Politics sub-forum

[french frank]

Oops! I thought it was open. I didn't move it all to a new forum in order to keep it closed.

It's here.

[amateur51]

This one:

The thread was closed for the time it took me to sort through 400+ posts and switch them over. Then I reopened it. The discussion had long since departed from the original topic and it's not unprecedented to divide threads. I closed one (saying it would be reopened) and opened it again as quickly as I could. So what's the 'concern' about?

Ah! As I said in my original post, my concern was about the way in which 'someone' can ask for a thread to be closed and it happens but I am concerned that the reverse ('someone' asking for a thread to be revived) would not happen. You have since pointed out that I am wrong about its happening on this thread.

I hope that has clarified things

[Serial_Apologist]

Many thanks, french frank.

[french frank]

I hope that has clarified things

It has I didn't realise how long it would take to sort through the posts. Each one post has to be ticked or not (preferably having been read first).

[Serial_Apologist]

It has I didn't realise how long it would take to sort through the posts. Each one post has to be ticked or not (preferably having been read first).

And trying to construct some sense of continuity out of disparate argments from all sides - I can't imagine more of a Payne.

[Resurrection Man]

Rather than pillory FF I think folks would be well advised to bear in mind the sheer amount of work done on our behalf and for which I am grateful.

[amateur51]

Rather than pillory FF I think folks would be well advised to bear in mind the sheer amount of work done on our behalf and for which I am grateful.

Has that happened?

[Serial_Apologist]

Has that happened?

Well, I haven't, deliberately; but, having unintentionally upset at least one person today, and with only one tube of polos remaining for any more trick or treaters, I now realise my inner default relate capability setting must be on the blink.

[french frank]

Has that happened?

I think there was just a misunderstanding when I closed Plebs v Toffs briefly while I sorted out the strands and divided them. This was to stop people adding posts while I was working on it which would have meant I had to go through it again and sort out the later posts. I did make it perfectly clear it was a temporary interruption of service

But, there, much is seen through a glass, darkly ...

[Frances_iom]

..I now realise my inner default relate capability setting must be on the blink.

apparently you either engage the cold rational brain or the warm caring empathic part but not both at same time - see http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-era103012.php

[Sydney Grew]

If the sub-forum was set up specifically for people (of whatever political stripe) to exchange views, I personally would have no problem with removing comments which seemed to me to disrupt such discussion, and putting them somewhere else.

'Frivolous banter' would be judged by . . .

I do approve of this procedure. And my suggestion - for what it is worth - is carefully to lay down four or five rules, which must at all times be both strictly and literally adhered to. That way the moderator (Madame F) need not spend too much time weighing things up and worrying. Even on a first reading she can as she goes simply strike out unworthy phrases and sentences as non-adhering. "On or off topic" is one of the best ones. And another good one is "no personal reflections of any kind on other members." If the rules are laid down in advance no one can possibly complain or argue the point. Very soon the delinquents will simply melt away.

[Serial_Apologist]

Very soon the delinquents will simply melt away.

It would be sad not to have your posts on this forum, SG.