Old lady dies (see other post)

[eighthobstruction]

Well, EA, either that or people are getting their heads around the fact that spring appears to have sprung, and are out and about doing all those things which have been left undone!

In all due respects, I don't hold at all with the view that french frank is running a forum that is in any way whatsoever off-putting. One can accommodate the thin-skinned up to a certain point, beyond which it becomes a manuipulative game of dimishing returns all round, from which no one gains and what one never intended gaining in the first place is all sacrificed. I for one have rarely felt more welcomed, let alone enjoyed the opportunities afforded to, yes, chat with erudite figures. It could probably be admitted that many on here have in fact made friends that have become friends outside as well as within the province of this forum, contrary to impressions, all down to its existence and thanks to french frank.

My current feeling is not to change anything about the forum or its formats, but to insist on strict adherence to the rule covering ad hominem jibes and insults, on pain of, ahem, excommunication.

Yes, I really go along with your para 2&3....espec 2

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, I really go along with your para 2&3....espec 2

Cheers 8th

Re-acquainting myself with the rule about offensiveness, (thanks, Caliban!), the one bit that has always worried me was to do with posting message designed to be provocative, as any old charlie can accuse another of so being. Oh, how misunderstood this has often left me feeling! (boo-hoo!)

[Nick Armstrong]

Re-acquainting myself with the rule about offensiveness, (thanks, Caliban!), the one bit that has always worried me was to do with posting message designed to be provocative, as any old charlie can accuse another of so being.

That is a very good point I think. It might well be better if the rule was objective - ruling out messages that are provocative, whether or not that was the intent (or design) of the poster.

And I agree with FF that it would be beside the point if that were regarded as inimical to free speech, because

this forum has never posed a some sort of general platform for free speech.... We have house rules

... and if individuals don't like it there are many other Fora out there where they can be intemperate or provocative.

[Serial_Apologist]

That is a very good point I think. It might well be better if the rule was objective - ruling out messages that are provocative, whether or not that was the intent (or design) of the poster.

And I agree with FF that it would be beside the point if that were regarded as inimical to free speech, because



... and if individuals don't like it there are many other Fora out there where they can be intemperate or provocative.

Hmmmm - some people are just determined to be provoked, Cali!

[Nick Armstrong]

Hmmmm - some people are just determined to be provoked, Cali!

That's true too.

Just throwing ideas out there

We shall doubtless regroup in the calm light of day

[french frank]

Re-acquainting myself with the rule about offensiveness, (thanks, Caliban!), the one bit that has always worried me was to do with posting message designed to be provocative, as any old charlie can accuse another of so being.

What I had in mind was the kind of thread that was no more than a variation on a theme (politics-wise, I mean). If someone knows a particular theme is contentious because it's proved so in the past, it is provocative to post what is essentially the same point again. And the reason I had that in mind was because it has happened.

And for tonight ... that's all folks!

[Nick Armstrong]

And for tonight ... that's all folks!

[Richard Barrett]

What happened on the other thread? (I was off "having a life" until now )

[ahinton]

What happened on the other thread? (I was off "having a life" until now )

I don't know but, whatever it was, it was sufficient for FF to decide to remove it earlier this afternoon. Anyway, now that it's gone, you can return to "having a life", which must surely be a wise move in any case!

There were some interesting ideas and exchanges on that thread but I can only assume that there was also sufficient material not considered to be welcome hereabouts as to prompt FF to knock it on the head.

[Serial_Apologist]

What I had in mind was the kind of thread that was no more than a variation on a theme (politics-wise, I mean). If someone knows a particular theme is contentious because it's proved so in the past, it is provocative to post what is essentially the same point again. And the reason I had that in mind was because it has happened.

And for tonight ... that's all folks!

Sometimes some people can't resist returning to a subject that's become "live" again, in order to say, "told you so!" - and I'm no exception, I have to admit.

In the end one has to try and marshall all one's diplomatic skills in re-framing old issues that are unavoidably bound to recur.

Anyway, time for me to hit the pillow too.....

[Pabmusic]

And I've woken from a good night's sleep to find there have been developments. Oh dear! It's probably a good idea to hide the other thread, since there can be no resolution to "Oh yes she was/Oh no she wasn't" in any case.

Anyway, it's a nice sunny day here (surprise) and we're having a water tank fitted today to improve the pressure.

[MrGongGong]

Sometimes some people can't resist returning to a subject that's become "live" again, in order to say, "told you so!" - and I'm no exception, I have to admit.

Did I ever mention Gerontius ?

(me too then )

[Richard Barrett]

I don't know but, whatever it was, it was sufficient for FF to decide to remove it earlier this afternoon. Anyway, now that it's gone, you can return to "having a life", which must surely be a wise move in any case!

There were some interesting ideas and exchanges on that thread but I can only assume that there was also sufficient material not considered to be welcome hereabouts as to prompt FF to knock it on the head.

Thank you kindly for a typical non-answer.

I am inclined to think that hiding away a whole (long) thread out of fears that it would bring the forum into disrepute is a somewhat overreacting and heavy-handed measure; but maybe that's just me.

[Flosshilde]

I think it worthwhile to have a forum for ideas and discussion, much of which fits with R3's remit anyway. But perhaps the Arts/Speech section can fulfil that function? As regards the social aspects of Platform 3, I come closer to finding this an illusion.

Would the discussions that are a 'problem' on Platform 3 simply arise on the 'Arts & Ideas' forum? Especially as they would fit under the heading of 'ideas' - eg politics or social issues. It's the chatty ones - Stormy Weather, for example - that provide the 'social aspect' which would be at risk of disappearing.

We aren't a small cosy band of friends: we are bitterly divided in our views. One minute we're discussing favourite recipes, the next belittling and attacking others for their opinions. We have to face up to this and work out how best the forum can benefit us all.

I would see the fact that the same people can be discussing favourite recipes on one thread, & vigorously disagreeing politically on another, as a strength, not a problem.


I think that we would all recognise that you've been having a tough time at the moment, which perhaps means that you've had rather less patience with your unruly 'children' than usual. Perhaps the answer is for you to relinquish responsibility for managing the forum? Become like the Queen () & be a figurehead but not have any day to day management. Perhaps the Hosts could take that on?

[Beef Oven]

What happened on the other thread? (I was off "having a life" until now )

Do you still want to carry on with this?