Targeting of individuals

[Mr Pee]

Could we please have a moratorium on posts that repeatedly target the same member?

This doesn't preclude robust dissection of the topics and arguments presented, but I would like to see an end to the various references including The Professor, Nutwood, work at the FCO, unnamed friends in high places &c.

If you know what I'm talking about - this message is for you!

Excellent suggestion, FF. This sort of thing was one of the reasons that I recently took an extended break from the boards. The relentless sniping at certain individuals by a small cohort of members was-is- unnecessary and juvenile.

[mercia]

Our line it that we don't personalise our criticisms.

you're not saying that members on this forum don't criticise Radio 3 presenters in a personal way, are you ?

[MrGongGong]

Excellent suggestion, FF. This sort of thing was one of the reasons that I recently took an extended break from the boards. The relentless sniping at certain individuals by a small cohort of members was-is- unnecessary and juvenile.

(sorry .......... but that has cheered me up no end )

[Simon]

For information I do feel bullied by this member and his constant referring to you - you are assuming that one can't bully several

"Constant referring." Hmm. That's interesting. Perhaps ff would clarify. I give full permission for the moderators to reveal any and all occasions that I have "referred" to them on this forum, and the subject matter, if they wish.

That way, the accuracy or otherwise of the above statement may be judged by all.

:::::::::::::::::

If one is considering my references to the Guardian, which I don't deny, it might also be interesting to count the number of times "Daily Mail readers" or "Sun readers" or "the Murdoch Press" have been mentioned...

"It works both ways, ff."

Indeed it does. But some seem to forget that!

:::::::::::::::::

[MrGongGong]

"Sun readers"

eerrrrm
surely that's a Oxymoron ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

(sorry .......... but that has cheered me up no end )

Why is that funny? I agree that sniping at individuals is unnecessary and juvenile.

[Simon]

For the record, although I'm grateful to the forum for attempting to end the sort of posts about which I have recently complained, I don't feel bullied at all and I don't actually mind personal attacks, though I know there are some who do become upset about them.

The three or four posters who regularly and continually try to attack me - and anyone else who seems to support any view different from their own - generally make a hash of it. I expect that's why one sees the streams of one-line comments, "thumbs up" smileys, and "Well said"s etc. that come along. Now that is, to my mind, a real attempt at bullying - it tries to make the other poster feel alone and isolated. But the way that there is rarely any valid effort to analyse or refute the actual points made gives the game away and evidences the paucity of thought behind the postings.

As ff has said, "robust" engagement with the argument, or with the facts of the discussion, is what most of us are happy to accept, and it is with reference to this that the different behaviour types can be so easily differentiated. I don't need to name names, but from my own personal perspective there are many on here with whose politics I disagree. Yet with many of these, I can engage in a rational exchange of views and gain from, and, I hope, give to, the sum of knowledge enshrined in the thread.

Notwithstanding the above, there are certain subject areas in the forum, and certain threads that appear from time to time, where the sorts of posts that this thread is about are particularly inappropriate. I state this not because I feel unhappy personally - as noted above, I don't - but because I don't think it is fair that others (who may not be regular posters here and on the BBC boards as some of us were and who therefore don't understand many of the personal references anyway) should have a pleasant, interesting and friendly thread turned into a battleground and diverted from the subject just because someone decides to make a stupid attempt to be "clever" against me, or anyone else.

Witty commenting, if it really is witty, is one thing, which we all appreciate, and I can laugh against myself as easily as anyone. Intelligent jokes are another. But troll-like behaviour just to irritate others is what I think the great majority of us, whether we agree politically or not, want to discourage. And that is why I decide to complain about Amateur and GongGongs' posts on Wednesday and about S-A's post yesterday. I accept that S-A is not generally a "troll" on here, and am willing to withdraw that comment, in fairness - but I don't believe that any unbiased observer would not agree that the particular post, coming out of nowhere and derailing what until then had been a perfectly amicable discussion, was a prima facie case of troll-like posting.

I was prepared to accept without question the decision of the moderators on both these questions, and am happy that my points have been upheld. I am even happier to have received a lot of support from so many other posters. As ff has noted above, verb. sat. sap.

I hope that we can now draw a line under all this, and the the boards can continue even better than before.

Edit: and if anyone still isn't sure what I mean, have a look at GongGong's postings above. <sigh>

[Mr Pee]

(sorry .......... but that has cheered me up no end )

AND....we're back in the room.......

[french frank]

you're not saying that members on this forum don't criticise Radio 3 presenters in a personal way, are you ?

No. But at last count less than 7% of the members here had registered their support for FoR3 - and we have a prominent disclaimer on the homepage: " Opinions expressed on any part of The Radio 3 Forum are those of individuals, not of the forum administration or of Friends of Radio 3."

The forum is provided primarily for Radio 3 listeners as a replacement for the BBC messageboards, not for FoR3 supporters - who for the most part don't post here. When presenters were attacked on the BBC MBs, I don't recall anyone suggesting that it was the 'BBC line' because the BBC were responsible for the messageboards.

[MrGongGong]

AND....we're back in the room.......

or crawled out from under the rickety rackety bridge ?

[MrGongGong]

Edit: and if anyone still isn't sure what I mean, have a look at GongGong's postings above. <sigh>

And YOU have the nerve to complain about "targeting of individuals"

here's some music for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaoxI1DO6Sk

[Simon]

And YOU have the nerve to complain about "targeting of individuals"

But I haven't.

I've complained about the disruption of threads by stupid and/or irrelevant posts.

[MrGongGong]

But I haven't.

I've complained about the disruption of threads by stupid and/or irrelevant posts.

What is "silly" or "irrelevant" is a matter of opinion

but I guess you will think that that is "silly" or "irrelevant"

if you want to have academic seminars I suggest you apply for a job as an academic

[Simon]

What is "silly" or "irrelevant" is a matter of opinion

but I guess you will think that that is "silly" or "irrelevant"

No, clearly that is a reasoned comment.

But as regards the nature of your other contributions upthread, I'm sure that those MB members who are interested will be capable of making up their own minds.

[DracoM]

< I've complained about the disruption of threads by stupid and/or irrelevant posts. >

For me, that is what so wearies, when a thread is interrupted by some sort of playground spat when a perfectly good exchange of views, robust or otherwise is going on. Most of the time, you just give up and go somewhere else, so that both the tiresome exchange, AND very unfortunately, the warp and weft of a good thread get lost.

Sad, and rather diminishes those who so interrupt a solid ongoing exchange, such that next time you log on, you tend to scroll past those who do it regularly more or less every time you see their alias on screen.