Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

120 Excellent

About Mark_W

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Leicester, United Kingdom
  • Interests
    Leicester City Football Club, Football, Grand Strategy Games, Alternative Rock & Indie Music, Animal Rights, Democracy, Socialism.

Recent Profile Visitors

250 profile views
  1. The idea is that my life, my sisters life, many kind, considerate, caring people's lives are worthless. I'm not sure I'm the one who needs to be warned. I'll attack the idea not the person, but a person who believes that idea wants to spend a great deal of time thinking about what it says about them.
  2. But theoretically you're happy for a state to decide to forcibly sterilize the disabled? I find that disgusting.
  3. That's an interesting assumption. Does the fact he got 46% of the vote in 2016 not make you question it at all? Is it possible you're confusing what most people want with what you want most people to want?
  4. But surely stopping Trump is? You have a moral duty.
  5. How old are you? (If you're comfortable sharing) 25 Do you like Mountain Dew? Never tried it Have you played Mass Effect? Nope Ever been to Arizona? Never been to America Ideal place to live? Scandanavia, New Zealand or an independent Scotland. Did you vote?(I don't care who you voted for. I'm asking if you voted ) In the last UK general election, yes, for my local Labour MP Liz Kendall (she's a center-left, by our standards, Blairite who I generally agree wholeheartedly with). Preference: Cake or pie? Cake
  6. You posted both of the above before he made any allusion to you in this thread for a start so let's not go playing the holier than thou card. Can I suggest we have an official PoliticalPundit vs. vvczar thread so everyone else can focus on the new rule, whether it's useful/goes far enough, and just generally have a discussion about the way the forum is moderated?
  7. I really think you're missing the point. Rules should always be challenged, and questioned, so that they're improved. They also should be clear and universally understood, if they're not then they're not good rules. Nobody is trying to cheat, or step over anything, they're trying to bring clarity and ensure that the rules benefit all of us rather than make things worse.
  8. You're not attacking a person, just the idea that their momma is thin, I'll allow it.
  9. Okay. I mean, isn't that what everybody does anyway?
  10. Okay, how are you defining facts? Do you decide what is and isn't? I don't think trying to guide or limit conversations is a good idea or necessarily what people want (certainly it wasn't what I had in mind when I voted to support clearer rules). It's more just about the behaviour of posters. Personally I'd like rules along these lines... - Be polite - Don't attack, belittle, demean or insult posters - Accept that your ideas will be challenged and go into discussions with some awareness that you could be wrong - If you're obviously upsetting someone, stop. Maybe people could add
  11. Fact-oriented feels quite open to debate, and I'm not sure inducive to interesting conversation. It feels like it's just opening up squabbles about what is and isn't a fact - or very dull fact vs. fact debates. Can't the rule just be 'be civil, attack an idea not a user'?
  12. Mark_W

    We are at war.

    Well as one of those ended over 100 years ago I didn't think it was that obvious...
  13. Mark_W

    We are at war.

    Which two real wars are you including in that?
  • Create New...