General Chat

We have 'Our Island Story' but I'd forgotten who'd written it, Elizabeth.

Please stop wasting my time.

If you all want to have an argument then I am quite sure you can manage one without any help from me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

I have made it perfectly clear that I am not interested in the negative, abusive and off topic posts typical of Allan, Caroline and MW. If you find, say, brexit boring then why not start your own thread extolling its vritues instead of posting stuff way off topic. So there you go, any more of it and I shall whoosh the thread. You could always amaze me of course by posting something new, interesting or useful ( though all three at once woujld be a stretch).

Another (welcome) option is to just ignore my threads leaving them to rustle quietly in the corner of interest to only a minority.

Typical response!

try taking some of your own advice then, we're not wasting your time and you can't remove this one unless you RR it then we all know you did it!!

Oh for goodness sake.

Rollo, just who is 'wasting your time'? You start a thread, then delete it if it doesn't go your way - if anything, YOU are wasting OUR time.

You've made presumptions - again!
You presume everyone but you is pro-Brexit , and it's your 'duty' to educate the plebs. Well think again.
I argue politics on a political forum, I've suggested before that you slope off to one, and give them the 'joy' of your rambling opinions. See how they like you 'declaring' that your opinions are the 'right' ones.

As for posting something 'interesting', you may have noticed the number of threads started by you that have disappeared off the page with no response - that you than delete. Doesn't that tell you something?

Well, it's either that your posts are not interesting, or people don't want to post on them, for fear of you 'pulling them up' on their spelling, phrasing, use of words, or being rude about their opinions.

No point in posting a thread asking for opinions, then calling people 'boneheads' for not using the 'correct' newspaper for their information, or contradicting what you've put.
Isn't putting the other side of an argument the whole idea of debating?
It seems your idea of a 'debate' is 'Rollo puts his opinion, then everyone agrees with it'.

As I've said before - peoples political views are theirs, this is a genealogical site.
I (and I expect a lot more people) don't wish to discuss my political views here.

^^^^^^^ what Maggie said :-D

I do feel I must say something here. yes Rollo does post threads that have no replies. We all do. it doesn't mean they aren't read does it, some readers, myself included, possibly don't have much of an opinion to offer on them, some know it will inevitably turn into a 'lets bash Rollo' thread and can't be bothered to get in the middle of it...again!

There are lots of people whose threads I don't post on...it's not always because they are not interesting to someone, just not to me,for various reasons.

As for removing one's own posts. I've removed some of mine either because of lack of interest ( often mine!) or when someone has made too stupid, or deliberately aggravating, a comment to warrant a polite response, so removing it is the equivalent of me walking away ( or in other circumstances putting the phone down!).

It might be annoying, and it is when you've added what you thought was a reasonable comment...but we all get over it... or leave.

I'm with you on this one Rose.
Thank you for expressing what I also feel but much more eloquently and succinctly than I could.

Yes, I mentioned his Deleting threads, and agree we all do it, but not usually because someone has put a different point of view, or maybe knows more about the subject.
Rollo's 'Hare with the Amber eyes' takes 'thread re-wording' to a new, rather creepy level. I believe this was done after Rollo informed us all that he had had flu - well so had quite a few of us.

My real bug bear is his opening comment:

"Please stop wasting my time"
Intriguing. Just how are we 'wasting his time'?

Rollo is not our teacher, leader or anything else for that matter, that means he is in the 'superior' position to 'educate' or 'inform' us, and we have to 'take note', or we're wasting his time.

I know many feel some of us provoke Rollo not so, unless it provokes just by commenting on a thread. We're not rude like he is to us but heyho I'm not losing sleep over his comments. It's actually rather sad that he feels he has to be rude to us. As for us wasting his time how so? If we don't agree with him we're wasting his time.....
I, for instance, this week have made comments or started threads which were not provocative at all to anyone but Rollo has decided to try and insult me I have not insulted back. Also as Maggie noted by censoring his threads to only show what he deems fit to be shown.....well......

Rose, I mentioned his uncalled for insults as well.
Are insults acceptable then?
You never mentioned them in your reply.

Or are they justified because everyone should be able to spell?

Are they acceptable because some 'dare' to contradict him, or perhaps know more about something than he does?

Is calling someone a 'bonehead' because they show a link to the Daily Mail, the way to behave, or in my case, when I linked to a local paper, implying the paper was rubbish, but I was too thick to read the more 'upmarket' one - is that really acceptable? Are we just meant to accept it and say- 'Shucks' it's just Rollo'?

Oh yes, and watch your 'emoticon' use - apparently it's childish.

And it's been RR'd what a surprise censorship at it's best

See? bit of 'debate' and someone reports it!

All go away now!! :-D :-D :-D :-D

Maggie, no,uncalled for insults are not acceptable.

But, and I hold up my hands here, sometimes it is tempting. Sometimes it follows on from other exchanges which by-standers have NOT seen ( because they were deleted).

EDIT to add, re the Mail. well I think most of us have seen some atrocious things come out of that particular paper, whether we read it often or just look at it now and then to see what the opinions are from the 'right' . I think Maggie, you will have noticed that yourself even if you haven't commented on it. EG the reporting of the refugees, by Katie Hopkins and her ilk.

The Daily Mail as a SOLE SOURCE of news, is preferred by some. But I wouldn't want to read only that, would you?

For the record I've never deleted anything nor made insults to posters.

I don't read the Daily Fail either - I look through it online for the 'gasp' factor :-D
Many people DO read the Mail - surely that's their choice?

The article in question had been on TV news and was available in other newspapers later on. The thread was also put up for discussion, so a comparison could have been made with other sources, if certain people really believed in debate.

Much easier to adopt a 'superior' position though, and throw an insult. :-|

As I'd mentioned earlier I read various newspapers and online news reports, for the snowflakes it was from the DM and I noted many wouldn't like that BUT the article wasn't from a regular reporter of theirs.

Even if I did read only from one newspaper that would be my choice, just like others always quoting from certain reference sources, and quoting as real life facts.

For the record I think Katie doesn't work for the DM any more

KH doesn't work for the Mail now, I was referring pretty obviously to when she did.

I look at most papers online, everything if I can, if there's something I'm interested in or think I should 'know' is going on.

Of course it's a choice, to read only one paper or all.... I would think though that if you only read one, any ONE, you aren't going to get a balanced view.

And if you only read one it's probably because you don't WANT a balanced view. The same goes for only reading one FB page that backs up your own view, eg 'Trumps a bigly genius'.

I'm sure she doesn't because I do read the Mail and I can't recall reading anything she has written but whichever rag she wrote for I would probably not read her column anyway. I do read Littlejohn and enjoy his musings and those of some others and I still prefer a hard read rather than online.

All newspapers are biased to some extent but only a fool or a very naive person would think that people believe everything they read. There is enough opposition to everything in the news to prevent anyone accepting one source as truth.

Nyx it wasn't obvious nor was it meant to be a dig or anything I was just saying....

I'm not sure anyone on here has ever said they only read one newspaper, but if they do oh well their choice to be blinkered.

It was the Mail online JoyLouise. I don't buy any print versions, though I do pick up the Metro if I'm on the bus lol.