Seil Chat

As previously suggested, a follow up to the recent umbrage I appear to have caused.
Firstly, thanks for the big arrow on the last posting. I do not know whether everyone gets this , or is it just me?
Secondly, The inference is that only the readers who actually blackball me will be slightly restricted from the opportunity of perusing any remarks I might make. Hopefully, for the sake of political freedom, this is the case.
An aside here - Personally, I am quite happy with this situation. If the dyed in the wool party members opt out of any antidote to the daily flow of sustenance, that's fine. My messages are probably completely wasted on them anyway, and are probably a thorn in the flesh.
Thirdly, if all the above is hopefully correct, it will be interesting to note, whether in future hits, there is any drop off in readership, because the party faithful have dropped out, or whether there are maybe some who yearn for some form of debate .
As a consequence of our administrators action, it seems unlikely that he will be privy to this posting, and it will be interesting to see whether anyone else takes up the cudgel on his behalf - over to you moderator, are there grounds for issuing a stern warning?

Jim

Some observations to your post ! - apologies in advance to all if this is seen 'as off topic' !

So the administrator has blocked your posts - I'm pretty sure he will still be having a sneaky view however. .... !

Your post has only generated 25 views in 24 hrs - methinks that is about right based on the number of contributors (and past history) - I suspect this will plateau at around 80 ( several re visits from readers amongst that)

After all most of the threads in the political section are Bill McD yourself and NB and that hasn't changed in many months.( usually SNP vs Jim McCee )

Sadly any 'debate' will cease to exist without your 'challenge' and that would be a pity in my opinion

I don't share NB 's view that you are singularly destroying the forum - indeed if he's saying that then perhaps he also has to consider the revised rules that he has imposed over the past year

Perhaps that's the reason ?

Snoman

Gavin Rae wrote:Sadly any 'debate' will cease to exist without your 'challenge' and that would be a pity in my opinion

Jim's 'challenge' consists of endlessly saying that the other posters are irretrievably biased therefore everything they post is nonsense. Once you have read that - phrased slightly differently - twenty or so times its charm begins to pall.

I shan't be replying to any more of Jim's posts unless he begins to debate rather than berate.

try this as a starter on how not to argue!

Stevie

Believe me when I say

' We know what the problem is - normal services will return to this forum shortly ' !!

Regards

Snoman

What to make of all the recent replies to my outbursts?
Steve J posts a u tube clip - entertaining but not really apposite to the current stand off.
Gavin Rae sticks an oar in on behalf of free speach (thanks).
Nick B - true to form, tries to rubbish anything I might contribute and despite ignoring my contributions seems to be privy to them.
So where does all this argy -bargy get us?
Up to the present moment this website "Scottish Politics" has been dominated by propoganda from the SNP emanating mainly from NB and B McD - fair enough- they have an axe to grind and with a platform who should gainsay them?. But surely - purely in the interests of free speech, any reader should have the right of expressing a contrary view - evidently not according to NB.
The fact that none of the other political parties have seen reason to put their tuppenceworth into these pages in promotion of their own dogma has no bearing on the one sided nature of the input we get currently - political activism tends to be concentrated with those who feel aggreived - as of the VOW which started this whole hullaboloo - here I am attempting to get it back into context in case our administrator/moderator accuses me of getting off topic.

jimcee wrote:purely in the interests of free speech, any reader should have the right of expressing a contrary view .

Absolutely correct, agreed 100%.

Bill McDicken wrote:

jimcee wrote:purely in the interests of free speech, any reader should have the right of expressing a contrary view .

Absolutely correct, agreed 100%.

Agree 100%

Jim is completely free to post whatever he wants on this forum within the normal boundaries of taste and consideration for the rules.

I however am not obliged to read it or respond to it.

Thanks Bill for that endorsement.
Unfortunately you are at odds with your drinking buddy who holds the purse strings.