Are we all sheep?

[carlt]

Forgive me Carlt but I think you have had a sense of humour failure.

 

Clock the smiley.

 

I meant no offence and if any has been taken I apologise.

Accusing someone of being a stalker is not, in my opinion, funny and adding an infantile cartoon face after the accusation does not make it funny.

 

Perhaps you should have a look back over the way you have conducted yourself in this debate and others and see that you are just the sort of member you rail against and I find acceptable.

I hope your comment is a misguided attempt at humour.

 

CarlT of course does not need me or anyone else to defend him but your comment seems wide of the mark to me and any comments on here from him have always been reasoned even if at times challenging but never personally insulting or malicious.

It isn't the content of the post. It is the hypocrisy.

[churchward]

Can I direct my learned friend to post #1070

OK fair enough.

[nicknorman]

 

What more do you want? Why do you keep repeating the same thing?

 

Daniel

I want the things I have previously asked for: more transparency including the reasons for locking some long running threads, the replacement of those mods who have lost the trust of many of the membership, and a more balanced, rational, calm and consistent mod policy without personal prejudices. I keep repeating it because so far nothing has changed.

[dmr]

After one of the mods actually told us that the police have been involved because a moderator has been stalked you think it is acceptable to accuse a member of being a stalker in an open forum.

 

I have been nothing but courteous to you in all our exchanges and you lower yourself to such an offensive accusation.

 

This is forum behaviour at its worst and rank hypocrisy considering your supposed standpoint in this debate.

 

Its good to see you back on this forum Calt, this is the sort of forceful, slightly cruel, but well reasoned argument that I used to enjoy reading on this forum.

 

..............Dave

[Victor Vectis]

Ah, so you really don't have anything to say except grammar policing! Anyway, split infinitives are considered ok in this day and age. You are so 20th century.

I'm a 1955 model.

 

There are aspects of the 21st century that I really don't like.

 

AND.......I used to earn a living as a teacher.

OK fair enough.

Thank you.

 

if/when we meet?

Accusing someone of being a stalker is not, in my opinion, funny and adding an infantile cartoon face after the accusation does not make it funny.

 

Perhaps you should have a look back over the way you have conducted yourself in this debate and others and see that you are just the sort of member you rail against and I find acceptable.

It isn't the content of the post. It is the hypocrisy.

I've apologised.

 

I give up.

[carlt]

I've apologised.

 

I give up.

As I said, the content of the post isn't the issue...It is the hypocritical nature of the post that warrants discussion.

 

There is no apology necessary and, considering my standpoint on the subject under discussion, it would be hypocritical of me to expect one.

[nicknorman]

I'm a 1955 model.

 

There are aspects of the 21st century that I really don't like.

 

AND.......I used to earn a living as a teacher. .

For your further education:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/split-infinitives

[FadeToScarlet]

For your further education:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/split-infinitives

Excellent, I shall henceforth boldly split where no infinitive has been split before.

[Victor Vectis]

For your further education:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/grammar/split-infinitives

Yeahbut..................

 

I went to a redbrick university, not Oxbridge.

 

(Please note this is intended to be a humourous comment. If you have been offended then......oh Gawd, I dunno!)

Excellent, I shall henceforth boldly split where no infinitive has been split before.

Not in my lessons you won't!

As I said, the content of the post isn't the issue...It is the hypocritical nature of the post that warrants discussion.

 

There is no apology necessary and, considering my standpoint on the subject under discussion, it would be hypocritical of me to expect one.

There is.

 

It was not my intention to offend anyone.

[carlt]

 

There is.

 

It was not my intention to offend anyone.

You didn't offend anyone.

 

You are missing the point completely.

[DHutch]

Why? In the 4 hours since I replied to you I've worked my butt off, entertained a toddler, done the bath, book, bed routine, walked the dog and cooked dinner.

 

It's not a Willy waving competition.

 

You could have done if yourself or given me the courtesy of a reply one way or the other. Nothing you wrote to me should be kept from the rest of the CWDF membership should it?

I could have replied with a short message saying I was busy and would reply shortly, but I also feel four hours is a reasonable time frame for a reply.

 

Most of what I messaged you is covered in the post I composed when I got in and have nothing to hide in the message I sent you, but I still think posting my PM to you on the forum without even spending the time to reply to it is pointless.

 

Daniel

[gazza]

I could have replied with a short message saying I was busy and would reply shortly, but I also feel four hours is a reasonable time frame for a reply.

 

Most of what I messaged you is covered in the post I composed when I got in and have nothing to hide in the message I sent you, but I still think posting my PM to you on the forum without even spending the time to reply to it is pointless.

Excellent, no harm done then.

[GoodGurl]

from Tony Dunkley.

CWDF's 'Site Owner' has, just posted the following on the 'Sheep' thread :~

"There is no inherent issue with members talking about the removal of Lightship Planet by CRT, the appropriateness of that, and the implications going forward. However the forum is not an appropriate place for legal representatives of the ships owner to talk about the detail of the open case, and share information which does not otherwise appear to be in the public domain."
__________________________________

Could someone please point out to him that firstly, all details and disclosures with regard to C&RT and Ex-Lightship "Planet" were not from or by 'legal representatives', but from me alone, and were at the express request and with the full permission of the ships owner, who they were invited to contact but declined so to do.

And secondly, that there is no 'open case', quite simply because C&RT took possession of the ship solely on their own self-conferred authority without first going anywhere near a Court or even starting the processes the law demands are observed before levying distress on others property.

[churchward]

Excellent, I shall henceforth boldly split where no infinitive has been split before.

Except in the article it says:

 

..."The ‘rule’ against splitting infinitives isn’t followed as strictly today as it used to be. Nevertheless, some people do object very strongly to them. As a result, it’s safest to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, unless the alternative wording seems very clumsy or would alter the meaning of your sentence."...

 

Some years ago I do remember getting very frustrated with a client who I had written a Technical (and I thought rather good) report on a proposed remedy to an issue. It took me some time to compose. He said it was fine but I needed to amend it before he could accept it as I had split an infinitive. Now I could have been happy that is all he could criticise but as this client was extremely pedantic on everything I didn't see it that way and it was something of a last straw and had to leave the office and walk around the lake outside to cool off!

Edited October 19, 2016 by churchward

[billS]

Except in the article it says:

 

..."The ‘rule’ against splitting infinitives isn’t followed as strictly today as it used to be. Nevertheless, some people do object very strongly to them. As a result, it’s safest to avoid split infinitives in formal writing, unless the alternative wording seems very clumsy or would alter the meaning of your sentence."...

 

Some years ago I do remember getting very frustrated with a client who I had written a Technical (and I thought rather good) report on a proposed remedy to an issue. It took me some time to compose. He said it was fine but I needed to amend it before he could accept it as I had split an infinitive. Now I could have been happy that is all he could criticise but as this client was extremely pedantic on everything I didn't see it that way and it was something of a last straw and had to leave the office and walk around the lake outside to cool off!

 

Yes - but I bet the experience taught you to never split an infinitive again...

[churchward]

 

from Tony Dunkley.

CWDF's 'Site Owner' has, just posted the following on the 'Sheep' thread :~

 

Assuming this is a cross post from the Thunderboat forum then this is rather out of order. It is no good selecting texts to reproduce here.

 

It at the very least smacks of trying to stir the pot and create more ill feeling and be destructive rather than constructive for its own sake.

Edited October 19, 2016 by churchward

[nicknorman]

By way of some light relief and apols for off topic (I'm sure the mods will welcome it) I got this today from CRT customer services, extract of email:

 

"Please let me know if you would like me to pursue this complaint or if you are happy with the information you was provided this morning?

 

I hope you was able to continue with your trip this morning."

 

Clearly went to VV's school where so much time was spent on not splitting infinitives that they forgot to cover use of the word "were".

[churchward]

 

Yes - but I bet the experience taught you to never split an infinitive again...

Well up to a point but as a Star Trek fan I still like to boldly go!

[dogless]

Thank you Daniel for your reply, only prompted by Gazza's post.

 

Clearly his disclosure got you to respond, but frankly nothing you've said addresses the issues, merely accepts the issues exist.

 

I for one will leave you, the Mod's and their friends in peace to carry on as you please.

 

Rog

[DHutch]

Thank you Daniel for your reply, only prompted by Gazza's post.

 

Clearly his disclosure got you to respond, but frankly nothing you've said addresses the issues, merely accepts the issues exist.

 

I for one will leave you, the Mod's and their friends in peace to carry on as you please.

 

Rog

If you look at the timestamps you will find this is an unlikely suggestion.

 

The majority of the reply was infact written at lunchtime, emailed home, and then added to an posted.

 

We do our best to run the forum as best we can, for the members of the site. However if you feel it is not for you at this time or otherwise you are of cause free to leave.

 

 

Daniel

[DHutch]

Assuming this is a cross post from the Thunderboat forum then this is rather out of order. It is no good selecting texts to reproduce here.

 

It at the very least smacks of trying to stir the pot and create more ill feeling and be destructive rather than constructive for its own sake.

I agree.

[nicknorman]

I agree.

It was not really a cross post, it was a request from Mr Dunkley to have the information put on here since is not permitted to do it himself. It clears up some misunderstanding, which is surely a good thing?

Edited October 19, 2016 by nicknorman

[carlt]

Hi Daniel
I was reassured by this part of one post:

Clearly members are not happy with the way the site is being run, and I take on board that adjustment to moderator policy/style is required.

As said, we are currently talking about how additional transparency can be added in areas where may be suitable, and I hope this will take effect as a rolling improvement over the next week or so.

But cannot reconcile that reassurance with this....

We do our best to run the forum as best we can, for the members of the site. However if you feel it is not for you at this time or otherwise you are of cause free to leave.

Surely it's one thing or the other so could you reassure me that the "Take it or leave it" post was out of irritation because of Gazza's impatience?

[Rob-M]

Assuming this is a cross post from the Thunderboat forum then this is rather out of order. It is no good selecting texts to reproduce here.

 

It at the very least smacks of trying to stir the pot and create more ill feeling and be destructive rather than constructive for its own sake.

I also agree with you and feel that cross posting from Thunderboat is not going to help anything move forward.

[churchward]

It was not really a cross post, it was a request from Mr Dunkley to have the information put on here since is not permitted to do it himself. It clears up some misunderstanding, which is surely a good thing?

Where does that suggestion come from? I don't see it clearing up something just goodcurl looking to stir up trouble and pull people's chains. It is mischief making at its best. Perhaps she is looking to try and see how far she can push it before getting warned/banned.

Edited October 19, 2016 by churchward