Discussion
safespeed said:
Vonhosen looks to me like a troll AND a sock puppet. I really don't know why you guys are bothering.
"seems fair but smells foul"
Yeah but such fun to break their arguments down bit by bit to expose the soft inner core of deceit that theyre built on....
Have a good weekend buddy!
I think his threads are interesting. This would be a VERY boring site if we all just sat here at our computers agreeing with each other, VERY boring indeed. I certainly wouldn't bother, hence why i'm not interested in joining 'Police' websites or forums. I come here to see the other side to my arguments, and sometimes i will change my mind about things.
This thread should never have been posted and is quite insulting. I often look at your site Paul, and am interested by it. I've never felt the need to start slagging you off just because i don't agree with some of what you say.
Personally i think this post should be locked. Just my pennies worth....
HW
turbobloke said:
What's on here is pretty harmless isn't it? Should we be looking at the 'oversensitive BiB' thread maybe?
Hardly Bernard! Some of it is pretty close to the mark in my opinion. Shall i stick a post up entitled 'turbobloke' and start telling everyone not to bother replying to anything you say? No, i wouldn't, because it's out of order. I've been reading the dialogue between yourself and Vonhosen, and it's interesting stuff. Someone throwing their teddy in the corner because they don't want to open their ears to what he's saying is just ridiculous. Maybe locking it is a bit OTT, but why start a thread with the intention of ruining the name of a new member? Should we not all be welcoming him and thanking him for taking part in our community here?
HW
I like to see speed camera supporters willing to stand up and argue their case reasonably and logically. It can't be easy to do that in the face of such overwhelming opposition.
Where it does sometimes go off the rails IMO is where people make a dozen points and then every time any point looks like being refuted they reply with a dozen different points. It's like boxing fog sometimes, and I'm sure it is deliberate. These long posts also encourage other people to start quoting and contradicting them line by line and the whole thing gets tedious. But to be fair the speed camera supporters aren't the only ones guilty of this, these days I tend to ignore any long posts written in Germlish because they're just so heavy to wade through.
Where it does sometimes go off the rails IMO is where people make a dozen points and then every time any point looks like being refuted they reply with a dozen different points. It's like boxing fog sometimes, and I'm sure it is deliberate. These long posts also encourage other people to start quoting and contradicting them line by line and the whole thing gets tedious. But to be fair the speed camera supporters aren't the only ones guilty of this, these days I tend to ignore any long posts written in Germlish because they're just so heavy to wade through.
Hollywood Wheels said:
I think his threads are interesting. This would be a VERY boring site if we all just sat here at our computers agreeing with each other, VERY boring indeed. I certainly wouldn't bother, hence why i'm not interested in joining 'Police' websites or forums. I come here to see the other side to my arguments, and sometimes i will change my mind about things.
This thread should never have been posted and is quite insulting. I often look at your site Paul, and am interested by it. I've never felt the need to start slagging you off just because i don't agree with some of what you say.
Personally i think this post should be locked. Just my pennies worth....
HW
I've spent a great deal of time around internet newsgroups and forums. I'm met all sorts of people. Most of them are what they appear - but there are exceptions. Some post messages to promote conflict or meaningless discussion - they are the trolls.. And some create multiple identities when earlier identities are losing or have lost arguments - these identities are 'sock puppets'.
The entire reason that most of us are here is to engage in honest debate. But there are exceptions.
We don't get many new posters with experience in the debate. And when we suddenly get a prolific new poster with sophistication and sophistry we should rightly be suspicious. Gentlemen, your time is being stolen.
safespeed said:
I think his threads are interesting. This would be a VERY boring site if we all just sat here at our computers agreeing with each other, VERY boring indeed. I certainly wouldn't bother, hence why i'm not interested in joining 'Police' websites or forums. I come here to see the other side to my arguments, and sometimes i will change my mind about things.
This thread should never have been posted and is quite insulting. I often look at your site Paul, and am interested by it. I've never felt the need to start slagging you off just because i don't agree with some of what you say.
Personally i think this post should be locked. Just my pennies worth....
HW
I've spent a great deal of time around internet newsgroups and forums. I'm met all sorts of people. Most of them are what they appear - but there are exceptions. Some post messages to promote conflict or meaningless discussion - they are the trolls.. And some create multiple identities when earlier identities are losing or have lost arguments - these identities are 'sock puppets'.
The entire reason that most of us are here is to engage in honest debate. But there are exceptions.
We don't get many new posters with experience in the debate. And when we suddenly get a prolific new poster with sophistication and sophistry we should rightly be suspicious. Gentlemen, your time is being stolen.
Honesty & integrity are important.
I promise you I am new to this forum (not the debate in question though) & have never posted here under another name. Infact I don't think I even read a post on here before this week.
Thanks for the warm welcome though.
>> Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 11th March 15:07
vonhosen said:
I promise you I am new to this forum (not the debate in question though) & have never posted here under another name. Infact I don't think I even read a post on here before this week.
Oh jolly good. Then email me your real name and phone number. It'd be interesting to have a chat with someone of such views. I promise to keep your personal details confidential. psmith@safespeed.org.uk
safespeed and any other cynics,
Sorry, but what's the problem?
If your arguments, or mine, cannot be sustained when challenged by those who disagree - regardless of what the challenger's motives might be - then what good are the arguments in the first place?
We can always turn off our computers if we're offended (but let's remember how indignant many of us were with the WPC whose delicate ears were offended by the nearby teenager who was effing).
We can improve and polish our own lines of reasoning by having them tested in the field of verbal combat.
And, just possibly, we might learn something.
I say bring it on.
Sorry, but what's the problem?
If your arguments, or mine, cannot be sustained when challenged by those who disagree - regardless of what the challenger's motives might be - then what good are the arguments in the first place?
We can always turn off our computers if we're offended (but let's remember how indignant many of us were with the WPC whose delicate ears were offended by the nearby teenager who was effing).
We can improve and polish our own lines of reasoning by having them tested in the field of verbal combat.
And, just possibly, we might learn something.
I say bring it on.
flemke said:Agreed, but Paul's point was that this works both ways, and there is the additional humdrum factor that a new poster will be rehearsing the same tired old myths and half-truths that have been exploded and debunked on here so many times. Isn't it human nature to grow wearisome of reading and repeating to the same recipe? Many PHers have offered a welcome and a courtesy to vonhosen by taking his posts at face value and responding in depth in a reasoned way. HW's suggestion to close this thread was well-intentioned but really unnecessary.
safespeed and any other cynics,
Sorry, but what's the problem?
If your arguments, or mine, cannot be sustained when challenged by those who disagree - regardless of what the challenger's motives might be - then what good are the arguments in the first place?
And, just possibly, we might learn something.
I say bring it on.
turbobloke said:If someone's posts consistently annoy me I tend eventually not to bother reading them.
Agreed, but Paul's point was that this works both ways, and there is the additional humdrum factor that a new poster will be rehearsing the same tired old myths and half-truths that have been exploded and debunked on here so many times. Isn't it human nature to grow wearisome of reading and repeating to the same recipe? Many PHers have offered a welcome and a courtesy to vonhosen by taking his posts at face value and responding in depth in a reasoned way. HW's suggestion to close this thread was well-intentioned but really unnecessary.
A man (in this case, I presume) can only type so fast (although vonhosen's pretty quick at it!). Unless a member has a keyboard that multiplies his posts, or a cabal of buddies who collectively spoil a thread, then it's cool.
Anyhow, let's continue to challenge each other.
flemke said:Yes, you're right. It is indeed too much to expect anyone new to even imagine we've discussed these things before, to have formed an objective opinion carefully and rationally so that it won't fall down with a bit of newby huff and puff
Agreed, but Paul's point was that this works both ways, and there is the additional humdrum factor that a new poster will be rehearsing the same tired old myths and half-truths that have been exploded and debunked on here so many times. Isn't it human nature to grow wearisome of reading and repeating to the same recipe? Many PHers have offered a welcome and a courtesy to vonhosen by taking his posts at face value and responding in depth in a reasoned way. HW's suggestion to close this thread was well-intentioned but really unnecessary.
A man (in this case, I presume) can only type so fast (although vonhosen's pretty quick at it!). Unless a member has a keyboard that multiplies his posts, or a cabal of buddies who collectively spoil a thread, then it's cool.
Anyhow, let's continue to challenge each other.
Nevertheless, to quote flemke
bring it on!I have read this thread and the huge related thread that it came from.
Whilst I perhaps do not agree that starting a new thread is the best way to expose a potential troll, it has brought up some good points of conversation.
I am all for free speech, and enjoy a good, articulate debate, however I empathise with Paul (SafeSpeed) as I see where he is coming from. There is a new poster who has in his first day of membership has racked up about 100 posts, mostly on subjects around speed and policing. They have also stated that they are not a newcomer to the speed debate. I welcome and enjoy the input from experts on this subject, both Paul and serving police officers.
However, these experts or those with vested interests almost always reveal themselves as such, for clarity if nothing else. A lot of us will remember some posts from a guy who will remain nameless because I dont want to get embroiled with the subject, but was a high ranking person in a camera partnership. And we all know what happened in threads where he had an input, and eventually when he didnt get his own way...
I have noticed that on vonhosens profile, he does add the usual 'this are my views not my employers' disclaimer. Although, against the grain, vonhosens input is articulate and useful in these debates. However, at least for clarity I do feel that if he does have a vested interest in such debate it should be made clear. If nothing else, it would promote healthy debate, and without fear of ulterior motives or accusations of trolling!
Whilst I perhaps do not agree that starting a new thread is the best way to expose a potential troll, it has brought up some good points of conversation.
I am all for free speech, and enjoy a good, articulate debate, however I empathise with Paul (SafeSpeed) as I see where he is coming from. There is a new poster who has in his first day of membership has racked up about 100 posts, mostly on subjects around speed and policing. They have also stated that they are not a newcomer to the speed debate. I welcome and enjoy the input from experts on this subject, both Paul and serving police officers.
However, these experts or those with vested interests almost always reveal themselves as such, for clarity if nothing else. A lot of us will remember some posts from a guy who will remain nameless because I dont want to get embroiled with the subject, but was a high ranking person in a camera partnership. And we all know what happened in threads where he had an input, and eventually when he didnt get his own way...
I have noticed that on vonhosens profile, he does add the usual 'this are my views not my employers' disclaimer. Although, against the grain, vonhosens input is articulate and useful in these debates. However, at least for clarity I do feel that if he does have a vested interest in such debate it should be made clear. If nothing else, it would promote healthy debate, and without fear of ulterior motives or accusations of trolling!
justinp1 said:
I have read this thread and the huge related thread that it came from.
Whilst I perhaps do not agree that starting a new thread is the best way to expose a potential troll, it has brought up some good points of conversation.
I am all for free speech, and enjoy a good, articulate debate, however I empathise with Paul (SafeSpeed) as I see where he is coming from. There is a new poster who has in his first day of membership has racked up about 100 posts, mostly on subjects around speed and policing. They have also stated that they are not a newcomer to the speed debate. I welcome and enjoy the input from experts on this subject, both Paul and serving police officers.
However, these experts or those with vested interests almost always reveal themselves as such, for clarity if nothing else. A lot of us will remember some posts from a guy who will remain nameless because I dont want to get embroiled with the subject, but was a high ranking person in a camera partnership. And we all know what happened in threads where he had an input, and eventually when he didnt get his own way...
I have noticed that on vonhosens profile, he does add the usual 'this are my views not my employers' disclaimer. Although, against the grain, vonhosens input is articulate and useful in these debates. However, at least for clarity I do feel that if he does have a vested interest in such debate it should be made clear. If nothing else, it would promote healthy debate, and without fear of ulterior motives or accusations of trolling!
I've already said, I am not involved with SCPs, I am not a trafpol, I am not invloved in the goverenment or it's policy formation. This is a debate I am not new to, I have never posted here previously & whilst I've looked through a few threads I am not aware of past discussions (though I have a good idea that anyone supporting my views would be in a minority here.)Any views I express are totally my own, I am not representing my family, friends, colleague's or anyone else. My views should be taken in that spirit.
vonhosen said:
I have read this thread and the huge related thread that it came from.
Whilst I perhaps do not agree that starting a new thread is the best way to expose a potential troll, it has brought up some good points of conversation.
I am all for free speech, and enjoy a good, articulate debate, however I empathise with Paul (SafeSpeed) as I see where he is coming from. There is a new poster who has in his first day of membership has racked up about 100 posts, mostly on subjects around speed and policing. They have also stated that they are not a newcomer to the speed debate. I welcome and enjoy the input from experts on this subject, both Paul and serving police officers.
However, these experts or those with vested interests almost always reveal themselves as such, for clarity if nothing else. A lot of us will remember some posts from a guy who will remain nameless because I dont want to get embroiled with the subject, but was a high ranking person in a camera partnership. And we all know what happened in threads where he had an input, and eventually when he didnt get his own way...
I have noticed that on vonhosens profile, he does add the usual 'this are my views not my employers' disclaimer. Although, against the grain, vonhosens input is articulate and useful in these debates. However, at least for clarity I do feel that if he does have a vested interest in such debate it should be made clear. If nothing else, it would promote healthy debate, and without fear of ulterior motives or accusations of trolling!
I've already said, I am not involved with SCPs, I am not a trafpol, I am not invloved in the goverenment or it's policy formation. This is a debate I am not new to, I have never posted here previously & whilst I've looked through a few threads I am not aware of past discussions (though I have a good idea that anyone supporting my views would be in a minority here.)Any views I express are totally my own, I am not representing my family, friends, colleague's or anyone else. My views should be taken in that spirit.
Fair enough, we have gone through the list of who you dont work for, but I am still puzzled why you needed the disclaimer on your profile. Obviously you dont need to say exactly who you work for, but it is interesting why you had to put it... also it is generally interesting!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff