Website discussions (Admin discussions)

Sun 7 Sep 2008, 23:24

Richard are you now allowing self portraits on the website all the time or is it only permitted on the odd occasion.

Sun 7 Sep 2008, 18:25

That's outrageous. Can we have emoticons all the time?

Fri 5 Sep 2008, 17:22

No problem - done.

Fri 5 Sep 2008, 16:40

Or a laugh track option so that tongue-in-cheek posts aren't mistaken for frontal assaults.

Fri 5 Sep 2008, 09:59

I have sometimes wondered about putting in an automatic filter that rejects anything entirely written in caps...

Fri 5 Sep 2008, 09:49

great link derek; it's put me off using my upper case key completely (OR SHOULD I JUST STICK TO CAPITALS?)

Thu 4 Sep 2008, 21:57

A fantastic piece on this subject has just appeared today on the satirical comedy website Newsbiscuit (www.newsbiscuit.com). The link is as follows:

newsbiscuit.com/article/web-forum-closed-after-sensible-discussion-takes-place-361

Sat 19 Jul 2008, 14:04

Well we must be achieving something then ,which is a good thing for all of us . Maybe if this continues it will be good for everyone in Charlbury,or it may be that people are so fed up of seeing us batter each other verbally that they think its time that they helped us achieve good relations by driving and cycling safely.LETS HOPE THIS CONTINUES and then we could join Richard on a friday night for a pint.

Sat 19 Jul 2008, 13:47

www.theoxfordtimes.net/display.var.2400330.0.0.php?utag=76813

For an example of how what Oxford residents are doing to address the issue

Sat 19 Jul 2008, 13:10

Shouldn't we be in a room somewhere having this private discussion?

Really, I'd like nothing better than to stick to the issue of better and safer driving in Charlbury (Are you for or against? I've forgotten).

I don't know if it's because of these posts (I doubt it), but I've personally noticed an improvement in road manners amongst local drivers just recently. I've even witnessed drivers pausing at intersections to permit me a turn from the middle of the Enstone Road.

Now that's the kind of peace and harmony I can appreciate!

Sat 19 Jul 2008, 07:46

Igor what is your problem with people. All i was asking for was to put to bed the negative comments from both of us towards each other and keep within Richards guidelines for the forum .Obviously from your latest posting involving Christine and her thoughts this is not your intention . I feel that you do have a point of issue on the drivers of Charlbury ,as i have said and also that i have an issue with some cyclists in the way that they abuse the laws of the road.Nevertheless we are not going to agree on this issue so the debate can go on ,but in a friendly way rather than sniping at each others thoughts as we have been doing .I am big enough to do that if you are therein lies the challenge.

Fri 18 Jul 2008, 12:19

Christine, my intention has never been to offend or insult but to point out a problem in need of a solution by this community. I admit to expressing frustration at the diffusion and denial of my points, but that has to do with the nature of the debate, not the personalities involved.

As peace and harmony on this forum has become the raison d'etre of this public forum rather than actual debate, there's no need for me to affirm or restate my position.

Next time someone shouts fire in a building, I'll make sure I check their credentials and tone of voice first.

Sun 13 Jul 2008, 15:45

Well ken if you put a chip fryer in the back you could do a takeaway service while you are here because we do not have a mobile one here ,also you would be able to travel a lot further cos you would have the spare oil after deliveries.

Sun 13 Jul 2008, 14:09

i own two old land rover discoveries i bring them to charlbury at least three times a year.at two and a half thousand revs they do sixty miles an hour and are averaging 48.2mpg.i put all my old cooking oil from my deep fat friar in them and they run like a dream.my road tax is two hundred pounds a year. per vehicle how much is the road tax on a bicycle.icannot drive them both at the same time so cannot drive them two a breast.causing untold stress to other motorists so what should i do?

Sat 12 Jul 2008, 10:27

Igor, Roger did clearly find your comments negative & upsetting. I'm interested to know that you are not intentionally trolling. In that case, please could "peace and harmony" break out between you and Roger, as he suggests.

It would also be respectful to Richard who does a wonderful job trying to moderate this forum, and who has clearly expressed his wish to bring recent fractious arguments to a close!

Sat 12 Jul 2008, 07:55

Christine: as your comment is personal and directed at me, I will answer you personally: what on earth did you find in my last post "rude or offensive"?!?

In fact, I brought the definition of a Troll to this forum some time ago in response to a poster who was getting pretty close to the line on anti-immigrant remarks; comments I recall that provoked much less furore at the time than my pointing out speeding drivers has.

Please try reading what I post rather than just reacting with your knee.

Fri 11 Jul 2008, 21:48

Fumble fingers. 'Address the argument, not the person' is what I meant to type. Any chance of a spell-checker, Richard?

Fri 11 Jul 2008, 21:46

Spot on, Christine. Address`the argument, not theperosn

Fri 11 Jul 2008, 21:44

Don't feed the troll, as somebody on this forum said a year or so ago.

"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts rude or offensive messages on the Internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."

I can't quite remember who in Charlbury identified himself as a troll, but from Igor persistence I conclude it might have been him ...

Fri 11 Jul 2008, 14:44

Igor i relly do not know why you feel the need to keep coming back with negative thoughts on the comments that people have made on the forum.the comments that other people leave have nothing to do with me but once again my name is mentioned as the instigator of bad feeling towards you . I really do not think now is the right time to talk about cycling safety after the news this week .Driving and parking in charlbury is a problem ,but then so is cyclists riding on footpaths,so lets just agree to disagree on the subject and move on . As for the comment that you are whats wrong with charlbury ,i take that to have meant that it seems to be people coming to charlbury and wanting to change things from how they have been for a long time.Its the way thats its done that upsets people.Please can we put a lid on this need to accuse each other of violations and live in peace and harmony .

Fri 11 Jul 2008, 13:27

I really have no idea what all the fuss is about.
I bowed out of a discussion out of frustration at not being heard as well as being tarred with a broad anti-motorist brush simply because I pointed out the the amount of poor driving in and around Charlbury.

A fact Roger himself asserts on another thread on this forum.

To be clear: I didn't feel particularly ganged up on, just shouted down by a minority who seemed more interested in debating their impression of what I was asserting as opposed to what I actually had to say. It is extraordinary however, the levels of passion some people reveal when you throw a critical eye on anything to do with driving or even parking. It certainly reveals where priorities lie. At any rate, I felt free to walk away, just as anyone is free to not read what I have to say.

I do appreciate the good intentions of those individuals who have approached me since on the train to attempt to apologise for the some of the comments directed at me; but there's no need: I don't really take it that seriously.

I do admit to being taken somewhat aback at the "people like you are what's wrong with Charlbury"remark partly because of its sinister undertone. But since I don't know people "like me", I just know me, I couldn't take that too seriously for long either.

Jokes about hitting (or not hitting) me with a car is a little close to the bone, so to speak; but again, a reflection of what is all in all, a general ignorance of and belligerence towards road safety around here.

At the end of the day, the forum is just a reflection of some of the thoughts, attitudes and perceptions of the residents of Charlbury (at least those who go on line). As it is online, those attitudes, thoughts and perceptions are there for anyone anywhere to weigh up for themselves.

Nuff said--back to work.

Thu 10 Jul 2008, 22:47

Well richard ,just as it seemed that you were getting somewhere with the civility part of the forum it seems that someone wants to stir things into a frenzy .Should you ever consider giving up on the website it would appear that there would be a ready made antagonist waiting in the wings to replace you (please please stay as long as possible)so that i will be to old to use a computer by then to care .

Thu 10 Jul 2008, 21:42

I think that Richard may unwittingly have stumbled across a solution to the "civility" problem when he spoke earlier about "nutters" (surely this should read "people with issues surrounding their mental health status" but never mind that for now!). What is needed is to split this Forum into two as follows. One half becomes a "Nutters' Forum" where people can indulge in name-calling, make personal remarks about other Forum users and belittle the opinions of anyone whose family have not lived continuously in Charlbury since the Middle Ages. The other half to be a "Well-adjusted Persons' Forum" where overt hostility towards incomers is absent and reasonable human beings can engage in rational, constructive and meaningful debate about issues of concern to the people of Charlbury. Problem solved - simple!

Wed 9 Jul 2008, 07:09

Richard ,i read your latest posting with great interest and thank you for explaining it for me and others. Helen is also very good at putting into words how good it is to have such a facility like this for Charlbury.I appreciate that sometimes that i may get agitated and possibly go further than i should on here .I am not one to shy away from what i feel is right and i would certainly not use the website to say anything i would not say to anyones face in the street.So as not to ramble on thanks once again for providing this facility for us all and be sure i will keep posting in the future and i will try to keep it civil hopefully ,but i cannot promise .

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 23:03

Always open to feedback, and this is a valuable discussion for that very reason.

Vikki and Roger: it occurs to me that both of you are fairly new to the forum - which isn't a criticism; but you may not realise that traditionally the forum has been very lightly moderated. Looking back, we had just two threads locked in the whole of last year - I had to get to page 22 of the forum archives before finding one! Even the Chippy website forum, a real free-for-all if ever there was one (and great fun with it, but the absolute opposite of ours), has threads locked from time to time (one in the last week).

Unfortunately the cycling/motorist thread was the most ferocious and personal in the lifetime of the whole forum, and for the reasons outlined previously, I and several others thought it had gone too far. Today's edits were really just the fall-out from that. Thanks Andy and Roger for making the lightheartedness of comments clear in your subsequent posts, it really helps.

And Vikki - no, you'll never have posts deleted because they disagree with me; far from it. The only reason for the very few edits or lockings we've had have been to keep things civil.

Helen and Mark - thank you both - really appreciated.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 20:01

I'm sorry to disagree here and I'm sure this post may be deleted or people will jump in with both feet but I happen to think there isn't a 'freedom of speech' on this forum at all. There are for a very select few but many people in Charlbury don't seem to use this website for this particular reason. I am a member on a fair few forums where you can debate and analyse issues with people who can 'hold their own' and actually resolve things positively. Maybe letting people have thier say in a positive, non-hostile way is the way things will get resolved???

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 19:27

This website is a fantastic resource for the Charlbury community. There appear to be a few people with axes to grind airing their views, but I have read these with amused interest and have always felt that Richard's moderation of the postings has been proportionate and justified. Thank you.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 18:55

Three cheers for Richard and this website! I'm sorry, but there's far too much noise on this website. And too much of it is generated by a handful of people banging incessantly about the bees which inhabit their personal bonnets - or indulging in pointless arguments about nothing.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 17:57

To be totally honest, Roger, the problem I have - as related in the 'Civility' posting - is that whenever I talk to people around town about the forum, they say "oh, I don't use that because of all the nutters".

People use the ads, the events, the commuter blog, the directory, the commuter pages - all of that. We actually have 650 registered users now. For a town of 3,000 people I think that's a good figure, given that you can read the whole site without registering - you only need to register to post (whether an ad, an event, or a forum entry). The rest of the website is thriving.

But in the last week, only 20 of those 650 have posted to the forum. Now the main principle of this website is that it is not an online community. It is a resource for the existing community of Charlbury, not an attempt to set up a new community. So I get worried when Charlbury people tell me they don't think that the forum reflects the way our community works - as they did this morning about the way that (in their view) a couple of people were ganging up on Igor. I'm sure you meant it good-naturedly, but that doesn't always come through on the screen, and certainly those people I spoke to didn't see it that way.

None of this is anything to do with what my opinions might be. Closing the cycling thread the other week was prompted by some postings by one person whose opinions I actually agree with - but who was getting unnecessarily hostile and combative, and the whole debate was going down as a result. (And no, it wasn't you, Roger - honest!)

Please do continue to post; as the guidelines say, as long as it's civil and about Charlbury, you can post pretty much what you like; and, you know, I suspect that if one day I could get you and Igor to sit down in the same place with a pint in front of you, half these misunderstandings would disappear. Life is too short to get too het up about such things.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 17:30

Richard .You i feel are doing just what you are asking us not to do. We have feelings to and it is not helpful being told that we are wittering as you put it about the forum.Poeple in Charlbury that i have spoken to have said the same thing insomuch that the website is only there to facilitate the views of the few .I must admit that i was prepared to give this a fair try before agreeing with this attitude. But your way of putting your view lead me to believe that they are right and i was wrong .If you really want the people of Charlbury to join in with the thoughts of others then try relating a little spiritual healing to the site instead of its my website and i can dictate what happens on it.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 15:15

Indeed, it would be good if this stayed on-topic without descending into the same old same old - or in fact into witterings about the forum itself.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 14:49

Richard I quite agree with what you are saying but i think you need to look closely at the content of some comments . Like you say and i readily agree that cornbury festival is good for anyone that enjoys music including me . But why is there the need to bring up drivers vs cyclists in such a manner as it does not need to be raised within this thread .Surely we can have a thread on here that does not involve any talk of vehicles .

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 12:50

Roger - it's nothing personal! I am simply a little anxious that we keep the peace after recent fractious arguments, and a couple of people suggested to me that this thread was in danger of going the same way. I'm all for humour and sarcasm - it's just sometimes difficult to get across via the written word, not least when people might be especially sensitive. This is an interesting thread, let's keep it going.

Tue 8 Jul 2008, 12:17

Richard ,I am starting to get a complex . Could you please tell me where i am going wrong this time and i will explain if i must what it is iam meaning . Maybe just being an old yokel i am not putting myself over as i should be ,or has ones benefit of free speech been curbed for those that have a sense of humour or sarcasm as some would have it .Please let me know where i am going wrong.