Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[Nick Armstrong]

I do sense a relentless opportunism which can become tedious. This is a Radio 3 forum and I would far rather hear Bryn praising Roger Norrington or JLW on the merits of high resolution downloads than issues better debated elsewhere.

Have to agree too. However important the non-musical issues which arise (some seemingly very regularly), my heart sinks somewhat when I log on and go to "what's new" only to see a stack of 'current affairs' threads active and no doubt seething with sense of humour failure...

[Sir Velo]

I'm wondering why people object so much to the presence on the forum of threads on subjects that (purportedly) don't interest them. Nobody is being forced to read them, let alone contribute. What exactly is the problem?

Perhaps because this is a forum dedicated to the discussion of Radio 3 output, and related musical and other arts related subjects. There are other fora out there which are far more suitable for the kinds of discussion you wish to have. It may have escaped your notice but there are over a thousand members of this forum of which only a miniscule percentage contribute to these threads.

[Sir Velo]

Have to agree too. However important the non-musical issues which arise (some seemingly very regularly), my heart sinks somewhat when I log on and go to "what's new" only to see a stack of 'current affairs' threads active and no doubt seething with sense of humour failure...

Caliban, perhaps we could have the Politics and Current Affairs threads removed from the "What's New" page. In the same way that the Diversions board is accessible but does not come up when looking at new threads, the same could be done here. This would allow the news and other contentious issues junkies the opportunity to bang on to their hearts' content without the rest of us getting thoroughly peed off by it all, as well as deterring would be posters from contributing to the forum.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

That's an interesting suggestion, Sir V, but one advantage of the "What's New" page is that it enables hosts to keep ahead of the game, thereby nipping rogues posts in the bud very quickly.

[Richard Barrett]

There are other fora out there which are far more suitable for the kinds of discussion you wish to have. It may have escaped your notice but there are over a thousand members of this forum of which only a miniscule percentage contribute to these threads.

You have no idea what "the kinds of discussion I wish to have" are.

And if only a miniscule percentage of people contribute to "these threads" that would really seem to confirm that the vast majority are happy to disregard them, no? Another miniscule percentage of members of this forum seem to get highly proprietorial about what they think is or isn't a "suitable" subject of discussion, and waste a lot of hot air on this when they could be posting on subjects they supposedly care more about.

[french frank]

That's an interesting suggestion, Sir V, but one advantage of the "What's New" page is that it enables hosts to keep ahead of the game, thereby nipping rogues posts in the bud very quickly.

Posts can't be removed from What's New unless they're in a forum that isn't visible to the general public (like Diversions - and that's only where the exchanges are judged otiose and likely to bring the forum into disrepute. That doesn't apply to the actual subject matter but a descent into insults).

[Nick Armstrong]

Caliban, perhaps we could have the Politics and Current Affairs threads removed from the "What's New" page. In the same way that the Diversions board is accessible but does not come up when looking at new threads, the same could be done here. This would allow the news and other contentious issues junkies the opportunity to bang on to their hearts' content without the rest of us getting thoroughly peed off by it all, as well as deterring would be posters from contributing to the forum.

I'll take it oop wi' t'Management, brother Velo.

EDIT: she wa' too quick for me...

[Richard Barrett]

Looking at "What's New?" I see that there have been new posts on 37 threads in the last twenty-four hours, four of which are on political subjects. So I still don't understand why that is such a problem.

[Nick Armstrong]

Perhaps they appear to loom disproportionately large, notwithstanding mere numbers

[aeolium]

Though some of the people here complaining about non-musical threads are quite happy to post about refreshments, the weather, trains, badgers etc on Platform 3. I don't complain about that - I'm interested in quite a few of the P3 threads and post there. But I don't quite understand what the problem is with the politics and ideas forums which are by no means the most frequently posted to, and this particular thread is about the relationship between music and politics, which is pretty clear as the developments in Russia show. Not content with kicking the politics discussions down to a basement ghetto, those opposed to them seem to want them eliminated as if they interfere with the pleasure of a private club, a club which is perfectly happy to discuss non-musical matters of its own choosing. Of course, it's up to the creators and administrators of this forum what to allow, but I'd be sorry to see discussion further restricted.

[Richard Barrett]

Perhaps they appear to loom disproportionately large, notwithstanding mere numbers

Well then I would respectfully suggest that the problem is in the eye of the beholder.

[scottycelt]

Has there been a survey showing gay people are more intelligent than straight people?

Don't be silly ... :whistle:

http://calgaryqueerhistory.ca/2013/07/18/gay-men-are-smarter-than-straight-men-so-says-history/

[Flosshilde]

It may have escaped your notice but there are over a thousand members of this forum of which only a miniscule percentage contribute to these threads.

Only a miniscule percentage contribute to any thread.

[jayne lee wilson]

Perhaps because this is a forum dedicated to the discussion of Radio 3 output, and related musical and other arts related subjects. There are other fora out there which are far more suitable for the kinds of discussion you wish to have. It may have escaped your notice but there are over a thousand members of this forum of which only a miniscule percentage contribute to these threads.

Last time I looked, Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky seemed to be rather frequently a part of Radio 3 output. To try to suppress (or hide) this kind of discussion is itself a political act, - even if simply looking the other way whilst harm is done - most especially to artists and thinkers, who threaten The State most by their awareness and defiance of thought-control. Their freedom. But thankyou for (not) reading and (not) responding to post no. 324. If you feel that "political subjects" dominate the forum (which would be very hard to corroborate) then why not start a few "purely musical" posts yourself? Where there's a will...

Richard Barrett, in post no.50 on HS' "View from the Sidelines" thread, made a similar point far more eloquently - but, abstracted from any specific political context (in case you hadn't noticed, LGBT issues ARE political!) it only received positive, sagely-nodding responses. So easy for a musiclover to do that, feel good... and forget all about it the next day.

[ahinton]

Looking at "What's New?" I see that there have been new posts on 37 threads in the last twenty-four hours, four of which are on political subjects. So I still don't understand why that is such a problem.

May I suggest that this might be because there isn't one, other than of the deliberate making of a tiny handful of those with particular agendas and another tiny handful who from time to time get rather tired of the first tiny handful?