Originally Posted by
vnx205
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.
