Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Sign in to follow this  
Madness

The Dog Pit

Recommended Posts

I'm sick of a recent thread being polluted by heated conversation that is neither enlightening nor remotely related to the thread.  This is the dog bit, where you can go to town.  Put on your boxing gloves and practise your pugilistic performance here.  

Edited by Madness
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woof woof.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea, though pugilism especially regards politics can lead to ongoing animosity. There have to be rules.

My best mate and I have the 9 o’clock rule, on our weekly curry nights with our wives. The men (occasionally sons are present) adjourn to the pub at 7.30. By 9, when the women collect us (this may include daughters) the men are well oiled, and a couple of bottles of wine over curry doesn’t help. Things can get very heated, especially regarding politics. The 9 o’clock rule acknowledges that nothing stated or done after that time is actually worth a damn, and need not be apologised for later. Indeed it is a poor show to even refer back to the previous night. But angry debate is one of life’s great pleasures. So what are the rules here? It worries me a bit that once committed to record, an injudicious comment can be revisited and allowed to fester. Do we have any suggestions for a ‘9 o’clock rule’ equivalent?

Jerry

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jelida said:

I love the idea, though pugilism especially regards politics can lead to ongoing animosity. There have to be rules.

My best mate and I have the 9 o’clock rule, on our weekly curry nights with our wives. The men (occasionally sons are present) adjourn to the pub at 7.30. By 9, when the women collect us (this may include daughters) the men are well oiled, and a couple of bottles of wine over curry doesn’t help. Things can get very heated, especially regarding politics. The 9 o’clock rule acknowledges that nothing stated or done after that time is actually worth a damn, and need not be apologised for later. Indeed it is a poor show to even refer back to the previous night. But angry debate is one of life’s great pleasures. So what are the rules here? It worries me a bit that once committed to record, an injudicious comment can be revisited and allowed to fester. Do we have any suggestions for a ‘9 o’clock rule’ equivalent?

Jerry

Agreed, Jerry. Mine would be:-

1/ Keep a sense of humour.

2/ Accept that others beside me have a right to their opinion. We're all different.

3/ I'm not always right. In fact there is usually no definitively right or wrong answer. Life is not 20 maths questions.

4/ Go in with the perspective that you can have a blazing row, but still emerge mates afterwards, shake hands and have that cyber pint together.Whatever's said in here, we leave it at the door and don't talk about it anywhere else.

5/ Never hold a grudge. It's not personal, it's politics. 

6/ I'm a rottweiler ;)

Edited by 1949threepence
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is "entitled to an opinion". They are however allowed an informed opinion. By which I mean that they know what they are talking about and not just spouting the last thing they heard /read.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bagerap said:

No one is "entitled to an opinion". They are however allowed an informed opinion. By which I mean that they know what they are talking about and not just spouting the last thing they heard /read.

Original thinking is extremely, rare most are informed by sources in one form or another, even the sources cannot often be fully trusted as we need to look at the context and background.  Either way, even in this era when we apparently have so much access to information, most people will focus on a single issue according to their need to make a point.  I think the most important thing in you statement is the "informed" word, whether tested, empirical, or researched humans will, often, selectively inform themselves and identify a group or individuals who support their belief.   This can be very satisfying when the peer review is open minded but most review and critique is based on an overriding attempt to keep the status quo and this inertia is often the very thing that hinders progress no matter how "expert" participants feel they are.  The more usual approach used by the majority is to deride using humour and humiliation in the hope that the norm is perpetuated.  The main issue in these cases is usually  fear, on the part of those involved, it is human nature at so many levels to want to remain inside their comfort zone and to insist on others sticking to the same rules within their comfort zone.  Again this is the reason why societies stagnate, or cultures create environments that are static in a misguided belief that what they know is best hence the reason why empires rise and fall. 

Big dogs always think they win out simply because when viewed from their position inside the ring they are top.  What they fail to see from the blood ,sweat, and sawdust of the arena is that sitting watching on with a grin is the small lap dog, that lives in the house , sleeps on the soft bed, get fed delicacies on the lap of luxury.  But of course both are dogs are winners but what a difference of approach these two canines have to their world.  

Edited by DrLarry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @bagerap was referring to the average kind of internet claptrap where people air their prejudices freely left right and centre. It's harder to do that in 'real life' where you have to look people in the eye, and you can hear their tone of voice and see their body language.

No opinion is fully and completely informed, but a link to a reasonable website (and I will leap to the defence of Wikipedia here) to back up stated facts, never goes amiss.

Edited by Peckris 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×