Old lady dies (see other post)

[ahinton]

This is post no. 10 in its entirity. There's no indication that it has been edited -



Bile?!

Quite. None about Rubbra, that's for sure; rather the reverse, if anything. Whilst I would personally be disinclined to post that I was glad that anyone had died, it occurs to me that feeling something as expressed in the second paragraph and then tempering that expression by clarifying that the writer's wish that he didn't feel that way is hardly something that seems to me to qualify as "bilious"; indeed, in some ways, it's arguably not so far removed from the remark attributed to Shostakovich that he didn't believe in God and was very sorry about that...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...d-8568785.html

puts it better than I could

How very true that is.

[Thropplenoggin]

How very true that is.

The article? Glad you took the time to read it, AIC, and that it has given you an insight into how others view Thatcher's reign, rather than simply taking a cheap shot at a fellow forumite.

[Flosshilde]

I can't find the forum rules, but isn't there one about not disrespecting other users? Perhaps AIC could read it?

[Julien Sorel]

I had/have no problem whatsoever with people expressing opinions about what Thatcher did, good or bad. However, much of the disappeared thread didn't manage any formal criticism, just simple bile cf. #10 here. It was quite shocking that people should think it was acceptable to behave in that manner. I assume that was why the thread was withdrawn - far too late though.

That's untrue. My contributions related directly to (a) her close association with Pinochet, her endorsement of Suharto, her authorising clandestine SAS training for troops of Pol Pot's so-called government in exile (as an extension of Reagan's foreign policy). The only response I received from any of the, to put it crudely, pro-Thatcher posters was from Beef Oven (an entirely serious response, just to make clear). Otherwise it was ignored.

(b) I commented on the number of right to buy council houses and flats now multiply owned by individuals running property rental businesses. As I recall your breezy dismissal of (b) as perfectly OK was comprehensively rebutted, indeed rebutted by french frank. You also seemed to have erroneous notions about the extent to which the private rental market is regulated.

It is entirely unfair of you to bring this up and to accuse people of shocking and unacceptable behaviour in the absence of the textual evidence. I will be quite happy for french frank to delete this post along with your #181 and #192. But I'm not going to let you paint a false picture of the content of the majority of posts on that thread.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A fine piece of writing, with the compassion appropriately directed.

[french frank]

Why so much perplexity about this issue of forum content? The other thread, esp. at the beginning, was simply appalling. There was no informed debate, just sickening bile. As a reminder, look what spilled into this thread (#10). The thread should have been parked after about the first five pages of disgusting behaviour. Why didn't the moderators block this sort of content?

I'm not sure whether you have ever run a forum? The one thing one learns is that outrage will find a way of expressing itself: it's simply that people differ in the objects of their outrage.

[jean]

I felt happy at the time.

You'd have felt happier if you'd contrasted your new thread with the other thread though, wouldn't you?

[Thropplenoggin]

You'd have felt happier if you'd contrasted your new thread with the other thread though, wouldn't you?

I enjoyed Pabmusic's first post in this (his) thread.

Alas, how poignant is his most recent comment: "I felt happy at the time. "

[Stillhomewardbound]

As such they have a far longer association with these boards remit than, for instance, you good self.

I didn't name any names, so there's a wholesale assumption being made about whom I might be referring to. To suggest then (if I may paraphrase), 'oh that'll be such and such. No, they've been around for years, unlike yourself' is an unnecessary rebuttal and quite without foundation.

For the record, I was a regular contributor to the old R3 boards going back to 2006, if not earlier. I've also been a regular here on the FoR3 forums since 2010.

Indeed, I think this would be a very apt moment to repeat one of my posts from the past. From 2006, as it happens, when I posted as 'Homewardbound'.


*************************************

How many R3 Message Board members does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: 71:


1 to change the light bulb.

1 to witness the changing of the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

1 to declare how much he disapproved of that particular method of changing light bulbs.

7 to share their experiences on the field of changing light bulbs, and to suggest how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

2 to say that they think that particular method of changing light bulbs is politcal correctness gone mad, and amounts to censorship.

3 to reminisce about a different method of changing of light bulbs 15 years ago on Radio4.

1 person to lament the fact that he did not witness the changing of the light bulb.

2 to argue that, this being R3, the light bulb’s bound to be changed again soon.

2 to state that the idiot at the BBC responsible for throwing away a lot of first class light bulbs many years ago ought to be shot.

1 to point out spelling/grammar errors in the previous posts.

1 to attack the the spell checker.

1 to defend the spell checker.

1 to find spelling/grammar errors in the previous three posts.

1 person to quote an extremely long passage from a previous message, even though it is in no comprehensible way relevant to their own comment.

1 person to ask how to quote from previous messages.

1 person to explain how to quote from previous messages.

2 people to correct faults or misunderstandings in the previous explanation.

3 to argue over whether it’s “lightbulb” or “light bulb” …

another 2 to condemn those three as stupid pedants.

1 BBC-employee to inform the group that the proper BBC term is “lamp”.

2 non-BBC-employees who insist on knowing better.

1 person to recall that there was indeed a thread about the changing of light bulbs on the old R3 message board.

1 to argue that this particular thread on changing light bulbs is not relevant to R3 and that it should instead have been started on the Radio4 Science message board.

8 to defend the posting of this particular thread on the R3 message board, since we all, including the artists in concerts broadcast on R3, change light bulbs from time to time – thus making this thread relevant to R3.

1 to ask where to find information about different methods of changing light bulbs, or indeed, light bulbs in general.

2 to post URLs where one can find extensive information on light bulbs as well as on the changing of light bulbs.

2 to post that the URLs on light bulbs were posted incorrectly.

1 to post the corrected URLs.

1 to explain hat the original URLs were not, in fact, posted incorrectly, but that the reasons for them not working is of a complex technical nature, the explanation of which is so long it has to be divided into two different posts.

1 to manage to find a connection between the subject of changing light bulbs and a R3 employee, which in some way he turns into an opportunity to attack or insult that particular employee.

1 R3 message board host to reprimand the previous poster for breaking the house rules.

1 to ask what a light bulb actually is.

1 to paste in some bit of information they found on the web which – apparently – somehow proves that a thread about changing light bulbs is indeed relevant to R3.

1 person to post a URL with a drawing of a light bulb which they consider in some way funny.

1 person to ask how to post URLs in a message.

1 person to explain how to post URLs in a message.

8 people to post exactly the same explanation given by the previous poster.

1 person to miraculously come up with a totally empty message window.

1 to inform the community that there’s sometimes a changing of light bulbs on Oneword, too.

[Richard Barrett]

blow-ins, telling us that it should be this, it should be that.

If you're referring to me:
(a) actually it was you, sorry, actually, Madam Speaker, it was my learned friend Stillhomewardbound who was telling us that addressing one another directly was a bad idea, and now he/she is saying that things were OK as they were, which I cite as an example of someone indeed saying that it should be this and it should be that in close succession. All I am saying is that I am generally against the idea of people being told what they can talk about and what they can't on messageboards, and I haven't seen anything in recent days to alter that opinion.
(b) I joined the Radio 3 boards in early 2005 and remained a member until it was closed down, some of the time under my own name, some of the time not. The poster known as Julien Sorel was already a member of that messageboard at the time.
(c) I have joined and unjoined this board a few times using different screen names, since soon after its inception, but eventually decided that using my own name was preferable and I don't expect to change it again.
I hope that clears things up.

[Serial_Apologist]

I didn't name any names, so there's a wholesale assumption being made about whom I might be referring to. To suggest then (if I may paraphrase), 'oh that'll be such and such. No, they've been around for years, unlike yourself' is an unnecessary rebuttal and quite without foundation.

For the record, I was a regular contributor to the old R3 boards going back to 2006, if not earlier. I've also been a regular here on the FoR3 forums since 2010.

Indeed, I think this would be a very apt moment to repeat one of my posts from the past. From 2006, as it happens, when I posted as 'Homewardbound'.


*************************************

How many R3 Message Board members does it take to change a light bulb?

Answer: 71:


1 to change the light bulb.

1 to witness the changing of the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

1 to declare how much he disapproved of that particular method of changing light bulbs.

7 to share their experiences on the field of changing light bulbs, and to suggest how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

2 to say that they think that particular method of changing light bulbs is politcal correctness gone mad, and amounts to censorship.

3 to reminisce about a different method of changing of light bulbs 15 years ago on Radio4.

1 person to lament the fact that he did not witness the changing of the light bulb.

2 to argue that, this being R3, the light bulb’s bound to be changed again soon.

2 to state that the idiot at the BBC responsible for throwing away a lot of first class light bulbs many years ago ought to be shot.

1 to point out spelling/grammar errors in the previous posts.

1 to attack the the spell checker.

1 to defend the spell checker.

1 to find spelling/grammar errors in the previous three posts.

1 person to quote an extremely long passage from a previous message, even though it is in no comprehensible way relevant to their own comment.

1 person to ask how to quote from previous messages.

1 person to explain how to quote from previous messages.

2 people to correct faults or misunderstandings in the previous explanation.

3 to argue over whether it’s “lightbulb” or “light bulb” …

another 2 to condemn those three as stupid pedants.

1 BBC-employee to inform the group that the proper BBC term is “lamp”.

2 non-BBC-employees who insist on knowing better.

1 person to recall that there was indeed a thread about the changing of light bulbs on the old R3 message board.

1 to argue that this particular thread on changing light bulbs is not relevant to R3 and that it should instead have been started on the Radio4 Science message board.

8 to defend the posting of this particular thread on the R3 message board, since we all, including the artists in concerts broadcast on R3, change light bulbs from time to time – thus making this thread relevant to R3.

1 to ask where to find information about different methods of changing light bulbs, or indeed, light bulbs in general.

2 to post URLs where one can find extensive information on light bulbs as well as on the changing of light bulbs.

2 to post that the URLs on light bulbs were posted incorrectly.

1 to post the corrected URLs.

1 to explain hat the original URLs were not, in fact, posted incorrectly, but that the reasons for them not working is of a complex technical nature, the explanation of which is so long it has to be divided into two different posts.

1 to manage to find a connection between the subject of changing light bulbs and a R3 employee, which in some way he turns into an opportunity to attack or insult that particular employee.

1 R3 message board host to reprimand the previous poster for breaking the house rules.

1 to ask what a light bulb actually is.

1 to paste in some bit of information they found on the web which – apparently – somehow proves that a thread about changing light bulbs is indeed relevant to R3.

1 person to post a URL with a drawing of a light bulb which they consider in some way funny.

1 person to ask how to post URLs in a message.

1 person to explain how to post URLs in a message.

8 people to post exactly the same explanation given by the previous poster.

1 person to miraculously come up with a totally empty message window.

1 to inform the community that there’s sometimes a changing of light bulbs on Oneword, too.

Brilliant, SHB!!!

PS The fact that I wasn't around in 2006 doesn't, I hope, disqualify me from posting this comment!

[ahinton]

I'm not sure whether you have ever run a forum? The one thing one learns is that outrage will find a way of expressing itself: it's simply that people differ in the objects of their outrage.

And the manner in which they express it. That said, A_I_C is, I believe, entirely out of order in asserting that "there was no informed debate" in the thread; posts by Julien Sorel, Richard Barrett and Pabmusic alone (although there were plenty of others) were more than sufficient evidence of such informed debate; it was also evident that, in most cases, the questionable behaviour was down to certain posters and the informed debate down to others and very rarely if ever did the twain meet.

Perhaps if A_I_C has indeed ever run a forum, he will tell us about it...

[Bryn]

I didn't name any names, so there's a wholesale assumption being made about whom I might be referring to. To suggest then (if I may paraphrase), 'oh that'll be such and such. No, they've been around for years, unlike yourself' is an unnecessary rebuttal and quite without foundation.

For the record, I was a regular contributor to the old R3 boards going back to 2006, if not earlier. I've also been a regular here on the FoR3 forums since 2010.

Any who might be interested can, of course, read the original, rather than the 'paraphrase'.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Brilliant, SHB!!!

Agreed!

(I particularly liked the 3 to argue over whether it’s “lightbulb” or “light bulb” …

... and I've often felt that I was the one "to ask what a light bulb actually is". )