|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 15, 2004 16:15:47 GMT
Some think it rude to not even give your real name! How does a frivolous handle like this cultivate an air of more serious discussion?!?
|
|
|
Post by LF Barfe on Oct 15, 2004 16:37:29 GMT
Some think it rude to not even give your real name! How does a frivolous handle like this cultivate an air of more serious discussion?!? Is this aimed at me? My handle is LF Barfe, and my full real name is Louis Frederick Barfe. I don't see anything frivolous in using my initials. Forgive me if I'm copping the wrong end of the stick here.
|
|
|
Post by LF Barfe on Oct 15, 2004 16:44:47 GMT
That last point is true, but in what way does that excuse discourtesy (and I recognise that constantly restating the same question in only slightly different terms is discourteous in itself)? Nail hit firmly on head there, Stuart. I'd say I'm more blunt than discourteous. As Clive points out, I (and most other respondents on this thread) started out politely (do go back through the thread, please). I started being discourteous only when Lester's posts were causing me to rip out what little hair I have left. I would plead extreme provocation. As for the mods deleting posts, if some posters edited their contributions before pressing send, there would be no need for action.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Hendeerson on Oct 15, 2004 23:26:19 GMT
For me, the worst that has come out of this forum are people posting with 'good ideas'. I don't know who they are directed at, but perhaps the originator thinks that they are important enough for someone equally sanguine to take the next step and progress the idea.
This is a bit like kids who don't have spending power, plant ideas in a parents head in the vain hope that it might bring off a result.
Unfortunately, this forum resides in the adult world (with a few exceptions) and it doesn't really work like that. I also like the rather quaint ideas along the lines of a group of people 'getting together' and forming a club. Past experience has showed that this inevitably becomes a corrosive experience and rarely works the way it should.
I noticed that it has become a Louis bashing thread and this is rather pathetic when he is attempting to explain why discussion on this forum is often deeply unstimulating. Perhaps some of the people posting are lashing out because he raised a few home truths?
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Oct 16, 2004 0:05:20 GMT
For me, the worst that has come out of this forum are people posting with 'good ideas'. I don't know who they are directed at, but perhaps the originator thinks that they are important enough for someone equally sanguine to take the next step and progress the idea. Isn't there a saying? Something like 'Heaven spare us from good ideas'. Yes, Andy, you're right. Ideas are all very well, but knowing what to do with them is another world entirely... It's called 'pester power' and it's why all the sweeties are at child's eye height by the checkout in most supermarkets. By corrosive experience do you mean it all gets a bit like a cross between Lord of the Flies and Simon Quinlank: King of Hobbies? I can take it, although I must say that I have been particularly amused by the slightly surreal turn that the bashing has taken recently - yer man Piper apparently thinking that LF Barfe is some kind of made-up name. Believe you me, if I were choosing my names, I wouldn't be called Louis Barfe. However, with a monicker like that you either become a pathetic victim, shrivelling with every terrible vomit/lavatory pun, or you learn not to give a toss. Of course, it's possible that Laurence is perfectly well aware that it's my real name, and that he's taking the piss in a very laboured manner. However, as he keeps going on about politeness and courtesy, that can't be what he's up to, obviously. Perhaps...
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 16, 2004 10:20:35 GMT
Well, if that's your real name, Louis, then i'm happy to offer apologies. You can't blame me for thinking it was a handle though. We get 'em all here, as you know! Sorry 'bout that.
No, i'd no idea it was a real name because i'm not one of the "old boy's network" that seems to operate on this site amongst certain people. Therefore I have no inside knowledge of who anyone here really is.
That's part of the problem with this (and other) sites though; a certain level of knowledge is automatically assumed of anyone who visits here. There should be more of a welcoming attitude encouraged than there is. I think a lot of people are put off by the tone of some of the posters here. In the end it will result in an ever-decreasing spiral of people visiting and contributing. Sure, try and raise the level of discussion here (and if it results in the recovery of material - the main goal of a site like this, surely?) then all well and good. But I just ask that it's done politely. I'm not sure if that's a naive hope in itself though as you get a regular turnover of new faces on these sites generally; people visit for a finite period to find out some hard facts and establish a few truths about the given subject and move on. Only a few of us "hardened anoraks" stay longer. Therefore a site like this is only as interesting as the current visitors make it!
Several persons here come across as little less than the voice of God, intimidating newcomers to no small degree. If new visitors are ridiculed by sneering remarks then they'll simply move on. We need more people rather than less. Andy's comments about cosy little clubs are far off the mark though as that is EXACTLY how things seem to be operating between some people here, excluding others in the process.
It sounds like there are some sour people out there, hardened by experiences in the TV fan world (we've ALL had them) and they allow their cynicism to spill over into the postings. Courtesy costs nothing and if anyone's fuse is shortened by naive newcomers visiting to ask questions whose answers are obvious to all of the rest of us, then that's THEIR problem and not the person asking the question. No one FORCES them to post a reply. If someone has no prior knowledge of what's been asked here, it's not fair that they should bear the brunt of the impatience of the regulars.
Well, 'nuff said for me on that subject. I'd rather get back to talking about theories on missing TV, the reason I come here...
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Oct 16, 2004 11:33:37 GMT
Well, if that's your real name, Louis, then i'm happy to offer apologies. You can't blame me for thinking it was a handle though. We get 'em all here, as you know! Sorry 'bout that. No, i'd no idea it was a real name because i'm not one of the "old boy's network" that seems to operate on this site amongst certain people. Therefore I have no inside knowledge of who anyone here really is. My dear Laurence, if there is an 'old boy's network', I'm not a part of it. The extent of my contact with Andy Henderson has been a friend pointing out who he was across a crowded NFT bar at Missing Believed Wiped about 3 years ago. He's just defending me because he agrees with me, not because we meet regularly to wear Grace Mulligan's cast-off aprons and exchange funny handshakes. The same goes for Paul Vanezis, Steve Roberts, et al. All people whose names I know through their reputations, but I've never exchanged private email with them, let alone met. I'd disagree with that. This site assumes a certain level of interest and with interest usually comes a little knowledge. As for not knowing who I am, there is no reason why you should, but there is at the bottom of each of my posts a signature, which gives my full name, a rough description of what I do, and a link to my website. If you'd been really curious to find out whether I was real or not, you could have gone there and found various things I've written. I assume that's what Andy did, as he doesn't know me from Adam. Equally I think a lot of people get put off by the vast number of cretinous contributions that appear to have been typed with boxing gloves. Finding missing episodes is a serious business, and it helps to be taken seriously. That started a long time ago, and it certainly wasn't my fault. I seem to recall that a combination of The Mausoleum Club starting up and the toddlers' truce coming to an end here was pretty fatal. Read back. I started politely, and became progressively less so as I was faced with blank incomprehension and utter stupidity. Can you blame me losing my rag? Well, to be honest, I'd abandoned this place a couple of months ago (other TV nostalgia forums are available) because I was dismayed at the state of things. I only came back the other day out of idle curiosity, and I found that people were still getting their knickers in a twist over an off the cuff remark I made in June. Well done for admitting as much. Oh, what? You don't mean yourself? You might do well to look back through the archives - you'll find that you've been as high-handed as anyone on here, on several occasions. Well, that's balls for a start. As I've explained, I've never met Andy. If we seem like a cosy little club, that's because we're serious, realistic and professional about what we do, and we recognise it when we see it in others. Naive newcomers are one thing and should be dealt with politely. People who have been around for ages and suffer from an inability to comprehend previous postings on the same subject deserve no such allowances. Yes, but that's not what happened here. Lester had form as long as your arm. Lester was a regular. And a pain in the arse, liable to put off more prospective visitors to this site than I ever could. It's the reason I come here too, and it's the reason why I blew up at Lester. His postings were hindering the discussion on missing material (radio or TV) and they were doing so on a daily basis. Newcomers get a polite explanation, repeat offenders don't. Sorry if this sounds like the 'voice of God'. I personally think it sounds like the voice of someone who knows what they're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Oct 16, 2004 11:39:03 GMT
Lester's huffed off, so shall we all declare correspondence closed on this subject, and post useful things in other threads so that it is no longer the first thread people see when they arrive here?
|
|
|
Post by craig on Oct 16, 2004 13:58:47 GMT
yes, enough already
|
|
|
Post by Stuart on Oct 16, 2004 16:55:33 GMT
I noticed that it has become a Louis bashing thread and this is rather pathetic when he is attempting to explain why discussion on this forum is often deeply unstimulating. Perhaps some of the people posting are lashing out because he raised a few home truths? As someone who did bash Louis a bit in one post, I must admit to having been disarmed by his reasoned replies since. I have a marked dislike of discourtesy, but perhaps I over-reacted somewhat and was, in my turn, equally guilty of poor manners, for which apologies. Stuart (who clearly messed up the registration process)
|
|
|
Post by Laurence Piper on Oct 16, 2004 18:26:10 GMT
I'm quite happy to talk about other things too, Louis. In fact, it would be a refreshing change.
If Lester "has form" as a pain in the arse then I wasn't aware of it! It's this thing what I was saying about not having knowledge of this sort of thing. I come here to talk about missing TV but don't take much notice of names or who's who in fandom. Anyway, he could change his handle any time and I would be none the wiser! Without inside info, I fail to see how you can separate naive but sincere newcomers from nuisances.
The old boy's network doesn't mean you nessesarily know someone outside of the net - it's more an assumed set of attitudes among certain individuals (and this isn't nessesarily you or Andy). It's just something I and others have noted since coming here.
I've been coming here maybe three years and in that time i've seen a lot of people post that are clearly wanting to find out what i'd call "basic" TV info (episode guides to fairly well-known shows / archive holdings etc). We all get annoyed by cretinous postings but the answer is simply to ignore rather than rise to them. Let them get their knickers in a twist if that's what they're doing! Sure, we all speak high-handed at times (i'm flattered you spent the time to look back over my postings!) but when i've done that it's been directed at a specific individual rather than all and sundry just because they appear to type with boxing gloves (maybe some people have learning difficulties anyway? I don't assume "anorak-dom" because their English is bad or whatever - i've no idea of anyone's circumstances anyway so I don't assume).
For "serious and professional" in some, I read "towing an industry line" and "bending over backwards to avoid upsetting any apple-carts". My interest in TV goes back a long way and I take it seriously. I just say what I think though, rather than worry about stepping on toes.
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Oct 16, 2004 19:53:27 GMT
I'm quite happy to talk about other things too, Louis. In fact, it would be a refreshing change. There was I, suggesting that it was best if no-one added anything to the thread, so that it would wither and die. So, what happens? People add to the thread, saying how they wish it would wither and die. If you're suggesting that I'm prolonging this thread for my own ends (whatever they are), you couldn't be more wrong. See also my recent contributions (constructive, I hope) to other threads. Have we been reading the same forum? Laurence, I am getting the distinct impression that you're a rather chippy sort with a faint tendency towards conspiracy theories. I don't take any notice of the name on the post. It's the content (and to a certain degree the cogency of expression) that matters. This is what I've been saying all along, if you had the wit to realise it. If there were a "who's who in fandom" (what a hideous, hideous concept), I'd probably be little more than a footnote. Not that I am especially qualified to comment, apart from being the Regius Professor of Neuro-Linguistics at the University of Lowestoft, but I suspect I could identify one of Lester's posts whatever the name at the top. It comes back to your unhealthy tendency towards conspiracy theories again. I have no idea who Lester is, where he lives, what he does or doesn't do for a living. All I know is that he's been infesting this forum for ages with dumb-arse questions. As we've agreed, newcomers are allowed the odd D-AQ, but Lester (whether you noticed it or not) was, along with another individual, asking roughly the same D-AQs ad infi-bloody-nitum since his arrival. You can't have a network with just one old boy. There are several of them, so it's an old boys' network. You must be very technologically advanced to have an internet-enabled bicycle. You don't have such a thing? You must - I can sense you back-pedalling like mad. The simple fact is that you evidently think there's some kind of hidden Algonquin round table here, and you're pissed off that you haven't been invited to it. Well, there isn't, or if there is, I haven't been invited either. You and Lester, by any chance? Yes, that's healthy and I'll help if I can. We all need basic information sometimes. However, the overseas archive thing came up again and again, and it was usually the same lame-brains who kept bringing it up. Please believe me when I say that I'm all for inclusivity, but the signal-to-noise ratio in here has favoured the latter far too much. As I've said, sometimes temptation gets the better of me. I don't need to. I've remember thinking how high-handed you were on various occasions. Like now. My critical posts were aimed at specific individuals, just like yours. So, unless I'm misreading you here, you seem to be saying that you have the right to criticise people but I don't? As a self-confessed serial anorak with a large number of similarly-inclined friends, I have to say that most of the obsessives I know can express themselves very clearly indeed. I don't assume anything either, apart from assuming that someone who asks the same question again and again probably hasn't been listening. This is just childish nonsense. Some of the serious professionals involved in archive are on their knees sucking corporate cock and covering their own backs, are they? Examples please. I suspect we'll be waiting a lifetime before you can supply any. If there is any line-towing, it's because archive television (and film) is a minefield and sometimes a certain amount of diplomacy is required to achieve results. I know you were careful to say "some" back there. The only line I tow is my own, and I like to think that I have a good reputation for what I do. I say what I think as well, and I would like you to grant me the courtesy of allowing me to continue doing so. Right. If anyone adds anything more to this thread, they're just frightening off potential users of this forum. If Laurence or anyone else wants to continue the discussion with me, they can do it via private email.
|
|
|
Post by John G on Oct 16, 2004 20:02:46 GMT
Right. If anyone adds anything more to this thread, they're just frightening off potential users of this forum. If Laurence or anyone else wants to continue the discussion with me, they can do it via private email. Dont think they are? its quite enjoyable, but then i am easily entertained, i enjoyed the rerun of The Grove FamilyTEXT
|
|
|
Post by lfbarfe on Oct 16, 2004 21:28:40 GMT
Dont think they are? its quite enjoyable, but then i am easily entertained, i enjoyed the rerun of The Grove FamilyTEXTHello John. Are you new here? If you're not frightened off, that's good news.
|
|
|
Post by john g on Oct 17, 2004 10:04:25 GMT
Hello John. Are you new here? If you're not frightened off, that's good news. Oh no Louis! i do pop in now and then.
|
|