OT: Plea for consideration
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Chris Phillips
OT: Plea for consideration
Could people on both sides of the argument about Douglas Richardson's work
please show some consideration, by marking posts that don't contain anything
relevant to medieval genealogy "Off-topic", or "OT", or something?
Or preferably just not post, if it's only a matter of personal insults and
name calling?
Chris Phillips
please show some consideration, by marking posts that don't contain anything
relevant to medieval genealogy "Off-topic", or "OT", or something?
Or preferably just not post, if it's only a matter of personal insults and
name calling?
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Plea for consideration
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:dahmhi$1v4$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
The answer is NO. Insults and nonsense will not be left unanswered by me if
no-one else will take the trouble.
Could people who don't want to read a particular thread stop doping so?
Peter Stewart
news:dahmhi$1v4$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Could people on both sides of the argument about Douglas Richardson's work
please show some consideration, by marking posts that don't contain
anything
relevant to medieval genealogy "Off-topic", or "OT", or something?
Or preferably just not post, if it's only a matter of personal insults and
name calling?
The answer is NO. Insults and nonsense will not be left unanswered by me if
no-one else will take the trouble.
Could people who don't want to read a particular thread stop doping so?
Peter Stewart
-
Peter Stewart
Re: Plea for consideration
I wrote:
That was meant to read "stop doing so", of course, but the typo isn't
quite meaningless - the dopiness of reading on once a thread has turned
galling is beyond my ken.
I have no difficulty saving myself from boredom & inconvenience in this
regard, by leaving messages unopened, and frequently whole threads pass
me by without a murmur.
Is there some problem with this for others that I don't understand?
Peter Stewart
Could people who don't want to read a particular thread stop doping
so?
That was meant to read "stop doing so", of course, but the typo isn't
quite meaningless - the dopiness of reading on once a thread has turned
galling is beyond my ken.
I have no difficulty saving myself from boredom & inconvenience in this
regard, by leaving messages unopened, and frequently whole threads pass
me by without a murmur.
Is there some problem with this for others that I don't understand?
Peter Stewart
-
Chris Phillips
Re: OT: Plea for consideration
Peter Stewart replied:
Let me try again. The problem is that three or four people are currently
posting large numbers of messages containing nothing relevant to genealogy -
only personal insults and name-calling. As is usual, this is being done in
threads that started out on-topic, and have titles like "Nat's Royal Review
in TAG". All I'm asking is that people have the consideration to make it
easy for others to do exactly what you're suggesting - ignore these
messages - by labelling them in some way. But without having to ignore a
"whole thread", that may contain some relevant posts in addition to the
garbage.
One other thing. You assert your right to post off-topic material, and leave
readers to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Admittedly it's no more than a
nuisance to do so, even when the off-topic material isn't indicated in the
subject line - provided only a small number of people behave like this. But
what if everybody took the same line? There would be little point having a
newsgroup for medieval genealogy, because people would be arguing about
every subject under the sun, and the readers would need a dedicated search
engine to pick out the on-topic posts!
Chris Phillips
I have no difficulty saving myself from boredom & inconvenience in this
regard, by leaving messages unopened, and frequently whole threads pass
me by without a murmur.
Is there some problem with this for others that I don't understand?
Let me try again. The problem is that three or four people are currently
posting large numbers of messages containing nothing relevant to genealogy -
only personal insults and name-calling. As is usual, this is being done in
threads that started out on-topic, and have titles like "Nat's Royal Review
in TAG". All I'm asking is that people have the consideration to make it
easy for others to do exactly what you're suggesting - ignore these
messages - by labelling them in some way. But without having to ignore a
"whole thread", that may contain some relevant posts in addition to the
garbage.
One other thing. You assert your right to post off-topic material, and leave
readers to sort out the wheat from the chaff. Admittedly it's no more than a
nuisance to do so, even when the off-topic material isn't indicated in the
subject line - provided only a small number of people behave like this. But
what if everybody took the same line? There would be little point having a
newsgroup for medieval genealogy, because people would be arguing about
every subject under the sun, and the readers would need a dedicated search
engine to pick out the on-topic posts!
Chris Phillips
-
Peter Stewart
Re: OT: Plea for consideration
"Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk> wrote in message
news:daio4q$od7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
I can recall only a few posts that actually fit this description, apart from
the vague impression of someone who is not following the exchanges
attentively.
"On topic" in my view encompasses posts reflecting on the commonsense and
credibility of regular participants who want to claim the attention of the
newsgroup for their opinions or analysis of evidence at other times in other
threads, especially in relation to substantive issues that they are trying
to dodge with gratuitous insults. The indecency and stupidity of some
posters are matters of legitimate interest to anyone who might otherwise
waste time and effort opening their messages from an archive search, for
instance, that can be much more annoying than simply hitting a delete button
for an unwanted current message.
I do no such thing - I am stating that I will post what I will post, right
or wrong, and since people can see my name on a message before they open it,
they have the means available not to BECOME readers of my posts, or of
entire threads if they prefer, in the first place. If for some reason a
person chooses to be a consumer of my words willy-nilly, they must take
their chances on some rough with the smooth. I am not going to filter my
opinions through someone else's before deciding whether to express them.
Quite so - just as it is a nuisance to change subject lines, but I never
think of doing that any more than I think of checking for cross-posts:
Usenet is not my natural environment, and I have better things to do with my
limited attention-span for SGM. In any case, threads sometimes go back from
personal abuse to what you would consider core topics, and some posts will
contain a mixture anyway.
You are exaggerating the frequency and inconvenience - but I wish some
others would speak up more often against the diversionary tactics,
simpering, misrepresentations and obfuscating lies that we see insinuated
into many discussions. You, with a great deal of knowledge and experience in
the subject, might be content to sneer at these flurries as so much mindless
verbiage from both sides, and others may be averse to any ungentle remarks,
but some new readers are joining the forum daily & forming impressions of
trust on the basis of what goes unchallenged here.
I subscribe to the Gordon Hale theory, letting no lie or insult slip by that
might confound anyone reading it, or give undue gratification to a fool
writing it.
Peter Stewart
news:daio4q$od7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter Stewart replied:
I have no difficulty saving myself from boredom & inconvenience in this
regard, by leaving messages unopened, and frequently whole threads pass
me by without a murmur.
Is there some problem with this for others that I don't understand?
Let me try again. The problem is that three or four people are currently
posting large numbers of messages containing nothing relevant to
genealogy -
only personal insults and name-calling.
I can recall only a few posts that actually fit this description, apart from
the vague impression of someone who is not following the exchanges
attentively.
As is usual, this is being done in threads that started out on-topic, and
have titles like "Nat's Royal Review in TAG". All I'm asking is that
people
have the consideration to make it easy for others to do exactly what
you're
suggesting - ignore these messages - by labelling them in some way. But
without having to ignore a "whole thread", that may contain some relevant
posts in addition to the garbage.
"On topic" in my view encompasses posts reflecting on the commonsense and
credibility of regular participants who want to claim the attention of the
newsgroup for their opinions or analysis of evidence at other times in other
threads, especially in relation to substantive issues that they are trying
to dodge with gratuitous insults. The indecency and stupidity of some
posters are matters of legitimate interest to anyone who might otherwise
waste time and effort opening their messages from an archive search, for
instance, that can be much more annoying than simply hitting a delete button
for an unwanted current message.
One other thing. You assert your right to post off-topic material, and
leave
readers to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
I do no such thing - I am stating that I will post what I will post, right
or wrong, and since people can see my name on a message before they open it,
they have the means available not to BECOME readers of my posts, or of
entire threads if they prefer, in the first place. If for some reason a
person chooses to be a consumer of my words willy-nilly, they must take
their chances on some rough with the smooth. I am not going to filter my
opinions through someone else's before deciding whether to express them.
Admittedly it's no more than a nuisance to do so, even when the off-topic
material isn't indicated in the subject line
Quite so - just as it is a nuisance to change subject lines, but I never
think of doing that any more than I think of checking for cross-posts:
Usenet is not my natural environment, and I have better things to do with my
limited attention-span for SGM. In any case, threads sometimes go back from
personal abuse to what you would consider core topics, and some posts will
contain a mixture anyway.
- provided only a small number of people behave like this. But
what if everybody took the same line? There would be little point having a
newsgroup for medieval genealogy, because people would be arguing about
every subject under the sun, and the readers would need a dedicated search
engine to pick out the on-topic posts!
You are exaggerating the frequency and inconvenience - but I wish some
others would speak up more often against the diversionary tactics,
simpering, misrepresentations and obfuscating lies that we see insinuated
into many discussions. You, with a great deal of knowledge and experience in
the subject, might be content to sneer at these flurries as so much mindless
verbiage from both sides, and others may be averse to any ungentle remarks,
but some new readers are joining the forum daily & forming impressions of
trust on the basis of what goes unchallenged here.
I subscribe to the Gordon Hale theory, letting no lie or insult slip by that
might confound anyone reading it, or give undue gratification to a fool
writing it.
Peter Stewart
-
John Brandon
Re: Plea for consideration
Could people who don't want to read a particular thread stop doping so?
This is actually a somewhat-sensible comment by Lord Stewart ... except
I think he meant "doing" rather than "doping."
Although please also stop doping while you're at it.
-
Peter Stewart
Re: OT: Plea for consideration
Gordon Banks wrote:
I don't see it as a personal matter - I don't bother responding every
time Hines claims that I am mentally impaired, for instance, as I don't
care if anyone is foolish enough to believe him. I also don't care if
he or anyone else is satisfied by conflict. The record is not "baited",
and it has more integrity if lies and nonsense are answered. Contrary
to appearances, as I gather from several posters, I don't enjoy these
exchanges, but I won't back away from them as Hines, Brandon,
Richardson and others are afflicted by the delusion that they are
always right, and silence from anyone forced to oppose their blather
only confirms this.
It has no effect on me whatsoever - it's Nat's choice. Part of the
function of my engagement with liars & fools who cast aspersions where
these are not deserved is to relieve others of any need to do the same.
When others respond adequately, I am pleased if there is nothing for me
to add. If more people said what they thought of Hines, Brandon and
others, even these creeps would be mortified.
Peter Stewart
Isn't it possible that allowing yourself to be baited you are giving
just this satisfaction?
I don't see it as a personal matter - I don't bother responding every
time Hines claims that I am mentally impaired, for instance, as I don't
care if anyone is foolish enough to believe him. I also don't care if
he or anyone else is satisfied by conflict. The record is not "baited",
and it has more integrity if lies and nonsense are answered. Contrary
to appearances, as I gather from several posters, I don't enjoy these
exchanges, but I won't back away from them as Hines, Brandon,
Richardson and others are afflicted by the delusion that they are
always right, and silence from anyone forced to oppose their blather
only confirms this.
I'm certainly glad that Nat hasn't responded to all of the
nasty and personal remarks made about him. Does this lower
your estimation of him? It raises my estimation of him.
It has no effect on me whatsoever - it's Nat's choice. Part of the
function of my engagement with liars & fools who cast aspersions where
these are not deserved is to relieve others of any need to do the same.
When others respond adequately, I am pleased if there is nothing for me
to add. If more people said what they thought of Hines, Brandon and
others, even these creeps would be mortified.
Peter Stewart
-
Gordon Banks
Re: OT: Plea for consideration
Isn't it possible that allowing yourself to be baited you are giving
just this satisfaction? I'm certainly glad that Nat hasn't responded to
all of the nasty and personal remarks made about him. Does this lower
your estimation of him? It raises my estimation of him.
just this satisfaction? I'm certainly glad that Nat hasn't responded to
all of the nasty and personal remarks made about him. Does this lower
your estimation of him? It raises my estimation of him.
I subscribe to the Gordon Hale theory, letting no lie or insult slip by that
might confound anyone reading it, or give undue gratification to a fool
writing it.
Peter Stewart
-
Douglas Richardson royala
Re: OT: Plea for consideration
Peter Stewart wrote:
Again, Peter, you are quite wrong about me, delusional in fact. If
you read the posts for the last 24 hours, you will find that I admitted
an error in giving a date in error. So much for "always being right."
Please stop misrepresenting me. You have no right to do so. If you
wish to disagree with me, stick to the facts.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
Contrary to appearances, as I gather from several posters, I don't enjoy
these exchanges, but I won't back away from them as Hines, Brandon,
Richardson and others are afflicted by the delusion that they are
always right, and silence from anyone forced to oppose their blather
only confirms this.
Peter Stewart
Again, Peter, you are quite wrong about me, delusional in fact. If
you read the posts for the last 24 hours, you will find that I admitted
an error in giving a date in error. So much for "always being right."
Please stop misrepresenting me. You have no right to do so. If you
wish to disagree with me, stick to the facts.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: http://www.royalancestry.net
-
Peter Stewart
Re: OT: Plea for consideration
<royalancestry@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1120798220.522708.76080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
You may kid yourself, but not us - you only admitted this error to avoid
answering my question about what it could mean, and this was a case so plain
that an Orwellian farm animal couldn't seek to maintain it.
The matter is also quite insignificant by comparison to the innumerable
howlers that you have refused to admit over years. Do we need a recital of
these?
Peter Stewart
news:1120798220.522708.76080@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Peter Stewart wrote:
Contrary to appearances, as I gather from several posters, I don't enjoy
these exchanges, but I won't back away from them as Hines, Brandon,
Richardson and others are afflicted by the delusion that they are
always right, and silence from anyone forced to oppose their blather
only confirms this.
Peter Stewart
Again, Peter, you are quite wrong about me, delusional in fact. If
you read the posts for the last 24 hours, you will find that I admitted
an error in giving a date in error. So much for "always being right."
Please stop misrepresenting me. You have no right to do so. If you
wish to disagree with me, stick to the facts.
You may kid yourself, but not us - you only admitted this error to avoid
answering my question about what it could mean, and this was a case so plain
that an Orwellian farm animal couldn't seek to maintain it.
The matter is also quite insignificant by comparison to the innumerable
howlers that you have refused to admit over years. Do we need a recital of
these?
Peter Stewart