Edward Thompson: Wartime C.M.E. Discussion

You do yourself and this forum no favours

 

I would join you in the popcorn normally, but this is a moderator like yourself. Honestly I think this behaviour is really no longer amusing.

 

There for a start. Perhaps you are unaware of how badly many of your posts in this topic come across.

 

Iirc Simon has already stated above how he will handle reviews of his publication.

Whether or not I find myself agreeing with his conclusions, I for one respect the considerable time and effort he has put into this venture. I suggest that most of us would have neither the ability nor tenacity to undertake this, even more so given the incessant antagonism and trolling he has received.

I wish him every success.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Where to begin? Undeniably there’s dozens of examples in the last year or so, when the evidence was clearer and the book closer to publication.

I look forward, with open arms, to any constructive criticism that arises.

In short: bring it on.

 

As one of those individuals who has supported me behind the scenes, may I publicly offer my thanks. We don’t have to agree - that is the beauty of debate. And you gave me much food for thought throughout all this. I remain grateful. Thank you.

 

Just a quick thought re contributors; will NatPres be noted as an entity or will the individuals that have provided thoughts / views / inspiration be noted individually ?

Perhaps a few egos might need to be stroked if constant carping continues; just a thought !

 

I have thanked Nat Pres as an entity, and my group of Nat Pres based editors individually as well.

 

What has that got to do with it ? Ralph is a forum member and has as much right as anyone else to post on here. It hasn't taken long for the 'he's a moderator' card to be played.
Are you saying that VOLUNTEER UNPAID moderators should be barred from joining in discussions ?

 

As a mod elsewhere, I would not say that. However, I do find “family hold back” a useful discipline at times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We've been through this dozens of times. I think most people hope that mods would try and set an example for good behaviour. I don't think that's unreasonable. If that prevents a mod from feeling like they can take part in a discussion, then perhaps they ought to reflect on whether what they want to say is really necessary.

As we know, @RalphW sees it different and merely aims for the lowest common denominator.

At this point I don't think it even has anything to do with like/dislike of Gresley or Thompson, it looks to all the world to me like a dislike of Simon. Anyway, I have preordered your book Simon, and I'm very much looking forward to it.

 

It's the same two people every time folks. I'm guilty of engaging, perhaps the lesson here is to not engage with those who don't want to actually engage in the discussion topic, but would prefer to disrupt for disruption's sake.

I will say this: yes, you do expect moderators to be held to a higher standard than members, and intrinsically you would expect them to not indulge in online behaviour that is tantamount to bullying at times.

My tin hat has been worn thin many times from the nature of the commentary from Ralph - normally backed up by Victor - why? When neither purport to want to be part of the Thompson debate and discussion? Who Knows. At this stage it looks entirely personal from their side.

I have offered Ralph a number of times a phone call to clear the air, I have messaged him privately to inquire what the issues actually are - and he's never been amenable to engaging with me constructively to find a resolution of any form. That offer remains on the table, incidentally, because I really cannot be bothered to have an eternal war with someone on the internet in this way.

From my point of view, I asked why Ralph continued to post in the thread if he didn't actually engage in the discussion. That seems a reasonable question of anyone. If you don't want to talk about the Thompson debate: why are you here? If the answer is to seek out and target one individual for your ire, then questions are going to be asked of you, and if you happen to be a mod, it will reflect badly on you.

I welcome any communication from Ralph and Victor to clarify why they are so aggressive towards me in this thread. And I welcome any kind of resolution, because as it stands I can just sit back, and look at their posts, and know I've done nowt wrong except hold my views on this topic and try my best to debate it constructively. And that's all I can do.

 

They are welcome to join in the discussion: that has never been in doubt. We are asking if the behaviours exhibited are reasonable and in line with that we expect from a moderator. That is not an unreasonable question to ask.

 

I can't remember how long it is since I last posted on this thread so how you come up with 'normally backed up by Victor' is...........strange.
As for 'any communication etc', I don't want private communications, this is a railway enthusiasts forum and if I've got anything to say I'll say it on the open forum.

 

It's not clear that that's what's going on. I'd write it down to mostly being a somewhat more venial sin: not having a fully open mind; to being too dedicated to holding onto an existing perception. Yes, still a major problem, but not as bad (to me, anyway) as "disrupt[ion] for disruption's sake" (for reasons I can expand on, if desired, but which I'll leave out for the moment, to keep this brief).

In general, I think one of Queen Elizabeth I's profounder observations was when she told her subjects that it's a bad idea to try and "make windows into men’s souls”. People's minds, and motivations, are tremendously complex, and mixed. Personal hostility to you may be part of the mix, but I fell fairly certain that the more mundane one I gave is a strong factor; and I have no window that would give me certainty as to the relative strengths of the various supposed ones. Let's just be charitable and attribute it to the open mind one, eh?

Noel

 

Come now, Good Sir ... such modesty is hardly becoming of a Yorkshireman. However sparse they may or may not be, your contributions to any of our threads are almost invariably memorable!

 

Not really: you can go back through the thread and you will see your own posts alongside Ralph's. It has been unpleasant at times, speaking for myself: others have commented similarly.

If you have an issue with me personally, make it known and let's resolve it.

 

What a ridiculous post. I do not recall suggesting that anyone was barred from commenting.

The point is that moderator or not the comments being made do this forum no favours.

Are you suggesting that someone who sets themselves up to police others comments should be be excempt from being called to account for those enta? Probably not.

I think that we are entitled to expect that those that would manage others comments should set an example of good behaviour themselves. If they do not then they can expect to be challenged. That is all that has happened the point about payment is erroneous. We don't expect a volunteer driver not to obey the rule book just because the company doesn't pay them a wage.

 

Is it time to draw a line under this digression? The point has been thoroughly made. Beyond a certain point criticism of behaviour, no matter how well founded, can get very counter-productive, at it seems to me we could well be at that point.