AAM Moderators gone right wing?

[fobs]

Actually I think the subtle prodding described above done, on a consistent basis, particularly in situation where it is clearly unnecessary IS IMPOLITE and has a far more damaging effect than an occasional heated discussion.

I would agree with the above stateemnt. I might not often share the same opinion on things as Daltonr but have found that iover the last year especially that EVERY thread seems ro be disected by the same contributors and they seem to reach the literal meaning of a sentence rather than what was obviously meant.

It has definately put me off contributing to a lot of threads but I still read them and do get a lot of information from them.

Some people are better at debating than others and this shouldn't preclude people from contributing that may not be as articukate as others. If every sentence you write is disected in great detail it puts you off contributing (in my opinion!)

I feel when someone expresses an opinion they are entitled to it but if they express something as a fact then they should back it up. I would disagree with a lot of oeople's opinion's on the rip-off Ireland threads but still think they are entitled to their opinions on these threads.

 

[ClubMan]

There is also a double standard at play here.
The following from Clubman:
...

Why would Clubman have been surprised to have his OPINION queried????
If you read the thread I wasn't even challenging the validity of the opinion, I was curious about the source of it. I accepted that it was a perfectly valid opinion about something that was obviously subjective.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=104707&postcount=40

In the post that you linked to Brendan correctly put me in my place for posting that comment. I was completely wrong in that case to complain about being challenged especially when I do the same to others. We all make mistakes so I hope that single comment isn't going to be held against me and used as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy on my part or the moderators as a group? Hopefully this clears that one up and shows that there are no double standards at play here.

This issue is a relatively new phenomenon, it is far more prevelent now than it was 2 to 3 years ago. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone. It was around the time of Clubman's return after his brief time away. I'm not trying to personalise this or blame anyone, I'm just trying to give a timeline that we can all relate to.

Funny way not to personalise it when you seem to be holding me largely/mostly responsible for the trend of vigorously challenging people on certain topics to back up their arguments with facts/evidence. In any case I don't feel that my approach to contributing the AAM has changed significantly over the period to which you refer but, as ever, if you have links that suggest otherwise feel free to post them.

Actually I think the subtle prodding described above done, on a consistent basis, particularly in situation where it is clearly unnecessary IS IMPOLITE and has a far more damaging effect than an occasional heated discussion.

Again - when such questioning is unnecessary may not be obvious in all cases or to the same people at the same time. As I've said before many people are happy to believe in RoI, for example, so they might consider questioning the actual existence of such a phenomenon to be redundant nit picking and semantics, whereas I obviously don't. They will see repeated requests for evidence to back their arguments up simply as an annoyance or an attempt to deflect the discussion from the real issues while others would see it as necessary to get back to basics and not simply assume the existence of RoI a priori and only argue on from that position. The same goes for many other discussions where people may be happy to think that they are thinking about the issues when they have, in fact, just adopted some canned line on the matter.

But that's just an OPINION. Whether or not It's right can only be determined by finding out what AAM posters think. Hopefully this thread miht give us an answer.

Actually the original thread was about a specific issue - the alleged right wing bias and unwarranted (?) moderation/censorship of threads by moderators. However Lemurz has still not responded to requests for evidence supporting his argument and I guess that the discussion has widened out to other more general issues. The issues that you raise above are more about the style and approach of certain individuals who might happen to be moderators as opposed to any alleged views (e.g. right wing) or actions (e.g. unwarranted moderation/censorship) attributable to them/us.

I still maintain that as long as the contributions are made within the letter and spirit of the posting guidelines then the fact that some people might not like aspects of them (e.g. having their views challenged and being asked to present facts/evidence to back them up) then that's just a personal preference/opinion alright and not necessarily indicative of any problem with the bulletin board or its operation.

 

[ClubMan]

I would agree with the above stateemnt. I might not often share the same opinion on things as Daltonr but have found that iover the last year especially that EVERY thread seems ro be disected by the same contributors and they seem to reach the literal meaning of a sentence rather than what was obviously meant.

I am pretty sure that this level of dissection/debate has not been seen in every thread in the last year. When you say that "every thread seems to be dissected by the same contributors..." my guess is that you actually mean "some". This is the sort of sweeping generalisation that needs to be challenged in order for people not to get away with erroneous claims. At the risk of yet again upsetting those who don't like being asked for supporting evidence if you have links that prove your point and refute mine then feel free to post them.

It has definately put me off contributing to a lot of threads but I still read them and do get a lot of information from them.

So you admit that the threads have been useful even in spite of the detailed analysis that they contain? Maybe they would have been less useful if people were not challenging each other on various points and arguments?

Some people are better at debating than others and this shouldn't preclude people from contributing that may not be as articukate as others. If every sentence you write is disected in great detail it puts you off contributing (in my opinion!)

Articulateness is great but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. However having a meaningful and consistent argument certainly is and where somebody cannot argue their point and back it up then it suggests that there is some flaw in the point of view. That is what discussion is all about. Do people really think that we should not strive for accuracy and truth?

I feel when someone expresses an opinion they are entitled to it but if they express something as a fact then they should back it up. I would disagree with a lot of oeople's opinion's on the rip-off Ireland threads but still think they are entitled to their opinions on these threads.

And people are entitled to challenge them on these opinions. So what's the problem here folks?

I think we're going around in circles yet again.

 

[fobs]

by clubman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carpenter
What does "Argos Extra" stand for


Is any help?
Quote:
“Argos Extra has been trialled in a select number of stores for a number of months and now is the right time for us to launch it in the Republic of Ireland,” added Jeff. “It offers customers a major increase in choice through new and extended ranges, offering an additional 4,000 products to the usual 13,000 available in a traditional Argos store. Extra ranges include sport and leisure products such as golf and fishing as well as arts and crafts.

don't tell me this was posted for any other reason than to piss off the contributor asking the question. This is an example of taking a literal meaning to a question you obviously knew did not require the answer you contributed!

 

[ClubMan]

Believe it or not I was trying to be helpful there since I assumed that Carpenter genuinely did want to know more about Argos Extra as he ask this and especially because the post was in a forum other than Letting Off Steam. His query seemed to point to some confusion about what Argos Extra goods and outlets were (as opposed to "ordinary" Argos stock) and what the ordering logistics were. I simply posted the link in case it was of any use in clarifying some of the confusion. I presume that Carpenter's follow up reply was sarcastic but if my feedback was misplaced then all that was needed was a simple acknowledgement and clarification of what precisely he was looking for or, failing that, no response at all. If you really think that I post just to piss people off then that's not my problem.

Ironically this is yet another case of somebody jumping to a seemingly "obvious" conclusion (i.e. my motivation in posting) that is fallacious.

Anyway, keep the links coming that supposedly back up your arguments.

 

[daltonr]

We all make mistakes so I hope that single comment isn't going to be held against me and used as some sort of evidence of a conspiracy on my part or the moderators as a group? Hopefully this clears that one up and shows that there are no double standards at play here.

On the one and only time that I questioned your opinion you reacted that way. Given that the prodding and questioning is one-way, we can't know for sure if a double standard is at play. The sample size is too small, but one out of one doesn't look good.

Funny way not to personalise it when you seem to be holding me largely/mostly responsible for the trend of vigorously challenging people on certain topics to back up their arguments with facts/evidence.

Actually I've been using Rainyday as an example throughout this thread. Have you got any evidence to back up your claim that I'm holding you largely/mostly responsible????

In any case I don't feel that my approach to contributing the AAM has changed significantly over the period to which you refer but, as ever, if you have links that suggest otherwise feel free to post them.

There are only posts in Letting Off Steam back to 2004. I don't have time to examine all of your contributions, but I checked about a dozen threads and could not find any nit-picking contributions by you or any of the other mods of the type we're discussing here.

I did find this thread which is a sort of blast at a wide number of issues. There are lots of claims, opinions, etc, unsuported by any evidence, and in your contribution you failed to ask for any evidence. Compare this with similar posts recently and see if things have changed.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=3267

Interestingly without the nit picking that thread ended pretty quickly, was carried out in good humour, and didn't descend into heated discussion.

They will see repeated requests for evidence to back their arguments up simply as an annoyance or an attempt to deflect the discussion from the real issues while others would see it as necessary to get back to basics and not simply assume the existence of RoI a priori and only argue on from that position. The same goes for many other discussions where people may be happy to think that they are thinking about the issues when they have, in fact, just adopted some canned line on the matter.

The Issue with the ROI threads is not that you asked for evidence of Rip-Offs. That was perfectly acceptable since you disagreed, and provided your own evidence to the contrary.

The problem with the ROI threads was that when people put forward examples of Rip-Offs you steadfastly refused to accept the commonly accepted definition of a Rip-Off and tried to force people to accept your minority definition of it.

In other words we were having two different discussions. One side was talking about Value, the other was talking about Honesty, and as a result each side was ignoring the other side's points and repeating their own. A recipe for disaster.

I would love a discussion about value for money and another separate discussion about honesty. But they are two different topics. I had two examples this week of absolutely astounding value for money that I would love to discuss.

This is the sort of sweeping generalisation that needs to be challenged in order for people not to get away with erroneous claims.

Much like when I say there are some problems with Ireland and I'm repeatedtly told that I think EVERYTHING is wrong with Ireland. Or when I say some things are good in the USA and I'm told that I think EVERYTHING is great in the USA. The fact that bad value can be found somewhere in Seattle is supposed to undermine my entire argument. Even when I correct people these generalizations continue.

Do people really think that we should not strive for accuracy and truth?

Let's not try to turn this into a discussion of whether or not you are right to test peoples opinions. The Question is whether it's being overdone. And whether overdoing it has a negative effect.

We've left the Right/Left issue behind. It's interesting that Rainyday assured us he was Left of Center as if that was somehow better. As I said before we all veer Left and Right on lots of issues, I don't believe either side is better than the other. As you move to the extremes on either side of an issue you are heading in the wrong direction.

Do AAM moderators or posters in general display Right or Left wing views on some issues? I don't know. So what if they do? By and large there are very few posts that are extreme and that's the only thing that would concern me.

-Rd

 

[casiopea]

Its a sensitive subject.

Pointing fingers at moderators/administrators is unfair given the time that they are spending running this site. That said constructive critism is a good thing. Its keeping it constuctive and not reducing to bickering where this gets hard.

Personally I feel that the atmosphere/mood has changed dramatically over the last 6 months (Ive been around for 3 years now I think). I also feel, unfortunately, a "them and us" feeling has started to develop and quite frequently I can predict how a thread is going to end up (ie locked). I personally try to veer away from ping-pong replying and cutting up posts analyzing every statement. Ive tried it, it doesnt work for me and style wise I find it unnecessarily aggressive. That said what works for me doesnt necessarily work for someone else.

Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree (and stick to posting guidelines of course!).

cas.

 

[ClubMan]

On the one and only time that I questioned your opinion you reacted that way.

Was that the only time that you ever questioned my opinion? I suspect not.

Actually I've been using Rainyday as an example throughout this thread. Have you got any evidence to back up your claim that I'm holding you largely/mostly responsible????

Yes - the following seems to me to imply that I am somehow largely or solely responsible for the phenomenon:

This issue is a relatively new phenomenon, it is far more prevelent now than it was 2 to 3 years ago. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone. It was around the time of Clubman's return after his brief time away. I'm not trying to personalise this or blame anyone, I'm just trying to give a timeline that we can all relate to.

There are only posts in Letting Off Steam back to 2004. I don't have time to examine all of your contributions, but I checked about a dozen threads and could not find any nit-picking contributions by you or any of the other mods of the type we're discussing here.

So this alleged nit-picking by me and other contributors (moderators) might not be as widespread as people are assuming?

I did find this thread which is a sort of blast at a wide number of issues. There are lots of claims, opinions, etc, unsuported by any evidence, and in your contribution you failed to ask for any evidence. Compare this with similar posts recently and see if things have changed.
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=3267

Looks like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Are you now claiming that lack of nit-picking points to some sort of problem? You might have a point if I had made any substantive contribution to that thread but as you can see all I posted was a harmless quip about XXXAnother PersonXXX. As such I was not actively involved in the discussion so I don't see that you can infer anything from my lack of questioning.

Interestingly without the nit picking that thread ended pretty quickly, was carried out in good humour, and didn't descend into heated discussion.

It looks like it didn't really take off or reach any useful conclusions to me. I'm not sure why you seem to assume a priori that detailed questioning and analysis in that thread might necessarily have been to its detriment?

The Issue with the ROI threads is not that you asked for evidence of Rip-Offs. That was perfectly acceptable since you disagreed, and provided your own evidence to the contrary.

The problem with the ROI threads was that when people put forward examples of Rip-Offs you steadfastly refused to accept the commonly accepted definition of a Rip-Off and tried to force people to accept your minority definition of it.

OK - so we're back to personalising the issue I see, fair enough. If you read those threads you will see that I was not the only person who did not accept the concept of "rip-off" presented by some people (e.g. the infamous mixed grill for €15). Even if I was not then I still reserve the right to argume my case and challenge others to argue theirs. I'm not sure how I am supposed to have attempted to "force" people to accept anything. I obviously stated and restated my views and opinions but if you think that I was the only person guilty of repetition then you should go back and read those threads again.

In other words we were having two different discussions. One side was talking about Value, the other was talking about Honesty, and as a result each side was ignoring the other side's points and repeating their own. A recipe for disaster.

I don't agree with your analysis and I don't agree that the threads were a disaster at all.

I would love a discussion about value for money and another separate discussion about honesty. But they are two different topics. I had two examples this week of absolutely astounding value for money that I would love to discuss.

If people want a discussion about value for money or honesty then they are free to do so. If they post about "rip-off Ireland", call things like high prices rip-offs, blame most or all of our alleged ills in Ireland on such a phenomenon, claim that our taxes are too high etc. then it is perfectly valid for others who disagree to challenge them.

Much like when I say there are some problems with Ireland and I'm repeatedtly told that I think EVERYTHING is wrong with Ireland. Or when I say some things are good in the USA and I'm told that I think EVERYTHING is great in the USA. The fact that bad value can be found somewhere in Seattle is supposed to undermine my entire argument. Even when I correct people these generalizations continue.

Just for the record I don't think that I ever accused you of this.

Let's not try to turn this into a discussion of whether or not you are right to test peoples opinions. The Question is whether it's being overdone. And whether overdoing it has a negative effect.

I don't think that it is being overdone and, as such, I certainly don't plan to change my contribution style so I guess that people can live with it, ignore me, (counter) challenge me or find another board that is more tolerant of half baked arguments and fuzzy logic.

We've left the Right/Left issue behind. It's interesting that Rainyday assured us he was Left of Center as if that was somehow better. As I said before we all veer Left and Right on lots of issues, I don't believe either side is better than the other. As you move to the extremes on either side of an issue you are heading in the wrong direction.

I don't think that he implied that it was better (although I guess that he would probably believe that). He was simply nailing his well known political allegiances and views to the mast. Also he never claimed that he was extreme left and I have no idea if he is or not but seeing that he's a Labour Party member I would doubt it.

Do AAM moderators or posters in general display Right or Left wing views on some issues? I don't know. So what if they do? By and large there are very few posts that are extreme and that's the only thing that would concern me.

I totally agree and this dispenses with half of Lemurz's original complaint. I don't understand why you would be concerned about the alleged lack of extreme posts though? Maybe you can explain?

 

[ClubMan]

That said constructive critism is a good thing.

I totally agree.

Personally I feel that the atmosphere/mood has changed dramatically over the last 6 months (Ive been around for 3 years now I think). I also feel, unfortunately, a "them and us" feeling has started to develop and quite frequently I can predict how a thread is going to end up (ie locked).

You mean "them and us" as in "moderators and other contributors" or some other groupings? I don't feel that there's any "them and us" feeling between moderators and everybody else to be honest but maybe I'm wrong. In fact - not too long ago I felt that there was more of this between individual moderators in the public forums than between anybody else. Perhaps some people misread robust discussion with rudeness and personal animosity some of the time?

I personally try to veer away from ping-pong replying and cutting up posts analyzing every statement. Ive tried it, it doesnt work for me and style wise I find it unnecessarily aggressive. That said what works for me doesnt necessarily work for someone else.

Indeed - I don't understand why some people term such an approach "aggressive" at all. I think that quoting is a great way to maintain accuracy and address specific points made by another poster.

Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree (and stick to posting guidelines of course!).

I agree!

 

[daltonr]

Yes - the following seems to me to imply that I am somehow largely or solely responsible for the phenomenon:

I SPECIFICALLY said I refered to your return to help give a reference point in time not to blame you personally.

So this alleged nit-picking by me and other contributors (moderators) might not be as widespread as people are assuming?

The point I was making is that it has gotten worse. I compared threads in 2004 with threads today. You asked for evidence when I suggested the problem is getting worse.

Looks like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Are you now claiming that lack of nit-picking points to some sort of problem?

I'm claiming that the same points made today meet with nit-picking that they didn't in the past. I'm not claiming anything else. You asked for something other than opinion that the tone on AAM has changed.

OK - so we're back to personalising the issue I see, fair enough.

If you want me to give quotes then it's going to appear personalised. I have to quote someone. I have tried to keep this discussion to the wider issue, If I am forced by your demands for evidence to find quotes then I'm sorry if that makes you feel personally attacked. I've also quoted Rainyday.

I don't agree with your analysis and I don't agree that the threads were a disaster at all.

You don't agree that one side of the debate seemed preoccupied with whether or not there was dishonesty, theft etc. And the other side was preoccupied with whether there was good/bad value. I'm sorry but we'll have to agree to differ on that.

And a thread which results in a long time poster being called a Troll by a moderator is a disaster to my mind. Again we'll have to agree to differ. Perhaps I need to stick to the literal meaning of disaster.

If they post about "rip-off Ireland", call things like high prices rip-offs, blame most or all of our alleged ills in Ireland on such a phenomenon, claim that our taxes are too high etc. then it is perfectly valid for others who disagree to challenge them.

When people are talking about Value, it's perfectly acceptable to disagree and say that in your opinion the normal experience in Ireland is one of receiving GOOD VALUE.
You gave some examples of cheap Pint's and cheap Meals. Fine.

Let's have a discussion about whether your examples are the exception or the Norm.

Let's not waste time discussing something that no-one claimed in the first place. i.e. that Rip-Off Ireland is about Dishonesty. If you wan't to have that discussion fine. But others were trying to have a discussion about Value for Money.

Just for the record I don't think that I ever accused you of this.

I mentioned Singapore, clarified that I didn't think it was Utopia, and you found something wrong with it and suggested it wasn't the Utopia I thought it was.

I mentioned America and heard from Rainyday about a restaurant on top of a skyscraper in Seattle. As if one example of Bad Value somehoe negated my point.

I repeatedly corrected people who claimed I thought everything was wrong with Ireland and as recently as a few days ago heard the same claim from Brendan.

Again and again I stated that Ireland is a better place now than it was in the 80's but I was repeatedly told that "I'd obviously prefer to be back in the 80's".

I have tried to have a discussion about the Normal day to day experience in Ireland compared with other countries, and It is impossible, because those who disagree continue to try to use isolated instances to bolster their case.

It's like telling people to put all their money into Lotto tickets on the basis that individual cases can be found where someone became a millionaire. If a financial institution were this selective we'd all be writing to IFSRA. Let's stick to the average experience.

I don't understand why you would be concerned about the alleged lack of extreme posts though? Maybe you can explain?

I would be concerned if there were Extreme posts. One thing Ireland has going for it is that people aren't nailing their colours to the extremes on most issues. It's interesting in the US to listen to radio stations that are extreme liberal or extreme conservative, but overall I think when a society moves to the extremes it's bad.

If I started seeing a lot of extreme posts on AAM it would concern me as it would suggest a move in the thinking of Irish people as a whole.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

And a thread which results in a long time poster being called a Troll by a moderator is a disaster to my mind.

Just to clarify to those who are not familiar with this thread I was not the moderator in question here.

Let's have a discussion about whether your examples are the exception or the Norm.

Sorry - I don't understand.

If you want me to give quotes then it's going to appear personalised. I have to quote someone. I have tried to keep this discussion to the wider issue, If I am forced by your demands for evidence to find quotes then I'm sorry if that makes you feel personally attacked. I've also quoted Rainyday.

You did not quote me above you said:

In fact I can pretty much pinpoint the time when it changed from being an occasional and usually well targeted trait of Clubman's to being an overused annoyance for everyone.

... which seems to imply that I am the main or sole source of this "annoyance" ...

There are only posts in Letting Off Steam back to 2004. I don't have time to examine all of your contributions, but I checked about a dozen threads and could not find any nit-picking contributions by you or any of the other mods of the type we're discussing here.

... which implies that my detailed examination of certain topics elsewhere is "nit picking" ...

The problem with the ROI threads was that when people put forward examples of Rip-Offs you steadfastly refused to accept the commonly accepted definition of a Rip-Off and tried to force people to accept your minority definition of it.

... which alleges that I attempted to coerce people into some sort of submission etc.

All of which are simply wrong. By all means quote me - just don't misrepresent me or tar me with an inappropriate brush.

Let's not waste time discussing something that no-one claimed in the first place. i.e. that Rip-Off Ireland is about Dishonesty. If you wan't to have that discussion fine. But others were trying to have a discussion about Value for Money.

Rip-off implies some level of dishonesty, deceit, fraud etc. If people are going to use that term then discussion of these issues is relevant. I don't like the seeming implication that "others were trying to have a discussion" but were somehow stymied or inconvenienced by others who contributed to the thread and deflected from its "true" purpose. But maybe I'm misreading you. All contributions to that thread were valid in my opinion and I don't see what legitimate complaints anybody can have about the way that the discussion developed.

I mentioned Singapore, clarified that I didn't think it was Utopia, and you found something wrong with it and suggested it wasn't the Utopia I thought it was.

...

Yes - but I never accused you of claiming that everything was wrong or that nothing was good in Ireland. That's the point that I was making above in case others mistakenly assumed that I was the moderator or contributor in question who said this to you.

I would be concerned if there were Extreme posts.

OK - I get you now.

If I started seeing a lot of extreme posts on AAM it would concern me as it would suggest a move in the thinking of Irish people as a whole.

Personally I would not be inclined to extrapolate from AAM to the views of the population as a whole but that's just me...

 

[RainyDay]

I'm sorry Rainyday, I don't buy it.

That's grand so, 'cos I'm not selling it. Seriously, I really have no interest in whether you 'buy it' or not. I've explained my approach and my rationale. It's my approach and my rationale. You can take it or leave it. You can engage with me, or ignore me if you wish. There is more than one way to approach a bulletin board discussion than RDalton's 'Call it & Move On' (patent pending) approach.

If you think that all you are doing is exploring issues then I suggest you have a good long think about whether your style of exploring does more harm than good.

Aw shucks, Pa. Should I stand in the corner & wear a pointy hat with 'D' on it while I'm having this good long think? Can I still go to the hoedown on Friday with the other Waltons, or do I have to sleep in the barn again? Or perhaps you'd go & have a good long think as to whether patronising other posters is a sensible way to progress a debate.

It's interesting that Rainyday assured us he was Left of Center as if that was somehow better.

Yet another failed attempt to get inside my head! It was nothing to do with better or worse. It was simply to point out the fallacy in the original assumption that disagreeing with ROI stuff implied a right-wing position.

I personally try to veer away from ping-pong replying and cutting up posts analyzing every statement. Ive tried it, it doesnt work for me and style wise I find it unnecessarily aggressive.

This is probably the most sensible comment by anyone (myself included) on this thread. [And yes, I am aware of the irony]

 

[ClubMan]

Sorry - I only noticed these comments now (undelining is mine):

I'm sorry Rainyday, I don't buy it. I agree noone is out to get me. But on that other thread you are still quibbling about the bleeding obvious.

I don't buy the "Exploring the topic" line. I can understand you wanting to explore Ronan's statistics, I'm interested in that too as I've mentioned, but why exactly do you want to explore whether or not driver behaviour causes accidents? What does it add to the discussion to continue quibbling about the bleeding obvious?

Even when I wasted my time quoting you figures you characterised a conclusion I drew as quesswork. Again bleeding obvious stuff, but I had to yet again go and get you further statistics. All to show that innapropriate driving in bad conditions causes some deaths.

If anything is inappropriate, aggressive, impolite or prone to get peoples' backs up it seems to me that it is this sort of flippancy rather than detailed examination of evidence and robust discussions of the issues.

If you think that all you are doing is exploring issues then I suggest you have a good long think about whether your style of exploring does more harm than good. Apart from yourself and Clubman and to a lesser extend Brendan, there's very little support for that style.

Even if that is true what of it? There is no reason for everybody to adhere to any sort of homogenous posting style other than that they stick within the posting guidelines. As it happens there are other contributors who are willing to engage in detailed examinations of the issues so it's incorrect to make out that this is some quirk of the above triumvirate alone.

 

[ClubMan]

This is probably the most sensible comment by anyone (myself included) on this thread. [And yes, I am aware of the irony]

I disagree that quoting and responding to specific parts of a previous post is in any aggressive of itself. As I have said I find it a very efficient and clear way to address points that have been raised and which require discussion.

 

[podgerodge]

Rip-off implies some level of dishonesty, deceit, fraud etc.

In your opinion!

 

[stuart]

I disagree that quoting and responding to specific parts of a previous post is in any aggressive of itself. As I have said I find it a very efficient and clear way to address points that have been raised and which require discussion.

Yes it is (efficient that is)

But quoting every sentence of a previous post is a bit overkill

I do not think personal attacks on mods or members is the way forward but in this thread Clubman you have posted 14/35 times (which includes sometimes posting twice in a row) and there have been 10 other posters in total (including 2 other moderators)(FACT: 40% of posts on this thread, prior to this one)

BTW, I agree with a lot of your points
I just don't like the constant requesting of facts for every single assertion on every single post

I have stopped posting in the non-tecnichal forums for this point, as I posted earlier, and wouldn't dream of entering any sort of debate unless I was to take a week of work to keep up

I decided this a couple of months ago and I thought it was just me, but maybe there are other people who have stopped posting in some forums that also agree with DaltonR

I have only been contributing to AAM for about 18 months so maybe this point comes up every now and again and people learn to live with it

This is not a personal attack but meant as constructive critcism as I'll probably go back to ignoring the non-financial forums anyway

stuart@buyingtolet.ie

 

[podgerodge]

Re: AAM Moderators gone right wing

But of course the problem is that when we leave something which is offensive, someone else responds negatively to the post and next thing we have World War III on our hands. ".

Was it really that bad?

But as I would point out to Lemurz, if we have become too right wing or heavy handed, there is no obligation on him to continue contributing to Askaboutmoney. He will be able to express himself much more freely on p45.net and boards.ie where, except on the Irish Skeptics Society board, he will be able to make all sorts of generalizations and accusations, without being asked to justify himself.

I'm getting the impression (but please don't ask me to back it up with facts!) that there is a lot of this (from numerous sources) 'If you don't like it go elsewhere' recently.
But it's your site and we do have a choice so I suppose I can't argue with that.

but maybe there are other people who have stopped posting in some forums that also agree with DaltonR

I'll probably go back to ignoring the non-financial forums anyway

The technical forums can also be satisfying if you make sure you don't post opinions, only fact!

 

[daltonr]

... which seems to imply that I am the main or sole source of this "annoyance" ...

And the circle starts again. FOR THE THIRD TIME. I did not and do not blame you or think you are wholly or mostly responsible. I made sure to specifically point this out (TWICE) so that no-one could take that interpretation from my remarks. If you choose to stop reading at the point where you stopped quoting I can't be held responsible.

You know what. I can't keep doing this. I've had enough.
I've now got 3 posts from the Clubman/Rainyday tag team and somewhere along the way I was apparently patronising. So I think this might be a good time to back away from this thread.

It's an interesting topic, and I'd love to hear the views of people other than myself clubman and rainyday. But I don't think continuing the current debate between the 3 of us is leading anywhere good.

-Rd

 

[ClubMan]

But quoting every sentence of a previous post is a bit overkill

Who does that?

I do not think personal attacks on mods or members is the way forward but in this thread Clubman you have posted 14/35 times (which includes sometimes posting twice in a row) and there have been 10 other posters in total (including 2 other moderators)(FACT: 40% of posts on this thread, prior to this one)

So what? Since much of the criticism inherent in many of the posts here is directed at me (among others) I am simply exercising my right to reply and defend and explain my contributions to AAM. Everybody else is also free to contribute as often or as seldom as they feel appropriate.

BTW, I agree with a lot of your points
I just don't like the constant requesting of facts for every single assertion on every single post

Do you mean in general or in this thread specifically? If you mean in this thread specifically then I will certainly not apologise for or desist from challenging people here to back their allegations up because, by and large, I believe that they are unfounded. If you mean in general then I believe that it is patently obvious that I do not constantly request facts for every single assertion in every single post on AAM.

I decided this a couple of months ago and I thought it was just me, but maybe there are other people who have stopped posting in some forums that also agree with DaltonR

Maybe - it's everybody's prerogative to contribute or just read/lurk. I don't think that individuals' decisions not to contribute can be used against people who continue to do so.

I have only been contributing to AAM for about 18 months so maybe this point comes up every now and again and people learn to live with it

Yes - it does.

This is not a personal attack but meant as constructive critcism as I'll probably go back to ignoring the non-financial forums anyway

I don't take it as a personal attack even though I disagree with some of your points above. Maybe that's the problem as I mentioned earlier - some people take robust challenges and the normal cut and thrust of debate too personally and it's their problem rather than that of those who engage in such contributions?

I'm getting the impression (but please don't ask me to back it up with facts!) that there is a lot of this (from numerous sources) 'If you don't like it go elsewhere' recently.

I don't think that is the case at all. Brendan has generally only given the "if you don't like it, lump it" treatment to people who have made a nuisance of themselves or have continuously wasted his, the moderators' or other contributors' time posting rubbish. However the same general message is "enshrined" in the as it happens.

The technical forums can also be satisfying if you make sure you don't post opinions, only fact!

What's the problem with that? The "technical" forums are more straightforward Q&A forums so there is generally a clear cut right answer to many of the questions with no great leeway for opinions. The "below the line" forums are usually the more appropriate for more generalised discussion and airing of opinions. Of course if one airs an opinion then one should be prepared to receive feedback and not all of it necessarily in agreement.

And the circle starts again. FOR THE THIRD TIME. I did not and do not blame you or think you are wholly or mostly responsible. I made sure to specifically point this out (TWICE) so that no-one could take that interpretation from my remarks. If you choose to stop reading at the point where you stopped quoting I can't be held responsible.

As you might say - I don't buy it but let's move on.

You know what. I can't keep doing this. I've had enough.
I've now got 3 posts from the Clubman/Rainyday tag team and somewhere along the way I was apparently patronising. So I think this might be a good time to back away from this thread.

This flippancy does your argument no favours. To talk of the ClubMan/RainyDay tag team is just puerile and demeaning in my opinion. If you think that myself and RainyDay scheme together to rebut your points and grind you (or anybody else) down then so be it. Perhaps you never noticed the quite pointed/heated disagreements that myself and RainyDay have had in the past proving that we certainly don't see eye to eye on many matters. Sometimes I would get annoyed at being challenged or corrected by RainyDay on issues but eventually I had to recognise that this (my reaction) was really my problem and that his contributions were perfectly valid.

It's an interesting topic, and I'd love to hear the views of people other than myself clubman and rainyday. But I don't think continuing the current debate between the 3 of us is leading anywhere good.

Well, I'm staying so people have been warned.

 

[CCOVICH]

It's an interesting topic, and I'd love to hear the views of people other than myself clubman and rainyday. But I don't think continuing the current debate between the 3 of us is leading anywhere good.

-Rd

I've already said my piece above. If you don't want the debate to continue between the three of you, than someone's got to give in/up or at least withdraw, no? Others will contribute (and indeed have contributed) if they are interested enough.