Are we all sheep?

[gazza]

I see that the 'list' of members that Paul refers to has now been published elsewhere on 'social media' by a conscientious individual.

 

Some of the words used in 'describing' of the members are extremely unpleasant and if used in 'open forum' would have (should have) resulted in a ban.

 

If Dan & the Admin condoned this list and its 'bullying' then maybe questions should be asked as to the future of the forum in its current form.

Indeed.

 

I've copied and pasted this from my earlier post.

 

Blue string appears to have ignored my question.

So, in a bid to get it answered, anyone involved with (romantically, platonically or otherwise) or part of the moderating team.

Is PaulC' a liar?

[nicknorman]

Nick calling BSP a bigot in 715 paradoxically seems a good example of bigotry.

No it isn't and you are not allowed to think so.

 

 

Anyway, the crux of the "debate" between me and BSP just before she flounced, was that I maintained that "canal world" as per the title should include all types of people actually found on the canals and thus inevitably, a wide range of viewpoints, even if we didn't like some of them. She maintained (slightly indirectly) that she just wanted CWDF to just contain folk like-minded to herself, and wanted to exclude anyone who had significantly different viewpoints to herself. That seems pretty much a classic definition of a bigot. But anyway, she mostly got her way with the elimination of people who tended to express differing views to her.

 

Do you yet understand what the word bigot means, or do I need to explain it again?

 

The relevant thread is here, if anyone is particularly bored:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83206

 

What is at the heart of the problem is that, for example, someone expressing racist views won't be tolerated on here and folk want rid of them. However lots of folk are racist and it is not illegal to hold such views. Therefore the very folk who want to silence those with racist views on the grounds that the views are from "bigots" are in fact the bigots themselves whilst the racists aren't. Remember, a bigot is not someone who holds a distasteful view, a bigot is someone who can't tolerate another's differing view.

Edited October 18, 2016 by nicknorman

[Neil2]

I hope other members have stuck with this thread as I think Nigel Moore's recent post is very revealing.

 

Up until this point I was in the "what's all the fuss about" camp but assuming Nigel is to believed, I now think there is something more worrying about the degree to which the forum is being controlled/censored with no apparent justification.

 

For me it puts the issue in a whole new light.

 

 

[matty40s]

Does that mean you believe me now Neil...☺

[boathunter]

I hope other members have stuck with this thread as I think Nigel Moore's recent post is very revealing.

 

Up until this point I was in the "what's all the fuss about" camp but assuming Nigel is to believed, I now think there is something more worrying about the degree to which the forum is being controlled/censored with no apparent justification.

 

For me it puts the issue in a whole new light.

 

 

indeed. A massive loss, a loss so elemental that even without all the rest of the hoo-ha, is reason enough for anyone (even with misgivings about the other site) to sign up to it and use it.

 

A shot in the foot for cwf, if it really cares. I suspect it does not, preferring to be a barren place that won't impinge on it's owner's CV.

[dogless]

Wow memory is a strange tool.

 

Reading Nick's link and suddenly I recall some of those missing from here.

 

Rog

[Alan de Enfield]

 

A shot in the foot for cwf, if it really cares. I suspect it does not, preferring to be a barren place that won't impinge on it's owner's CV.

 

I think it may be too late for that - IF the information given is correct it must have a negative effect, showing poor judgement, and poor integrity at the very least.

 

"CanalGate" - the truth will 'out' - I am sure there will be further "CanalLeaks" as time goes by and the thread refuses to die.

[Athy]

I see that the 'list' of members that Paul refers to has now been published elsewhere on 'social media' by a conscientious individual.

 

.

Not easily found, though: I looked on Face Book (which I assume to be the social medium to which you refer) and found only an article about members of a banned group plotting to attack the Suez Canal! Some folk would go anywhere for a fight...

[Arthur Marshall]

I see that the 'list' of members that Paul refers to has now been published elsewhere on 'social media' by a conscientious individual.

 

Some of the words used in 'describing' of the members are extremely unpleasant and if used in 'open forum' would have (should have) resulted in a ban.

 

If Dan & the Admin condoned this list and its 'bullying' then maybe questions should be asked as to the future of the forum in its current form.

One thing that annoys me in this discussion is this kind of thing. Who? Where? Why imply admin involvement with the last para?

There's no actual information given apart from a reference to that always-reliable source, social media (unspecified) just an implied accusation of yet another conspiracy that will sooner or later be treated as proven.

Trawling the net for rumour and then presenting it as probable fact is a pretty destructive approach to a discussion.

[tree monkey]

No it isn't and you are not allowed to think so.

Anyway, the crux of the "debate" between me and BSP just before she flounced, was that I maintained that "canal world" as per the title should include all types of people actually found on the canals and thus inevitably, a wide range of viewpoints, even if we didn't like some of them. She maintained (slightly indirectly) that she just wanted CWDF to just contain folk like-minded to herself, and wanted to exclude anyone who had significantly different viewpoints to herself. That seems pretty much a classic definition of a bigot. But anyway, she mostly got her way with the elimination of people who tended to express differing views to her.

Do you yet understand what the word bigot means, or do I need to explain it again?

The relevant thread is here, if anyone is particularly bored:http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=83206

What is at the heart of the problem is that, for example, someone expressing racist views won't be tolerated on here and folk want rid of them. However lots of folk are racist and it is not illegal to hold such views. Therefore the very folk who want to silence those with racist views on the grounds that the views are from "bigots" are in fact the bigots themselves whilst the racists aren't. Remember, a bigot is not someone who holds a distasteful view, a bigot is someone who can't tolerate another's differing view.

 

You may not believe me but I generally support much of what you say, some times though I feel (like many of us) you can, in your enthusiasm take things too far.

I know you have BSP completely wrong and to sorta make a point a quote from her from the tread you posted a link to

 

"And no I don't want to have people here who share my views. Why would you even suggest that? I want to be governed by the same set of rules as a forum member as everyone else is governed, and that means not demonstrating the kind of hatred and discrimination which is equally not allowed in the workplace and other areas of society, and which the laws of this country openly frown upon. Stop goading me with inaccurate summaries of what I've said."

 

I know full well that selectively quoting anyone can misdirect and sometimes help to prove an opposite view to the original intended but thought it worth mentioning

[carlt]

There's no actual information given apart from a reference to that always-reliable source, social media (unspecified) just an implied accusation of yet another conspiracy that will sooner or later be treated as proven.

 

Again you devalue your own contributions by disparaging medium you choose to air them on.

 

 

 

The list was posted elsewhere by a former CWDF mod, btw.

Edited October 18, 2016 by carlt

[gazza]

One thing that annoys me in this discussion is this kind of thing. Who? Where? Why imply admin involvement with the last para?

There's no actual information given apart from a reference to that always-reliable source, social media (unspecified) just an implied accusation of yet another conspiracy that will sooner or later be treated as proven.

Trawling the net for rumour and then presenting it as probable fact is a pretty destructive approach to a discussion.

Not when that information came from two former members of the site staff.

One, PaulC on here, the other, GoodGurl over there.

 

Waffling on about the reliability of the source is a non starter, the two mentioned are it would seem 100% reliable.

 

What a shame the silence is deafening from other members of the site team involved.

Edited October 18, 2016 by gazza

[nicknorman]

You may not believe me but I generally support much of what you say, some times though I feel (like many of us) you can, in your enthusiasm take things too far.

I know you have BSP completely wrong and to sorta make a point a quote from her from the tread you posted a link to

"And no I don't want to have people here who share my views. Why would you even suggest that? I want to be governed by the same set of rules as a forum member as everyone else is governed, and that means not demonstrating the kind of hatred and discrimination which is equally not allowed in the workplace and other areas of society, and which the laws of this country openly frown upon. Stop goading me with inaccurate summaries of what I've said."

I know full well that selectively quoting anyone can misdirect and sometimes help to prove an opposite view to the original intended but thought it worth mentioning

That's why in the interests of fairness I provided a link to the whole thread so that anyone interested could make up their own mind. Written words can be misinterpreted easily but BSP's repeating message did seem to be that she didn't want a forum where, for example, rascists could put their point of view. Of course she didn't like it when I took that view to its logical conclusion but from my perspective she did seem to be contradicting herself or at least had not thought through the consequences of her wishes. On the one hand she said she didn't want to limit the forum only to her ilk, on the other hand she said she didn't want people with views she found offensive on the forum. Not logical! She was intolerant of my point of view and rapidly resorted to personal attack presumably with the hope of silencing or discrediting me.

 

I know that the word "bigot" is often used to refer to people whose views are distasteful but that is not actually what the word means.

Edited October 18, 2016 by nicknorman

[Alan de Enfield]

One thing that annoys me in this discussion is this kind of thing. Who? Where? Why imply admin involvement with the last para?

 

 

I am not overly worried that you are annoyed - however I suppose it depends on your definition of "Admin"

 

If we accept (?) that the moderators administer the rules of the site then they are "Admin"

 

When the (alleged - now proven ?) list was 'brought to the table' by a 'newly appointed moderator', was discussed by the team (as evidenced by both PaulC and AnO) and led to PaulC's resignation I fail to see how you can suggest that Admin had no involvement.

 

Edit : It takes so long to type that information has preceded me I see that "AnO" has now been named.

Edited October 18, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Neil2]

Does that mean you believe me now Neil...☺

 

I never doubted your sincerity, I think like many others who probably aren't as "intimate" with CWDF I just couldn't see through the haze why everyone was getting so worked up, and TBH if you hadn't mentioned someone by name I think I'd still be struggling, or maybe I would have lost interest.

 

To use a well worn cliche there's been a lot of heat and not much light.

 

That's why I hope other members have continued to follow developments, reading what Nigel said it's enough to make me reconsider certainly how I use this forum, or whether I continue to use it at all.

[Arthur Marshall]

Not when that information came from two former members of the site staff.

One, PaulC on here, the other, GoodGurl over there.

 

Waffling on about the reliability of the source is a non starter, the two mentioned are it would seem 100% reliable.

 

What a shame the silence is deafening from other members of the site team involved.

Waffling on is what half of this is. Thank you for actually saying who the "conscientous" poster was - it's hard to judge veracity without information. Still note you don't actually say where the info is - just "over there". It's like pulling teeth, actually trying to discover what people are talking about when it seems they'd much rather talk in riddles.

[RLWP]

Waffling on is what half of this is. Thank you for actually saying who the "conscientous" poster was - it's hard to judge veracity without information. Still note you don't actually say where the info is - just "over there". It's like pulling teeth, actually trying to discover what people are talking about when it seems they'd much rather talk in riddles.

 

I'll risk it - Thunderboat?

 

Richard

[carlt]

 

I'll risk it - Thunderboat?

 

Richard

Correct.

[gazza]

Waffling on is what half of this is. Thank you for actually saying who the "conscientous" poster was - it's hard to judge veracity without information. Still note you don't actually say where the info is - just "over there". It's like pulling teeth, actually trying to discover what people are talking about when it seems they'd much rather talk in riddles.

The reason being there is a ban on mentioning the site it is posted on, some like Richard will get away with mentioning it (see above) others will not.

 

Unless there has been a relaxation of that policy (one which hasn't been announced BTW)

[RLWP]

some like Richard will get away with mentioning it (see above) others will not.

 

I do wonder how I have been given these special powers.

 

Richard

[Arthur Marshall]

 

I am not overly worried that you are annoyed - however I suppose it depends on your definition of "Admin"

 

If we accept (?) that the moderators administer the rules of the site then they are "Admin"

 

When the (alleged - now proven ?) list was 'brought to the table' by a 'newly appointed moderator', was discussed by the team (as evidenced by both PaulC and AnO) and led to PaulC's resignation I fail to see how you can suggest that Admin had no involvement.

 

Edit : It takes so long to type that information has preceded me I see that "AnO" has now been named.

I'm not actually suggesting anything. I'm saying that your post is so woolly, so lacking in information and so biased in its wording that it's very hard to learn anything from it except that you think someone had said something to someone about something, and that whatever it was was a bad thing. Unfortunately, that really isn't enough for anyone else to decide anything on.

You should also bear in mind there are good reasons that hearsay evidence is not allowed in court.

There are also good reasons for keeping possibly controversial managerial discussions confidential. I agree it can lead to problems, but if every word that is said or written under an expectation of confidentiality is published then most people will keep their opinions to themselves, and that's a poor way of running an organisation.

[gazza]

I do wonder how I have been given these special powers.

 

Richard

And that's the problem isn't it? Several long standing members have been punished for mentioning it, while several others haven't and their posts remain.

[Arthur Marshall]

The reason being there is a ban on mentioning the site it is posted on, some like Richard will get away with mentioning it (see above) others will not.

 

Unless there has been a relaxation of that policy (one which hasn't been announced BTW)

Rubbish. I've mentioned it with its full address, Not been banned / warned or anything yet. But according to you I've got cloth ears, so maybe I just haven't heard the warning...

[gazza]

Rubbish. I've mentioned it with its full address, Not been banned / warned or anything yet. But according to you I've got cloth ears, so maybe I just haven't heard the warning...

Excellent, you have managed to find your way round.

Take the wool out of your ears, let the scale fall from your eyes and help get to the bottom of this sorry mess.

 

See my reply to Richard, also, drop Phil Ambrose a line, he will fill you in.

Edited October 18, 2016 by gazza

[nicknorman]

Rubbish. I've mentioned it with its full address, Not been banned / warned or anything yet. But according to you I've got cloth ears, so maybe I just haven't heard the warning...

But don't forget you've only just started mentioning it, now when all the mods are hiding under the duvet hoping the storm will pass. If you'd mentioned it a month ago at the very least some R-swipe would have reported it and it would have been deleted by a mod, at the worst you'd have got a warn or ban. We saw this over and over again at the time. I guess you had something better to do!