One thing that puzzles me a bit is this: If I, or anyone, puts a post on a thread, then in principle we should be free to argue the point for as long as we want to, shouldn't we? Within the bounds of civilized debate, of course.



If a thread goes outside that, or ceases to have a point, then the mods can (and do) lock them.



Till then, if someone finds that a particular thread is (or has become) irritating or irrelevant to them - then why read it?



If they don't want to talk about that, but want to talk about something else, then what's stopping them?



Ah, well there's the rub. The problem is that the NT do not feel that they should stick to the relevant threads. Thread drift is one thing, but frequently a thread on a different point is diverted into yet another "Sack Mac" flame war, or somthing similar, instead of sticking to the point raised. I do accept of course that in some cases there is an inevitable connection to be made, and so [iin some cases[/i some duplication may be inevitable, but what I would say a lot more than 5 people resent is where thread after thread is funnelled back down the "Sack Mac" route.



I said earlier that if someone finds that a particular thread is (or has become) irritating or irrelevant to them then they don't have to read it. But there is the next problem, since if someone who doesn't have as firm views, shall we say, on the "Sack Mac" issue, finds that half the threads are developing into a re-hash of the main "Sack Mac" thread then they will very likley get pished off.



So as a Bulls fan - what to do? If an NT post pops up in a thread, the choice for me is either:

(a) let it go; or

(b) challenge it.

In this situation, it seems damned if you do, and damned if you don't. I am not prepared to let constant negativity go unchallenged, and so won't "let it go" because it's not (imho) the right thing to do. I believe that I am as entitled to my POV as are those who think the opposite. But it is not me who raised the point, in that new thread, I am just responding to it. Yet I can then stand accused of being responsible for a thread derailment into (for example) "another FA / ME spat".



It is entirely up to the mods how they treat such viral outbreaks of the same debate, but let's be clear about one thing - it is only the posting of the NT comment on a thread that was nothing to do with it that started the thread derailment. If the NT post 'em, then I for one [iwill[/i respond to them, as the NT views are just that, the NT's personal opinions, not given facts, and so I will respond with my opinions.



You therefore need to look at which post started the particular argument in any thread. If that is allowed to stand, then it has got to be fair enough to allow replies. Otherwise the point of a forum for discussion is defeated.

Unfortunately some people don't feel like they've won, unless they get the last word in, and do it even if they've made the same point countless times before.

Is that like a cat version of 'My two Dad's' starring Greg Evigan and Paul Reiser?

Funnily enough, this doesn't seem to be happening of late.

Is this the right thread to make my point about Paul Deacon?

Care to expand on that one?