Lisbon Monologue on politics.ie?

Mario007

I just went onto politics.ie and the one thing that i saw straight away was that the the moderator used the main page, the one where facts and news from media are usually quoted, to tell us all how bad the 'yes' side are for closing the moderator's two threads about the funding of generation yes. I went into that thread and into many others on lisbon and i found that basically politics.ie is a portal for eurosceptics etc who dont allow anyone to even try to explain the treaty to them. On that site there is no dialogue on the issue but rather a monologue.

This also applies to other political issues like the role of the unions or welfare state, when a bunch of lefties usually attacked anyone who decided to state their own views that did not match the thinking of people on the left wing.

Does anyone else think this? I know was told that the main moderator on politics.ie was from libertas, but still i am more than shocked to find the bias on that site. True anyone can publish anything on his/hers site, but in that case they should not try to make that site to look like a proper unbiased forum, i think.

PopeBuckfastXVI

In fairness if you're don't value the level of conversation on p.ie, you should just ignore them and leave them to it, rather than disparaging them here. That's what I do.

KINGVictor

^^^^^^

I second That...surprisingly.

FutureTaoiseach

I think in large part it is representative of the dominant internet demographic in Ireland. If you examine the RTE exit poll, the yes-no gap on Lisbon drops to just 43-39. Euroscepticism is quite strong in this group. The class-divide on Lisbon that emerged in the first referendum was also present, with the middle-class vote splitting 60-25 in favour but falling to 46-36 among the working-class. And I might add that there is also a no vote on the boards.ie poll so far so perhaps the people you disparage are just the Irish people who are online.

Iwasfrozen

Methinks it's time for a good old fashion forum invasion.

turgon

politics.ie is an awful awful website.

KINGVictor

turgon wrote: »

politics.ie is an awful awful website.

Why would you say that?

turgon

KINGVictor wrote: »

Why would you say that?

The level of discussion there is very bad compared to this forum, imo. Every time I foolishly venture over there I just get frustrated.

Case in point: upon hearing of the group liberals.ie I ventured over to Politics.ie to see what the story was with it. (for the sake of this tale you might want to visit liberals.ie). I found a thread on the group that had accumulated to EIGHT pages.

FIVE of these pages were about the colour (purple) of the girls dress;
one page was about the physical appearance of the girl and another one page was about the logo. About 1/8th of the discussion was actually productive.

Its a trend there I see a lot. Many of the posts are quick crap-humour one liners, and its not worth sifting through the crap to find something good.

brianthebard

Colour of her top totally drains her face tbh.

Mario007

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

In fairness if you're don't value the level of conversation on p.ie, you should just ignore them and leave them to it, rather than disparaging them here. That's what I do.

yes i know...i was just very frustrated after reading those threads that i felt i had to complain about it, though i usually wouldnt:D

P. Breathnach

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Methinks it's time for a good old fashion forum invasion.

Have we not just had one?

Mario007

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

I think in large part it is representative of the dominant internet demographic in Ireland. If you examine the RTE exit poll, the yes-no gap on Lisbon drops to just 43-39. Euroscepticism is quite strong in this group. The class-divide on Lisbon that emerged in the first referendum was also present, with the middle-class vote splitting 60-25 in favour but falling to 46-36 among the working-class. And I might add that there is also a no vote on the boards.ie poll so far so perhaps the people you disparage are just the Irish people who are online.

i know about the no voters on boards, but here for the most part we do have a dicsussion a proper one, whereas on politics.ie its a monologue...it almost looks like a discussion forum for libertas.ie.
plus the point i made also refers to other issues as i pointed out in the OP.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

The level of discussion there is very bad compared to this forum, imo. Every time I foolishly venture over there I just get frustrated.

Case in point: upon hearing of the group liberals.ie I ventured over to Politics.ie to see what the story was with it. (for the sake of this tale you might want to visit liberals.ie). I found a thread on the group that had accumulated to EIGHT pages.

FIVE of these pages were about the colour (purple) of the girls dress;
one page was about the physical appearance of the girl and another one page was about the logo. About 1/8th of the discussion was actually productive.

Its a trend there I see a lot. Many of the posts are quick crap-humour one liners, and its not worth sifting through the crap to find something good.

Politics.ie has the redeeming feature of complete freedom of speech, and the immense drawback of complete freedom of speech. Unmoderated bulletin boards have always existed, and they always follow the same pattern - an initial small user base which is reasonably dedicated, and in which free speech is tempered by respect for the other members and a shared dedication to a certain quality of conversation. If the site becomes popular, the respect and dedication tends to suffer, and free speech becomes babble - the site floods with new users, and the older community moves off. In the case of politics.ie, it seems to have becomes, more than anything, a forum for the kind of trench warfare we try to discourage here. Nor is there, apparently, any attempt to enforce any respect for objective reality.

It's a generally observable rule on internet forums that bad posters drive out good. It's a generally observable rule of politics that the entrenched, the obsessive and the deranged are legion, while the sensible are relatively few. The two together don't necessarily mean that free speech automatically leads to quality discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Mario007

Scofflaw wrote: »

Politics.ie has the redeeming feature of complete freedom of speech, and the immense drawback of complete freedom of speech. Unmoderated bulletin boards have always existed, and they always follow the same pattern - an initial small user base which is reasonably dedicated, and in which free speech is tempered by respect for the other members and a shared dedication to a certain quality of conversation. If the site becomes popular, the respect and dedication tends to suffer, and free speech becomes babble - the site floods with new users, and the older community moves off. In the case of politics.ie, it seems to have becomes, more than anything, a forum for the kind of trench warfare we try to discourage here. Nor is there, apparently, any attempt to enforce any respect for objective reality.

It's a generally observable rule on internet forums that bad posters drive out good. It's a generally observable rule of politics that the entrenched, the obsessive and the deranged are legion, while the sensible are relatively few. The two together don't necessarily mean that free speech automatically leads to quality discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thanks for that! it actually does make sense when one thinks of it that way

Scofflaw

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Have we not just had one?

We have, I think, specifically on this forum - I'm not particularly impressed, I have to say. The soapboxing and inaccuracy levels went up quite a chunk.

cordially,
Scofflaw

turgon

Thats a good synopsis Scofflaw. Do many "boardies" also regularly post there?

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

Politics.ie has the redeeming feature of complete freedom of speech, and the immense drawback of complete freedom of speech. Unmoderated bulletin boards have always existed, and they always follow the same pattern - an initial small user base which is reasonably dedicated, and in which free speech is tempered by respect for the other members and a shared dedication to a certain quality of conversation. If the site becomes popular, the respect and dedication tends to suffer, and free speech becomes babble - the site floods with new users, and the older community moves off. In the case of politics.ie, it seems to have becomes, more than anything, a forum for the kind of trench warfare we try to discourage here. Nor is there, apparently, any attempt to enforce any respect for objective reality.

It's a generally observable rule on internet forums that bad posters drive out good. It's a generally observable rule of politics that the entrenched, the obsessive and the deranged are legion, while the sensible are relatively few. The two together don't necessarily mean that free speech automatically leads to quality discussion.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I think there are both positive and negative sides to it.I haven't been on politics.ie and i can't really imagine how forums would operate effectively without moderators.But if you consider the difficulties a No voter would potentially encounter on this forum considering the vast majority of posters /Mods are in favour of the treaty,but then i would support some form of direction and supervision as I can't phanthom how there could actually be a knowledgable discussion.

turgon

KINGVictor wrote: »

But if you consider the difficulties a No voter would potentially encounter on this forum considering the vast majority of posters /Mods are in favour of the treaty.

The Mods here dont moderate based on Yes/No, they moderate based on Facts/Lies. In general that means more No voters get a slap on the wrist, from what Ive seen.

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

Thats a good synopsis Scofflaw. Do many "boardies" also regularly post there?

That I don't know - the only reason I've bothered to check recently is that there was a rather obvious forum invasion of No posters from politics.ie about a month ago. I presume there are people who regularly post in both outside that.

I'll just make the point that deliberate attempts to "take over" any forum on boards.ie are unlikely to be successful. They would only work on the basis that these forums are as unmoderated as politics.ie, which obviously isn't the case. On the other hand, they are likely to result in a period of severity as the soapboxers are weeded out, and, no doubt, in a great deal of whinging on politics.ie, which the owner seems happy to indulge (presumably for perfectly sensible commercial reasons).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

turgon wrote: »

The Mods here dont moderate based on Yes/No, they moderate based on Facts/Lies. In general that means more No voters get a slap on the wrist, from what Ive seen.

I've been a bit harsher in that respect recently, which is actually the result of the politics.ie invasion - usually, there'd be much more leeway, but I'm not interested in seeing the level of factual accuracy here drop to the levels of politics.ie, because I don't think it's possible to have a worthwhile discussion if people are going to make up the "facts".

It's also worth bearing in mind that boards has a Conspiracy Theory forum for the tinfoil hat threads, and an After Hours forum for the threads about the colour of people's dresses...

cordially,
Scofflaw

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

That I don't know - the only reason I've bothered to check recently is that there was a rather obvious forum invasion of No posters from politics.ie about a month ago. I presume there are people who regularly post in both outside that.

I'll just make the point that deliberate attempts to "take over" any forum on boards.ie are unlikely to be successful. They would only work on the basis that these forums are as unmoderated as politics.ie, which obviously isn't the case. On the other hand, they are likely to result in a period of severity as the soapboxers are weeded out, and, no doubt, in a great deal of whinging on politics.ie, which the owner seems happy to indulge (presumably for perfectly sensible commercial reasons).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are you for real? I find that hard to believe.Some people will deliberately come from politic.ie and decide to take over forums on boards.That would be very ridiculous.Any way each man to his own.

BlitzKrieg

turgon wrote: »

Thats a good synopsis Scofflaw. Do many "boardies" also regularly post there?

I tried, but (and I've said this a few times) the fact that anyone can post a list of *points* and not back them up and its freely allowed drives me up the wall, it makes having any discussion impossible and encoruges soapboxing. It also makes everything alot more aggressive because sooner or later the discussions regressess to an almost *yore ma!* level of bickering.

But aside from that issue you can sometimes find a few gems of discussions (when they initially start) so its much easier to lurk then actually post.

Kingvictor wrote:

But if you consider the difficulties a No voter would potentially encounter on this forum considering the vast majority of posters /Mods are in favour of the treaty,

2 things

1. When you say difficulties what do you mean. Aside from a few closed threads, all with valid modding reasons, reposts of topics from others threads being the most common, then posting a video without commentating is next, finally we've had one so far that a mod stepped in after over 30 posts and locked it with the option of a PM to unlock it if the issue (soapboxing) can be resolve. And a few warnings to back up points or keep on topic I cant see anything that makes things difficult for you from a modding perspective.

2. In the case of numbers, its not that there are more yes voters. If the poll on the lisbon treaty 2 is anything to go about, there has been roughly 10-12 more no voters in this forum. THe difference is there are a small number of regular posters. Those who like myself would still be posting in here even if there was no Lisbon treaty debate. And they have been repeatable fantastic at challanging points raised and so on about the EU and Lisbon. And because they stay while no voters tend to come and go it can appear that there are loads of us and we are *harassing* no voters. But thats not the case, we discuss the issues, we are just here more

KINGVictor

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've been a bit harsher in that respect recently, which is actually the result of the politics.ie invasion - usually, there'd be much more leeway, but I'm not interested in seeing the level of factual accuracy here drop to the levels of politics.ie, because I don't think it's possible to have a worthwhile discussion if people are going to make up the "facts".

It's also worth bearing in mind that boards has a Conspiracy Theory forum for the tinfoil hat threads, and an After Hours forum for the threads about the colour of people's dresses...

cordially,
Scofflaw

well I suggest that are you are not indiscriminate when you are being harsh as there are some of us that are genuinely believe that a No vote would be of the best interest of Ireland ...and have nothing to do with politics.ie.

KINGVictor

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I tried, but (and I've said this a few times) the fact that anyone can post a list of *points* and not back them up and its freely allowed drives me up the wall, it makes having any discussion impossible and encoruges soapboxing. It also makes everything alot more aggressive because sooner or later the discussions regressess to an almost *yore ma!* level of bickering.

But aside from that issue you can sometimes find a few gems of discussions (when they initially start) so its much easier to lurk then actually post.



2 things

1. When you say difficulties what do you mean. Aside from a few closed threads, all with valid modding reasons, reposts of topics from others threads being the most common, then posting a video without commentating is next, finally we've had one so far that a mod stepped in after over 30 posts and locked it with the option of a PM to unlock it if the issue (soapboxing) can be resolve. And a few warnings to back up points or keep on topic I cant see anything that makes things difficult for you from a modding perspective.

2. In the case of numbers, its not that there are more yes voters. If the poll on the lisbon treaty 2 is anything to go about, there has been roughly 10-12 more no voters in this forum. THe difference is there are a small number of regular posters. Those who like myself would still be posting in here even if there was no Lisbon treaty debate. And they have been repeatable fantastic at challanging points raised and so on about the EU and Lisbon. And because they stay while no voters tend to come and go it can appear that there are loads of us and we are *harassing* no voters. But thats not the case, we discuss the issues, we are just here more

I never mentioned anything about harrassment and I would be very glad if you read my post in its entirety.I am not part of the so called conspiracy No voters association.I am believe in a no vote,so if the Mods have a noticed this evil trend ,then we should not all be lumped up as one.

I have lovely discussions(well from my own perspective) with a lot of posters including mods and I geniunely like it,but sometimes you are just bombarded with innuendos .

BlitzKrieg

I didnt quote you saying harrasing and I didnt state you said harassing, I am sorry if you felt I meant to insinuate that you said the word harassing. As I asked in my post I would like to know what you meant by difficulties My two points were in response to that, harassing was put in * * because the issue at hand was not that they were harassing posters, just that as you did say the vast majority of posters appear to be yes voters when that may not be the case.

am not part of the so called conspiracy No voters association.

Never said you were, but out of curiosity what divides a conspiracy no voter from a regular no voter. Are there specific points you would debate that they wouldnt and so on? I personnally have never used the term consipracy no voter.

I am believe in a no vote,so if the Mods have a noticed this evil trend ,then we should not all be lumped up as one.

Like I said there could be difficulty in seperating them, maybe you should do a thread on the issues you dont want to have associated with Lisbon? much like how I did one emphasizing I dont want to be associated with Fianna Fail despite intending to vote yes. There are still the odd reference that yes = fianna fail, but I am happy that I can point to a thread that shows that myself and a large number of other posters do not support them.

I have lovely discussions(well from my own perspective) with a lot of posters including mods and I geniunely like it,

I expect you do, and hopefully continue to do so

but sometimes you are just bombarded with innuendos .

penis

Scofflaw

KINGVictor wrote: »

Are you for real? I find that hard to believe.Some people will deliberately come from politic.ie and decide to take over forums on boards.That would be very ridiculous.Any way each man to his own.

Er, yes, I'm for real. About 7-8 politics.ie No posters arrived here en masse, including FutureTaoiseach and Almanac, just after the Mayo twins departed to politics.ie. It's not the end of the world or even very exciting, but it's not really particularly good form either.

KINGVictor wrote:

well I suggest that are you are not indiscriminate when you are being harsh as there are some of us that are genuinely believe that a No vote would be of the best interest of Ireland ...and have nothing to do with politics.ie.

I don't have any problem with that - I have a problem with people who don't accept the rules of the forum, or reality. It's always going to be a bit tricky that I'm both a vocal Yes supporter and a moderator - short of never moderating anyone who's a No proponent, though, there's not much I can do about it.

Er, anyway, that's enough about moderation in-thread, or I'll have to infract myself.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Methinks it's time for a good old fashion forum invasion.

that thread of yours btw is a plane crash of epic proportions and I'd honestly recommend just dropping it.

K-9

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I tried, but (and I've said this a few times) the fact that anyone can post a list of *points* and not back them up and its freely allowed drives me up the wall, it makes having any discussion impossible and encoruges soapboxing. It also makes everything alot more aggressive because sooner or later the discussions regressess to an almost *yore ma!* level of bickering.

Even lurking is painful over there. I registered an account over there and the odd time I feel like replying to a post, I think "what's the point, it isn't worth the pain!".

Mario007

K-9 wrote: »

Even lurking is painful over there. I registered an account over there and the odd time I feel like replying to a post, I think "what's the point, it isn't worth the pain!".

yes sometimes i feel the same way, then i go onto the next page of the thread and see that 5 other people did try to explain while the one person still keeps on repeating his/hers made up facts over and over

Mario007

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Never said you were, but out of curiosity what divides a conspiracy no voter from a regular no voter. Are there specific points you would debate that they wouldnt and so on? I personnally have never used the term consipracy no voter.

i would like to know an answer to that one as well. but i suppose we could start using the term conspiracy no voter for everyone who 'heard that lisbon is going to this baaaaad thing to ireland' kind of posters. we'll leave the title of ordinary no voters to people who genuinely read the treaty and point out its flaws and weakness

KINGVictor

Mario007 wrote: »

i would like to know an answer to that one as well. but i suppose we could start using the term conspiracy no voter for everyone who 'heard that lisbon is going to this baaaaad thing to ireland' kind of posters. we'll leave the title of ordinary no voters to people who genuinely read the treaty and point out its flaws and weakness

Errm...if that is implemented,then the credit should go to me I suppose:D

KINGVictor

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I didnt quote you saying harrasing and I didnt state you said harassing, I am sorry if you felt I meant to insinuate that you said the word harassing. As I asked in my post I would like to know what you meant by difficulties My two points were in response to that, harassing was put in * * because the issue at hand was not that they were harassing posters, just that as you did say the vast majority of posters appear to be yes voters when that may not be the case.




Never said you were, but out of curiosity what divides a conspiracy no voter from a regular no voter. Are there specific points you would debate that they wouldnt and so on? I personnally have never used the term consipracy no voter.



Like I said there could be difficulty in seperating them, maybe you should do a thread on the issues you dont want to have associated with Lisbon? much like how I did one emphasizing I dont want to be associated with Fianna Fail despite intending to vote yes. There are still the odd reference that yes = fianna fail, but I am happy that I can point to a thread that shows that myself and a large number of other posters do not support them.



I expect you do, and hopefully continue to do so



penis

^

LOL

BlitzKrieg

we could start using the term conspiracy no voter for everyone who 'heard that lisbon is going to this baaaaad thing to ireland' kind of posters.

I would have assumed they were nationalist no voters and conspiracy no voters would have been the ones who would say the whole thing is some ploy by the bloomberg movement or a sign of the NWO etc.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've been a bit harsher in that respect recently, which is actually the result of the politics.ie invasion - usually, there'd be much more leeway, but I'm not interested in seeing the level of factual accuracy here drop to the levels of politics.ie, because I don't think it's possible to have a worthwhile discussion if people are going to make up the "facts".

Speaking of factual accuracy-did that invasion you speak off skew the poll in this forum?

Iwasfrozen

I wasn't exactly talking about them coming over to us, more like us going over to them to try and actualy spark some real debate over there.

And yes it most likely did mess up our poll as most of us are on the Yes side.

BlitzKrieg

Not by much I say.

Considering the number of posters who would pop in post once saying they intend to vote no and disapear back to other more interesting (for them) areas of boards I would say being behind by only 20 or so votes is surprisingly good.

KINGVictor

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I wasn't exactly talking about them coming over to us, more like us going over to them to try and actualy spark some real debate over there.

And yes it most likely did mess up our poll as most of us are on the Yes side.

I find the "most of us " a bit funny.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I don't think there's enough of 'them' to skew the poll. I'd imagine it's a pretty accurate poll of people who come onto the EU politics forum and respond to polls.

I don't see any more point in posting about politics on p.ie than I do on wol.ie

I like it here, the level of discourse is a cut above many fora.

KINGVictor

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I don't think there's enough of 'them' to skew the poll. I'd imagine it's a pretty accurate poll of people who come onto the EU politics forum and respond to polls.

I don't see any more point in posting about politics on p.ie than I do on wol.ie

I like it here, the level of discourse is a cut above many fora.

Despite the fact that we have vehemently disagreed on a lot of Eu issues ( and more to come ),....well said.

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Speaking of factual accuracy-did that invasion you speak off skew the poll in this forum?

I doubt it - we're only talking about a handful of posters.

cordially,
scofflaw

Sparks

turgon wrote: »

Thats a good synopsis Scofflaw. Do many "boardies" also regularly post there?

When stuff on firearms legislation came up there a while back, yes, because the discussion was shockingly wrong on easily checked facts and frankly, firearms legislation is sortof like growth medium - any stray bug can grow to pandemic proportions in it. The 1964 Firearms Act's debate in the Seanad, for example, saw serious consideration given to banning .22 calibre rifles because in The Day of the Jackal, the assassin uses .22 calibre exploding bullets and the senators were worried that might happen here. It'd be funny if it wasn't so darn serious...

But regular posting there? No, not really. Even I can't get that shouty for that long.

BlitzKrieg

completely offtopic

speaking of the firearms act. I've been informed (might be wrong) that due to the latest one the number of paintballs someone is allowed to have in their home is the same as rifle ammunition as they have been classed in the same catagory. So how many rifle rounds is someone allowed to own?

Is it more or less then 500? Cause I have half a box of paintball (1 box = 1000 rounds) at the moment and I wanted to know should I add it to the list of laws I am accidently breaking (and I dont even own a paintball marker)

Sparks

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

speaking of the firearms act. I've been informed (might be wrong) that due to the latest one the number of paintballs someone is allowed to have in their home is the same as rifle ammunition as they have been classed in the same catagory.

Actually, they always have been, but I've never heard of any Garda deciding to count paintballs...

So how many rifle rounds is someone allowed to own?

As many as it says on the licence. The default number PULSE assigns is 100 (the system's really more set up for hunters and shotgun users), but some target shooters have tens of thousands of rounds allowed (yes, that's perfectly safe and legitimate for various reasons you can read up on in Shooting).
However, most paintball markers are held on authorisations, not licences, and those have no upper limit on ammunition, so I suspect that's how folks get round it in commercial operations where it'd be an inconvenience to be able to only store 100 paintballs at a time

I have half a box of paintball (1 box = 1000 rounds) at the moment and I wanted to know should I add it to the list of laws I am accidently breaking (and I dont even own a paintball marker)

Technically, yes, congratulations, you've just confessed to possession of illegally held ammunition, punishable by a few years in prison and a few thousand euro in fines.
In practical terms, it's paint.

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's also worth bearing in mind that boards has a Conspiracy Theory forum for the tinfoil hat threads, and an After Hours forum for the threads about the colour of people's dresses...

cordially,
Scofflaw

While usually your fact are impeccibly accurate Scofflaw, regrettably I have to inform you there is a fashion forum for discussing the colour of peoples dresses. After Hours is for Your Ma threads.

Iwasfrozen

marco_polo wrote: »

While usually your fact are impeccibly accurate Scofflaw, regrettably I have to inform you there is a fashion forum for discussing the colour of peoples dresses. After Hours is for Your Ma threads.

You mean "Yore Ma".

Sparks

Which raises the question of where one goes to discuss your ma's dress colour...

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

While usually your fact are impeccibly accurate Scofflaw, regrettably I have to inform you there is a fashion forum for discussing the colour of peoples dresses. After Hours is for Your Ma threads.

I stand humbly corrected. Should the question of a politician's dress crop up here, I now know which forum it should be despatched to...

humbly,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

Should the question of a politician's dress crop up here, I now know which forum it should be despatched to...

facial hair and hats of course.

especially if its mary harney.

K-9

Sparks wrote: »

Which raises the question of where one goes to discuss your ma's dress colour...

That would be fashion. And this from a Mod?

Unless you have transvestite tendencies? PI >>>>>>

Oafley Jones

turgon wrote: »

politics.ie is an awful awful website.

I have to agree. It's a level of debate on par with Bill O'Reilly - entrenched views, people shouting at each other and nobody listening. It's almost ripe for parody; to borrow for Stephen Colbert, a lot of 'truthiness' is evident and tolerated.


Was following a thread there yesterday - I was bored -when a poster challenged another to back up some claims. The poster did so and was promptly countered by his adversary.. at the end of the post he typed "Challenged Failed" I nearly fell of the seat laughing, all I could picture was Ben Stiller's character from Dodgeball whooping it up.