Jump to content

Recommended Posts

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do read some stuff in here, but to be honest I

> usually skip over a lot of the 'point-by-point

> rebuttals'.

>

> The content might well be pertinent and useful but

> they just look really, really boring.

_____________________________________________________


Agree....


My eyes boggle & I "ZZzzzzz" out



W**F

The Chair Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> LuLu Too Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I'm with *Bob* on this one.

> > And Fisking makes my eyes go funny...

> >

> > What's happening in The Drawing Room?

> > Surely this thread should be lounged by now?!

>

>

> Agreed. Too much silly behaviour.



I've just seen this! A blatant "fisk" if ever I saw one! From our esteemed Chair too!


*shakes head and tutts twice*

Thought the OP was a bit OTT - just let people do it how they want to do it surely.


Having said that, along similar lines, I don't like it when people quote a lengthy post and than just say that they agree with it. No value added and also it takes a hell of a long time on my little phone to scroll down through a long post, and as I'm sometimes trying to wind down on the way home from work, it irritates me a bit.....just a bit though.

Totally agreed MM, that is one of the most annoying habits that plenty of posters are guilty of.

Keef's patented "what bob said" does the trick much more succinctly.


I have done the odd fisk when someone's tortured logic needs teasing apart thus making a converstational response impossible.

BUt on the whole I think it detracts from a conversational tone, you wouldn't fisk someone down the pub would you, you'd say "I don't know I think you're barking up the wrong tree with your dog clamping idea, but when it comes to taxing three wheeled prams I reckon you're on to a winner there."


On here it just makes for a more pleasant read and is a bit more aesthetically pleasing; better than all those damn ugly greater-thans ">" everywhere.


If you are going to quote, and its a perfectly valid thing to do, then I'd love it if people just picked the relevant bit more often and use either "sumfink" or

  Quote
sumfink else
.


my two-penneths worth anyhow

Clearly I'm in agreement with Mockers.


To refer to earlier insinuations, I'm not sure that I misinterpret at all. I think I get it absolutely spot on most of the time. The fact that I can't 'prove' it doesn't make it any less accurate. If I consider on reflection I've got it wrong I'm happy to apologise.


Moos, I note that even your entire criticism was missing a direct reference. Do I assume then that I am 'misinterpreting' and you are actually talking about someone else? Or am I in fact spot on. Again. That that was snidey insinutation and directed at me?


As for aggressiveness.... well I guess that's subjective. I can only tell you that I don't feel aggressive at all. I usually shorten my posts to make them more objective. I can see that makes me appear terse, but mainly I think you're all big enough to stand up for yourselves..

While some of you find it annoying, it's clear that not everyone feels the same way. However "spot on" you think you are!!


Mockney... the '>' character is actually a feature of the forum, it happens automatically when you hit "quote this message". So perhaps you should be speaking to the admin about this? I agree that the "box" formatting is neater.

Sorry Jezza, I was responding to an ad hominem attack from earlier in the thread. It wasn't ontopic, but hell, we're in the lounge now ;-)


Disparate views on 'quoting' are of course subjective. I made the assertion to prompt a discussion, not to assume that I had the answer.

Misinterpretation is a common complaint - the record speaks for itself in that respect.


I?ve noticed the same problem regarding terse or brief (I would say precise or succinct) being interpreted as aggressive or, worse, arrogant.


Sometimes a subtle sense of humour or irony is either not perceived or misinterpreted.


We are what we are and we do what we do ? I guess.

Cheer up grump...err...Huguenot, this has turned out to be (I think) a rather entertaining thread.


Personally, I find breaking up long paragraphs and responding that way useful. To my mind, the practice also imparts order and neatness (though clearly, you - and others - do not agree). I shall attempt to try and cut down (a bit) seeing as it annoys some...but don't expect complete cessation!


As for your comment: "I'm not sure that I misinterpret at all. I think I get it absolutely spot on most of the time. The fact that I can't 'prove' it doesn't make it any less accurate., my automatic response was to burst out laughing (I found it funny because it is so typical of you), but I am now wondering whether...oh to hell with it...


*lobs another tomato at Huguenot*

Huguenot has asked me to clarify both in his post and in a PM that I was talking about him.


I sometimes find the debates too aggressive for my liking, and in my perception people sometimes pick up on others' responses and partially or wholly misinterpret them to score points rather than trying to move the general discussion towards a shared understanding. I didn't intend to be sly or snide - it would have been inappropriate to name Huguenot as he's not the only person who does it but to be clear he was someone I had in mind.

We shall have to agree to differ then ms muck.

I think of threads as conversations and dislike things being repeated ad nauseum. But that might be a reaction to Dpaniards who feel they have to say everything two or three times, preferably shouted over everybody else speaking at the same time.

Hmmmm, perfect description of the forum thinking about it!!

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dpaniards


I tried looking that up but Google suggested "Spaniards" - you almost had me there!


Re quoting: if one can respond immediately after another post - fair enough, but when the issue has migrated several posts to the north, or where several other posters have intervened, a brief 'so-and-so wrote what' is essential to provide context without forcing readers to scroll up - especially on this forum where threads are not sub-threaded. IMHO.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...