i agree.
And that is my opinion ;o)

Dan

>titling the thread in this way will just make it easy for him (or his fans) to dismiss it as bitter hatred or lazy jealousy. Just a thought...


I'm not sure I understand that thing about the titling...

For your reference; Mark Lamarr no longer drinks and is now anti-drugs and he was perfectly pleasant when *I* met him!

i think, and Louise can correct me if i am wrong, that it's the fact by starting a negative argument, you portray the fact, rightly or wrongly, that you have already decided the outcome of a discussion... maybe i am wrong... thayt would be my complaint, anyway...

Louise, are you from newcastle?

>by starting a negative argument, you portray the fact, rightly or wrongly, that you have already decided the outcome of a discussion...


It makes sense now you explained it! : )

cool.. glad i could help ;o)
and, on that note, direct your eye frontis -pieces to my flippant thread...
*smiles*

>I'm not sure I understand that thing about the titling...
>
>For your reference; Mark Lamarr no longer drinks and is now anti-drugs and he was perfectly pleasant when *I* met him!

He probably is now...my point was not specific to Simon Pegg *or* to Mark Lamarr but was more general. Why not just call the thread "Mark Lamarr": "MARK LAMARR IS SHIT" does not encourage mature debate on the matter, it is needlessly offensive and tends to elicit responses such as "yes he is", "no he isn't" or "yes, and he's a tosser", nothing based on personal experience or backed up with facts or examples, which is all very dull (with a few gem-like exceptions, which would include your own contributions, Ailie). I wish I'd put that in my origninal posting. In fact, to be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered now. Or at least signed it with a gutless psuedonym. Is it just me, or does anybody else find this merry-go-round extremely tiresome?

Louise

Forum-ing gets worse.

Well, it does when you get to know the people in the forum beyond just messages. you actually get personal insults, and things.

although I think you meant the Pegg thing, rather than the forum itself, so I'll shhh now.

Cardinal "one of our ostriches is missing" Biggles

I know what you mean Louise, but there will always be some arse who sees a bit of irrelevant abuse necessary to starting a thread.
Personally, I'd love it to just read 'Mark Lamarr,' but it's gone way past that and we're unfortunately stuck with it.

"I met [Mark Lamarr] once and he was coked up, agressive and thoroughly unpleasant to me "

But as we haven't met you, how can we tell if this was appropriate?

>But as we haven't met you, how can we tell if this was appropriate?

Right, I've had enough. I enjoy having my theories or opinions challenged, being made to rethink or refine my position, I'm one of those that's happiest in one of those rambling three-hour-long pub arguments with a friend who can be counted on to disagree with me (and so is Rob S, I suspect). But unfortunately I'm not one of those who can shrug off personal insults, I wish I could but I'm not thick-skinned enough, so I won't be joining in anymore. Thank you and goodnight.

Louise

this is what i was opposed to before... idiotic use of a forum.

ta-ra

D

> I'm one of those that's happiest in one of those rambling three-hour-long pub arguments with a friend who can be counted on to disagree with me (and so is Rob S, I suspect).

Bugger, that's my cover blown then.

> But unfortunately I'm not one of those who can shrug off personal insults, I wish I could but I'm not thick-skinned enough, so I won't be joining in anymore. Thank you and goodnight.

I just wouldn't pay any attention Louise. It may also interest you to know that each post contains a 'hidden' IP address, try viewing the source of the thread-listings and you'll see what I mean.

You mean you didn't tell this lot?

*gapes*
Tch.

>"I met [Mark Lamarr] once and he was coked up, agressive and thoroughly unpleasant to me "
>
>But as we haven't met you, how can we tell if this was appropriate?


I'm sorry. I found that funny!

*ashamed*

Don't read too much into it Louise! : )

yeah, louise, the:
"But as we haven't met you, how can we tell if this was appropriate? "
line was probly just a lighthearted gag
as, i suspect, was your:
""Oh, and "Are you from Newcastle?" -there's no call for *that*! ""
(although i didnt understand it either)
but both were completely mis-interpreted as is the the danger in this text medium, hence the development of smiley thingies :-))

I know two guys (who are brothers) and their girlfriends havent spoken for 4 years because of one totally misheard sentence in the pub on xmes eve! this kind of thing happens all too easily. It would happen less if people got to the bottom of whether they were being insulted or not..
I'm not saying that'll help now, every personality clash is different, but i just thought i'd chuck my 2cents in.

I love long rambling arguments too, as long as they're semi intelligent, although i often realise I'm arguing about something trivial and I've been bored for last 1/2 hour! thats probly due to smoking too much though...

but you do sound articulate and I think the forum needs more people who
" I enjoy having my theories or opinions challenged, being made to rethink or refine my position"
(not bothering to change tense/person etc on that)


right! I've rambled a bit i think,
so bye

p.s. rob, you only got the i.p. address of our firewall so it's still 40,000 users to 1 chance. and its dhcp anyway. ner ner na ner ner :)

>p.s. rob, you only got the i.p. address of our firewall so it's still 40,000 users to 1 chance. and its dhcp anyway. ner ner na ner ner :)

Take a look at the cakeshop.