I never did like Steve Haywood

[cuthound 2117]

On 06/12/2019 at 22:43, Alan de Enfield said:

Highly objectionable, offensive, odious, an obnoxious, ill-mannered immature person with ideas of grandeur.

 

No, just a prat. ?

[Mike Tee 242]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

 

No, just a prat. ?

Yes, agreed - but unfortunately a dangerous prat with influence.

[nicknorman 3335]

1 minute ago, Mike Tee said:

Yes, agreed - but unfortunately a dangerous prat with influence.

Not any more (the influence bit).

[haggis 621]

We have a 5 month old puppy who is at the stage of everything going into his mouth. Yesterday he extracted a book from the bookcase and started to demolish it. The book was "Fruit Flies Like a banana" . He obviously didn't rate it very highly either ? 

The book is now in the bin.

 

haggis

[Athy 901]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Not any more (the influence bit).

From a post on here a couple of days ago, I inferred that Steve had resumed writing for Canal Boat. Not so?

[Ray T 1031]

He hasn't a column in the January edition of Canal Boat.

[nicknorman 3335]

2 hours ago, Athy said:

From a post on here a couple of days ago, I inferred that Steve had resumed writing for Canal Boat. Not so?

Not yet, anyway.

[Athy 901]

24 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Not yet, anyway.

I've read it again. It started "He's back" which did give the impression that he was back at CB, but in fact he has simply posted on Face Book or something similar.

[mark99 1878]

He had a chance to apologise and explain we all have bad days with momentary bad decisions and eat a little humble pie.

 

Most would cut anyone a little slack if the above was done.

 

I'm afraid his reaction has made him appear what most people initially suggested.

 

No class - darling.. just another grey haired angry birk whinging about his first world problems. And toxic to any publisher.

 

 

Edited December 8, 2019 by mark99

[dor 597]

Can any facebook/twitterers enlighten us on here on others reactions to his ongoing boorish comments?

[jeddlad 23]

Steve Haywood has only got 996 followers on Twitter. It's not like he's a social media influencer with less than 1,000 followers 

[Athy 901]

5 hours ago, jeddlad said:

Steve Haywood has only got 996 followers on Twitter. 

"Only"? If I had 996 people following me around I'd think that that was a large number.

As I am not a user of Twitter (twitterer? twit?), may I ask what these "followers" actually do?

[Alan de Enfield 5630]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

"Only"? If I had 996 people following me around I'd think that that was a large number.

As I am not a user of Twitter (twitterer? twit?), may I ask what these "followers" actually do?

Its another word for 'stalkers'.

[Athy 901]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Its another word for 'stalkers'.

In which case, the fewer the better, surely.

[Alan de Enfield 5630]

Just now, Athy said:

In which case, the fewer the better, surely.

Some folks (Facebook and Twatter users in particular) seem to put themselves on a pedestal, and the number of acolytes they have is a symbol of their world standing.

[nicknorman 3335]

15 minutes ago, Athy said:

"Only"? If I had 996 people following me around I'd think that that was a large number.

As I am not a user of Twitter (twitterer? twit?), may I ask what these "followers" actually do?

If you “follow” someone like SH on Twitter, it means that when they post something, you receive a notification and /or their post appears on your feed. It’s a way of filtering the millions of posts that are made every day, to see just the ones from people you are interested in.

 

The number of followers is seen as a badge of honour (and self importance), one of the many evils of social media!

 

CWDF has a similar concept except that you can “follow” a thread, rather than a person.

Edited December 9, 2019 by nicknorman

[Mike the Boilerman 6452]

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

CWDF has a similar concept except that you can “follow” a thread, rather than a person.

 

Yes I find it curious that you can't 'follow' a CWF member and elect to see the new posts of all those you follow. 

 

Other forums I've been members of had such a facility and it was really nice to have and use.

 

 

 

 

[Athy 901]

8 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes I find it curious that you can't 'follow' a CWF member and elect to see the new posts of all those you follow. 

 

Other forums I've been members of had such a facility and it was really nice to have and use.

 

 

 

 

As your profile claims that you have 44 followers, I'm not sure if this is the case.

[Mike the Boilerman 6452]

Just now, Athy said:

As your profile claims that you have 44 followers, I'm not sure if this is the case.

 

It IS the case, unless you can point to a link or way for followers to see the posts of just their followees.

 

Choosing to "follow" someone on CWF is supremely pointless as far as I can determine. Or is there a point (as there is on Twitter or Facebook) that I'm missing?

 

[Alan de Enfield 5630]

7 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

It IS the case, unless you can point to a link or way for followers to see the posts of just their followees.

 

Choosing to "follow" someone on CWF is supremely pointless as far as I can determine. Or is there a point (as there is on Twitter or Facebook) that I'm missing?

 

I don't know how you follow someone or what benefits it gives either party but you certainly have 44 followers :

 

Edit : looking into the 'system' it states that your followers receive a message each time you make a post.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by Alan de Enfield

[Mike the Boilerman 6452]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Edit : looking into the 'system' it states that your followers receive a message each time you make a post.

 

Oh that sounds tedious. I bet all my followers have that facility turned OFF!

 

 

[Murflynn 1394]

not having a smartphone and avoiding twittering and facebookering and instantgramming I had no idea about all this nonsense.     is it any wonder that half the world goes around with their face stuck in a screenwatching pose, whether they are driving, walking the dog, crossing a zebra crossing or having a meal with friends?

 

they should all be struck with a reality cosh.   

 

[bizzard 2174]

15 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

not having a smartphone and avoiding twittering and facebookering and instantgramming I had no idea about all this nonsense.     is it any wonder that half the world goes around with their face stuck in a screenwatching pose, whether they are driving, walking the dog, crossing a zebra crossing or having a meal with friends?

 

they should all be struck with a reality cosh.   

 

Couldn't agree more. The worlds finances will never recover properly whilst folk keep playing with these devices and social media.  I look at facebook but don't participate but just to see the rubbish my nephews and relations stick on there. On the righthand side of the home page is all you friends and relations and I know who should be at work out of them all and they all muck about on there every few minutes when they should be at work, never mind playing games and doing other media like Whatsapps and stuff. Biggest cause of accidents too in my opinion, in cars, in the street and boats, sinking, cilling ect but of course no one ever admits it.

[Dave123 75]

19 minutes ago, bizzard said:

Couldn't agree more. The worlds finances will never recover properly whilst folk keep playing with these devices and social media.  I look at facebook but don't participate but just to see the rubbish my nephews and relations stick on there. On the righthand side of the home page is all you friends and relations and I know who should be at work out of them all and they all muck about on there every few minutes when they should be at work, never mind playing games and doing other media like Whatsapps and stuff. Biggest cause of accidents too in my opinion, in cars, in the street and boats, sinking, cilling ect but of course no one ever admits it.

I completely agree many people spend far too much time on smart phones and social media causes a lot of mental health/anxiety issues for teens especially. But to say the world's finances won't recover (actually they have-we don't feel it in the UK perhaps because of austerity?) and it's the biggest cause of accidents is a stretch? 

[bizzard 2174]

6 minutes ago, Dave123 said:

I completely agree many people spend far too much time on smart phones and social media causes a lot of mental health/anxiety issues for teens especially. But to say the world's finances won't recover (actually they have-we don't feel it in the UK perhaps because of austerity?) and it's the biggest cause of accidents is a stretch? 

I think they spend almost all their time playing on smart phones. There must be a phenominal amount of working time wasted mucking about on them, fiddling with them under their work benches and desks, You see it everywhere, folk walking into lamposts, whilst driving their cars and boats,, stomping around locks doing it and sometimes falling into the locks. Thats happened twice here at our lock.