Autumn Statement 2015: what’s in it for you?

Patrick Steen says:
” … and respect each others opinions, even if they may differ.”
—————-
I have today lodged an official protest at this seeming threat against legitimate countering of Hate Speech, and its proponents on this site.
It is suggested that you either withdraw, or amend, that part of your implied threat pending the outcome of my protest.
I suggest that it now read, pro tem :

”Please be polite to one another, within the bounds of normal robust responses.
Please also use the ”Report” button in cases of ‘Hate’ postings.”
.

This is my personal view. 🙂 It is, however, off topic. 🙁

These conversations should allow constructive exchanges of views and information about the topic covered in the introduction, with occasional off-topic excursions. They are hosted by Which? who are responsible for keeping them on track, and keeping them free from abusive comments, offensive comments, and suchlike as given in their guidelines. For many years this seems to have worked well.

The danger of departing from this is that some contributors will be put off commenting in case they get a harsh or unpleasant reaction from other contributors. Some may just lose interest if the conversation is continually off-topic particularly if, for example, it has a political theme, and I would not like to see these conversations change to that style.

It is for Which? to state the rules for commenting, for us to read their guidelines and respect them if we want to contribute, and if we have constructive views that might amend these, then post them, I suggest, under the “New Conversation” topic found under “Technology”.

Amen to that Malcolm. I am already boycotting comments which I consider to be in breach of Which? T & C’s.

Everything is political, some things are Political.
Community is a ”mantra” which is oft chanted about this forum – that implies elements of Community Co-operative management, rather than centralizm, or oligarchic determanizm based on length of membership; # of postings or some other quantitative factor.
Elliot Volkman, in ”Social Media Today” suggests the following in discussing
*** Roles in an online community***

Although online societies differ in content from real society, the roles people assume in their online communities are quite similar. There are several categories of people that play a role in the cycle of social networking, these include:

Community architect – Creates the online community, sets goals and decides the purpose of the site.
Community manager – Oversees the progress of the society. Enforces rules, encourages social norms, assists new members, and spreads awareness about the community.
Professional member – This is a member who is paid to contribute to the site. The purpose of this role is to keep the community active.
Free members – These members visit sites most often and represent the majority of the contributors. Their contributions are crucial to the sites’ progress.
Passive lurker – These people do not contribute to the site but rather absorb the content, discussion, and advice.
Active lurker – Consumes the content and shares that content with personal networks and other communities.
Power users – These people push for new discussion, provide positive feedback to community managers, and sometimes even act as community managers themselves. They have a major influence on the site and make up only a small percentage of the users.
******************************
In terms of the discussion concerning Beavis V ”EyeFine”, it is clear that there are two dominant schools of thought concerning the way that a Free Market economy and a Country are run:
Alpha:
** Know the rules
** Accept the rules, irrespective of who has set them
** Obey the rules
** Accept the punishment if you transgress.
** Don’t rock the boat by protesting.

Omega
** The price of freedom is eternal vigilance [Leonard Henry Courtney]
** The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!”
― Brian Cox

If current orthodoxy had not been challenged:
** signs proclaiming ”No blacks, no Irish, no dogs” would still be extant
** the sun would still be circulating round the earth
** universal suffrage would be a dream
** men bearing red flags would proceed motor cars
** travel at greater than 20 mph would still result in instant death, or madness.

** It is the role of Which? to challenge
** It is the role of Which? members to help determine and support such challenges
** It is the role of members of Which? to challenge Which? on both tactics and strategy.
.
It can be postulated that previously quiescent Lurkers will be galvanized to join and contribute to these columns when they view a dynamic wind of progressive change sweeping thru’ and causing eddies of live debate.

One striking example of this Wind of Change [in UK society] is the massive influx of previously a-political youth into the Labour Party, and the ripples being seen in membership of other pressure groups.

Bob Dylan sang of such change, decades ago – it’s worth singing those lyrics again now.
.

Change is suppressed if it doesnt conform to the perceived social ideal of an authoritarian government of which it imposes its political viewpoint to the disadvantage to others not believing in or conforming to its ideals . Those not conforming are classed as “rebels ” -non-conformists and now Internet “terrorists “. They are abhorred by “society ” as they are scared of change and wish to be loved by others and “accepted ” so they act in accordance to the stated aims of Government/Society to “get on ” little do they know that those in power abhor them also and use them for their own ends. A stagnating society eventually turns on itself and morals etc go through the ground as they perceive in themselves that their actions and thoughts are selfish till we reach an “anything goes society ” then you have Rome re-incarnated in all that it entails.

+ 1
An exact hit on the nail head.

Machiavelli observed that the leaders of the Fifth column should be the first to be put to the sword when the conqueror entered the defeated city.
** They had once proved to be traitors to their own, so could not be trusted
** In many cases they had inflated expectations of their role in the new regime, roles which were already designated to others, more trusted.

Off topic but its my last post in this topic.
I have tried to get his topic restarted properly and on topic
I apologised at another although reading back I do not what for but nevertheless maybe someone see’s my writing different than I mean.
It would have been according to the way I was brought up been nice to have received a thanks for bowing my head at the very suggestion that I may have caused offence and even before trying to figure out how I had achieved this dire deed.
Everyone should be allowed to have their say and those who do not like what they hear should not be offended just because whatever is said is not to their policy or is contrary to their notions.
Mr Ozzy appears at the top of this page but despite me not liking the man in the slightest I dont take offence at his not so manly face.
I was never anything other than non conformist and will most likely remain so.
In other words I speak my mind and would be offended if I could not.

Sincerely said Dee and almost emotional .it got to me anyway and I am not that easily moved . I reply to Josef as I see something of myself in him I understand him and yes I like a philosophical agreement or even disagreement as it gives me mental stimulation if Josef wasnt here probably I wouldnt have an opportunity to comment on his comment but life is always changing new things and people appear that keeps a website dynamic . I agree that my comments in that line appear -off-topic but I dont do it to intentionally upset anybody even at my age I am still quick witted and find it irresistible to not reply Josefs intelligence cant be doubted . I hope Dee I have not offended you .

Thanks guys.
I enjoy debate and I do take it to heart but hope I dont take offence unless in engineering or factual where something fits or doesnt. If a comment is ill founded and based on notions which many are and I know different I will most certainly come at it. I am having trouble keeping my nose out of the energy thing at moment.
Josef. Keep it going. I will have to tell you that I often do not get or understand where you are coming from or going as to how it may be viewed but bring it on
Your knowledge of writers and history is something that prompts me to look things up.
Enjoy, everyone and I mean everyone, there no use in taking the hump because someone has a different view. Perhaps I am a bit out on a whim at times but I am but one.

+ 1
————-
”Well I would do that, wouldn’t I.”

If you only knew how much ‘heart’ such comments from you, and others, give me it would generate so much ‘Glow’ you could turn your central heating off from now ’til next Thursday.
Regards
JosefKafka

+ 1

Heart felt, and my heart felt that too.
And what a delight to be able to place myself adjacent to two people who recognize that it is the nature of human to human discourse to wander off topic, even if it’s to have a cuppa and compare Earl Grey with Lapsang.
Then to return, willingly, not herded, to the topic – refreshed and incharge of our destiny-ette.
On restarting this Topic, I shall surf back to your input, Deekay, and see if I can help heave this vehicle out of its slumber.
Wizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz