Paul Flynn: "obsessed and irrational" Moi?I expect it was the bit about the Iraq war that got under the skin of Paul Flynn, professional politician, in my response to this extract from one of his posts:
They are a strange obsessed group.
My blog of the 28th December provoked 208 comments mainly from opponents of the smoking ban. I printed a typical exchange below in response to my observation that smoking is less prevalent now in the UK. Like the global warming deniers the anti-ban brigade regularly quote reports that they have not read or do not understand. I have taken only a small role in the discussion. Regular commenters have squashed those who are anti-ban.
I would say that was provocative. The long comment thread was mainly the work of various anti-banners arguing with a few pro-banners, led by Kay Tie, rather than Paul Flynn. (as he notes). The post in question was about the government's petition thing, and my first entry into the fray was broadly agreeing with Paul's point, that it's a gimmick.
As is usually the case, a string of such length contains comments spanning the quality spectrum; from intelligent to stupid, from pointing to dull, from polite to belligerent. No doubt, such debates take place between opinionated people, and probably no participant changed his or her views more than a fraction. Flynn's description above is characteristic of this. Nevertheless, calling those who disagree with his opinion 'strange' and 'obsessed' is provocative. So I responded thus:
As is usually the case, a string of such length contains comments spanning the quality spectrum; from intelligent to stupid, from pointing to dull, from polite to belligerent. No doubt, such debates take place between opinionated people, and probably no participant changed his or her views more than a fraction. Flynn's description above is characteristic of this. Nevertheless, calling those who disagree with his opinion 'strange' and 'obsessed' is provocative. So I responded thus:
Now, I don't have any particular animus against the man. I tried to make the argument against his party, rather than him personally, but I didn't expect him to appreciate my analysis. Indeed he didn't:
Trooper Thompson is obsessed and irrational. the smoking ban has the approval of all main parties. Anti ban candidates have had derisory votes when they stood for elections. The Iraq War was backed by all Tory MPs except six and opposed by 139 Labour MPs. You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. Get real.Followed five minutes later with:
Some of the anti smoking ban zealots are trying to abuse the hospitality of this site by making untrue allegations. They have had a fair run but their tedious repetitive irrationality is no longer welcome. They have their own unread sites to play on. This site is for an exchange of views between intelligent people.Hence my final comment:
If you don't want to argue, then don't start the argument. Don't give it out if you can't take it.
