Reactions - What do you think?

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

POOBUMWEEHEAD

Is that Welsh? 

[MtB]

On 30/07/2017 at 20:17, rusty69 said:

Is that Welsh? 

 

Nope. Boilerspeke.

She was a fast learner...

On 30/07/2017 at 20:14, nicknorman said:

Nope, I choose not to be offended. Especially as I don't even know what it means!

 

Nor did I!

But as an adult she remembers the incident and says it was the worst insult she could think of on the spot to hurl at me.

'Good on you', I thought at the time. 

[rusty69]

4 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

Nope. Boilerspeke

Maybe you should change your username! 

[Nightwatch]

Don't like the coloured banners when a mod or other posts. It's really yuk!

i can't see how I can award a greenie any more.

[DHutch]

To award a greenie you just click or hover on the grey arrow, and then click again to select greenie very much like before.

[DHutch]

My own personal throughts is that in the grand scheme the change is small and the implication very manageable. Certainly I am not offended by the change, even if that was the intended outcome, no software change can give my offence and even if it is trying to offend me I refuse!

As a facebook user I can see the parallels but also the differences, but I don't really think the it matters where the idea came from even if that was the inspiration.

As a forum user I quite like the ability give a nod of approval to a member when I approve of a post that's been made, given a greenie is as easy as before and you can also give other signs of appreciation, approval, mild distain, or make a text based comment.

It's also sunny here, so I'm going to go on a walk alongside the nearby river!

 

Daniel

[Nightwatch]

1 hour ago, DHutch said:

To award a greenie you just click or hover on the grey arrow, and then click again to select greenie very much like before.

All it does on my iPad is gives me the option to hide signatures of the individual or all signatures.

[nicknorman]

13 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

All it does on my iPad is gives me the option to hide signatures of the individual or all signatures.

There should be a large upward pointing arrow below the bit where you can hide signatures etc. That's how it is on my iPad anyway. Mind you, I had some problems with the forum this morning. I rebooted it and all was then fine.

[RichM]

Please note, the poll will close on 06/08/17 at 22:55

[Nightwatch]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

There should be a large upward pointing arrow below the bit where you can hide signatures etc. That's how it is on my iPad anyway. Mind you, I had some problems with the forum this morning. I rebooted it and all was then fine.

So there is. Taa!

[Athy]

12 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Hmmm, I think I've already explained that disagreeing with a post without offering an alternative doesn't achieve much. Since you seem reluctant to offer a counter argument, I'll take it as a submission and add a notch to my arguments debating belt!

You would be mistaken if you did so. I offered a perfectly valid alternative: you said that offence could not be given, I replied, correctly, that it could.

If, for any reason, you don't wish to take my word for it, consult the S.O.D., as I have just done: "Give offence: to offend", it says.

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

You would be mistaken if you did so. I offered a perfectly valid alternative: you said that offence could not be given, I replied, correctly, that it could.

If, for any reason, you don't wish to take my word for it, consult the S.O.D., as I have just done: "Give offence: to offend", it says.

Of course it does, because the ability to give offence is a common misconception. I expect the dictionary also mentions God, do you consider that this is proof that god exists?

Sorry but after my reasoned explanation of the point, it's a bit disappointing that the extent of your counter-argument is that you must be right because someone else agrees with you.

As I said to MtB, if you are confident that you can give me offence, I challenge you to do so.

[Athy]

Just now, nicknorman said:

Of course it does, because the ability to give offence is a common misconception. I expect the dictionary also mentions God, do you consider that this is proof that god exists?

Sorry but after my reasoned explanation of the point, it's a bit disappointing that the extent of your counter-argument is that you must be right because someone else agrees with you.

As I said to MtB, if you are confident that you can give me offence, I challenge you to do so.

So, the Oxford Dictionary is wrong and you are right? Teeheeheeharharharhar.

I'm beginning to believe what they say about Hudson owners.

[nicknorman]

2 minutes ago, Athy said:

So, the Oxford Dictionary is wrong and you are right? Teeheeheeharharharhar.

I'm beginning to believe what they say about Hudson owners.

No the Oxford dictionary is right to definine a word in common use. But the existence and definition of the word does not prove the existence of the thing it describes.

Anyway, resorting to sleighting the person whilst not really addressing the argument is a classic admission of losing the point. Thank you.

 

[Athy]

8 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

No the Oxford dictionary is right to definine a word in common use. But the existence and definition of the word does not prove the existence of the thing it describes.

Anyway, resorting to sleighting the person whilst not really addressing the argument is a classic admission of losing the point. Thank you.

 

No need to thank me, I didn't do that (sleight: trick or deceive, as in "sleight of hand. I did not "address the argument" because there is no argument to address. 

Gosh, I haven't given you offence, have I?

[nicknorman]

4 minutes ago, Athy said:

No need to thank me, I didn't do that (sleight: trick or deceive, as in "sleight of hand. I did not "address the argument" because there is no argument to address. 

Gosh, I haven't given you offence, have I?

I do apologise for the extraneous e. You cannot give me offence. It's not possible. However I can also reassure you that I have chosen not to take offence. Slightly disappointed though!

[Athy]

You're just sitting on offence now, aren't you?

[Thecrossinn]

13 hours ago, DHutch said:

To award a greenie you just click or hover on the grey arrow, and then click again to select greenie very much like before.

I don't have a grey arrow.

[MtB]

On 31/07/2017 at 08:38, nicknorman said:

I do apologise for the extraneous e. You cannot give me offence. It's not possible. However I can also reassure you that I have chosen not to take offence. Slightly disappointed though!

 

I notice Mr Athy never EVER accepts on here he might have been wrong. Teachers are trained I suspect (like policemen) to never to admit defeat no matter how untenable the position they have adopted. I never quite understand why, other than for the reason of asserting authority. 

The teachers when I was at skool who would consider a well reasoned argument and change their minds in response always gained the respect of the more intellectual pupils.  

Mike, there is no harm once in a while in saying "Ok that's a good point, I agree with you actually".

[nicknorman]

24 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I notice Mr Athy never EVER accepts on here he might have been wrong. Teachers are trained I suspect (like policemen) to never to admit defeat no matter how untenable the position they have adopted. I never quite understand why, other than for the reason of asserting authority. 

The teachers when I was at skool who would consider a well reasoned argument and change their minds in response always gained the respect of the more intellectual pupils.  

Mike, there is no harm once in a while in saying "Ok that's a good point, I agree with you actually".

Yes I think that is (in general) the difference between a school teacher and a university lecturer. Anyway I'm confident that mr Athy will go away and think about it, and ultimately conclude that my assertion is correct.

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

The teachers when I was at skool who would consider a well reasoned argument and change their minds in response always gained the respect of the more intellectual pupils.  

All the good teachers I ever worked with over 40 years acted as you suggest.

[Athy]

3 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I notice Mr Athy never EVER accepts on here he might have been wrong. 

This says little for your powers of observation. I am quick to acknowledge when I have made a mistake, which in this case I haven't.

[Dave_P]

On 7/31/2017 at 11:07, nicknorman said:

Yes I think that is (in general) the difference between a school teacher and a university lecturer. Anyway I'm confident that mr Athy will go away and think about it, and ultimately conclude that my assertion is correct.

Much as it pains me to admit this Nick - you're quite right this time 

 

Also - I like the new emoji-thingys but boaters are a very change resistant bunch so I'm not surprised at all with how the poll has gone.  Is possible to cross-tabulate the results against whether the respondent has a trad stern or a vintage engine.  I suspect a clear correlation would emerge.

Couldn't we just trial it for a month or so and change it back if it's causing trouble?

 

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, Dave_P said:

Much as it pains me to admit this Nick - you're quite right this time 

 

Also - I like the new emoji-thingys but boaters are a very change resistant bunch so I'm not surprised at all with how the poll has gone.  Is possible to cross-tabulate the results against whether the respondent has a trad stern or a vintage engine.  I suspect a clear correlation would emerge.

Couldn't we just trial it for a month or so and change it back if it's causing trouble?

 

How pleasing to see that you have a sense of humour.

I don't like the emoticons (when did people start calling them "emojis"?) but I don't have to use them if I don't want to. So I suppose that a "stet" would do no harm.

[Dave_P]

19 minutes ago, Athy said:

How pleasing to see that you have a sense of humour.

I don't like the emoticons (when did people start calling them "emojis"?) but I don't have to use them if I don't want to. So I suppose that a "stet" would do no harm.

Genuinely I can't figure out how offence can be given?  If you try to offend me and I'm not offended, then no offence exists.  The intention of offence exists.