I'd rather not actually lock this thread unless there's rampant unfairness to Ian going on, which at the moment there isn't.

TF, I'd rather you didn't let it rest if you think I've misunderstood you (as opposed to just having a different opinion on the subject). I'm personally against different hats simply because I feel that wouldn't solve the conflict of interest problem which we will always have (unless we outsource our modding like TOP!) and I'd rather that were out in the open.

As this is now a fait accompli, (I must admit I am very tempted to write a fate accompli having read though these posts) I don't want to extend it any further mainly out of consideration to Ian who no longer has a right of reply, but although it will make no difference, I would like to say that I personally feel that it is a great shame that it has come to this - any community in the end is stronger for its ability to absorb people who have stepped out of line, rather than to bar them when they become uncomfortable.
 
Ian seems quite an extraordinary person in the setting of a wider society where there are so many people it seems who do not want to question things too much as long as they are reasonably comfortable themselves (and I am not holding myself aloof from such behaviour), such people greatly increase the health of any society that they inhabit, I think. His posts have often made me think about things a great deal and consider things in a different way, and I will greatly miss his contributions.

I did think though that at times Ian became incomprehensibly (to me) aggressive towards certain members. From memory, I think if I had been in Ollie's, Baz's, or Richard's shoes on occasions I would have been very upset and would have wanted to tell him to shut the f**k up, and with Richard in particular Ian seemed to want to harshly contradict or criticise him whatever Richard had said, so it seemed like a personal vendetta rather than a genuine wish to argue a point robustly. Under those circumstances some kind of censure would seem understandable as it is clear that that kind of aggression overwhelms a place like this, is unfair on the individual and has to be dealt with in some way. And I don't think that Ollie should feel the need to step down, it must be very difficult to moderate and be completely objective in a situation where somebody has been very rude to you, I don't think it has been done perfectly, but none of us are perfect.

But I am still sorry that it has to be like this. I really wish that he had compromised his manner and personalisation of arguments at times, without compromising his substance, so that it hadn't come to this. I hope that he will be back one day.

Exactly Richard. Although far more cunning than most trolls.

Things He Never Said:

"That's a good point Baz/Ollie/Richard/whoever, I'll have to consider the possibility that you might be right."


I don't.

I've just caught up with this whole thread as I erroneously assumed that its title probably matched the content of Burning Toast?  - or whatever its called - which has no interest for me.

I, too, often found Ian Pace's contributions incomprehensible but I still regret his departure and would like to express, again, my appreciation for his June recital, here in York, of Messiaen's Vingt regards; dynamic, majestic and unforgettable.    Thank you, Ian.

I have with due respect to disagree that it should be locked for this reason, quite simply because Ian merely contributed to this thread (albeit with considerable frequency); he did not initiate it and certain did not own it. It would surely be a case of admitting unnecessary and avoidable defeat to lock a thread on how the other half crunches just because of some of what Ian posted to it and how some others reacted to what he wrote; locking the thread might suggest that Ian has, however unwittingly, succeeded in hijacking it even though he is no longer here to take "credit" for having done so. Or am I misunderstanding something fundamental?...

Although I don't wish to get into board politics, I want to echo every word of this, in case Ian is still reading:

Getting back to the original theme then, the papers are full of the awful catastrophe that has befallen Lehman Brothers.  The repercussions will affect us all right across the board - in other words, all the other halves are going to crunch. 

The cartoon in today's Mail has a former City banker leaning over from an enormous yacht, trying to sell a Big Issue magazine.  It's not really a time to wax whimsical but you get the drift?

A.I.G. will have to be saved at all costs.  It is much more important than Lehmans.  It has dealings in all the Stock markets and if it goes down, I think we all will.  I have been told personally by "those who know" today that it will be Christmas 2009 that will be the worst time.  We're off down the slippery slope now but the worst crunch will apparently be at its lowest point by then.

I think the time to differentiate between those who have and those who don't is over.  This will hit us all.

I agree totally with your entire post, Richard, but I really don't think there is a choice here.  They are going to have to stump up the money somehow by whatever means.  I've no idea how they'll do it, but they're going to have to try.  It's that serious.