Tom Daley's In Love ...

[amateur51]

Funny how, according to some,the fault is always only on one side. Just take a look back through GG and Amateur's posts on any number of subjects and then think again about exactly who is guilty of abuse.

And your dismissal of carefully constructed arguments with 'typical of the liberal Lefties on this Board'?

If only you would argue but you don't - you offer little or no counter-evidence, counter-argument.

[amateur51]

If they are unable to engage in debate without resorting to insult, foul language- (in GG's case)- or belittlement, that is their problem. They were the same with Simon and Scotty, both of whom have since left the boards. Make of that what you will, but I think it's pretty clear.

This is a disingenuous re-writing of recent history. Neither Simon not Scotty were as defencless nor as wounded as you suggest. To their credit, at least they engaged in debate, providing evidence for their views.

[amateur51]

A weird post.

Makes sense to me - in what way is it 'weird'?

[jean]

I came rather late to this thread, because although I knew a famous sportsperson had come out, I didn't recognise the name.

It looks to me as if there was a perfectly reasonable discussion for 15 posts or so, and then someone (not Mr Pee) declared in effect that the discussion shouldn't be happening at all.

After that, inevitably, the legitimacy or otherwise of the discussion becomes the subject of the discussion, and after that, it can hardly not become personal.

It would be good if, just for once, the people who didn't want to read about certain topics simply didn't read about them.

[ahinton]

I came rather late to this thread, because although I knew a famous sportsperson had come out, I didn't recognise the name.

It looks to me as if there was a perfectly reasonable discussion for 15 posts or so, and then someone (not Mr Pee) declared in effect that the discussion shouldn't be happening at all.

After that, inevitably, the legitimacy or otherwise of the discussion becomes the subject of the discussion, and after that, it can hardly not become personal.

It would be good if, just for once, the people who didn't want to read about certain topics simply didn't read about them.

Fair comment, except for the fact that some people would not discover whether or not or to what extent they might want to read a discussion until they'd done so!...

[MrGongGong]

Fair comment, except for the fact that some people would not discover whether or not or to what extent they might want to read a discussion until they'd done so!...

Indeed
but some people seem to be complaining about posts by people they also claim to be 'ignoring' ?
Which has a 'Life of Brian' ring to it IMV

[ahinton]

Indeed
but some people seem to be complaining about posts by people they also claim to be 'ignoring' ?
Which has a 'Life of Brian' ring to it IMV

Indeed - again, fair comment, though it might seem unclear to some whether the Life of Brian refers to a biography of Havergal of that ilk or of Prof. Ferneyhough - but, as the ventriloquist famously said, one cannot Cleese all of the people all of the time...

[french frank]

It looks to me as if there was a perfectly reasonable discussion for 15 posts or so, and then someone (not Mr Pee) declared in effect that the discussion shouldn't be happening at all.

After that, inevitably, the legitimacy or otherwise of the discussion becomes the subject of the discussion, and after that, it can hardly not become personal.

To be accurate, the comment referred to the presence of a current affairs/item of news on that forum (Platform 3). I said (#27) I would let it run to see the general direction, but when several people expressed the view that it should have been started here in the first place, I moved it. This was not singling out a particular topic of debate to 'remove' - anyone looking at the list of subjects here can see that all sorts of topics are dealt with here.

When there was a suggestion that we should have a Religion and Ethics board, we had a poll: the result was that people didn't want that either - another set of topics on which posts become personal and acrimonious. It's not simply a question of telling people they don't have to read them, it's a matter of House Rules. What people read here they attribute to Friends of Radio 3. Since most people here are not (registered) supporters of FoR3, it seems to me unfair to bring the group into disrepute by their behaviour. Being interested myself in politics and current affairs, I'm disappointed that people are unable to disagree intelligently. But seemingly they can't.

[ahinton]

To be accurate, the comment referred to the presence of a current affairs/item of news on that forum (Platform 3). I said (#27) I would let it run to see the general direction, but when several people expressed the view that it should have been started here in the first place, I moved it. This was not singling out a particular topic of debate to 'remove' - anyone looking at the list of subjects here can see that all sorts of topics are dealt with here.

When there was a suggestion that we should have a Religion and Ethics board, we had a poll: the result was that people didn't want that either - another set of topics on which posts become personal and acrimonious. It's not simply a question of telling people they don't have to read them, it's a matter of House Rules. What people read here they attribute to Friends of Radio 3. Since most people here are not (registered) supporters of FoR3, it seems to me unfair to bring the group into disrepute by their behaviour. Being interested myself in politics and current affairs, I'm disappointed that people are unable to disagree intelligently. But seemingly they can't.

Pertinent and fair points as usual, thanks FF, but surely some people here can disagree intelligently even if some other appear to have difficulty in doing so? For example, I've just disagreed - I hope not unintelligently - with a post from am51 (with whom I rarely find myself in disagreement) but would not have thought it untoward to say so!

[MrGongGong]

What people read here they attribute to Friends of Radio 3. .

Do people REALLY do that ?
Which was the LPO argument when some of it's members wrote to the press about the IPO at the Proms.
Those that DO would be rather naive IMV , do they also think that EVERY word in a newspaper is the opinion of that newspaper ?
Do people really think that the Friends of Radio 3 have an "opinion" about whether Tom Daley is Gay or not ?
Isn't that rather bizarre ?
They might be expected to have one about 16 VS 24 bit
or whether the forthcoming Lachenmann month, when R3 plays nothing but his music, is a good idea or
Surely people are rather more intelligent than that ?
Or is it a case of 'corporate' opinion ? Oxford University seems to manage quite well with a department of Theology AND Prof Dawkins

[Flosshilde]

when several people expressed the view that it should have been started here in the first place, I moved it.

Rather a circular argument. 'This place' only exists because of the abusiveness of some responses & 'discussion' on some threads, so people who don't like a topic aired on Platform 3 can get it sent here by being abusive - almost an invitation for abuse. The fact that this was set up to 'quarantine' abuse somehow implies that normal rules don't apply here.

[teamsaint]

I can't see how anybody could come to this part of the forum thinking that the normal rules don't apply. Its only a click away.

I would like Scotty to come back despite his , er, views.

[french frank]

Do people REALLY do that ?

The impression that people always have is that the forum is some sort of meeting place for Friends of Radio 3, in spite of the disclaimers that it's a 'public' forum. All the same, they think it's mainly FoR3 members ... that isn't to say that they think everything here is official 'policy', but it can give the impression that 'we' are a pretty unpleasant bunch, whereas less than 10% of the forum members have any affiliation with FoR3.

Visitors can see the What's New? list and if there's a topic which has all the bottles flying, the same topic will be semi-permanently at the top of that list, giving the impression that the forum is hugely interested when in fact it's six people and a dog snarling at each other, for weeks and weeks on end. That's why these topics are 'discussed' here, rather than the main forum: to remove them from the What's New? list.

I am more relaxed about the rules on this forum (people who bother to read these threads more or less know the standards to expect), but it doesn't stop people complaining and I'm expected to do something.

[MrGongGong]

OK

I'm reminded of (again ?) a thing in a copy of Rubberneck magazine (which was about free improv in the 1980/90's)

something like .....

Some people are always looking for mistakes. We like to say we have something for everyone so the mistakes in this publication are there for these people.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Do you mean that we should not come to this conclusion; or that we should not be spoken about in such a way that we feel like this?

The latter, which would help to bring about the former.