Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Random Rants _ The Newbury today 2012 Legolympiad: Jason against the Argonauts
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 3 2012, 10:59 PM
The Games of the NewburyToday 2012 Legolympiad: Jason against the Argonauts
The proposition is: Simon Kirby seems to have totally lost the plot
Arguing against the proposition is Jason, and arguing for the proposition is The Leader of the Argonauts
When the heros have completed their contest a poll will open in this thread, so please vote for the hero you feel argued their position the best. The thread will be open for comments then too, though please try not to comment until the debate has finished. Many thanks.
Posted by: user23 Jun 4 2012, 08:13 AM
The proposition is: Simon Kirby seems to have totally lost the plot
Arguing against the proposition is Jason, and arguing for the proposition is The Leader of the Argonauts
When the heros have completed their contest a poll will open in this thread, so please vote for the hero you feel argued their position the best. The thread will be open for comments then too, though please try not to comment until the debate has finished. Many thanks.
Perhaps it wasn't the best place to carry it out?
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 4 2012, 09:57 AM
Perhaps it wasn't the best place to carry it out?
Why not? My only thought is that it is a bank holiday and I for one am less likely to be in a position to post or ponder the question.
Posted by: shedboy Jun 4 2012, 02:17 PM
Oh please. enough. My mail box is full of this.
Posted by: Darren Jun 4 2012, 02:56 PM
Perhaps it wasn't the best place to carry it out?
Seeing as reporting them all as spam takes only a few seconds I doubt they'll be here much after Wednesday morning.
Posted by: Penelope Jun 4 2012, 07:10 PM
numpty
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 4 2012, 07:26 PM
If anyone missed what the Legolympics is about, it was http://forum.newburytoday.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=1901. It was inspired by the recently launched Newbury Debating Society that we discussed recently, and also by the Olympics - lego is Greek for "to speak" so the Logolympics is a debating contest. So that you don't vote out of preference for the forum member the six competitors are competing under psudonyms - Greek heroes in a nod towards the Greek origin of the Olympics games.
I hope you don't feel that the competition has swamped the forum. It's certainly added a few new thread but not so many that the other discussions are being bumped onto the second page.
I don't understand the problem of inboxes getting filled - are you getting notifications on new threads or something? Anywho, all the threads have been created now so there won't be any more until the closing ceromony.
Lastly: would it be OK for you not to post in the competition threads until the debates have concluded? I'd like to give the competitors a clear thread so that they just engage with each other and so that it's easy to follow their debate without interuptions and diversions. I hope you don't mind me asking, and I'd really appreciate it if you would oblige.
Thanks.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 5 2012, 02:03 PM
Thanks.
This is a forum and is not for one person to attempt to air his thinly veiled attempts to "Get at" the council, either West Berks or Town.
Actually, I don't want to post in your game but I do object to your putting up a thread and wanting to keep it to yourself. I doubt you have genuine persons taking part and that you are just talking to yourself.
If you wanted to do something like this and if you have genuine people taking part, then you should have set up a new section through the administrator which then wouldn't interfere with the day to day use of the forum as then posting could have been prevented by all but those approved.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 5 2012, 02:17 PM
Oooooh, get her!
Posted by: Darren Jun 5 2012, 02:40 PM
Or better still, set up a dedicated forum.
http://www.phpbb3now.com/
Posted by: user23 Jun 5 2012, 02:46 PM
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 5 2012, 05:04 PM
Actually, I don't want to post in your game but I do object to your putting up a thread and wanting to keep it to yourself. I doubt you have genuine persons taking part and that you are just talking to yourself.
If you wanted to do something like this and if you have genuine people taking part, then you should have set up a new section through the administrator which then wouldn't interfere with the day to day use of the forum as then posting could have been prevented by all but those approved.
That would soon become apparent. I am a part of the game and I have yet to see him posting something I have not written.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 5 2012, 06:01 PM
I doubt you have genuine persons taking part and that you are just talking to yourself.
Care to bet? Put up £50 prize money, and I'll give you two-to-one if I'm lying - there are six members taking part in the contest. What do you say?
As for getting at the councils - have you actually read the propositions? Sheesh.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 6 2012, 05:49 PM
As for getting at the councils - have you actually read the propositions? Sheesh.
The offer's open to you too dannyboy: there are six members taking part in the Logolympics, and I'm hiding their identities so that voting at the end of the competition is not prejudiced and is based as much as possible on how they argued their points. Will you take the bet?
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2012, 05:56 PM
One thing that is apparent Simon, is that people seem to be confused as to what they are arguing for.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 6 2012, 06:11 PM
Maybe it's just a clever ruse, like reverse psychology.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 06:50 PM
No.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 6 2012, 07:03 PM
Bwarrrk buk buk buk buk.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 07:06 PM
I stayed there once. Just of the coast of Thailand.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2012, 07:11 PM
Like I said: it is sometimes wise to accept when one is beaten!
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 07:14 PM
Never.
To be honest I didn't read 75% of the legoland threads - just the ones which had someone other than SK replying to them.
It is a bit like moaning about getting a parking ticket on a free parking day cos you didn't read the small print on the signs clearly stated you still needed a ticket.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2012, 07:16 PM
To be honest I didn't read 75% of the legoland threads - just the ones which had someone other than SK replying to them.
It is a bit like moaning about getting a parking ticket on a free parking day cos you didn't read the small print on the signs clearly stated you still needed a ticket.
Does this mean you don't now believe that Simon is debating with himself?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 07:18 PM
No - I still have not read the small print.
Posted by: Cognosco Jun 6 2012, 07:36 PM
And you do not find this statement slightly hypocritical?
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2012, 07:43 PM
Well he demonstrably wanted to send out the message regardless of the truth, but it is now evident that he is not sure.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 08:55 PM
Nope.
Sk is posting all the replies - Easy to get confused when doing this, especially if you are trying to post annonymously using psudonymns.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 08:57 PM
Isn't hat the point of a debate?
Truth has little part to play.
Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 6 2012, 09:40 PM
"Breck a kek kek qoax quax." Its all greek to me.
If I find the book it could be Aristophanes
ce.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2012, 11:20 PM
Truth is not necessary in a debate, but it is welcome when it makes an appearance.
Posted by: Roger T Jun 6 2012, 11:30 PM
I guess accusing people of pretending to be another person... a common thread, on this forum.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 6 2012, 11:39 PM
... is what?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 6 2012, 11:58 PM
But knowing if it did appear would surely depend on the gullibility of the audience & eleoquence of the debaters.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2012, 01:32 AM
An absence of debate will not grantee truth either, notwithstanding you posted an opinion in a manner that suggested you were convinced the posts were fraudulent; however, someone has offered to put their money where their mouth is. £10.00 lies between you knowing the truth or remaining in ignorance.
Posted by: Cognosco Jun 7 2012, 06:15 PM
I would prefer to think that knowing it did appear would be when it was backed up with facts that could be proven?
But then again that would not be enough for someone who is wearing rose tinted glasses as far as our local authorities are concerned would it?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 7 2012, 06:21 PM
But then again that would not be enough for someone who is wearing rose tinted glasses as far as our local authorities are concerned would it?
I'd hate to think what would happen if there was a real local balls up. You know, something important. Something worthy of 'rotten boroughs'......instead of the usual trival ***** up which happen every day, all over the country.
Oh, & btw, never let the facts spoil a good debate.
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 7 2012, 06:21 PM
No it didn't "clearly state" as has been established.
If it "clearly stated" then me and many others would not have made the mistake.
Why are you raising this again?
Have you never fallen foul of the "small print"? I bet you have!
On top of that the argument was CEO's targeting those who had fallen foul as "easy pickings" not so much the fact that we had done so.
(I think we are upsetting Simon's little games here but I didn't raise something from another thread that didn't need to be and is well out of context
!)
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 7 2012, 06:24 PM
If it "clearly stated" then me and many others would not have made the mistake.
Why are you raising this again?
Have you never fallen foul of the "small print"? I bet you have!
I didn't read it either.
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 7 2012, 06:30 PM
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 7 2012, 08:57 PM
What I was moaning about was the fact that suddenly the forum gets taken over by one person and that to my mind was the crux of the matter. Simon could have co-opted his people, he could be posting himself but at the end of the day, I don't want to play the silly game. Other people might, but what do the opponents have to offer other than their personal opinions which may be valid although I would want to know who they were and what their qualifications were to take part in a debate. People who do like to hear the sound of their own voices and take part in verbal debates make it quite clear who they are and where they stand in society.
Anyway, I don't want to participate in a nonsense bet as I would be prepared to believe that the people who are representing the opponents/contestants/participants might be real but they are anonymous forum names which are meaningless. I have three identities on the forum so I could be arguing for two people.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2012, 08:59 PM
Anyway, I don't want to participate in a nonsense bet as I would be prepared to believe that the people who are representing the opponents/contestants/participants might be real but they are anonymous forum names which are meaningless. I have three identities on the forum so I could be arguing for two people.
You said it!
Posted by: JeffG Jun 7 2012, 09:00 PM
I suspect most people will give up on this forum. I find it trying to wade through all the spam looking for posts I want to read.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2012, 09:02 PM
I know what you mean, and I agree.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 7 2012, 10:13 PM
Anyway, I don't want to participate in a nonsense bet as I would be prepared to believe that the people who are representing the opponents/contestants/participants might be real but they are anonymous forum names which are meaningless. I have three identities on the forum so I could be arguing for two people.
I've explained why I wanted to anonymise the debate, but I understand how that has caused consternation. It was also a novel thing having a debating contest, and I see that not everyone has accepted its validity, especially as I asked for the debate threads to remain comment-free until the debate was over. I'm going to ask the competitors if, in the light of the comments it's received, if they'd like to wind it up now.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 7 2012, 10:21 PM
If you believe that the debate thing is valid, get the moderator to start a new section called debating and to restrict posting till it's over and done. You will not be able to stop people posting try as you might, it's already attracted a few daft and meaningless posts from the usuals and even a new poster who seems concerned with an estate agent or something.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 7 2012, 10:30 PM
I PMd admin but didn't get a response. It was a new idea and I take blackdog's assessment that it's failed objectively. If the competitors agree to wind it up now we can have a bit of a wash up to see if it's worth doing again some time and what we might change. I agree that asking members not to post in the threads is not in the spirit of the forum and has caused some undertsnadable frustration, and I'm sorry about that.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 8 2012, 08:48 AM
I wouldn't say it's failed. More like just poorly set up, whether that's your fault or the Admin's fault for not facilitating another section is up for debate.
It is a bit annoying seeing all the threads being taken up however it's not bad enough to cause me to moan much about it lol.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2012, 09:04 AM
It is a bit annoying seeing all the threads being taken up however it's not bad enough to cause me to moan much about it lol.
Of course its failed. Notwithstanding people can't help wittering!
The 'mistake' Simon made was not explaining fully the format before 'dumping' it on us. He needs to learn to consider consensus I feel (not for the first time!)
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 8 2012, 09:16 AM
The 'mistake' Simon made was not explaining fully the format before 'dumping' it on us. He needs to learn to consider consensus I feel (not for the first time!) maybe one debate at a time......would have helped.....
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 8 2012, 10:05 AM
He has spammed the forum, I'm ignoring all these topics.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2012, 10:40 AM
Apparently not, sadly.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 8 2012, 10:42 AM
Simon can you please remove the spam posts, or I tihnk admin need to be contacted as it is very off putting.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2012, 11:31 AM
If you think I've posted spam you're at liberty to report it to admin as such, and if you're not interested in the threads you're also at liberty to ignore them.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 8 2012, 11:33 AM
It is clearly spam, and has ruined the board in my opinion.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2012, 11:41 AM
Rather than just throwing sqibs - could you justify your claims? The posts were clearly not 'spam' in the accepted useage of the term and they certainly have not ruined the board - which has carried on as it always did. There is a very simple solution if you don't like what you see here - don't look. How very sad - sincerely hope you find what you are looking for somewhere.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 8 2012, 11:45 AM
He swamped the board with post after post, centre of attention as always. How's the allotment doing with all this rain Simon ?
Posted by: Timbo Jun 8 2012, 11:51 AM
The forum was almost nice these last few days until Andy1979uk decided to come back.
Posted by: andy1979uk Jun 8 2012, 11:57 AM
I forget it's your forum Timbo.
Posted by: Penelope Jun 8 2012, 11:59 AM
I did warn it might be a bit too cerebral for some people, kind of proves me right really.
Posted by: Timbo Jun 8 2012, 12:03 PM
Posted by: massifheed Jun 8 2012, 12:47 PM
What has breakfast cerebral got to do with anything?
Posted by: Nothing Much Jun 8 2012, 07:00 PM
Good one Massifheed. I think I was outed at the start. The trial seems done.
I was hoping to have a go on the Newbury Eastern Bypass.
Handy for Benyon Gravel pits.
Seems the idea was a bit too much.Especially for me as I always agree with the other point of view.
NORTHENDER has a .jpeg of a sign by a barbed wire fence.
NO SITTING ON THE FENCE. I have often been on the receiving end of the snap.
Keeps me in my place.
Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 8 2012, 07:10 PM
I found it difficult too - I was Jason. Andy Capp, Strafin, On the Edge, Jayjay, and Nothing Much all took part, though if they want to say who they were it's up to them. I had to argue for banning dogs from the parks, something I am very much opposed to, and it's difficult, more difficult than I expected. For me it was an interesting experience, so thanks to those who took part.
Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2012, 07:36 PM
I think it is difficult if you don't have information at hand. I had to think of why we should keep the mayor, and I couldn't think of any reason other than for sentimental reasons.
This will sound pious, but I am genuinely open-minded about many things and am happy to change my mind. I don't believe there is ever only one way, or only ever one right way. I just happen to see lots of holes in other's arguments.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 8 2012, 08:38 PM
I was Achilles! I enjoyed trying to think of arguments for something I don't believe in, it made me think in a different way, and enabled me to balance my own thoughts a bit.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 8 2012, 09:27 PM
And me Odysseus. Certainly subscribe to what the others have said - made me think a good excercise,
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)