GI James Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I have a question. If someone wanted to start a topic, say, about Mr Bell and his comments yesterday, because these comments concern a certain 'other person', would the topic be sunk in the brothpot that is the 'Ned' megathread? Who else in the world can remain so nameless and blameless on internet forums. Not even Blair gets this ridiculous level of protection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 If the topic actually relates to 'Ned', please put the post in the Ned Mega Thread (which is where it would be moved to anyway). As a very general guideline, opinions/thoughts based on facts that are already in the public domain are allowable - speculative, potentially litigious comments will be removed (in particular, remarks that could undermine the current proceedings that are underway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI James Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 If the topic actually relates to 'Ned', please put the post in the Ned Mega Thread (which is where it would be moved to anyway). My point exactly. It does not seem possible to create a new topic that can be easily accessed, because it will only end up in the dog's breakfast that is the 'Ned' thread. It seems that every topic mentioning a certain person is subject to different rules than other topics. It also assumes that every new topic must therefore have content spurious and/or libellous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 I totally agree GI James, the Corkill case is by far the most important issue relating to the Island at present, and could have huge impications, yet chatting about it on here is basically frowned on. It's not even as if this forum is exactly teeming with other posts - there's hardly anyone even bothering, quell surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Unfortunately, we are all the victims of a small number of individuals' initial flood tactics during which a lot of regular posters were saturated to such an extent and for such a lengthy time with what amounted to the same topic on numerous threads. Rather than kill it off entirely (as has been requested repeatedly) to reach a middle ground we now have one thread. As the subject matter is a sensitive one and one that is watched closely by all manner of legal representatives, journalists and political representatives, this tactic makes what amounts to a potential minefield, a little easier to moderate. If you feel, however, that your subject matter is indeed different to the topic we already have running then feel free to post it as such. No posts are assumed to be litigious - each post is judged on it's own merits. The moderators of this forum are not, however, qualified legal representatives and are providing what amounts to a free public service. A certain amount of responsibility and duty of care rests with the poster and as such a little appreciation and support for the service we are trying to provide would go a long way. We are not "Big Brother", we are just Joe Public - same as you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 It's not even as if this forum is exactly teeming with other posts - there's hardly anyone even bothering, quell surprise. Feel free to contribute something worthwhile yourself for a change.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Ooh, an attempt at a personal insult from ans - another surprise. But to stick to the topic, personally I find info relating to Corkill very interesting, but it's hard to keep up with it if it's all bunged into one thread. The most annoying thing to me regarding threads posted was the whining of those uninterested, don't see why people who have no interest couldn't just not read instead of cluttering up interesting (to others) threads with banal irrelevant comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 Ooh, an attempt at a personal insult from ans - another surprise. Ooh a reaction. No suprise sweetie. But to stick to the topic, personally I find info relating to Corkill very interesting, but it's hard to keep up with it if it's all bunged into one thread.On the contrary, it should be easier to keep track if it's all in one thread. Saves repetition. Megathreads work well in every other forum I use, although admittedly there is a higher concentration of idiots here. The most annoying thing to me regarding threads posted was the whining of those uninterested, don't see why people who have no interest couldn't just not read instead of cluttering up interesting (to others) threads with banal irrelevant comments. As one of those people, you'll have surely noticed that I've not made one comment in the thread since I turned it into a single megathread. I have no interest in the subject and now there is just one thread I can avoid instead of having it popping up all over the place, just like now in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GI James Posted October 8, 2004 Author Share Posted October 8, 2004 Thank you Observer. That seems clear enough now. So, here goes. There was an item on Manx Radio yesterday relating to Mr Bell's request to all members of Tynwald not to raise the highly publicised matters concerning the CM, at the first parliamentary session of Tynwald. However, my point does not directly concern anything to do with any allegations. My point concerns the statements by Mr Bell. My concern is that an elected Minister, Mr Bell whose role regarding certain building and planning permissions were recently the subject of close scrutiny, should use his access to the media to call on all members to act in a way that he, Mr Bell, thinks appropriate. A man, in any democracy, has one vote. In Tynwald, Mr Bell also has one voice. He seems to be attempting to act as puppet meister by attempting to mute others voices and opinions. How dare he? In my opinion, Mr Bell should have decided to spend more time with his fish/cats/dogs a long time ago. The knowledge that this man is still a minister at all is difficult to digest. To, further, have him attempting to guide other members' thoughts is totally astonishing in its arrogance. And by the way, should he be addressing this sensitive subject when we cannot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FCMR Posted October 8, 2004 Share Posted October 8, 2004 On the contrary, it should be easier to keep track if it's all in one thread. Saves repetition. Megathreads work well in every other forum I use, although admittedly there is a higher concentration of idiots here. And you are King of them all. I may be able to answer a question raised by GI, it could be that Mr Bell has gone public in defence of his boss due to a complaint being made that his boss has been getting to much air time when the other party involved is banned from making a statement. On top of this we have had another MHK on the radio today defending the decision by Mersk IOM to lose 12 jobs on the Island. Edit: Fixed Quotes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.