Jump to content

Announcement - Staff Vacancies


DHutch

Featured Posts

 

No worries, I'd edit it except its been quoted subsequently. If everyone agrees not to quote it again and the other two posters can also edit it out, I will happily do so.

 

I can only see it quoted in your post 94 Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well there is/was a Paul C on there who appears to have mysteriously vanished.

 

(unless I'm losing the plot too)

 

I have just prodded myself and I am definitely still here. I am on a couple of other forums where there are other "Paul_c" usernames, since its not that unpopular a forename, luckily I didn't need to register with paul_c2 here. Perhaps that's what has occurred on TB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't actually say that there was intention to 'emulate' me did I?

 

People could have done it for a number of reasons.

 

And why are you turning this into something personal??

'cos you're not a schnauzer, and ever so easy to wind up, a bit like a Jack Russell (maybe). cool.png

 

 

 

 

................. anyway, why would anyone want to steal a name like MJG ?

Edited by Murflynn
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a demand, it's a request, as it is followed by a question mark.

But, the gist of my question is this: someone posts a long screed of which most is of no interest, but one bit excites the reader's interest: "Blah blah woffle piffle hippo spotted swimming in canal drivel dribble dribble etc. etc." I would say that it's better "etiquette", i.e.more polite, to quote only the bit about which one wishes to comment or about which one would like more information.

Indeed, if I remember aright, on some occasions colleagues have complained when a whole long and largely boring post has been quoted, asking that only the relevant bit be cited, as it saves readers from having to plough through many paralysing paragraphs of piffle. So I'm not sure that I can fully agree with your example of good etiquette.

 

Oh, I was kind of hoping you were having one of your scholarly play with words posts - hence my buggering about with your post to turn it from a request/question into a demand.

 

Joke's are obviously not that good when they need explaining. I must try harder next time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'cos you're not a schnauzer, and ever so easy to wind up, a bit like a Jack Russell (maybe). cool.png

 

 

 

 

................. anyway, why would anyone want to steal a name like MJG ?

 

I think you are on the wrong forum for 'winding people up'.

 

I have just prodded myself and I am definitely still here. I am on a couple of other forums where there are other "Paul_c" usernames, since its not that unpopular a forename, luckily I didn't need to register with paul_c2 here. Perhaps that's what has occurred on TB.

 

Just checked over there and apparently yes I'm losing the plot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selective quoting is benign, indeed welcomed, if it chops out non-relevant parts of the quoted post and focuses on the part answered. If it changes the meaning or the answer is previously covered in the chopped part, then of course the 1st poster is free to come back (and can quote their own posts if needs be). Selectively posting by chopping up sentences goes a bit too far though.

i thought Athy was being comically mischievous, hence my chopping up of his request for a similar comic effect, I failed by the look of his subsequent reply!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought Athy was being comically mischievous by kicking a puppy to death, hence my chopping up of his request for a similar comic effect, I failed by the look of his subsequent reply!

 

Yes, its easy to miss things, and to misuse the quote system too (especially since you can type into the box and subtly, or not so subtly, change the words!)

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh, I was kind of hoping you were having one of your scholarly play with words posts - hence my buggering about with your post to turn it from a request/question into a demand.

 

Joke's are obviously not that good when they need explaining. I must try harder next time!

Yes, I sometimes feel that I should do the same with mine, but often they aren't worth the effort.

 

No, my query was totally serious for a change, because I too am sometimes guilty of extracting a quotation from a longer post, and was alarmed that this might be seen as bad manners. If ever I appear rude on the forum (or anywhere else) I want it to be absolutely on purpose, not by accident or due to my ignorance, hence my request for enlightenment.

 

Oh, thanks for the "scholarly" by the way! (Exits room, trying to get head through doorway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I sometimes feel that I should do the same with mine, but often they aren't worth the effort.

 

No, my query was totally serious for a change, because I too am sometimes guilty of extracting a quotation from a longer post, and was alarmed that this might be seen as bad manners. If ever I appear rude on the forum (or anywhere else) I want it to be absolutely on purpose, not by accident or due to my ignorance, hence my request for enlightenment.

 

Oh, thanks for the "scholarly" by the way! (Exits room, trying to get head through doorway).

 

It's a minefield, social etiquette of a forum.

There are others way more qualified than me on that subject!

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderboat is 100% not somewhere I'd want to post, but it's very good that it exists.

 

Look at the number of railway forums out there, the number of cycling forums, the number of walking forums, you name it. People find a forum where the subject matter and moderation policy are to their own taste.

 

But in recent years there's only been one significant canal forum: this one. Just Canals has been moribund for a long time, there's a handful of more-or-less active Facebook groups, and that's it. Thunderboat is the first for years that has got any form of traction.

 

Expecting CWDF to do it all isn't realistic. The canals are big enough to support more than one forum; and there's no single objectively perfect way of moderating a forum which will appeal to everyone. I'm sure if carlt's suggestions were to be followed then the forum would be perfect... for carlt; if mayalld's suggestions were to be followed then the forum would be perfect for mayalld; and so on. It's not that they're bad suggestions - some of them are very good, and they're clearly heartfelt - but they're not a single correct answer with which everyone is happy.

 

CWDF, and the general "canal internet", would be a better place if more people were to do a Thunderboat and go and start their own forum, rather than perpetually shouting at Dan to start running his forum in the way they want.

 

I like this post.

 

Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but do you not see the rank hypocrisy of complaining about exactly the same thing when you happen to be on the receiving end?

 

If I were on record anywhere as saying anything even one tenth as unpleasant about anybody else as what I have been shown regularly trotted out on TB about members, moderators and the owner here, yes, then I might see some hypocrisy.

 

I think you will struggle to find me doing that anywhere, (publicly or in anything "private" that someone may have chosen to disclose), and until you do, no, I don't see any hypocrisy in my actions.

 

At no point have I said that TB should not exist, or that people who are attracted to it should not join it. But parts of it are sufficiently grubby and nasty, that if it ever came close to be being that bad on here, I would sign off from CWDF as well. It's not how I ever want to spend my time, even if some seem to extract pleasure from it.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gazza what do actually KNOW about that conversation?

 

I'm talking about the facts - not about speculation you have heard, nor half truths you have been fed.

 

 

 

I was also part of that conversation so what I tell you now are facts.

 

There was a FB conversation at the end of March but it was not an open FB one -. It was a closed conversation using FB messenger.

 

The only CWDF mod involved in that conversation at the time is now an active member of thunderboat. That mod was invited into the conversation later on.

 

So when the conversation began it was merely a discussion between friends about the major problems CWDF was facing, the toxic atmosphere that was being generated, and what could be done about it.

 

When the conversation ended there was still only one CWDF mod involved in it.

 

That conversation ceased to be private when one person began to talk about on thunderboat.

 

 

 

 

Accusations of Alan Fincher losing his moral compass are inaccurate if not baseless. Indeed it could fairly be said that they would be better directed elsewhere

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gazza what do actually KNOW about that conversation?

 

I'm talking about the facts - not about speculation you have heard, nor half truths you have been fed.

 

 

 

I was also part of that conversation so what I tell you now are facts.

 

There was a FB conversation at the end of March but it was not an open FB one -. It was a closed conversation using FB messenger.

 

The only CWDF mod involved in that conversation at the time is now an active member of thunderboat. That mod was invited into the conversation later on.

 

So when the conversation began it was merely a discussion between friends about the major problems CWDF was facing, the toxic atmosphere that was being generated, and what could be done about it.

 

When the conversation ended there was still only one CWDF mod involved in it.

 

That conversation ceased to be private when one person began to talk about on thunderboat.

 

 

 

 

Accusations of Alan Fincher losing his moral compass are inaccurate if not baseless. Indeed it could fairly be said that they would be better directed elsewhere

As you are well aware I can only go on what others that where involved have said, along with copy and paste and screenshots of the various discussions about people you and others felt the need to talk about 'for the good of the forum' something which it turned out to be about as far from as you could get.

 

I draw my conclusions from what is available.

That you don't agree with my thoughts is totally irrelevant - I feel Alan is totally wrong to take the stance he has, he's a big lad and can answer for himself without the CWDF lynch mob sharpening their pitchforks.

 

The word all of you involved in this sorry mess are looking for is SORRY.

 

You reap what you sow I'm afraid.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only CWDF mod involved in that conversation at the time is now an active member of thunderboat. That mod was invited into the conversation later on.

In the interests of complete accuracy only an (already) ex-mod was involved in the private conversation I think. Nobody who was currently then a mod was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry there seems to have been two conversations. The first one started publicly by Alan and still there on Facebook. (13 March). 115 posts in all including some from Daniel. What you are referring to must be a continuation of that conversation.

 

I haven't joined yet but I have found myself reading both forums . It has become what this place once was but with a liberal sprinkling of swearwords, presumably "because they can". I would agree with Alan that whatever he said of some on there has been returned many times over with interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you are well aware I can only go on what others that where involved have said, along with copy and paste and screenshots of the various discussions about people you and others felt the need to talk about 'for the good of the forum' something which it turned out to be about as far from as you could get.

 

I draw my conclusions from what is available.

That you don't agree with my thoughts is totally irrelevant - I feel Alan is totally wrong to take the stance he has, he's a big lad and can answer for himself without the CWDF lynch mob sharpening their pitchforks.

 

The word all of you involved in this sorry mess are looking for is SORRY.

 

You reap what you sow I'm afraid.

 

Why on earth should the people who were a group of personal friends, having a private conversation, apologise?

 

What gives you the right to take the moral high ground given the nature of the personal attacks that have happened and are still happening on thunderboat?

 

My conscience is clear

Barry there seems to have been two conversations. The first one started publicly by Alan and still there on Facebook. (13 March). 115 posts in all including some from Daniel. What you are referring to must be a continuation of that conversation.

 

I haven't joined yet but I have found myself reading both forums . It has become what this place once was but with a liberal sprinkling of swearwords, presumably "because they can". I would agree with Alan that whatever he said of some on there has been returned many times over with interest.

 

Thanks Cheshire Cat. I wondered if there was.

 

I can't comment on comment on the other one because I wasn't involved in it - or if I was I don't remember

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why on earth should the people who were a group of personal friends, having a private conversation, apologise?

 

What gives you the right to take the moral high ground given the nature of the personal attacks that have happened and are still happening on thunderboat?

 

My conscience is clear

 

 

Thanks Cheshire Cat. I wondered if there was.

 

I can't comment on comment on the other one because I wasn't involved in it - or if I was I don't remember

Just about the same as you I guess?

 

The similarities between your perceived wrong and those that were expunged from here are striking.

 

The difference is you can air your views on here without censure - they can't.

 

Me? I'm saddened by the whole affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gazza what do actually KNOW about that conversation?

 

I'm talking about the facts - not about speculation you have heard, nor half truths you have been fed.

 

 

 

I was also part of that conversation so what I tell you now are facts.

 

There was a FB conversation at the end of March but it was not an open FB one -. It was a closed conversation using FB messenger.

 

The only CWDF mod involved in that conversation at the time is now an active member of thunderboat. That mod was invited into the conversation later on.

 

So when the conversation began it was merely a discussion between friends about the major problems CWDF was facing, the toxic atmosphere that was being generated, and what could be done about it.

 

When the conversation ended there was still only one CWDF mod involved in it.

 

That conversation ceased to be private when one person began to talk about on thunderboat.

 

 

 

 

Accusations of Alan Fincher losing his moral compass are inaccurate if not baseless. Indeed it could fairly be said that they would be better directed elsewhere

Ok, I have seen a complete FB conversation from March in the last week, I had someone let me use their login to view(which is another reason why I will not use facebook, some of the stuff i saw in 2 hours was nil poi).

I was pretty shocked at the way the conversation went, and how the moderators on cwdf were NOT doing the job they should have been doing at the time for whatever reason.

I got pretty peeved at CWDF at the time as there was so much shit going on, but I just didnt bother going where the shit was.

However, the upshot was a sterile forum because the (unofficial FB)committee of FB decreed what CWDF should be, along with a few new moderators.

I am not saying the new moderators all got it wrong, far from it, some of them have tried their best to revert the forum back to pre-brexit status.

However, some of the new mods got it badly wrong, and some of the previous mods cannot escape censure - don't care -GoodGirl and DEANs - although Dean started to see the light before his change in circumstances stopped his modding.

Hope this helps

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just about the same as you I guess?

 

The similarities between your perceived wrong and those that were expunged from here are striking.

 

The difference is you can air your views on here without censure - they can't.

 

Me? I'm saddened by the whole affair.

We are never going to agree on the importance of what happened on FB but you know what I agree completely with your last point.

This place needs to move on, in my opinion following carls suggestions with a few more mods qith a lighter touch, not a job I could ever do tbh.

Thunderboat exists and hopefully we can coexist each serving different purposes

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just about the same as you I guess?

 

The similarities between your perceived wrong and those that were expunged from here are striking.

 

The difference is you can air your views on here without censure - they can't.

 

Me? I'm saddened by the whole affair.

 

The difference is that I can air my views on here without censure because I don't earn any censure - a privilege they could have kept

 

i still air my views.

 

I won't air my views on there.

 

I am also saddened by the whole affair.

 

I am pretty sure that the whole thing is a symptom of the turbulent times we are living in combined with a large part of the population being able to express themselves in public in a way they never have been able to do before the rise of social media.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.