I've always felt that forum discussions, wherever they are and whatever the topic, have much in common with barside discussions in pubs and suchlike watering holes. The longer they go on for the more convoluted they become and, usually for well established ones, the more folk join in. Not having been there from the beginning late arrivals usually fail to get the context and, in pub equivalent terms, rarely experience more than the forum equivalent of half a pints worth of natter (is that one page or two) before joining in. Generally speaking forum discussions tend not to run on that long unless new folk jump in or the thing goes off at tangent. In general folk don't jump in unless they have pretty strong views which more or less guarantees heat, light and dust.

Is there a forum driven equivalent to getting half, or more, cut? That would explain a lot.

Clive

Who has views on the ER system but wisely stayed silent.

I dont think anyone can approach a forum discussion in a robotic fashion. Can't we all accept that we aren't encyclopedias and you're not going to garner "hard and fast" information. It's like a whingey kid wanting to get everything good from something without any of the bad consequences of debating, you've got to wade in.

It's a typical synergy and fastfood culture of effeciency to want positive information without any of the idiosyncracies of what makes us human. If it really lived up to that we'd all be complaining how fake everything sounded.

Having said that, personal insults should remain outside, that i agree on.

Michael W

Edited By Michael Walters on 24/09/2016 16:24:47