Are we all sheep?

[Captain Pegg]

Well that is about as an inaccurate description about anything I have seen on here for a while. I think to be more accurate I would say they both gave as good as they got from each other and any 'goading' was pretty mutual.

A week or two ago that is exactly what happened throughout the day on a particular thread. Tony Dunkley didn't bite. In my head I envisioned what that behaviour what have looked like in the real world in a public place. Very wrong. Irrespective of the history.

 

JP

Edited October 15, 2016 by Captain Pegg

[Guest]

A week or two ago that is exactly what happened throughout the day on a particular thread. Tony Dunkley didn't bite. In my head I envisioned what that behaviour what have looked like in the real world in a public place. Very wrong. Irrespective of the history.

 

JP

 

I would say not. They both had a history of it on here that would just be another episode/chapter. 6 and two 3's.

Edited October 15, 2016 by MJG

[Captain Pegg]

I would say not. They both had a history of it on here that would just be another episode/chapter.

I know they did and I never said I blamed one side in isolation. Just that in a dispute someone has to rise above it. I would suggest in that particular instance it should have been the younger party. All younger folk should recognise the internet attracts grumpy old men who like an argument to pass the time.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

............ grumpy old men who like an argument to pass the time.

 

JP

 

O' no they don't !!!!!

[Guest]

I know they did and I never said I blamed one side in isolation. Just that in a dispute someone has to rise above it. I would suggest in that particular instance it should have been the younger party. All younger folk should recognise the internet attracts grumpy old men who like an argument to pass the time.

 

JP

 

I take it that last bit's a joke, in which case..

[Neil Walker]

Are we all sheep? Yes because we are all here.

[churchward]

Are we all sheep? Yes because we are all here.

I don't agree. If yew are here because you want to be ewe are not a sheep (whether you agree with the management style or not) but if yew are here because everyone else is despite wanting to be elsewhere then ewe are a sheep.

 

Baaa!

[Graham Davis]

But there are still folk on here who aren't fans of C&RT and are happy to let folk know it. That's their prerogative and I hope they don't follow as well.

 

JP

 

Agreed, but they do it in a constructive, polite, reasoned and non-confrontational manner, which is perfectly acceptable.

[carlt]

 

Agreed, but they do it in a constructive, polite, reasoned and non-confrontational manner, which is perfectly acceptable.

and yet Tony's invaluable posts on the working boats and waterways of the North are now gone because those who feel the need to be outraged insisted on reading his hobby horse posts.

 

Two cheers for the oversensitive flowers who have destroyed this forum.

 

His opinions on CRT never affected me because I exercised my right not to read them.

Edited October 15, 2016 by carlt

[Captain Pegg]

Agreed, but they do it in a constructive, polite, reasoned and non-confrontational manner, which is perfectly acceptable.

I am making no defence for him Graham. I have said my piece on behaviours which should make it clear where I stand and I also point you to what I didn't say in post #294.

 

It's just that on balance the forum is a better place with knowledgeable contributors. I take no pleasure from the departure whether voluntary or enforced.

 

Jon

[Mike Todd]

It would be interesting to see some statistics re no of postings from both before and after the event.

[Lizzy]

Forgive me for chiming in here as a newbie amongst all the posters with 1000s of posts to their name. I am a long standing member of another forum, where old timers regularly moan that it was so much better in the early days. That forum changed from having a small(ish) number of members, many of which knew each other personally, having lively discussions about stuff to a much bigger and more anonymous group, which is now only full of factual and informational topics. The lively debates are gone. I think to some extent this is due to its own success and I think the same effect happens here too: when you google just about any canal boat related topic, the top links are almost always threads in this forum. It attracts a lot of first time visitors for whom the information here is extremely valuable (like me!). This means a lot more traffic and posts about the informational topics. It might mean that longer time members find that it has gotten more boring.

 

I don't know how it was before or what the secret other place even is. But please don't all go away! this is the very best resource on canal boating there is even if some members feel that it has lost some of its appeal for them.

[ChimneyChain]

and yet Tony's invaluable posts on the working boats and waterways of the North are now gone because those who feel the need to be outraged insisted on reading his hobby horse posts.

 

Two cheers for the oversensitive flowers who have destroyed this forum.

 

His opinions on CRT never affected me because I exercised my right not to read them.

Very well said

 

Darren

[MtB]

and yet Tony's invaluable posts on the working boats and waterways of the North are now gone because those who feel the need to be outraged insisted on reading his hobby horse posts.

 

Two cheers for the oversensitive flowers who have destroyed this forum.

 

His opinions on CRT never affected me because I exercised my right not to read them.

 

 

There is a logical inconsistency in what you say here.

 

How do you know which of Tony's posts contain his loony opinions about CRT and therefore you're not going to read them, without reading them?

[carlt]

I don't know how it was before or what the secret other place even is. But please don't all go away! this is the very best resource on canal boating there is even if some members feel that it has lost some of its appeal for them.

As the drip of old timers to the secret other place continues then the vast wealth of knowledge will flow that way too.

 

This forum didn't become gradually boring, it underwent a massive swift change.

 

 

There is a logical inconsistency in what you say here.

 

How do you know which of Tony's posts contain his loony opinions about CRT and therefore you're not going to read them, without reading them?

There is no inconsistency at all.

 

I choose not to continue reading something after experiencing it.

 

I did not say I have never read his posts about CRT at all.

 

There are other folk whose succinct posts I read but when I see a long post I know it's not worth anything more than a skim over.

Edited October 15, 2016 by carlt

[Graham Davis]

and yet Tony's invaluable posts on the working boats and waterways of the North are now gone because those who feel the need to be outraged insisted on reading his hobby horse posts.

 

Two cheers for the oversensitive flowers who have destroyed this forum.

 

His opinions on CRT never affected me because I exercised my right not to read them.

 

If he had just stuck to that there wouldn't have been a problem, but he didn't, and it seemed to have got to the stage where he used any excuse to be vitriolic about CaRT, and couldn't be polite to anyone who disagreed with him.

 

And why are you using antagonistic language?

 

And what of the suggestion in the "other place" for opening clone accounts on here and being antagonistic to members? Utterly petty and childish.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Graham Davis

[carlt]

 

If he had just stuck to that there wouldn't have been a problem, but he didn't, and it seemed to have got to the stage where he used any excuse to be vitriolic about CaRT, and couldn't be polite to anyone who disagreed with him.

 

And why are you using antagonistic language?

No more antagonistic than yours.

 

I am angry that oversensitive folk have chosen to destroy this forum rather than exercise their right not to read that which may offend them.

 

If this antagonises you then I suggest you go and have a lie down.

 

I manage to ignore what I dislike so why can't you?

[Alan de Enfield]

It would be interesting to see some statistics re no of postings from both before and after the event.

 

Quantity does not mean quality, and it is posts from 'members with quality knowledge' that is going to be sorely missed.

 

I am not just referring to Nigel & Tony but members / ex members who had a terrific knowledge of boats, history, electrics etc etc.

 

No doubt the 'volume'; of posts will be up when compared to 'before the event' - but these posts will be 'froth' and not the 'good stuff'

[Graham Davis]

No more antagonistic than yours.

 

I am angry that oversensitive folk have chosen to destroy this forum rather than exercise their right not to read that which may offend them.

 

If this antagonises you then I suggest you go and have a lie down.

 

I manage to ignore what I dislike so why can't you?

 

 

 

Agreed, but they do it in a constructive, polite, reasoned and non-confrontational manner, which is perfectly acceptable.

 

 

No more antagonistic than yours.

 

I am angry that oversensitive folk have chosen to destroy this forum rather than exercise their right not to read that which may offend them.

 

If this antagonises you then I suggest you go and have a lie down.

 

I manage to ignore what I dislike so why can't you?

 

What on earth is antagonistic in my above post?

[carlt]

 

 

 

 

 

What on earth is antagonistic in my above post?

I didn't realise we were singling out individual posts.

 

I find your over zealous defence of the strict regime now ruining the forum both antagonistic and argumentative.

 

You use dismissive and derogatory language to describe folk who simply have a different opinion to you on what makes a good, entertaining forum.

 

Nothing I or Tony or anyone else has said has taken anything away from your enjoyment of CWDF. Your inability to filter out that which doesn't entertain you has done that.

 

You and the fluffybunny brigade, on the other hand have destroyed my and many others enjoyment of a once lively and entertaining medium by stifling discussion and removing valuable contributors.

[Graham Davis]

Wrong, Tony and others did take away my enjoyment of this forum by their antagonistic attitude, their personal insults, and their general disregard for the rules Dan introduced.

I consider it is those people that have ruined this forum.

[carlt]

Wrong, Tony and others did take away my enjoyment of this forum by their antagonistic attitude, their personal insults, and their general disregard for the rules Dan introduced.

I consider it is those people that have ruined this forum.

Sorry but you have every right to ignore that which you find unentertaining.

 

Your responses to Tony's intransigence were no better and no less personal.

 

 

For example...

 

OFFS!!!

Please remove the chip!!

 

 

Is hardly the sweetness and light you seem to expect from everybody else...

 

One rule for you, perhaps?

Edited October 15, 2016 by carlt

[dogless]

Carlt, I don't know you but I do agree with all of your posts above, greenies on all.

 

I am hoping that some of the more knowledgeable and also entertaining posters, will return here. It is apparent from this thread that the majority are in favour of a more relaxed regime. Surely Daniel and our beloved Mod's will have to accept this.

 

We don't know who has been banished, or merely moved on, but surely there could be, perhaps ought to be 'cross pollination' between the two sites.

 

I like the more polite style of site such as this, whilst those that want a more earthy style of discussion can go to the other place.

 

But that should not prevent members moving between the two freely.

 

I am also tired of not naming the other place. For goodness sake Daniel, can't we at least name it, after all we all know it's there.

 

I am getting worried that this place is going to become very quiet, very quickly now.

 

Rog

Edited October 15, 2016 by dogless

[carlt]

Wrong, Tony and others did take away my enjoyment of this forum ...

 

Tony and others took nothing away from the forum, they added to it.

 

You just didn't like what they added.

 

You and the fluffybunnyati on the other hand took away a great deal of good by the act of removing a little of what you thought was bad.

Edited October 15, 2016 by carlt

[MtB]

I didn't realise we were singling out individual posts.

 

I find your over zealous defence of the strict regime now ruining the forum both antagonistic and argumentative.

 

You use dismissive and derogatory language to describe folk who simply have a different opinion to you on what makes a good, entertaining forum.

 

Nothing I or Tony or anyone else has said has taken anything away from your enjoyment of CWDF. Your inability to filter out that which doesn't entertain you has done that.

 

You and the fluffybunny brigade, on the other hand have destroyed my and many others enjoyment of a once lively and entertaining medium by stifling discussion and removing valuable contributors.

 

 

A good example of the dismissive and derogatory language you condemn earlier in your post, yes?