What do you like and dislike about the GD Forum

[LastMagicBean]

Own up, who's upset the big girls blouses???

 

[JohnD]

 

[Doug99]

This thread is typical of those whose topic gets rail roaded by posters who cannot discuss anything without either putting down or abusing other contributors. - Hint to mods, this is the time to lock the thread and move on.

 

[Himaginn]

"Hello my darlings" Charlie Drake on the edge of alternative comedy! Who'd have thought it?

 

[LastMagicBean]

This thread is typical of those whose topic gets rail roaded by posters who cannot discuss anything without either putting down or abusing other contributors.

Yep, they can't help themselves, they get away with it week in week out. Nothing we can do about it.

 

[JohnD]

pomposity

f*ckstick.

endless googled crap

tortuous nonsense

big girls blouses???

???

they can't help themselves

What do you mean, "they?"

 

[Brigadier]

Of course, where did I say it can't be questioned.
Keep up nosejob, for f*cksake.

So how does one verify an opinion once questioned?
...."me mate down the pub said so...." doesn't really cut the mustard does it.

Opinions can be personal, and therefore may not be verifiable.

 

[Himaginn]

[So how does one verify an opinion once questioned?
...."me mate down the pub said so...." doesn't really cut the mustard does it.

Opinions can be personal, and therefore may not be verifiable.

I thought all opinions were personal, to the holder of that opinion.

Some opinions are credible or creditable because they are based on verifiable evidence, sensible deduction or reasonable assumption.
By the same token, some opinions are not credible, because they are either not based on verifiable or credible evidence, or because the evidence, deduction or assumption refutes or opposes that opinion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

some opinions are not credible, because they are either not based on verifiable or credible evidence, or because the evidence, deduction or assumption refutes or opposes that opinion.

... but they are still opinions no matter how stupid.

 

[noseall]

Opinions can be personal, and therefore may not be verifiable.

In what way? If you mean something along the lines of "I think it's quite warm today", whereas someone else may think that it is cold. Ho hum.

That sort of statement is hardly likely to garner a reaction from anyone. However, there are statements and there are statements. Some are provocative and some are contentious and are typical troll fodder.

If someone were to say "I happen to think that Adolf Hitler was a well rounded bloke and was fair to the Jews", then there is likely to be uproar. In this instance it would be fair to say that if one or two posters took umbrage and did a bit of googling to discredit that opinion then they would be well within their rights to do so.

 

[Himaginn]

some opinions are not credible, because they are either not based on verifiable or credible evidence, or because the evidence, deduction or assumption refutes or opposes that opinion.

... but they are still opinions no matter how stupid.

I don't think anyone has denied the right of anyone to hold stupid opinions.
As noseall has pointed out, if it' a relatively harmless stupid opinion, no-one is likely to be bothered to refute it, or even discuss it.
Whereas, if it's a relatively offensive or potentially harmful stupid opinion, then it's likely to attract discrediting counter-arguments.
IMO, it's sensible, reasonable, and gives credence to the counter-argument if it's supported by evidence, or other experienced, knowledgeable, wise opinion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Opinions can be personal, and therefore may not be verifiable.

That sort of statement is hardly likely to garner a reaction from anyone.

If someone were to say "I happen to think that Adolf Hitler was a well rounded bloke and was fair to the Jews", then there is likely to be uproar. In this instance it would be fair to say that if one or two posters took umbrage and did a bit of googling to discredit that opinion then they would be well within their rights to do so.

...but it would still be their opinion.

 

[Himaginn]

Opinions can be personal, and therefore may not be verifiable.

That sort of statement is hardly likely to garner a reaction from anyone.

I think you've misquoted noseall to give the response completely different semantics.
What noseall said was:

In what way? If you mean something along the lines of "I think it's quite warm today", whereas someone else may think that it is cold. Ho hum.

That sort of statement is hardly likely to garner a reaction from anyone.

So noseall's comment about it not garnering a response, was about the opinion on the weather. It was not about Brigadier's comment!

If someone were to say "I happen to think that Adolf Hitler was a well rounded bloke and was fair to the Jews", then there is likely to be uproar. In this instance it would be fair to say that if one or two posters took umbrage and did a bit of googling to discredit that opinion then they would be well within their rights to do so.

...but it would still be their opinion.

It would still be a stupid opinion! And a provocative stupid opinion worthy of discrediting.

 

[noseall]

Opinions can be personal, and therefore may not be verifiable.

That sort of statement is hardly likely to garner a reaction from anyone.

If someone were to say "I happen to think that Adolf Hitler was a well rounded bloke and was fair to the Jews", then there is likely to be uproar. In this instance it would be fair to say that if one or two posters took umbrage and did a bit of googling to discredit that opinion then they would be well within their rights to do so.

...but it would still be their opinion.

Wow, misrepresentation of a quote award goes to......EFLI!!! Well done bud. Care to quote all the wording in the post next time eh?

 

[noseall]

...but it would still be their opinion.

..and on a public forum.

Gosh this is tiresome.

If someone posts summat, albeit "their opinion" it will still garner a reaction is the content is provocative. You can't berate people for wanting to criticise or counter their opinion, if that opinion goes against the truth.