Why is the "Truth" thread closed?

[jean]

...my point is that trhe thread in question wasn't closed by the moderator, but by the initiator, one of the hosts, presumably (but I don't know, obviously) without discussing it with the moderator. I thought that on fora such as this it was the moderator/s who made the final decisions about closing threads, removing posts, etc, based on firm criteria.

Then it's open to you to start the thread you want in your own name, and the moderator can make the final decision. What's wrong with that?

[Flosshilde]

I was considering it as a point of principle, not specifically because I was interested in the thread, which I hadn't noticed and which like so many threads in the basement have a tendency to descend into re-iteration of the same arguments.

I'm surprised you couldn't see that from my comments.

[french frank]

There is (as i'm sure you are more than aware) a very deep connection between what is discussed here and music, the arts and Radio 3.

Not with all of it

What do you think about the appointment of mr Henley to ACE?

Why not start a thread on that?

[french frank]

I keep thinking I should do, given the splendid work you do, but I never quite get round to it (like so many other things I mean to do)

http://www.for3.org/contact/contact.php :-)

Absolutely, & I'm quite happy with that. However, my point is that trhe thread in question wasn't closed by the moderator, but by the initiator, one of the hosts, presumably (but I don't know, obviously) without discussing it with the moderator. I thought that on fora such as this it was the moderator/s who made the final decisions about closing threads, removing posts, etc, based on firm criteria.

Yes, but much as I get peremptory emails ordering me to deal with some complaint AT ONCE :-) I can't be watching the forum all day every day. Hosts have limited powers and although they can 'delete' posts (as was necessary a couple of days ago when multiple complaints came in) they can only 'soft' delete so that the option remains for me to reverse the decision because the posts remain in the database. Similarly, I can reopen any thread that a Host closes when I've gone into it thoroughly. In this case I backed the Host's decision because from where I sit the red alarm signals can show quite quickly.

As an anecdote, a supporter enquired why it was that Mr Lebrecht had recently expressed the opinion that Friends of Radio 3 were a touch better (or worse?) than the Islamic State in their 'friendliness'; I explained that he had been unaware of the distinction between FoR3 and the forum and had taken the latter for the former. The supporter replied that he wouldn't want to join any forum if people were offensive to each other in their posts and was surprised that listeners to Radio 3 were not more civilised. What can I say in reply ...

[Flosshilde]

Then it's open to you to start the thread you want in your own name, and the moderator can make the final decision. What's wrong with that?

There's nothing wrong with that, and I have started threads. My point is that I can't close them - I have to ask someone else, whereas Calum could. But I'm rather tired of repeating myself - if you don't want to understand, I can't make you. If you really can't understand, perhaps you could explain what it is you have difficulty with?

[Risorgimento]

Many, many, moons ago I approached certain members by PM (I don't need to name them as it is pretty obvious to whom I am referring) with an olive branch to suggest that we refrained from simply getting stuck in to each other with Size 9 boots.

The offer was rebuffed.

Says it all, really.

[Flosshilde]

You could always try unilateral disarmament; as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

[ahinton]

Many, many, moons ago I approached certain members by PM (I don't need to name them as it is pretty obvious to whom I am referring) with an olive branch to suggest that we refrained from simply getting stuck in to each other with Size 9 boots.

The offer was rebuffed.

Says it all, really.

Does it really? Not to me! I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just pointing out that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

[ahinton]

You could always try unilateral disarmament; as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

Did Piazzolla compose the Disarmament Tango? I'd not realised.

[MrGongGong]

I'm just pointing out that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Me neither

[Beef Oven!]

You could always try unilateral disarmament; as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

You are Eric Cantona and I claim my £5

[ahinton]

You are Eric Cantona and I claim my £5

From whom? DWP?

Joke.

[Risorgimento]

You could always try unilateral disarmament; as the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

And thank you for proving my point for me so eloquently.

[Risorgimento]

Does it really? Not to me! I'm not even arguing with you. I'm just pointing out that I don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Don't fret on it, AH, as I'm sure you won't.

[ahinton]

And thank you for proving my point for me so eloquently.

Assuming that this is indeed what Flosshilde did, does your statement here not risk undermining whatever point (if any) you were making by implying the question as to why you appear to have needed it to be "proved for you" at all?