I was thinking? What if everyone agreed with everyone on this message board for one month. Would that affect new and renewal subscription rates ? Are not the trolls, and the almost trolls (depends on opinion) neccessary for the vibrant and informative exchange that we crave for?
I disagree.
It would be boring as hell, that’s for sure.
I agree with Loach. I disagree.
It would be boring if we all agreed. Nonethless, this board is lacking in civility. Wit and erudition don’t compensate for churlishness. We’re losing good members because of bad manners.
Fuck that!
Sonia, I respectfully disagree with the propostition you have put forth. If you be so kind as to reconsider your thesis, I believe you will discover the error you so humanly made.
It would drive away most of the people worth talking to. If I ever wanted to hear constant agreement, I’d record myself and play it over and over. The information and entertainment quality would be the same, and I wouldn’t need to subscribe.
What do you think “humanly made” is? Of course it is humanly made. What the hell do you think Sonia Montdore is, some kind of dragon with mad computer skills and opposable thumbs? No sir, we can’t put up with such accusations around here.
I would like to see some kinds of widespread compromises on this board once and for all. One example would be that abortion would be 100% on demand but only using freely available semi-automatic handguns issued without a permit. Another example would be that CEO’s can have unlimited compensation as long as they drive ultra-efficient sub-compact cars that run on fast food grease.
I am sure that if we all come together, there are just small divides in what we believe and feel in our hearts and these can easily be bridged by a little give and take. It will be like a more vitriolic version of Congress except any successes will mean jack shit.
You never know. I for one am not so human-centric as to fall prey to the stereotype that only humans can operate computers. A stereotype that you obviously fall prey to. Bigot.
To the barricades, my reptilian brethren (and sistren)! 
I hope this is a rhetorical question, because I fear the answer is “no.”
I have no problem with everyone agreeing, so long as it’s my opinion they’re agreeing with.
Whew, good thing for you that you didn’t start this thread in the Pit, where you would have been eaten by wild dogs and then shat out into a writhing pile of rattlesnakes that spit acid.
That would have been soooo cool.
I disagree, but not for the same reasons as Loach and Darryl Lict, whatever their reasons may be.
If everybody agreed with me, we’d all be terribly wrong on at least some things, and we’d never know it.
Oh fuck off.
Both **Loach ** and the OP are wrong.
How about this, let’s make a list of some stuff we can agree on. I will start:
-
There is no way George Bush is going to get re-elected.
-
The Virginia Tech murder spree just wasn’t nice.
-
Some of the Da Vinci code wasn’t based on strong biblical evidence and may be even called speculation if you want to be blunt.
-
SUV’s often have worse gas mileage than some subcompact cars.
-
Even if global warming isn’t a long term trend, there are definite temperature variations in the temperate zones over the course of the year. Even laypeople can sense their general area heat up significantlty at certain times and cool down during others.
-
Gun crimes would be significantly reduced if guns didn’t exist anywehre.
Q.E.D.
I couldn’t agree more. It’s not that people shouldn’t disagree; it’s that if people disagree, they should express that without feeling the need to eviscerate the characters of the persons they disagree with. Among other things, resorting to personal attack bespeaks an inability to express a disagreement in any sort of intelligent and eloquent manner.
We’d all become Unitarians?
You so silly.
Anyway, Sonia, were I to be serious for a minute, have you ever read the SD columns? They’re churlish to a high degree, and have been since 1973.