Julie ... yeah, I'm just getting the B&A eps on free-to-air TV, so I'm only up to where they are and I haven't seen any Firefly. I'm content to wait. :)

Fiona ... I only remember the BBC TV adaption of Day of the Triffids because it was so damn good and the novel is one of my all-time favourites.

Aussie Buffistas Note: New Buffy and Angel again next week! It appears I may have been right when I said they took a break to bring us all in line. :)

Channel Seven was really evil this week...not only no new Buffy or Angel, but no new 24 either!

...no new 24 either!

Hey, that's right but it wasn't just 7, there was no new CSI on 9 and a couple of other shows were repeats instead of new eps. Hmmm. I wonder what the real reason was for the pre-emptions.

Of course I want to get the last word! That's only human. Who doesn't?

In on-line converstation - a lot of people I think. Because, while having the last word might mean that your argument is so powerful it cannot be refuted, when I have the last word I always fear:

1)I was the last person to lose interest in that particular thread

2) I bored or irritated other people so much they opted out of the conversation.

But even if having the last word is your goal - looking like you are trying to discourage other people from replying to you is neither effective nor makes you look particularly good. The only way that will work is to make such devestatingly powerful arguments people can't come up with a good reply.

I felt I've listened to other viewpoints a lot--but isn't it possible to listen and go through the same thought processes and come to a different conclusion than yours?

That was kind of my point. I just want you to acknowledge the same thing: different people may intelligently and diligently come to different conclusion. Why insist that someone who disagrees with you is engaging in group think or hates america or has in any way different motives than you do? Paul J. - who I think is much more conservative on international relations than you are (and pardon me Paul if I've misjudged you) still manages to disagree without ever questioning the motives of people he talks to. He assumes they are wrong - not stupid or of bad character. (And on a couple of occasions I have seen people offended by things Paul said that IMO were not offensive - but he apologized o keep the peace.)

People with the more radical philiosophies are responsible for winning people over, not the more mainstream ones, I always thought.

Yup - but not responsible for proving their motives are good, nor responsible for winning people over without replying to statements they disagree with.

And now I have to go to work and won't be able to defend myself for 12 hours or so. Please bear that in mind.

This thread moves slowly enough you can reply when you return - by which time I won't be here. One of the nice points of on-line discussion is that you can have a conversation with someone whose schedule makes real-time discussion impossible.

Again I'm not objecting to your substance. (I disagree with your substance, but that is another matter.) I'm asking only two things -

1) that you stop looking character based explanations for why people disagee with you , and simply assume they are intelligent people who have (from your point of view) come to the wrong conclusion. In other words assume people who disagree with you are wrong (unless they prove otherwise to your satisfaction). Simply don't assume anything about their character or motive. (And if you don't assume such things, understand that terms like "groupthink" gives the strong impression that you do.)

2) that you avoid statements that look like you are trying to have the last word by discouraging people from replying to your statements. Not that you don't try to have the last word , if such is your pleasure.

("Everyone for what he likes: we like to be, heads down, tails up, dabbling free!" t /end completely gratitous Wind in the Willows quote)

But please avoid giving the impression that your method for trying to have the last word is to discourage others from replying to you.

And if you don't thats fine. On this board anyway, you are the boss of you. And it is not unbearably rude or anthing. It just makes discussing with you less pleasant than it would otherwise be, and makes you less listened to than you would otherwise be.

Hmmm. I wonder what the real reason was for the pre-emptions.

School holidays jimi. They often mess with programming because officially, it's a non-ratings period. (Unofficially, of course, the studios and their advertisers look at the figures for all fifty two weeks)

People with the more radical philiosophies are responsible for winning people over, not the more mainstream ones, I always thought.

I don't think that one's responsibility in an online discussion--at least here at the Buffistas--is to "win people over." Certainly I do not feel responsible for convincing anyone to agree with me, particularly not somone who happens to be disinclined to agree. I think one's responsibilities are to the board--to not be disruptive--and to one's fellow posters--to not be rude or insulting, and to take responsibility for one's words when they have caused offense, either intentionally or unintentionally. But winning? Not my responsibility.

Well, I threadsucked this whole thing and did a search for the words "Bush", "Iraq", and "war".

Aside from me and Cindy and occasionally Nouemon, every single person who posted on the topic was against it, without granting that one of the Administration's points had any merit. There was not one post, aside from mine, that talked positively about the results of the Coalition victory--no "Well, that was horrible but at least we got rid of Saddam" or "The Americans should be more like the Brits in Basra when they take over Baghdad" or "Maybe Bush is right about the sanctions" or even "As a freedom-loving person, that picture of the statue coming down made me so happy, although I think that now there'll be a lot of problems."

That's all I meant by "groupthink". And that's why I find it so hard to discuss things here. I always hear the same things from the same people. And instead of being a bunch of people who are hanging around the water cooler chatting, it's becoming a bunch of people who feel required to do extensive research before they venture an opinion. Links? Apparently not enough. I want replies, but after a series of "Hmmmph! I can't believe you phrased that question like that!" I can't Sayyaf my way out of it anymore. No, I don't think of myself as a martyr and I can be snarky, but that's the way my friends and I talk. If I can't be myself here...

Oh well. Angus, Theodosia, and all, I appreciate the support. However, if Gar's style is closer to what this particular part of the Board wants than mine (I assume so since nobody seems to mind him except me) then I'd rather not be so disruptive as I'm obviously being without even trying to be. It was fun learning about cricket and robins and stuff, but it's over. It's not worth it. It's too much work and I'm running scared too much of the time. I can't relax and can't enjoy myself without worrying anymore about a Fay screed or moonlit thesis descending on me. Oh, of course, they and everyone can continue to post away, but it's obvious I'm upsetting almost everybody and they are genuine unAmericans, so...

There's one thing that Gar said I do agree with: I am the boss of me. And so I'm closing up shop in Unamerican for good.

Thanks for the good times. Unsubscribe.

it's becoming a bunch of people who feel required to do extensive research before they venture an opinion.

Becoming?

Yeah, Buffistas, as far as I know, have always done that. Except for me, for I am slackerish that way. And Caroma, if you change your mind, I did find watching that statue fall gratifying. But I fear it's just symbolic, though. I feel bad about not getting into "Firefly", because I feel like part of the reason my friends are sad.

This administration is a little too heavy into the symbolism:

[link]