Paris, anyone?

[Stillhomewardbound]

I have long said that there are those on here who make remarks and in such a manner as they would never dare do were they addressing another member face to face, down at the local, or at the coffee shop; and all of it under a cloak of anonymity.

There's an argument to be made for members to write under their own names and with a recent picture of themselves visible in their avatar. I can't guarantee it would train all polecats, but it might temper matters somewhat.

After all, in the Letters pages of the qualities (in the printed versions at any rate) correspondence is not accepted under aliases and an address has to be provided for verification.

[french frank]

I haven't time to read the whole of this thread. But I'll take this:

I wonder if the reputation of FoR3 in the outside world is really going to be improved by an insistence in its associated forum on selected permissible subjects of discussion, which must be discussed in a particular way, since (presumably) one of the central problems many of us have with Radio 3 itself is a too-intrusive and one-sided editorial policy.

This is the issue: when we offered to set up a forum to replace the old BBC boards, it was never the intention that it should be seen as FoR3's 'associated forum' (and FoR3 issues are mentioned no more frequently here than on the old BBC boards) - and heavens! that's stated as clearly as it could be in the disclaimer on the homepage.

It doesn't alter the fact that it is seen as the FoR3 forum, it's called that and people outside equate the people who post here with FoR3 supporters.

I really suggest again that people who feel a forum that they want to use should be made in the image of what they want should set up a forum of their own, or march those who agree with them off to one of the alternatives which they use. I mention no alternatives because I wouldn't wish these kind of problems on other forums. But you know which forum(s) I mean - and you appreciate them just as they are.

Richard, I'm amazed that you - who carry on debates in a factual, (almost) exclusively non-confrontational or snide fashion - tolerate others who don't, who in my view just get in the way of serious debate.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There's an argument to be made for members to write under their own names and with a recent picture of themselves visible in their avatar.

There may very well be people put off joining the Forum by some of the "political" posts: there would certainly be many more if I had to do this!

[ahinton]

Richard, I'm amazed that you - who carry on debates in a factual, (almost) exclusively non-confrontational or snide fashion - tolerate others who don't, who in my view just get in the way of serious debate.

I'm not; indeed, I applaud the rationality and pragmatism that enables him to do this. I am in no position - and therefore do not pretend - to speak for him on this but please let's not forget that, over and over again, he has written in an number of contexts about the fundamental need for people to live at peace with one another and to be non-confrontational, which is not at all the same as advocating behaving in any kind of mealy-mouthed or complacently over-compliant manner. Richard might not he happy with those who do not "carry on debates in a factual, (almost) exclusively non-confrontational or snide fashion" but he doesn't evidence the slightest desire to beat them over the head for it when they do - at least that's the way I read that aspect of what he writes. He invariably does his research thoroughly before contributing and, whilst his own political beliefs and stances are by no means concealed, he never uses them as a stick with which to beat others of quite different persuasion, preferring instead to seek to engage with them (as he also does with those who share his beliefs) and encourage people to think. He's certainly encouraged me to do that, on many an occasion.

I do agree that certain aggressive and confrontational behaviour as expressed within certain posts on this and other fora can be seen to "get in the way of serious debate", yet I think that the real truth here is that it does so only to those who seem unable and/or unwilling to recognise such expressions for what they are - i.e. aggression and confrontation for its own sake, as quite distinct from sincere and constructive engagement in civilised debate with those who might disagree fundamentally with other posters' views.

I'm sure that member Leboeuf disagrees fundamentally with many of the views expressed by MrGG but I was pleased to read that he would not wish to witness his departure from these boards; that's an attitude that is most welcome.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Happily, I think you'll find that MrGG's 'bye' refers to the fact that he's going out for the afternoon, rather than quitting the forum.

I shall, indeed, be very happy for this to be the case.

[jean]

There's an argument to be made for members to write under their own names and with a recent picture of themselves visible in their avatar.

I've often thought that some names, and some avatars, seem to invite jocular responses and adaptations, which they duly get. Somethimes the owners don't like it:

Please do not refer to me as Leboeuf.

But whose fault is it that it happens?

Perhaps there should be a convention (I won't say a rule) that no-one makes fun of anyone else's name, whether real or assumed.

[Beef Oven!]

I've often thought that some names, and some avatars, seem to invite jocular responses and adaptations, which they duly get. Somethimes the owners don't like it:

How do they 'invite' jocular responses?

But whose fault is it that it happens?

Fault? I am responsible for ahinton's choice to give me a different name from the one I have chosen, that I suppose he thinks is funny?

Perhaps there should be a convention (I won't say a rule) that no-one makes fun of anyone else's name, whether real or assumed.

No need for all that, it rarely happens and the remedy is simple - if it's unwelcome, the person can ask the person to stop doing it, and the other person simply, out of respect for their fellow forum-member, desists.

[Richard Barrett]

I have long said that there are those on here who make remarks and in such a manner as they would never dare do were they addressing another member face to face, down at the local, or at the coffee shop

Yes, I've often thought being on an internet forum is a bit like being behind the wheel of a car in that sort of way. On the other hand there are those who will shout at and bore you down the pub just as freely as they do on a forum, present company excluded no doubt.

There's an argument to be made for members to write under their own names and with a recent picture of themselves visible in their avatar.

One reason for my doing that was to make sure I didn't get tempted into saying anything that I as an actual real-life person wouldn't stand by. But of course there'd be no way of making sure that people really were who they said they were!

FF, I think different people have different ways of expressing themselves, that's all.

[french frank]

FF, I think different people have different ways of expressing themselves, that's all.

Absolutely true - but some are less generally tolerated. My view is that tolerance can be no more than blokeish insouciance.

Let me put another point for your (everyone's) consideration. Setting up this forum took a lot of time and effort, and, at the beginning, expense, all donated by a small group of FoR3 supporters. Looking back over the recent posts, from among those who are the chief protesters I see NO FoR3 (registered) supporter and no forum member, NOT ONE, who has returned the FoR3 survey that was announced earlier.

There is NO evidence therefore that those who want to decide what they want the forum to be like have any interest in FoR3 or in its activities, and they are merely taking advantage of what was being freely offered.

I hope it is at least appreciated, though I have my doubts, that people have been allowed to express their views openly for some while. But I'm now getting tired of having to look in every few hours to repeat the same, or similar message.

If you'll forgive me, I'll go back to my (unpaid) work for FoR3. I really can't see that anything will be gained by continuing this thread.

[Richard Barrett]

from among those who are the chief protesters I see NO FoR3 (registered) supporter and no forum member, NOT ONE, who has returned the FoR3 survey that was announced earlier.

There is NO evidence therefore that those who want to decide what they want the forum to be like have any interest in FoR3 or in its activities, and they are merely taking advantage of what was being freely offered.

Well, that is a good point for sure. But then in your previous post you said "it was never the intention that it should be seen as FoR3's 'associated forum' (and FoR3 issues are mentioned no more frequently here than on the old BBC boards)".

[ahinton]

Fault? I am responsible for ahinton's choice to give me a different name from the one I have chosen, that I suppose he thinks is funny?

It's certainly not your "fault" and I'd be loath to assume that it's the "fault" of the perpatrator either but, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, no offence is or was intended nor fun poked at anyone thereby and, whilst you might think that I thought it "funny", I couldn't possibly comment other than to seek to assure you otherwise.

No need for all that, it rarely happens and the remedy is simple - if it's unwelcome, the person can ask the person to stop doing it, and the other person simply, out of respect for their fellow forum-member, desists.

Well, you've responded to jean and not asked me not to do it but I will of course be perfectly happy not to do it again if that's what you wish.

[jean]

I see NO...forum member, NOT ONE, who has returned the FoR3 survey that was announced earlier.

What survey?

[Beef Oven!]

It's certainly not your "fault" and I'd be loath to ssume trhat it's the "fault" of the perpatrator either but, for the record and for the avoidance of doubt, no offence is or was intended nor fun poked at anyone thereby and, whilst you might think that I thought it "funny", I couldn't possibly comment other than to seek to assure you otherwise.

Fault is about responsibility, you are responsible for what you post.

Well, you've responded to jean and not asked me not to do it but I will of course be perfectly happy not to do it again if that's what you wish.

Thank you. Sorted without the need for a 'convention'.

[Beef Oven!]

Absolutely true - but some are less generally tolerated. My view is that tolerance can be no more than blokeish insouciance.

Let me put another point for your (everyone's) consideration. Setting up this forum took a lot of time and effort, and, at the beginning, expense, all donated by a small group of FoR3 supporters. Looking back over the recent posts, from among those who are the chief protesters I see NO FoR3 (registered) supporter and no forum member, NOT ONE, who has returned the FoR3 survey that was announced earlier.

There is NO evidence therefore that those who want to decide what they want the forum to be like have any interest in FoR3 or in its activities, and they are merely taking advantage of what was being freely offered.

I hope it is at least appreciated, though I have my doubts, that people have been allowed to express their views openly for some while. But I'm now getting tired of having to look in every few hours to repeat the same, or similar message.

If you'll forgive me, I'll go back to my (unpaid) work for FoR3. I really can't see that anything will be gained by continuing this thread.

Rightly or wrongly, the forum has grown into meeting place for people who are first and foremost utterly passionate about music, and who also have well-wrought views about how the world is. The R3 aspect of it has become overtime, less salient.

[Richard Tarleton]

What survey?

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?12648-Presentation-Survey

Are you a supporter, jean? It's not too late!