How do we improve the quality of debate on this site?

[Arch]

Not often I post to agree with Arch, but this is one of those times.

To the extent that this does not improve the quality of debate on the forum, I apologise

Never mind, we can disagree about something else later....

 

[TheDoctor]

Can I buy you a beer, Jezton?
I couldn't agree more. Which makes for a pretty poor debate.

 

[just jim]

Haha gentleman cyclist, your witty repartee throughout the course of this "interweb forum thread" is simply sparkling. Keep it up.

 

[TheDoctor]

Perhaps the OP is looking for more people to get involved.
He's wanting a mass debate, so to speak.

I'm so very sorry...

[gets coat]

 

[Shaun]

GC, I'm always open to suggestion regarding CC, so instead of critique without construct, why not instead tell us how you think things could be improved?

That might be an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Shaun

 

[asterix]

GC, I'm always open to suggestion regarding CC, so instead of critique without construct, why not instead tell us how you think things could be improved?

That might be an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Shaun

Doncha just love an optimist?!

 

[potsy]

GC, I'm always open to suggestion regarding CC, so instead of critique without construct, why not instead tell us how you think things could be improved?

That might be an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Shaun

Think you'll have to wait until his blog is updated before he comes back on here

 

[dellzeqq]

I do have a suggestion about the level of debate, and, alarmingly, it's GC's intervention that led me to think of it.

I'm not suggesting that it's a rule, but more of a guideline. 'Read the thread before you post'. As in don't simply react to the last two or three posts, which may be a repeat of an earlier thought, or simply a diversion.

Now I admit to having deliberately diverted threads in the past (in fact I would claim to be an expert at it) but it is a bit off-putting when people divert the thread without thinking about it, when, perhaps, they might have started a new thread. And, likewise, it is a bit tedious reading through posts that simply re-iterate what has been said before, and, oftentimes, less clearly.

There, GC, your work is done........(shame about the blog, by the way)

 

[Theseus]

I do have a suggestion about the level of debate, and, alarmingly, it's GC's intervention that led me to think of it.

I'm not suggesting that it's a rule, but more of a guideline. 'Read the thread before you post'. As in don't simply react to the last two or three posts, which may be a repeat of an earlier thought, or simply a diversion.

Now I admit to having deliberately diverted threads in the past (in fact I would claim to be an expert at it) but it is a bit off-putting when people divert the thread without thinking about it, when, perhaps, they might have started a new thread. And, likewise, it is a bit tedious reading through posts that simply re-iterate what has been said before, and, oftentimes, less clearly.

There, GC, your work is done........(shame about the blog, by the way)

But ... that's what the three word game relies on.

 

[rich p]

I do have a suggestion about the level of debate, and, alarmingly, it's GC's intervention that led me to think of it.

I'm not suggesting that it's a rule, but more of a guideline. 'Read the thread before you post'. As in don't simply react to the last two or three posts, which may be a repeat of an earlier thought, or simply a diversion.

Now I admit to having deliberately diverted threads in the past (in fact I would claim to be an expert at it) but it is a bit off-putting when people divert the thread without thinking about it, when, perhaps, they might have started a new thread. And, likewise, it is a bit tedious reading through posts that simply re-iterate what has been said before, and, oftentimes, less clearly.

There, GC, your work is done........(shame about the blog, by the way)

I've read it all Dell!

Several pegs!!! I feel short-changed

 

[Gerry Attrick]

GC, I'm always open to suggestion regarding CC, so instead of critique without construct, why not instead tell us how you think things could be improved?

That might be an interesting discussion.

Cheers,
Shaun

Ok GC. I have defended your posts to the best of my ability. You now have the chance to vindicate yourself.

 

[Dave Davenport]

I suppose the blokes entitiled to his opinions and is only trying to promote his blog, but he still sounds like a git who's eight miles up his own arse to me.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

IMHO, Bonj is more than welcome to return.

No he bloody isn't. Unless you want to do all the moderation ...

 

[rich p]

I suppose the blokes entitiled to his opinions and is only trying to promote his blog, but he still sounds like a git who's eight miles up his own arse to me.

beautifully phrased Dave!

 

[Dave Davenport]

beautifully phrased Dave!

Oscar Wilde, eat your heart out!