Jarusa wrote:
79Vintage wrote:
Jarusa wrote:
All you pricks can congregate in this thread this week.
My greatest negative on TC is, other posters telling other posters how or 'where' they should react.
I believe this is a symptom in contemporary society - where thought, discussion and disagreement are spurned and generic responses/resolutions are propogated for communal inertia.
I ask, is this messageboard 'TalkingCarlton' or 'Talking What The Majority Want Said About Carlton'
We are living in dangerous times....
Om
Whilst my post was mostly tongue in cheek, it is in essence the opposite of what you thought.
I agree that healthy debate is what is needed.
The balance has been out of whack lately, negative posts from prolific posters permeate even the most positive cracks in our little termites nest of discussion. This has been driving away many excellent posters. For example, it would be a tragedy if someone like Frank Dardew were discouraged from starting his excellent positive threads.
It is of course done by their own free will, but if it continues all you end up with is a sea of negativity where as you say 'thought, discussion and disagreement are spurned and generic responses/resolutions are propogated for communal inertia.'
Dangerous times indeed.

Jarusa,
I do agree with there has been borish posting of late. The inital issues raised in these 'negative posts by prolific posters' are valuable to healthy debate, but the debate gets lost, when opposing opinions aren't accepted as just that - opposing opinions - and the interaction from both sides of the issues becomes personal. This is a real negativity. And also, negativity comes up, if our team plays shit, and people are negative because they didn't see proof of a lot to be positive about. And to corrall negativity is a compounding negativity for me, because it discourages valueable issues being raised by an array of opinions, that's what leads to a generation of generic responses and resolutions, because people don't learn to experience the benefit of mature discussion over the alternative - negative bickering. It's the choice Kim Beazley made this weekend, when agreeing that responses to factional issues needed to be discussed within the ALP front bench, the Liberal Party will say it's because of the insecure tenure of his leadership, but for Beazley saw that the only alternative was public bickering which would be destructive for the ALP and instead chose mature discussion. It's about taming the animal by figuring a way with intellectual rigour. Like time, developed opinion evolves in a sequence, by nature in peaks and troughs and this development must be allowed to occur. Affronting disdain highlights a problem but an underlying consequential purpose of doing this is to permanently isolate opposing opinion. That creates a bland, borish culture where opinion is sectionlised, ultimately silenced and a general inertia is created within a community.
It would be fantastic if everyone had as balanced a forward outlook as Frank, but we're dealing with humanity here and for the good of talking about carlton, together we have to bare through all levels of performance and political jousting.