Thread: you have gotta be kkidding me

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

The answer to that is.....no!!

and that's why I deleted my post ...we don't want to upset Inc or he may well close down this site and then we would be on Skpe or fackbookor ever


Mrs ho har

you are having me on surely

if enough people decided it shouldnt be used i would consider it

Originally Posted by EchiDna

can we hold a poll on the 100% removal of politics and religion as discussion topics? I for one can't stand the discussions as they just end up in slanging matches most of the time. I'm here to discuss Landies (potentially religiously I admit ) and what we do with em, not what I personally believe or for the purpose of arguing with someone that I'm unlikely to ever meet that believes the polar opposite to me...

If such a poll were to be posted, I would vote against the removal of such threads.

I don't believe I have ever once looked at a post that looked as if it had something to do with a P38a. I have only once or twice looked at one on D3s and Freelanders. Anyone else like me who has a deeply held religious belief that they are not proper Land Rovers is free to ignore them too. They can also do the same with threads on religion, politics, the economy, the GFC, the AFL, Y2k, PMT, WMDs, ABS, GBRMPA and other such irrelevant posts.

I quite like being amused, entertained, embarrassed, horrified, informed, intrigued, reassured, puzzled and provoked by the comments members make about a whole range of topics. If the thread ceases to do any of those things, I just stop reading it.

Originally Posted by EchiDna

can we hold a poll on the 100% removal of politics and religion as discussion topics? I for one can't stand the discussions as they just end up in slanging matches most of the time. I'm here to discuss Landies (potentially religiously I admit ) and what we do with em, not what I personally believe or for the purpose of arguing with someone that I'm unlikely to ever meet that believes the polar opposite to me...

I tend to agree, religious talk turns ordinary people into complete Farnickles, but, I don't agree with such white washing of life. So I wouldn't vote for it.


Speaking of whitewashing life, If Tony was to personally attack another member, he wouldn't be doing it online. Up close and personal is his modus operandi. What has been posted was in jest and sarcasm.

Mind you I have been pinged for the same in the past.

Mind you I have been pinged for the same in the past.

Probably in part my fault. I genuinely apologise to you.

I've met a lot of people off this forum recently, made good friends, and I'd be inclined to caution anybody against drawing conclusions or creating animosity because of a difference of opinion online.

Originally Posted by vnx205

If such a poll were to be posted, I would vote against the removal of such threads.

I don't believe I have ever once looked at a post that looked as if it had something to do with a P38a. I have only once or twice looked at one on D3s and Freelanders. Anyone else like me who has a deeply held religious belief that they are not proper Land Rovers is free to ignore them too. They can also do the same with threads on religion, politics, the economy, the GFC, the AFL, Y2k, PMT, WMDs, ABS, GBRMPA and other such irrelevant posts.

I quite like being amused, entertained, embarrassed, horrified, informed, intrigued, reassured, puzzled and provoked by the comments members make about a whole range of topics. If the thread ceases to do any of those things, I just stop reading it.

A very rational approach which I do agree with - IMHO, it's the *ahem* shall we say 'less rational' among us that tend to give rise to raising moderator's blood pressure - the mod's job is crappy enough as it is without the slanging matches that go on related to religion and politics.

Originally Posted by EchiDna

A very rational approach which I do agree with - IMHO, it's the *ahem* shall we say 'less rational' among us that tend to give rise to raising moderator's blood pressure - the mod's job is crappy enough as it is without the slanging matches that go on related to religion and politics.

I understand your point, but i remember that a good while back, before I worked out some of the characters on this forum and before I came to understand a bit about the way some members' sense of humour worked, the first post that I noticed where I felt that someone was slagging off at another member was not about religion or politics.

The topic was about someone's ability to drive on wet grass (or something like that). So it is possible to be irrational or offensive, or appear to be, on any topic, even how to drive Land Rover.

Just in case someone has a long enough memory to remember the thread I am talking about, I should add that now that I know just a little more about the members involved in what I thought at the time was a heated exchange, with hindsight, I am not sure that it was anything more than a good natured ribbing about driving technique.

In spite of the fact that I disagree, I think I can understand some of the reasons some forums have a complete ban on what they call "religious debates".

They don't mean debates about religion. They mean debates about things which can't be proven, where people have firmly held views and where no-one is likely to change their mind. Examples of what they call "religious debates" would be Holden v Ford, AFL v ARL, Windows v Mac v Linux. I suspect that TDi v TD5 v Puma v Isuzu would fall into that same category.

However, even if i think people are talking rubbish (in my opinion), I am often interested to see how their minds work, so I am still against the idea of a ban.

The wet grass incident was me. I was making a joke, it was poorly executed and I reacted badly. I also did not know the personalities of many members at that point.

Several members of this forum who have driven off road with me will know that I am not an idiot, and that I can competently drive off road. I am not fearful of admitting mistakes and I'm not, and have never claimed to be omniscient.