Is there much point of this or other forums anymore? Options

[GMR]

I keep forgetting to come on here sometimes because there is much better debates on Facebook pages. At one time I was an enthusiast of forums (even running one), but no more. Facebook has captured the market and you get a wider debate. On here you've got the same-old-same-old saying the same stuff. And when you do get newbies coming on here (like Petra) they are chased off and called the Trolls. No wonder this place is dying.

I noticed that NewburyToday has its own Facebook page and they use peoples comments for their letters' page. When this forum was created they used our comments for their paper, but no more. I also wonder if they know we exist on here or is this forum just kept in a dark corner for the Newbury nutters to voice their ramblings?

Another point; you can't really hide on Facebook as people usually write under their own name. That would bugger the Andy Capps' and others with stupid names up. Maybe they should rename this place the Twilight Zone.

[On the edge]

There may be something in that, but I'm far from convinced Facebook is the answer. Frankly, much of what happens in Facebook is far worse than anything I've ever seen here. It would also seem that the lack of anonymity actually encourages bad behaviour; but it is still easy enough to create a false identity. I still don't think social media is much more than an extended pub conversation; in very broad terms it might give a slight inducation of public opinion, but mainly it simply reinforces existing predudice. Again, it's also very easy to manipulate as it clearly had been in dime of the local instances. For those who would wish to input to or influence, it's not the answer; its simply entertainment, no more no less.

[GMR]

There may be something in that, but I'm far from convinced Facebook is the answer. Frankly, much of what happens in Facebook is far worse than anything I've ever seen here. It would also seem that the lack of anonymity actually encourages bad behaviour; but it is still easy enough to create a false identity. I still don't think social media is much more than an extended pub conversation; in very broad terms it might give a slight inducation of public opinion, but mainly it simply reinforces existing predudice. Again, it's also very easy to manipulate as it clearly had been in dime of the local instances. For those who would wish to input to or influence, it's not the answer; its simply entertainment, no more no less.

When you say "much of what happens in Facebook is far worse than anything I've ever seen"; I presume you are talking local politics here? I agree, but I prefer more serious - national/ world - politics and there is plenty of good debates out there. The problem with local debates is the Newbury people, they don't know how to debate and are more interested in showing their superiority, foolishness and game play. Of course I am not suggesting that you don't get that when debating national politics, but there are more serious debaters than Newbury has.

[Andy Capp]

When you say "much of what happens in Facebook is far worse than anything I've ever seen"; I presume you are talking local politics here? I agree, but I prefer more serious - national/ world - politics and there is plenty of good debates out there. The problem with local debates is the Newbury people, they don't know how to debate and are more interested in showing their superiority, foolishness and game play. Of course I am not suggesting that you don't get that when debating national politics, but there are more serious debaters than Newbury has.

I have seen no evidence that any of that is true. You like the rest of us have a certain arrogance that surfaces when the quarrelling starts.

[GMR]

I have seen no evidence that any of that is true. You like the rest of us have a certain arrogance that surfaces when the quarrelling starts.

Maybe I go down to your/ their level just to fit in. We usually respond or act depending on who are opponents are. When you've got a more intellectual debater or group of debaters one usually raises their game. Raising ones games when you are against inferior opposition would only go over their heads.

As for "no evidence"; I wouldn't expect you to say any different.

[Andy Capp]

QED.

Maybe I go down to your/ their level just to fit in. We usually respond or act depending on who are opponents are. When you've got a more intellectual debater or group of debaters one usually raises their game. Raising ones games when you are against inferior opposition would only go over their heads.

As for "no evidence"; I wouldn't expect you to say any different.

It doesn't surprise me you haven't shown any examples of this superior debating experience, but I don't blame you as trying to pickup on an old thread is quite difficult in Facebook land.

You said:

When you say "much of what happens in Facebook is far worse than anything I've ever seen"; I presume you are talking local politics here? I agree, but I prefer more serious - national/ world - politics and there is plenty of good debates out there. The problem with local debates is the Newbury people, they don't know how to debate and are more interested in showing their superiority, foolishness and game play. Of course I am not suggesting that you don't get that when debating national politics, but there are more serious debaters than Newbury has.

In the main, all you have done is insult members and make hitherto groundless assertions. On one hand you resent the adversarial nature of debates on this form, then very soon you are guilty of employing those exact methods.

I'd be surprised if members of the Newbury Today forum are any different to any other group of people that like to chew the fat for a while. I also don't understand why people feel the need to have to post their grievances about this form and question why it is still used; there's room for everyone. Facebook is a convenient but facile message board, and this forum is just a corner of a pub for some regulars to have a chinwag.

[GMR]

QED. It doesn't surprise me you haven't shown any examples of this superior debating experience, but I don't blame you as trying to pickup on an old thread is quite difficult in Facebook land. You said: In the main, all you have done is insult members and make hitherto groundless assertions. On one hand you resent the adversarial nature of debates on this form, then very soon you are guilty of employing those exact methods. I'd be surprised if members of the Newbury Today forum are any different to any other group of people that like to chew the fat for a while. I also don't understand why people feel the need to have to post their grievances about this form and question why it is still used; there's room for everyone. Facebook is a convenient but facile message board, and this forum is just a corner of a pub for some regulars to have a chinwag.

To show "superior debating skills" one needs an opponent to appreciate those skills, not somebody who is hostile and can't see no further than their nose.

[Andy Capp]

To show "superior debating skills" one needs an opponent to appreciate those skills, not somebody who is hostile and can't see no further than their nose.

You objected to or criticised a number of things which you are guilty of yourself.

I have asked you to support you arguments yet rather than do so, you have quickly resorted to ridicule.

[GMR]

You objected to or criticised a number of things which you are guilty of yourself. I have asked you to support you arguments yet rather than do so, you have quickly resorted to ridicule.

I stated a fact.

[Andy Capp]

I stated a fact.

You were/are ridiculing; something you appeared to object to.

[GMR]

You were/are ridiculing; something you appeared to object to.

Why would I object if it was true?

[Andy Capp]

Why would I object if it was true?

You objected to the rudeness, yet are one of the first to indulge in it.

Anyway, do you want to debate the OP or are you simply wishing to squabble?