who wrote that 90% of everyone he knows supports independence.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corbyn is no longer a Labour Party Man though." No but he is still considered by many to be the champion of the left, of true Labour values. He has had a lot of people flock to his new party, the Yore Party, since it wants to take us back to the days of yore. Come to think of it Reform does as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Am I the only one who has noticed a strong uptick in reformbot3000 activity? No matter the thread a random account appears and has to make it about immigration. Favourite Ice-cream flavours? Doesn’t matter with all these bloody migrants Where you going on holiday this year? You’ll not manage to get there because of the immigrants The weather is good today? Bloody Starmer has given the French control of our rain. On another thread you castigate the contribution of another user saying “oh look a reformbot3000 programmed to make everything about undermining the government”. As I pointed out there, the profile in question was that of a long-standing site user. By referring to them as “reformbot3000” are you trying to suggest this is somehow a fake profile? Is the implication the user is not real but a “bot”..? After all a “bot" is generally understood to mean software designed to perform automated tasks and imitating or replacing a real person. By referring to other profiles as “reformbot3000” - what are you actually implying? That these are profiles which have been created on the site only to raise talking points for Reform? They aren’t real users? Their contributions should be considered invalid because of this? No, I don’t believe these are necessarily fake accounts, but the account holders are taking on the mantle of a reformbot. It may be a personal choice, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical. “No, I don’t believe these are necessarily fake accounts…” … “necessarily…” … this implies you have clear scepticism they are real. “It may be a personal choice…” implies that you think there is the possibility it is not a personal choice, and that someone is forcing [?], paying [?], programming [?] these profiles to comment on immigration or topics you think are supporting Reform. The fact you find it so bizarre that users might post comments on the site that support Reform that you have elaborated a whole conspiracy theory about their accounts being “bots” is extraordinary. The extrapolated results of the 2025 Local Elections gave a national vote share to Reform of 32%. In line with most polling as the year has continued. That means a third of voters are currently indicating support for Reform. You may not like that. You may find that perverse. But to find comments on this Forum that support Reform cannot be surprising… the surprise would be if there none at all. For all sorts of factors this Forum will not be remotely representative of the UK as a whole, so a third of our users here will not be Reform supporters. (Don’t be like the Scottish user and independence supporter on the Nicola Sturgeon thread who wrote that 90% of everyone he knows supports independence.)" You are really digging hard to be annoyed at this and trying with great vigour to find some subtext you can yell at. Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It doesn’t matter what your views are…Reform have definitely shaken the two party system up. There’s not many on here who can deny that the Tories messed up in the time they were elected and Labour are a bit of a disappointment up to now ….. is it just a protest vote or is it something real only time will tell " You are dangerously close to making a valid and considered point in a pit of mud slinging nonsense, I would agree entirely with what you have said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I prefer a jelly free trifle, personally. " What do you use instead? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You are really digging hard to be annoyed at this and trying with great vigour to find some subtext you can yell at. Why? … " Not at all. I’m neither annoyed nor vexed nor vigorous for subtext (whatever that quite means.) I took what you had written completely seriously - it seemed that you had meant it seriously - and was analysing it logically as such. Maybe I was foolhardy to take you what you’d written seriously. I shall learn for the future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I prefer a jelly free trifle, personally. What do you use instead? " Extra custard. 🤣 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I prefer a jelly free trifle, personally. What do you use instead? Extra custard. 🤣" That seems absolutely legitimate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I prefer a jelly free trifle, personally. What do you use instead? Extra custard. 🤣" don't forget to 100s and 1000s and a few glacier cherries 🍒🍒 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You are really digging hard to be annoyed at this and trying with great vigour to find some subtext you can yell at. Why? … Not at all. I’m neither annoyed nor vexed nor vigorous for subtext (whatever that quite means.) I took what you had written completely seriously - it seemed that you had meant it seriously - and was analysing it logically as such. Maybe I was foolhardy to take you what you’d written seriously. I shall learn for the future." No see here you are again digging for subtext that isn’t there. You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said. That’s the bit which is challenging to understand, because you are adding to what was written then pushing back against what you, yourself, have added then having a go at me for it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Corbyn is no longer a Labour Party Man though. No but he is still considered by many to be the champion of the left, of true Labour values. He has had a lot of people flock to his new party, the Yore Party, since it wants to take us back to the days of yore. Come to think of it Reform does as well." Well days of democracy being about involved local politicians and not simply party placements. And at 800,000 subscribers it would appear labour and Torries are both going to collapse at next election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… " I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Well days of democracy being about involved local politicians and not simply party placements. And at 800,000 subscribers it would appear labour and Tories are both going to collapse at next election. " Not quite sure what you are getting at in your first sentence. Whilst party placements do occur, local constituency parties do have a say in who the candidate should be. I have been on such a selection committee in the past. Reform seems to be a personal cult of Farage. Here in Wales we are gearing up for next May's Senedd elections. All Reform's posters, flyers, leaflets etc seem to be about what Farage says and all carry his picture, yet he is not standing. Probably thinks of the Welsh as 2nd class colonials anyway. If by some remote chance they did win the Senedd election we don't even know who their leaders or ministers would be. Neither the Conservatives or Labour are doing very well nationally in opinion polls, but I wouldn't write them off yet. Anything could happen between now and 2029. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness." Your first paragraph and your responses so far put each other under considerable pressure. The dismissiveness comes from the abstract and unrelated nature of the posts I am referring to. Absolutely off topic and absolutely irrelevant to the threads they are in. Dismissive responses because of the fatuous nature of the posts. That is a legitimate response to the material of the posts in question. Your responses to this thread have been contrived and unrelated to the material of the thread, instead related to things which were not said, nor implied. Hence the dismissive approach to them. If a person wants to try to hijack a thread for their own ends, they need to expect a dismissive response. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness. Your first paragraph and your responses so far put each other under considerable pressure. The dismissiveness comes from the abstract and unrelated nature of the posts I am referring to. Absolutely off topic and absolutely irrelevant to the threads they are in. Dismissive responses because of the fatuous nature of the posts. That is a legitimate response to the material of the posts in question. Your responses to this thread have been contrived and unrelated to the material of the thread, instead related to things which were not said, nor implied. Hence the dismissive approach to them. If a person wants to try to hijack a thread for their own ends, they need to expect a dismissive response." I don’t really understand what you’re talking about now. It’s becoming gobbledygook. You started this thread about so-called “reformbots” so if I’m trying to get you to explain exactly what you meant and why you’ve used this interesting pejorative term, I don’t understand why I’m now being accused of hi-jacking the thread. As for dismissiveness… Again, you completely misunderstand. I wasn’t referring to any dismissiveness towards me. You’re naturally dismissive to most other users in the Forum, so I don’t expect any special treatment! And why would I care?! I am referring to the fact your reaction to those referencing immigration concerns here or more obvious support for Reform being evident on the site is simply to dismiss any users as a “reformbot”. I think that’s very lazy-thinking and remarkably short-sighted. But you must be you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness. Your first paragraph and your responses so far put each other under considerable pressure. The dismissiveness comes from the abstract and unrelated nature of the posts I am referring to. Absolutely off topic and absolutely irrelevant to the threads they are in. Dismissive responses because of the fatuous nature of the posts. That is a legitimate response to the material of the posts in question. Your responses to this thread have been contrived and unrelated to the material of the thread, instead related to things which were not said, nor implied. Hence the dismissive approach to them. If a person wants to try to hijack a thread for their own ends, they need to expect a dismissive response. I don’t really understand what you’re talking about now. It’s becoming gobbledygook. You started this thread about so-called “reformbots” so if I’m trying to get you to explain exactly what you meant and why you’ve used this interesting pejorative term, I don’t understand why I’m now being accused of hi-jacking the thread. As for dismissiveness… Again, you completely misunderstand. I wasn’t referring to any dismissiveness towards me. You’re naturally dismissive to most other users in the Forum, so I don’t expect any special treatment! And why would I care?! I am referring to the fact your reaction to those referencing immigration concerns here or more obvious support for Reform being evident on the site is simply to dismiss any users as a “reformbot”. I think that’s very lazy-thinking and remarkably short-sighted. But you must be you. " You are consistently ignoring the central point I am making. Hence my suggestions that your posts are somewhat irrelevant. But I will try again. See if you actually spot it this time. I said in the OP and multiple times thereafter that my point is about people bringing these topics into totally unrelated threads. I gave examples of it in the OP and I have consistently repeated that as my point since then. However, rather tellingly, all your responses have been on different topics and you refuse to engage in that one central topic which was the point of the OP. Instead trying to pick semantic arguments about things which were not said written or implied. And I have little doubt any response you give, will focus on the penultimate and final paragraph of this response and not on the central point in the third. Although if I am wrong I will be glad to engage on that specific point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness. Your first paragraph and your responses so far put each other under considerable pressure. The dismissiveness comes from the abstract and unrelated nature of the posts I am referring to. Absolutely off topic and absolutely irrelevant to the threads they are in. Dismissive responses because of the fatuous nature of the posts. That is a legitimate response to the material of the posts in question. Your responses to this thread have been contrived and unrelated to the material of the thread, instead related to things which were not said, nor implied. Hence the dismissive approach to them. If a person wants to try to hijack a thread for their own ends, they need to expect a dismissive response. I don’t really understand what you’re talking about now. It’s becoming gobbledygook. You started this thread about so-called “reformbots” so if I’m trying to get you to explain exactly what you meant and why you’ve used this interesting pejorative term, I don’t understand why I’m now being accused of hi-jacking the thread. As for dismissiveness… Again, you completely misunderstand. I wasn’t referring to any dismissiveness towards me. You’re naturally dismissive to most other users in the Forum, so I don’t expect any special treatment! And why would I care?! I am referring to the fact your reaction to those referencing immigration concerns here or more obvious support for Reform being evident on the site is simply to dismiss any users as a “reformbot”. I think that’s very lazy-thinking and remarkably short-sighted. But you must be you. You are consistently ignoring the central point I am making. Hence my suggestions that your posts are somewhat irrelevant. But I will try again. See if you actually spot it this time. I said in the OP and multiple times thereafter that my point is about people bringing these topics into totally unrelated threads. I gave examples of it in the OP and I have consistently repeated that as my point since then. However, rather tellingly, all your responses have been on different topics and you refuse to engage in that one central topic which was the point of the OP. Instead trying to pick semantic arguments about things which were not said written or implied. And I have little doubt any response you give, will focus on the penultimate and final paragraph of this response and not on the central point in the third. Although if I am wrong I will be glad to engage on that specific point." As a long-term reader of the Forum, I would estimate that nearly any thread on any sort of discursive issue is all too likely to spin off into side issues quite quixotically, with people then reacting to later postings that were not immediately related to whatever an OP began with. This is not a new factor. You surely cannot think it so. Some threads centre immediately on politics. But also political views, political argument, petty political point-scoring is all too often interjected into all sorts of other threads too. Sometimes it is poorly and very transparently shoe-horned in just so that users can sound off about pet topics. Q: Have I noticed people shoe-horning political points that might come under the field of “Reform talking points” eg immigration into threads in the Lounge? A: Yes I have! Q: Do I think this is an entirely new phenomenon? A: No, not at all. Q: Have I noted some users shoe-horning pet peeves or topics from other political viewpoints into threads? A: Yes I have! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm honestly surprised there's so much faragism on a gay site, when the kind of repressed queers they support would have them nailed up on a wall if allowed to proceed to the endgame." The exact same could be applied to the lefties who care oh so much about that little country in the middle east and its pesky neighbours None of it belongs on here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness. Your first paragraph and your responses so far put each other under considerable pressure. The dismissiveness comes from the abstract and unrelated nature of the posts I am referring to. Absolutely off topic and absolutely irrelevant to the threads they are in. Dismissive responses because of the fatuous nature of the posts. That is a legitimate response to the material of the posts in question. Your responses to this thread have been contrived and unrelated to the material of the thread, instead related to things which were not said, nor implied. Hence the dismissive approach to them. If a person wants to try to hijack a thread for their own ends, they need to expect a dismissive response. I don’t really understand what you’re talking about now. It’s becoming gobbledygook. You started this thread about so-called “reformbots” so if I’m trying to get you to explain exactly what you meant and why you’ve used this interesting pejorative term, I don’t understand why I’m now being accused of hi-jacking the thread. As for dismissiveness… Again, you completely misunderstand. I wasn’t referring to any dismissiveness towards me. You’re naturally dismissive to most other users in the Forum, so I don’t expect any special treatment! And why would I care?! I am referring to the fact your reaction to those referencing immigration concerns here or more obvious support for Reform being evident on the site is simply to dismiss any users as a “reformbot”. I think that’s very lazy-thinking and remarkably short-sighted. But you must be you. You are consistently ignoring the central point I am making. Hence my suggestions that your posts are somewhat irrelevant. But I will try again. See if you actually spot it this time. I said in the OP and multiple times thereafter that my point is about people bringing these topics into totally unrelated threads. I gave examples of it in the OP and I have consistently repeated that as my point since then. However, rather tellingly, all your responses have been on different topics and you refuse to engage in that one central topic which was the point of the OP. Instead trying to pick semantic arguments about things which were not said written or implied. And I have little doubt any response you give, will focus on the penultimate and final paragraph of this response and not on the central point in the third. Although if I am wrong I will be glad to engage on that specific point. As a long-term reader of the Forum, I would estimate that nearly any thread on any sort of discursive issue is all too likely to spin off into side issues quite quixotically, with people then reacting to later postings that were not immediately related to whatever an OP began with. This is not a new factor. You surely cannot think it so. Some threads centre immediately on politics. But also political views, political argument, petty political point-scoring is all too often interjected into all sorts of other threads too. Sometimes it is poorly and very transparently shoe-horned in just so that users can sound off about pet topics. Q: Have I noticed people shoe-horning political points that might come under the field of “Reform talking points” eg immigration into threads in the Lounge? A: Yes I have! Q: Do I think this is an entirely new phenomenon? A: No, not at all. Q: Have I noted some users shoe-horning pet peeves or topics from other political viewpoints into threads? A: Yes I have! " Ok so is there an argument is that it happens a lot therefore there is nothing to criticise or question? Or is there an argument that says such nonsense is worthy of being criticised? You also don’t approach my specific point about the seeming proliferation of this specific phenomenon, just that there are usually tangents taken and therefore… well you didn’t actually give a therefore, you simply stated it happens. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … Ok so is there an argument is that it happens a lot therefore there is nothing to criticise or question? Or is there an argument that says such nonsense is worthy of being criticised? You also don’t approach my specific point about the seeming proliferation of this specific phenomenon, just that there are usually tangents taken and therefore… well you didn’t actually give a therefore, you simply stated it happens… " There is no right or wrong answer to the question “What am I allowed to criticise?” You can criticise whatever you think fitting! And we all know you do and will do. As for the “seeming proliferation”… I addressed this in comments above about the rise of Reform and the fact their political support is now widespread and quite deep. You didn’t address any of that at all. Other people above have also commented about it pervading social media they have seen. It will be an incontrovertible fact that a party now receiving a third of public support will start to find more and more voices in a Forum like this. You didn’t start a thread bemoaning how posters too flagrantly drag threads into *any* political point-scoring. You made it specifically about Reform. You coined the term reformbots. You didn’t talk about labourbots or SNPbots or others. To you - the rise of Reform supporting voices here seems somehow suspect. We are all myopic under our own political prejudices. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … Ok so is there an argument is that it happens a lot therefore there is nothing to criticise or question? Or is there an argument that says such nonsense is worthy of being criticised? You also don’t approach my specific point about the seeming proliferation of this specific phenomenon, just that there are usually tangents taken and therefore… well you didn’t actually give a therefore, you simply stated it happens… There is no right or wrong answer to the question “What am I allowed to criticise?” You can criticise whatever you think fitting! And we all know you do and will do. As for the “seeming proliferation”… I addressed this in comments above about the rise of Reform and the fact their political support is now widespread and quite deep. You didn’t address any of that at all. Other people above have also commented about it pervading social media they have seen. It will be an incontrovertible fact that a party now receiving a third of public support will start to find more and more voices in a Forum like this. You didn’t start a thread bemoaning how posters too flagrantly drag threads into *any* political point-scoring. You made it specifically about Reform. You coined the term reformbots. You didn’t talk about labourbots or SNPbots or others. To you - the rise of Reform supporting voices here seems somehow suspect. We are all myopic under our own political prejudices. " I made it very specifically about the increase recently in reformbots hijacking absolutely unrelated posts. Which is limited to reformbots. Your whataboutery relating to other political persuasions is irrelevant because that’s not the question I was asking. I never brought the relative support of any party into the discussion, you did and it’s not relevant to the OP. You seem very unwilling to engage with the actual OP instead trying to muddy the waters in any way you can and use that as a springboard to try to make other points unrelated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are 2 major movements in the world at the moment. Reform and all similar around europe and tax the rich. Why you think one movement is getting attention and the other not." nothing to do with reform being owned by merchant bankers and ex city traders whilst pretending to be the common man is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You don’t seem to have any quarrel with what I have said, only with things which have not been said… I never seek quarrel anywhere anyway. But I will always examine and analyse and refute things written in the Forum. I’ve found what you’ve said about “Reformbots” extraordinary as I recorded above. The name, the inferences, the dismissiveness. Your first paragraph and your responses so far put each other under considerable pressure. The dismissiveness comes from the abstract and unrelated nature of the posts I am referring to. Absolutely off topic and absolutely irrelevant to the threads they are in. Dismissive responses because of the fatuous nature of the posts. That is a legitimate response to the material of the posts in question. Your responses to this thread have been contrived and unrelated to the material of the thread, instead related to things which were not said, nor implied. Hence the dismissive approach to them. If a person wants to try to hijack a thread for their own ends, they need to expect a dismissive response." You for example. You swarm like hyperventilating Hornet if anyone dares not to share your pities. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU ruined Doctor Who and gave us Mrs Brown's Boys, pahhhhh It’s a fair argument well made to be honest. 🤣" I was under the impression that in the oven ready deal that Mrs. Browns boys attracted a very high import tax rate, and due to failure to pass EU reg 435/683 part 2 subsection 99, corollary 1a4…also known as the Victoria clause it had to pass a battery of tests which are deemed too expensive, and the Uk government watering down of EU humour laws we are stuck with it. Another Brexit bonus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The EU ruined Doctor Who and gave us Mrs Brown's Boys, pahhhhh It’s a fair argument well made to be honest. 🤣" Mrs Brown is played by Graham Linehan apparently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … Ok so is there an argument is that it happens a lot therefore there is nothing to criticise or question? Or is there an argument that says such nonsense is worthy of being criticised? You also don’t approach my specific point about the seeming proliferation of this specific phenomenon, just that there are usually tangents taken and therefore… well you didn’t actually give a therefore, you simply stated it happens… There is no right or wrong answer to the question “What am I allowed to criticise?” You can criticise whatever you think fitting! And we all know you do and will do. As for the “seeming proliferation”… I addressed this in comments above about the rise of Reform and the fact their political support is now widespread and quite deep. You didn’t address any of that at all. Other people above have also commented about it pervading social media they have seen. It will be an incontrovertible fact that a party now receiving a third of public support will start to find more and more voices in a Forum like this. You didn’t start a thread bemoaning how posters too flagrantly drag threads into *any* political point-scoring. You made it specifically about Reform. You coined the term reformbots. You didn’t talk about labourbots or SNPbots or others. To you - the rise of Reform supporting voices here seems somehow suspect. We are all myopic under our own political prejudices. " Couldn’t have put it better myself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" … You didn’t start a thread bemoaning how posters too flagrantly drag threads into *any* political point-scoring. You made it specifically about Reform. You coined the term reformbots. You didn’t talk about labourbots or SNPbots or others. To you - the rise of Reform supporting voices here seems somehow suspect. We are all myopic under our own political prejudices. Couldn’t have put it better myself "Indeed I doubt you could have. It rather misses the point which I may have been guilty of hiding in the subtext of the OP. The issue is not about those who raise right wing voices, there are a number in the forum who do so with interest and consideration. The Reformbot3000 doesn’t do that. The reformbot3000 is merely a copy paste machine for half baked populist mantras and whose points don’t stand up to the merest scrutiny. The sort of person who cannot respond to anything dissenting their point with anything other than ad-hominem attacks or simply telling people they are wrong but with no substance behind the refutations. I understand the previous criticism and it has value and I think there is a great difference between the reformbot3000 and those who are arguing genuinely for right wing ideals. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All I would say is name me one right wing free speech leaning country that allows opening gay association especially on sites like this. Just saying! It’s all right wanting something but are you prepared to get you dick back in your pants for the greater good." There are some guys on here who want Reform to be in power. My opinion, based on the fact that a local council now controlled by Reform, removed the LGBT flags is that they are not LGBT friendly and may move to close sites like this down or put in anti-LGBT legislation. Be careful what you votw for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So let’s examine this: You’re perturbed about an increase in “reformbot” activity in threads, so decide to post a thread that will increase “reform bot” activity. 🤣" I’m not sure where perturbed comes into it. Curious, certainly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
