|
John W
|
 |
« Reply #30 on: 20:22:23, 20-10-2007 » |
|
Ian,
Again I fail to understand what you are posting about, but my conclusion is that once again your aim is to disrupt this forum.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Il Grande Inquisitor
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 20:23:39, 20-10-2007 » |
|
If Ian and John can't settle their differences civilly, I suggest that they adjourn to the Argument area because I can't be bothered to trawl through all of this again.
Hear, hear. Stop the point-scoring and let the votes do the talking. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 20:26:25, 20-10-2007 » |
|
Again I fail to understand what you are posting about, but my conclusion is that once again your aim is to disrupt this forum. That is a ridiculous conclusion. I'm trying as best as I can to ask some serious questions concerning the nature of such forums, what is acceptable, and so on, which are surely important issues in the context of deciding on future moderation? I cannot see what is so difficult to understand about what I'm posting. And I don't want this to be about point-scoring or argument for argument's sake. I'm asking about whether there are assumptions being made about which types of posters this sort of forum should be made primarily to accomodate, and whether others of different perspectives might be excluded in such a process? And more broadly why such a thing need be imposed from above? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Michael
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 20:27:11, 20-10-2007 » |
|
Everyone likes a discussion every now and again, and for the most of it I don't have a problem with the content, but I do generally have a problem with the intellectually combative style with which you tend to conduct yourself. Fair enough - I don't see it as combative, just that I think one should be able to express one's views, whatever they are, and enter into a debate with others, even if their views are diametrically opposed. Sydney Grew's views on many things are at the opposite end of the spectrum to my own, but they force me to sharpen up my own thinking on various matters, and I value that. And I have no problem with SimonSagt's expressing his views, either. It's all far too easy simply to discuss only with those one agrees with on most fundamentals. I have found, more widely (including in situations where I'm not personally involved), that those whose opinions tend to run counter to a prevailing consensus are perceived as 'combative' or 'difficult', whereas those closer to that consensus less so. A lot of what seem relatively innocous views on here would be perceived as very contentious on r.m.c.r., say. It's often less about the style as about how much one is expected, in terms of one's views, to 'fit in'. And if the latter is a demand for posting on a forum, that can be extremely limited. With respect Ian, I have no interest in the majority of your postings, do not deem alot of them contentious, and have no opinion on the actual subject matter whichever way the consensus lay. However, as I stated earlier, it is the way in which you conduct yourself which leaves itself open to complaints. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 20:29:53, 20-10-2007 » |
|
With respect Ian, I have no interest in the majority of your postings, do not deem alot of them contentious, and have no opinion on the actual subject matter whichever way the consensus lay. However, as I stated earlier, it is the way in which you conduct yourself which leaves itself open to complaints. That's perfectly fair enough; I would simply ask on what basis the complaints are being made, and whether those are reasonable grounds for complaint. But maybe we should do that in another thread. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
MT Wessel
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 20:30:20, 20-10-2007 » |
|
... but my conclusion is that once again your aim is to disrupt this forum. Sorry John but nay, nay and thrice nay. Lets have some self moderation here  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
lignum crucis arbour scientiae
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 20:33:15, 20-10-2007 » |
|
Ian,
Again I fail to understand what you are posting about, but my conclusion is that once again your aim is to disrupt this forum.
John W
TIME OUT !! This thread is supposed to be about voting in a new Moderator, not having a cyberspace conker match  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 20:38:39, 20-10-2007 » |
|
I think the point of the upcoming poll is to establish what kind of moderation Members wish to have. John has made his opinions on this matter quite clear, and so have Ollie and I. I'm sure Ron also would if asked.
Only being interested in taking part in a democratic process if one's favourite undeclared candidate were taking part doesn't betoken much faith in that process, but would rather tend to imply that personal issues are playing a central role.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 20:39:22, 20-10-2007 » |
|
Oh. Sorry Mort. I was just leaving.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 20:39:59, 20-10-2007 » |
|
I agree Mort so why is the 'agenda' of this forum being questioned on THIS thread? Why should the owners of this forum see its reason for being changed when the (silent) majority of the forum are very content with it?
I took the action I did two weeks ago to end all this.
John W
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #40 on: 20:45:40, 20-10-2007 » |
|
Only being interested in taking part in a democratic process if one's favourite undeclared candidate were taking part doesn't betoken much faith in that process, but would rather tend to imply that personal issues are playing a central role. The poll was only announced this morning, and there are sure to be many posters who haven't seen it yet, some of whom might be encouraged to throw their hats in the ring if they have some prior support? It's not a question of 'only being interested in taking part in a democratic process' given certain conditions, it's about under which conditions one would be interested in re-joining such a forum. And the electorate here is only made up of those who are already registered (the majority of which post not at all or hardly ever) - what about the issue of other future people who might be attracted to joining here or otherwise? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Morticia
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 20:53:55, 20-10-2007 » |
|
I agree Mort so why is the 'agenda' of this forum being questioned on THIS thread? Why should the owners of this forum see its reason for being changed when the (silent) majority of the forum are very content with it?
I took the action I did two weeks ago to end all this.
John W
John, the action that you took two weeks ago has, unfortunately, brought us to this situation. As far as questioning why the `agenda` of this board is being questioned "on THIS thread", I would have thought that it was an appropriate venue. I am somewhat baffled as to how you have ascertained that the "(silent) majority of the forum are very content with it) if they are, er, silent. Are you making the assumption that silence equals agreement? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Bryn
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 20:54:10, 20-10-2007 » |
|
I agree Mort so why is the 'agenda' of this forum being questioned on THIS thread? Why should the owners of this forum see its reason for being changed when the (silent) majority of the forum are very content with it?
I took the action I did two weeks ago to end all this.
John W
So you say, John. So you say. A very effective and constuctive decision it has turned to to be, eh? Resorting to claiming the support of a silent majority has a particularly nasty taint to it, for me. What next, the poll does not go your way so you simply ignore it again? Sorry, but given you reaction to the most recent poll here, any claim on your part to represent a majority has a very hollow ring to it. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
« Reply #43 on: 20:54:23, 20-10-2007 » |
|
I must be a bit dim, but there can only be one reason as to why 2 people who spend most of their time objecting to and criticising other people's opinions should want to come and tell us all what to do...
They think their thoughts and statements are better than ours.
Is this so? - -Think about it ... do we want these men telling us what to think?
Bring back John and Michael I say.
A
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Well, there you are.
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 20:56:17, 20-10-2007 » |
|
You are equally free to express your own views on the type of board you'd like, and the style of moderation, A.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
