Emmeline wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Missing the point by a country mile.

Am I? Explain the point to me then.

Bill's post was perfectly clear. How about you clarify which points you did not understand?

Sendraks wrote:

Emmeline wrote:

Sendraks wrote:Missing the point by a country mile.

Am I? Explain the point to me then.

Bill's post was perfectly clear. How about you clarify which points you did not understand?

I understood it. How about you tell me which bits you think I didn't.

Emmeline wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Does anyone want to count the number of times that Scot has had explained to him the idea of consulting the membership, engaging in dialogue with MPs & the members, in order to establish a set of policies that the party as a whole can agree on, and to extend democracy in the party, only to respond with a dismissive "Just a talking shop? I think I've tried it about half a dozen times at least, and the response is the same - "Talking shop". Obviously someone prepared to discuss an issue. Er ...

So you have a difference of opinion. You think it's a democratic way to run the party and he thinks it's just a talking shop. You keep stating your opinion and he keeps stating his. If he states it more than you do then that's probably because he has more people opposing his posts, sometimes a ratio of 5:1.

(My bold)

No, you're missing the point.

The term "talking shop" refers to a forum where ideas are discussed with no practical outcome. It's a pejorative term for an indulgence in talking about things without actually doing anything about them.

Bill has outlined here exactly what the practical outcome of Corbyn's engagement with the membership is intended to be - getting wider agreement on a set of policies and extending democracy in the party. He's thus shown that it isn't just a "talking shop".

If Scot wants to debate this and continue to express his opinion that it is, then he's obliged to show why what Bill has said is wrong, or at least how something contrary overrides it. He could say for example that a unified set of policies CAN'T be agreed because the party is too large and diverse, so it's a waste of time. Or he could say (and provide evidence) that it's just a cynical ploy on the part of the Labour elite - that they're going to do all this to make the members feel valued, and then completely ignore them anyway.

But he doesn't do that, or raise any other justifying points. He simply says "it's just a talking shop" over and over again.

Discussing ideas, here and anywhere else, is not as you seem to suggest a simple matter of people saying the same things over and over again. It's a matter of reacting to what other people say and showing why it's wrong or at least not complete, and the justification you can provide for your opinion overrides it. Scot is not doing that. Those who have clearly explained to him the limitations of his soundbites are.

This has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing. You clearly are, as was Matt earlier on although I disagree with you both about much of it. But Scot isn't.

I'm not missing the point. Scot's opinion is that it's a talking shop and he can say that as often as he likes. He's entitled to dismiss every argument against his opinion. He's not obliged to debate with anyone. He can ignore as many posts as he likes.

If you want to campaign for a forum that holds people to a higher standard of posting then go ahead but that will have implications for a lot more people than Scot.

Emmeline wrote:I'm not missing the point. Scot's opinion is that it's a talking shop and he can say that as often as he likes. He's entitled to dismiss every argument against his opinion. He's not obliged to debate with anyone. He can ignore as many posts as he likes. ..

And he can be criticised for doing that.

GrahamH wrote:

Emmeline wrote:I'm not missing the point. Scot's opinion is that it's a talking shop and he can say that as often as he likes. He's entitled to dismiss every argument against his opinion. He's not obliged to debate with anyone. He can ignore as many posts as he likes. ..

And he can be criticised for doing that.

Yes he can but it's a bit hollow in threads littered with insult slinging, needling, sarcasm & snide remarks.

I think the term "can give it, but not take it" applies in many of the threads this conversation pertains to.

Emmeline wrote:I'm not missing the point. Scot's opinion is that it's a talking shop and he can say that as often as he likes. He's entitled to dismiss every argument against his opinion. He's not obliged to debate with anyone. He can ignore as many posts as he likes.

So we've gone from the meaningless statement of "they're both posting an opinion" to at least your recognising the failings in Scot's discourse versus others.

However, just because someone can do something, doesn't mean that they should do that thing, or that thing is worthy of defense.

There is a world of difference between someone who expresses and opinion and tries to explain that opinion with rational argument vs an individual who repeatedly dismisses the opinions of others without any consideration or attempt to engage in what they say. Repeatedly handwaving people's comments away with soundbites is not good discourse. It is not rational discourse. Refusing to give consideration to the basis on which others form their opinions whilst simultaneously refusing any critique of your own, is not rational discourse.

How you can defend Scot's posts whilst simultaneously making snide, empty, accusations of equivalency of failing on the part of others beggars belief.

Emmeline wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

Emmeline wrote:I'm not missing the point. Scot's opinion is that it's a talking shop and he can say that as often as he likes. He's entitled to dismiss every argument against his opinion. He's not obliged to debate with anyone. He can ignore as many posts as he likes. ..

And he can be criticised for doing that.

Yes he can but it's a bit hollow in threads littered with insult slinging, needling, sarcasm & snide remarks.

Insult slinging & the rest because he doesn't state his opinion & move on, he replies to each & every explanation with the same old hackneyed phrases. They've gone beyond statements of opinion to just knee-jerk responses. We get it - he doesn't like Corbyn, thinks he hasn't got what it takes to lead the Labour Party, thinks that moves to address issues of member involvement in a more democratic Labour Party is just about a 'talking shop', that Corbyn wants to take us back to the 1950s, or 1983 (that bit isn't clear), and his policy ideas are just pipe dreams. But give that that is pretty much all he's offered, why not just say it once & move along? Why keep interjecting with the same old tropes, again & again? People take the time to respond to his accusations, to counter his assertions, and Scot just dismisses it all with those set phrases. It's so bloody clear that he has no interest in discussion, and all his continued repetition of the same old shit is doing is pissing people off. Hence the insults & snide remarks. His comments aren't inflammatory, the constant repetition of them, over & over again, is. That much is crystal clear.

Thanks Emmiline. Nice try but this it was you are up against. Bill gives his interpretation on what Corbyn is doing and as far as the others are concerned that is fact. I give my interpretation and I am just repeating myself and talking bollocks.

I gave a link on how the Labour party makes policy and all bill says it is going to be different this time without any proof what so ever

Bill wants evidence but Sendraks spouts opinion after opinion claiming it to be facts just because he is a civil-servant.
He talks a load of bollocks because he works there. Evidence forget it. Just pure opinions worth only that.

Look bill is accuse me of insult slinging. Talk about calling the kettle calling the pot...
That is all he does himself. Also his interpretation of democracy is different to how the Labour party itself sees it.
Talk about repeating bollocks.

What they are spouting about how Corbyn will change everything but up to now nothing much has happened. All that has happened is that is three of his major planks in his platform are on hold until the 'consultation' is completed.

It is amazing at the double standards that exist here. We have a group of Corbynites who are determined to try and chase anyone with opposing views off the Corbyn threads. They can lie and misrepresent until the cows come home but if anyone else gives and opinion which is contrary stand back.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bill wants evidence but Sendraks spouts opinion after opinion claiming it to be facts just because he is a civil-servant. He talks a load of bollocks because he works there. Evidence forget it. Just pure opinions worth only that.

I see, so its ok for you to make empty statements about Parlimanet and so forth, but when someone who actually works there counters them, "they're talking bollocks."

How terribly convenient for you Scot.

Scot Dutchy wrote:What they are spouting about how Corbyn will change everything but up to now nothing much has happened.

You mean outside of the increase in Labour membership that's brought it to late 90s levels? Or the departure from normal processes?

I agree that he's not delivered any sweeping policy changes yet. And I agree that this "consultation" process is decidedly fuzzy.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is amazing at the double standards that exist here.

I agree.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bill wants evidence but Sendraks spouts opinion after opinion claiming it to be facts just because he is a civil-servant. He talks a load of bollocks because he works there. Evidence forget it. Just pure opinions worth only that.

I see, so its ok for you to make empty statements about Parlimanet and so forth, but when someone who actually works there counters them, "they're talking bollocks."

How terribly convenient for you Scot.

Scot Dutchy wrote:What they are spouting about how Corbyn will change everything but up to now nothing much has happened.

You mean outside of the increase in Labour membership that's brought it to late 90s levels? Or the departure from normal processes?

I agree that he's not delivered any sweeping policy changes yet. And I agree that this "consultation" process is decidedly fuzzy.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is amazing at the double standards that exist here.

I agree.

You know that bit in Saving Private Ryan when the German is killing Private Mellish and he's going shhh shhhh shhhh as he's gently lowering him to the ground, I kind of want to get you and a couple of others and gently drag you away from replying while going "shhh shhhh shhhh". This is pigeon chess, and that's all there is to it.

Sendraks wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Bill wants evidence but Sendraks spouts opinion after opinion claiming it to be facts just because he is a civil-servant. He talks a load of bollocks because he works there. Evidence forget it. Just pure opinions worth only that.

I see, so its ok for you to make empty statements about Parlimanet and so forth, but when someone who actually works there counters them, "they're talking bollocks."

How terribly convenient for you Scot.

Just because you work there everything you are claiming must be fact? Sorry I dont buy it.

Scot Dutchy wrote:What they are spouting about how Corbyn will change everything but up to now nothing much has happened.

You mean outside of the increase in Labour membership that's brought it to late 90s levels? Or the departure from normal processes?

I agree that he's not delivered any sweeping policy changes yet. And I agree that this "consultation" process is decidedly fuzzy.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It is amazing at the double standards that exist here.

I agree.

Well we agree on that.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Just because you work there everything you are claiming must be fact? Sorry I dont buy it.

I'm claiming that what I have seen are things I have seen. I don't know why you think that these things are implausible. Its not like I'm claiming to have seen Bigfoot leading a debate on off-licence medicines in the Lords at 2am!

I'm not claiming anything outlandish or unreasonable. I'm certainly not claiming anything that you couldn't verify was consistent with the normal workings of Parliament. If you want to make out those things are untrue, then you should do that on the back of citing some relevant experience rather than just relying on your preconceptions and prejudices.

Otherwise your posts just read like "lalalalalala I don't believe you."

Scot Dutchy wrote:Well we agree on that.

Yes - I suspect that our agreement is based on very different premises.

And here is the frustrating thing Scot - you're a nice enough chap..........as long as people agree with you. The moment you're challenged, you get very nasty, very quickly.

I have learnt that here from personal experience I am afraid.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Thanks Emmiline. Nice try but this it was you are up against. Bill gives his interpretation on what Corbyn is doing and as far as the others are concerned that is fact. I give my interpretation and I am just repeating myself and talking bollocks.

No. I've stated what Corbyn's policy proposals are regarding party democracy, and you just come back with 'talking shop'. I tell you the purpose of these proposals, and you say 'talking shop'. I point out how Blair undermined party democracy & how what Corbyn is proposing is a mix of what we had under previous leaders, plus some changes to backbench involvement in working with (shadow) ministers in departmental teams. I point out how that is extending democracy in the parliamentary party. You tell me it's just a 'talking shop'. But no, you're not just repeating yourself. Obviously.

I gave a link on how the Labour party makes policy and all bill says it is going to be different this time without any proof what so ever

You linked to how it has been done. I know this, because I'm a party member. I tell you that Corbyn plans changes to that, and you say 'pipedreams' & 'talking shop'.

Bill wants evidence but Sendraks spouts opinion after opinion claiming it to be facts just because he is a civil-servant.
He talks a load of bollocks because he works there. Evidence forget it. Just pure opinions worth only that.

No, what he's giving is the observations of someone working in government, about how government works. That's not the same as the opinion of some bloke living in the Netherlands.

Look bill is accuse me of insult slinging.

Where? Stop lying. Thanks.

Also his interpretation of democracy is different to how the Labour party itself sees it.

The bit about Corbyn planning to change the democratic structures & processes - did you miss that?

Talk about repeating bollocks.

Indeed

What they are spouting about how Corbyn will change everything but up to now nothing much has happened.

How long has he been leader? How long do you imagine it takes to consult on such changes, let alone implement them?

All that has happened is that is three of his major planks in his platform are on hold until the 'consultation' is completed.

And what do you expect? A committment to extend democracy in the party, but simply push through changes in the meantime? Is that the way you'd do it; demonstrating no committment to the things you say you're committed to?

It is amazing at the double standards that exist here. We have a group of Corbynites who are determined to try and chase anyone with opposing views off the Corbyn threads.

No. Just people absolutely pissed off at the way that you misrepresent, ignore, evade, lie & constantly repeat mindless phrases with no bearing on reality. And wondering why the fuck you bother to post here, when you clearly have no interest in dialogue & discussion, but just want to dismiss out of hand, again & again. What purpose does that fulfil?

They can lie and misrepresent until the cows come home but if anyone else gives and opinion which is contrary stand back.

Point out the lies & misrepresentations. Note this, lies are about facts. Misrepresentation is about facts. Opinions are not. So point out these lies & misrepresentations. Tell us what they are. We're all ears. And if there is some statement of fact/assertion that you disagree with, counter it with alternative evidence that undermines the claim to be fact. Opinion doesn't do that.

Sendraks wrote:And here is the frustrating thing Scot - you're a nice enough chap..........as long as people agree with you. The moment you're challenged, you get very nasty, very quickly.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I have learnt that here from personal experience I am afraid.

OK, I'm curious, given that this is pretty much the same justification given by Strontium Dog for nastiness: how does this work?

Do you see people acting in ways that you think are petty and vindictive, and think "I gotta get me a piece of that!"?

Or what?

I genuinely don't get it.

All adds up to Corbyn is doing fuck all and we have to wait for the mist to clear on the talking shop.

Well done bill.
You show a complete misunderstanding of how a trade union man works.

OlivierK wrote:

Sendraks wrote:And here is the frustrating thing Scot - you're a nice enough chap..........as long as people agree with you. The moment you're challenged, you get very nasty, very quickly.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I have learnt that here from personal experience I am afraid.

OK, I'm curious, given that this is pretty much the same justification given by Strontium Dog for nastiness: how does this work?

Do you see people acting in ways that you think are petty and vindictive, and think "I gotta get me a piece of that!"?

Or what?

I genuinely don't get it.

Really? I am amazed. Oh.... No I am not.

Emmeline wrote:I'm not missing the point. Scot's opinion is that it's a talking shop and he can say that as often as he likes. He's entitled to dismiss every argument against his opinion. He's not obliged to debate with anyone. He can ignore as many posts as he likes.

Oh sure. If that's all you mean then I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that there was no difference between Scot repeating the same limited points over and over again, dismissing every other argument against them and not debating with anyone, and other people (eg Bill) expanding and adapting their points in response to challenges, engaging arguments against them and debating with others. Clearly that would be nonsense.

If all you meant is that both are allowed within the forum rules, then you are of course correct as a question of fact.

If you want to campaign for a forum that holds people to a higher standard of posting then go ahead but that will have implications for a lot more people than Scot.

True.

That is indeed something I would like, although I can see the reasons why it might be prohibitively difficult to police.

In the meantime, given that we have a forum where both meaningful debate and moronic pig headed auto-repeat can be posted within the rules, I don't see why people shouldn't call moronic pig-headed auto-repeat what it is, and laugh at the people who post it as much as they deserve. Nor do I understand why you have such a problem with them doing so, and seem to think it's worthy of equal respect to more meaningful contributions.