When did aaug and aaue become some kind of Fight Club. I'm not talking about inter-city rivalries here either, I'm talking about blatant sh*t stirring and personal attacks all round - quite often involving conflict between supporters of the same airport(s).
Of course fingers will immediately be pointed at the two "usual suspects" - one in the west with his serious accusations and one in the east with his obsessive lunacy. The actions of both are totally unacceptable, however...
Some critics of the west coaster continually jump to devalue his postings, even if they are actually quite relevant. One poster in particular is now being called a "stalker" by the west coaster - I'm quite sure he's not, but he could have saved himself the hassle by ignoring the posts and not winding him up in the first place.
Some people also spend a lot of time deliberately winding up the east coaster too. Don't! You simply fuel his belief that he's some kind of hero on a crusade. Sure, if he posts a lot of rubbish that you don't agree with then take him to task on it, but by making an OP that is specifically about GLA on aaue you're just inviting conflict.
And as for posts "holding up a mirror" to people - PLEASE don't patronise folk by trying to act like it's some kind of social experiment. You know it's just going to start yet another argument and it is indeed surprising to see such a post from someone who spends so much time lamenting the quality of posts.
So back to my "Fight Club" comparison - it's like people have a normal day working, studying, spending time with the family etc, and then come on here to vent any negative feelings that they have. That's not what this should be about. Disagreement is going to happen on any forum - whether it's about Glasgow Airport, Doctor Who, Westlife or Chinese politics - that's fine, if you disagree with something someone has said then make your voice heard, but let's stop the habit of starting arguments for the sake of it.
In article <slrng0mb8l.3s2...@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk>, p...@zetnet.net says...
> There has been a hate campaign against Joe, and Joe has been rather > unpleasant in return.
I think you will find if you do some research Joe's `unpleasantness` was there from the outset in aaue. From day one the group was used as a vehicle and outlet for anti-GLA and west coast bile. That cannot be refuted. He now tries to blame his quite obvious bigoted and sectarian postings on everyone else when in fact he was making such posts when the people he blames had not even started posting.
You might have missed all of this Paul because he wasn't posting via Zetnet at the time and was using various aliases to give the impression the group was busier than it actually was and that he was surrounded by likeminded bigots.
> In article > <b8d0a1b7-e1cd-47ee-b3c4-ef69f977c...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > B wrote:
>> Successful people don't hide behind ISP's when they have issues with >> people.
> Successful people don't need to switch ISPs when those ISPs start > looking at what they're really doing.
> On the other hand, really successful people don't go flaming people > concerned in the newsgroups, then complain to the flamed person's ISP > about the robust response they got back. Even less success comes from > assuming that the ISP won't look at the thread that contains that > response, and notice that the complainant has been rather selective in > their quoting.
> There has been a hate campaign against Joe, and Joe has been rather > unpleasant in return.
> PS. Joe, I'm not in any way defending you. That ceased to be my > concern long ago, when you jumped ship.
I have to admit I do wonder how busy these groups would be if JC wasn't posting here. Would all the unpleasantness you refer to from others disappear? If so, why can't it disappear now?
Ach, don't anybody bother answering. Just dumping my thoughts.
> > In article > > <b8d0a1b7-e1cd-47ee-b3c4-ef69f977c...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > B wrote:
> >> Successful people don't hide behind ISP's when they have issues with > >> people.
> > Successful people don't need to switch ISPs when those ISPs start > > looking at what they're really doing.
> > On the other hand, really successful people don't go flaming people > > concerned in the newsgroups, then complain to the flamed person's ISP > > about the robust response they got back. Even less success comes from > > assuming that the ISP won't look at the thread that contains that > > response, and notice that the complainant has been rather selective in > > their quoting.
> > There has been a hate campaign against Joe, and Joe has been rather > > unpleasant in return.
> > PS. Joe, I'm not in any way defending you. That ceased to be my > > concern long ago, when you jumped ship.
> I have to admit I do wonder how busy these groups would be if JC wasn't > posting here. Would all the unpleasantness you refer to from others > disappear? If so, why can't it disappear now?
> Ach, don't anybody bother answering. Just dumping my thoughts.
I have to add, I just wonder what a first time viewer to these boards must think. I mean come on EVERYONE, I've been viewing these board on and off for about 4 years now. All I ever see is petty one-upmanship. Its just stupid. We're all grown adults and all supposed to be here to talk up our airports, sell them to the world and looking forward. Posts always start out with good intentions but soon descend into sniping and petty nastiness. Could we all try please going even just for one week with just STAYING ON TOPIC, i.e. the airport. After all surely that why were all here, to discus our interest in our relevant airport and aviation in general. What a great subject I'm sure all agree, lets do it justice.
If i may be so bold as to stay lets let it all end with this post, no more. A fresh start as of tomorrow. The future is here now, lets start as we mean to go on.
Thank you all very much for your time, your interesting posts and ideas to this board. A great asset to us all.
> > > In article > > > <b8d0a1b7-e1cd-47ee-b3c4-ef69f977c...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > > > B wrote:
> > >> Successful people don't hide behind ISP's when they have issues with > > >> people.
> > > Successful people don't need to switch ISPs when those ISPs start > > > looking at what they're really doing.
> > > On the other hand, really successful people don't go flaming people > > > concerned in the newsgroups, then complain to the flamed person's ISP > > > about the robust response they got back. Even less success comes from > > > assuming that the ISP won't look at the thread that contains that > > > response, and notice that the complainant has been rather selective in > > > their quoting.
> > > There has been a hate campaign against Joe, and Joe has been rather > > > unpleasant in return.
> > > PS. Joe, I'm not in any way defending you. That ceased to be my > > > concern long ago, when you jumped ship.
> > I have to admit I do wonder how busy these groups would be if JC wasn't > > posting here. Would all the unpleasantness you refer to from others > > disappear? If so, why can't it disappear now?
> > Ach, don't anybody bother answering. Just dumping my thoughts.
> I have to add, I just wonder what a first time viewer to these boards > must think. I mean come on EVERYONE, I've been viewing these board on > and off for about 4 years now. All I ever see is petty one-upmanship. > Its just stupid. We're all grown adults and all supposed to be here > to talk up our airports, sell them to the world and looking forward. > Posts always start out with good intentions but soon descend into > sniping and petty nastiness. Could we all try please going even just > for one week with just STAYING ON TOPIC, i.e. the airport. After all > surely that why were all here, to discus our interest in our relevant > airport and aviation in general. What a great subject I'm sure all > agree, lets do it justice.
> If i may be so bold as to stay lets let it all end with this post, no > more. A fresh start as of tomorrow. The future is here now, lets > start as we mean to go on.
> Thank you all very much for your time, your interesting posts and > ideas to this board. A great asset to us all.
> Darren
The problem with this newsgroup is that it is un moderated so you end up with a lot of nonsense amongst the sensible stuff. I still take the view that the GLA forum should be about GLA and the EDI forum likewise and never the twain shall meet - too much crossposting goes on betwen the two groups which doesn't help either. It drove me away to some degree and I now take part in moderated forums where the nonsense and nasty content is taken out.You still get disagreements but a lot of healthy debate and all the threads are interesting without the spam and repetitive nonsense some posters post.
> When did aaug and aaue become some kind of Fight Club. I'm not talking > about inter-city rivalries here either, I'm talking about blatant sh*t > stirring and personal attacks all round - quite often involving > conflict between supporters of the same airport(s).
Surely it's always been like this?
> Of course fingers will immediately be pointed at the two "usual > suspects" - one in the west with his serious accusations and one in > the east with his obsessive lunacy. The actions of both are totally > unacceptable, however...
Go on ...
> Some critics of the west coaster continually jump to devalue his > postings, even if they are actually quite relevant. One poster in > particular is now being called a "stalker" by the west coaster - I'm > quite sure he's not, but he could have saved himself the hassle by > ignoring the posts and not winding him up in the first place.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you referred to the posters by name rather than branding them "west coaster". Personally I don't categorise contributors to these newsgroups in those sorts of terms, and I don't think it's helpful that you have, either.
> Some people also spend a lot of time deliberately winding up the east > coaster too. Don't! You simply fuel his belief that he's some kind of > hero on a crusade. Sure, if he posts a lot of rubbish that you don't > agree with then take him to task on it, but by making an OP that is > specifically about GLA on aaue you're just inviting conflict.
I think as long as there is consistency then it shouldn't really matter what the topic is. For example if GLA is mentioned in aaue - fine - BUT, don't tell me to "keep it EDI" the minute the discussuion turns to less positive aspects of GLA. I'm sick of all the content bullies in here telling people what they can't and can't say. I'll take people to task when I think they are posting pish, but I don't question their right to say what they say.
> And as for posts "holding up a mirror" to people - PLEASE don't > patronise folk by trying to act like it's some kind of social > experiment. You know it's just going to start yet another argument and > it is indeed surprising to see such a post from someone who spends so > much time lamenting the quality of posts.
OK, so that'll be a wee dig at me, then? My post about "non viability" was simply exploring another poster/posters' assertion and taking it to its logical conclusion. I reserve the right to do that, and won't be bullied into being told that I can't. If you were paying attention you'll note that I said I didn't believe what I was posting, simply demonstrating to certain posters eager to 'down' certain airports with bullshit that if we take their logic to its full conclusion they may find they don't care for the views they are promoting after all.
As for quality of posts, I don't see any dramatic improvement with this particular new topic, either. Anyone wish to discuss airports?
> So back to my "Fight Club" comparison - it's like people have a normal > day working, studying, spending time with the family etc, and then > come on here to vent any negative feelings that they have. That's not > what this should be about. Disagreement is going to happen on any > forum - whether it's about Glasgow Airport, Doctor Who, Westlife or > Chinese politics - that's fine, if you disagree with something someone > has said then make your voice heard, but let's stop the habit of > starting arguments for the sake of it.
In a sense you have just identified what usenet forums are about - people venting their frustration. That's what the internet is for.
Trust me, I've tried plenty of posts like this in the past. Has it ever led anywhere or encouraged a sea change? Has it heck! Let's just get on with some airport discussion and PLEASE - can we stop defining people in terms of the 'coast' they live closest to? Thanks.
In article <UaXOj.34926$Ka7.19...@newsfe30.ams2>, callumjohnst...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Trust me, I've tried plenty of posts like this in the past. Has it ever led > anywhere or encouraged a sea change? Has it heck! Let's just get on with > some airport discussion and PLEASE - can we stop defining people in terms of > the 'coast' they live closest to? Thanks.
> > When did aaug and aaue become some kind of Fight Club. I'm not talking > > about inter-city rivalries here either, I'm talking about blatant sh*t > > stirring and personal attacks all round - quite often involving > > conflict between supporters of the same airport(s).
> Surely it's always been like this?
> > Of course fingers will immediately be pointed at the two "usual > > suspects" - one in the west with his serious accusations and one in > > the east with his obsessive lunacy. The actions of both are totally > > unacceptable, however...
> Go on ...
> > Some critics of the west coaster continually jump to devalue his > > postings, even if they are actually quite relevant. One poster in > > particular is now being called a "stalker" by the west coaster - I'm > > quite sure he's not, but he could have saved himself the hassle by > > ignoring the posts and not winding him up in the first place.
> Perhaps it would be helpful if you referred to the posters by name rather > than branding them "west coaster". Personally I don't categorise > contributors to these newsgroups in those sorts of terms, and I don't think > it's helpful that you have, either.
You're making something out of nothing there. I didn't think it was necessary to name names in this particular post - east coaster and west coaster are accurate descriptions of their geographical location and they are not offensive terms.
> > Some people also spend a lot of time deliberately winding up the east > > coaster too. Don't! You simply fuel his belief that he's some kind of > > hero on a crusade. Sure, if he posts a lot of rubbish that you don't > > agree with then take him to task on it, but by making an OP that is > > specifically about GLA on aaue you're just inviting conflict.
> I think as long as there is consistency then it shouldn't really matter what > the topic is. For example if GLA is mentioned in aaue - fine - BUT, don't > tell me to "keep it EDI" the minute the discussuion turns to less positive > aspects of GLA. I'm sick of all the content bullies in here telling people > what they can't and can't say. I'll take people to task when I think they > are posting pish, but I don't question their right to say what they say.
A content bully is one thing I ain't - I've defended people both when they post something about Bristol or wherever and get shot down,or when JC has a go at someone for discussing GLA in a topic that concerns multiple airports. What I'm trying to say is that when GLA- exclusive posts are posted on aaue, we all know they're going to incur the wrath of the ultimate content bully - leading to yet more bickering and the waste of a decent post - so why bother?
> > And as for posts "holding up a mirror" to people - PLEASE don't > > patronise folk by trying to act like it's some kind of social > > experiment. You know it's just going to start yet another argument and > > it is indeed surprising to see such a post from someone who spends so > > much time lamenting the quality of posts.
> OK, so that'll be a wee dig at me, then? My post about "non viability" was > simply exploring another poster/posters' assertion and taking it to its > logical conclusion. I reserve the right to do that, and won't be bullied > into being told that I can't. If you were paying attention you'll note that > I said I didn't believe what I was posting, simply demonstrating to certain > posters eager to 'down' certain airports with bullshit that if we take their > logic to its full conclusion they may find they don't care for the views > they are promoting after all.
Yes, we know what you were "exploring" and of course you have every right to post what you want, but it still doesn't hide the fact that the post was always going to piss certain people off. You regularly adopt the role of playground monitor, shaking his head at others' bickering and inflammatory posts so it was certainly a surprise to see you post something of this nature.
> As for quality of posts, I don't see any dramatic improvement with this > particular new topic, either. Anyone wish to discuss airports?
> > So back to my "Fight Club" comparison - it's like people have a normal > > day working, studying, spending time with the family etc, and then > > come on here to vent any negative feelings that they have. That's not > > what this should be about. Disagreement is going to happen on any > > forum - whether it's about Glasgow Airport, Doctor Who, Westlife or > > Chinese politics - that's fine, if you disagree with something someone > > has said then make your voice heard, but let's stop the habit of > > starting arguments for the sake of it.
> In a sense you have just identified what usenet forums are about - people > venting their frustration. That's what the internet is for.
> Trust me, I've tried plenty of posts like this in the past. Has it ever led > anywhere or encouraged a sea change? Has it heck! Let's just get on with > some airport discussion and PLEASE - can we stop defining people in terms of > the 'coast' they live closest to? Thanks.
"Let's just get on with some airport discussion" - a favourite response when the discussion isn't going the way someone likes. That's why I started this thread - because I used to come on and read about new routes, developments, rumours, wishlists but now all we get is "FAO Clive" this and "so and so is a stalker" that. Like I said - it's not even inter-city rivalry, it's just poster v poster which is even less enjoyable for everyone else - exactly the reason why I'm not about to enter into a long debate with you Callum. We've both tried to encourage people to take a step back - we've both failed, me spectacularly so it would seem by the various responses.
>> Perhaps it would be helpful if you referred to the posters by name rather >> than branding them "west coaster". Personally I don't categorise >> contributors to these newsgroups in those sorts of terms, and I don't >> think >> it's helpful that you have, either. >You're making something out of nothing there. I didn't think it was >necessary to name names in this particular post - east coaster and >west coaster are accurate descriptions of their geographical location >and they are not offensive terms.
If I may try to help...
Indeed they are not. But which coast one lives nearer to is irrelevant. As Callum points out, using those terms serves to perpetuate what most of us are dead against. To my mind the only thing that divides us is whether we talk crap or not and that isn't constrained by geography, it's an individual thing.
>What I'm trying to say is that when GLA- >exclusive posts are posted on aaue, we all know they're going to incur >the wrath of the ultimate content bully - leading to yet more >bickering and the waste of a decent post - so why bother?
Actually there isn't much of that in reality - and if it happens to offend anyone in aaue when GLA is the subject (or aaug if EDI was) more so than say PIK, LHR, INV, ABZ, NCL, Timbuktu, etc then that is their problem (only one particularly noisy contributor in each group is indicated thus) . Anyone who gets offended by that is not worth a jot IMO. Decent contributors certainly don't need to censor their posting behaviour to pander to the trolls. Airport specifics are better discussed in the right group, obviously, and largely thet are but those who think GLA and EDI are a special case needing special rules can take a hike IMO.
>Yes, we know what you were "exploring" and of course you have every >right to post what you want, but it still doesn't hide the fact that >the post was always going to piss certain people off. You regularly >adopt the role of playground monitor, shaking his head at others' >bickering and inflammatory posts so it was certainly a surprise to see >you post something of this nature.
I think Callum was making a valid point. Some eejits are labouring under the views expressed. Callum was saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. Common sense would back up his points. As for riling some folk, those are the types we don't really need here. All responsible contributors should kill-file the rabble rousers so the rest of us can get on with discussing the airports uninterupted.
>"Let's just get on with some airport discussion" - a favourite >response when the discussion isn't going the way someone likes. That's >why I started this thread - because I used to come on and read about >new routes, developments, rumours, wishlists but now all we get is >"FAO Clive" this and "so and so is a stalker" that. Like I said - it's >not even inter-city rivalry, it's just poster v poster which is even >less enjoyable for everyone else - exactly the reason why I'm not >about to enter into a long debate with you Callum. We've both tried to >encourage people to take a step back - we've both failed, me >spectacularly so it would seem by the various responses.
Making a difference is well nigh impossible - many have tried (some many times) and *all* have failed including myself but you and Callum have always been model posters and you share a panoramic rather than blinkered view of the air travel scene here, IMO. All I can suggest is carry on with quality contributions to try to raise the bar and ignore the bullshit as much as possible. There is still some value to these groups from time to time so we can't let the spoilers win.
> > When did aaug and aaue become some kind of Fight Club. I'm not talking > > about inter-city rivalries here either, I'm talking about blatant sh*t > > stirring and personal attacks all round - quite often involving > > conflict between supporters of the same airport(s).
> Surely it's always been like this?
> > Of course fingers will immediately be pointed at the two "usual > > suspects" - one in the west with his serious accusations and one in > > the east with his obsessive lunacy. The actions of both are totally > > unacceptable, however...
> Go on ...
> > Some critics of the west coaster continually jump to devalue his > > postings, even if they are actually quite relevant. One poster in > > particular is now being called a "stalker" by the west coaster - I'm > > quite sure he's not, but he could have saved himself the hassle by > > ignoring the posts and not winding him up in the first place.
> Perhaps it would be helpful if you referred to the posters by name rather > than branding them "west coaster". Personally I don't categorise > contributors to these newsgroups in those sorts of terms, and I don't > think > it's helpful that you have, either. >You're making something out of nothing there. I didn't think it was >necessary to name names in this particular post - east coaster and >west coaster are accurate descriptions of their geographical location >and they are not offensive terms.
Can you explain why you believe they are relevant terms? I certainly don't talk about myself in those terms. I'm a Scot and a citizen of Edinburgh.
> > Some people also spend a lot of time deliberately winding up the east > > coaster too. Don't! You simply fuel his belief that he's some kind of > > hero on a crusade. Sure, if he posts a lot of rubbish that you don't > > agree with then take him to task on it, but by making an OP that is > > specifically about GLA on aaue you're just inviting conflict.
> I think as long as there is consistency then it shouldn't really matter > what > the topic is. For example if GLA is mentioned in aaue - fine - BUT, don't > tell me to "keep it EDI" the minute the discussuion turns to less positive > aspects of GLA. I'm sick of all the content bullies in here telling people > what they can't and can't say. I'll take people to task when I think they > are posting pish, but I don't question their right to say what they say. >A content bully is one thing I ain't - I've defended people both when >they post something about Bristol or wherever and get shot down,or >when JC has a go at someone for discussing GLA in a topic that concerns >multiple airports.
You'll note that I didn't specifically brand you a content bully. I was just stating where I stand with people who try to lay the law down in terms of what's on topic and what's not.
>What I'm trying to say is that when GLA- >exclusive posts are posted on aaue, we all know they're going to incur >the wrath of the ultimate content bully - leading to yet more >bickering and the waste of a decent post - so why bother?
I don't see why debate should be stifled because certain contributors don't enjoy it.
> > And as for posts "holding up a mirror" to people - PLEASE don't > > patronise folk by trying to act like it's some kind of social > > experiment. You know it's just going to start yet another argument and > > it is indeed surprising to see such a post from someone who spends so > > much time lamenting the quality of posts.
> OK, so that'll be a wee dig at me, then? My post about "non viability" was > simply exploring another poster/posters' assertion and taking it to its > logical conclusion. I reserve the right to do that, and won't be bullied > into being told that I can't. If you were paying attention you'll note > that > I said I didn't believe what I was posting, simply demonstrating to > certain > posters eager to 'down' certain airports with bullshit that if we take > their > logic to its full conclusion they may find they don't care for the views > they are promoting after all. >Yes, we know what you were "exploring" and of course you have every >right to post what you want, but it still doesn't hide the fact that >the post was always going to piss certain people off.
If it did then it's the ultimate irony really. Such posters will have inadvertently pissed *themselves* off with their own logic, which is simply being thrown back at them .... unless they can prove that it genuinely is one rule for one airport, and another for the other. So far nobody seems able to demonstrate that.
>You regularly adopt the role of playground monitor, shaking his head at >others' >bickering and inflammatory posts so it was certainly a surprise to see >you post something of this nature.
Monitor? Me? How exactly are you defining your own contribution just now?
Sure, I'll comment when I think people are coming out with unsubstantiated bull. The most effective way to do that, I feel, is to take their logic and force them to see it from the other perspective. Perhaps that way they'll be less inclined to shoot from the hip in future, and to actually think through the consequences of what they say.
> As for quality of posts, I don't see any dramatic improvement with this > particular new topic, either. Anyone wish to discuss airports?
> > So back to my "Fight Club" comparison - it's like people have a normal > > day working, studying, spending time with the family etc, and then > > come on here to vent any negative feelings that they have. That's not > > what this should be about. Disagreement is going to happen on any > > forum - whether it's about Glasgow Airport, Doctor Who, Westlife or > > Chinese politics - that's fine, if you disagree with something someone > > has said then make your voice heard, but let's stop the habit of > > starting arguments for the sake of it.
> In a sense you have just identified what usenet forums are about - people > venting their frustration. That's what the internet is for.
> Trust me, I've tried plenty of posts like this in the past. Has it ever > led > anywhere or encouraged a sea change? Has it heck! Let's just get on with > some airport discussion and PLEASE - can we stop defining people in terms > of > the 'coast' they live closest to? Thanks. >"Let's just get on with some airport discussion" - a favourite >response when the discussion isn't going the way someone likes.
Pardon me, but I make no apology for urging people to discuss airports. Isn't that supposed to be what we're in here for?
>That's why I started this thread - because I used to come on and read about >new routes, developments, rumours, wishlists but now all we get is >"FAO Clive" this and "so and so is a stalker" that. Like I said - it's >not even inter-city rivalry, it's just poster v poster which is even >less enjoyable for everyone else - exactly the reason why I'm not >about to enter into a long debate with you Callum.
Well, for someone eager to avoid a "long debate" you've certain put together a very full response :-)
>We've both tried to encourage people to take a step back - we've both >failed, me >spectacularly so it would seem by the various responses.
Doesn't mean we should stop believing that we are right about wanting the focus to be on airports rather than on personalities. I'm not discouraged, and I hope you aren't too ....
On 20 Apr, 12:46, Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
>There has been a hate campaign against Joe, >and Joe has been rather unpleasant in return.
Dear Paul,
I have been reading aaue since October 1999. Unfortunately it is my belief that the poison started at the very beginning from Joe. He appeared to be goading "the neighbours" with a view to getting a response and then claiming he was "defending EDI"
I appreciate you may feel some historic loyalty to him, but the above are the facts as I see them.
I also appreciate that Zetnet goes much wider than the name might suggest, but remember my visit to Lerwick when the wind was in the wrong direction...
>>> Perhaps it would be helpful if you referred to the posters by name >>> rather >>> than branding them "west coaster". Personally I don't categorise >>> contributors to these newsgroups in those sorts of terms, and I don't >>> think >>> it's helpful that you have, either.
>>You're making something out of nothing there. I didn't think it was >>necessary to name names in this particular post - east coaster and >>west coaster are accurate descriptions of their geographical location >>and they are not offensive terms.
> If I may try to help...
> Indeed they are not. But which coast one lives nearer to is irrelevant. As > Callum points out, using those terms serves to perpetuate what most of us > are dead against. To my mind the only thing that divides us is whether we > talk crap or not and that isn't constrained by geography, it's an > individual thing.
>>What I'm trying to say is that when GLA- >>exclusive posts are posted on aaue, we all know they're going to incur >>the wrath of the ultimate content bully - leading to yet more >>bickering and the waste of a decent post - so why bother?
> Actually there isn't much of that in reality - and if it happens to offend > anyone in aaue when GLA is the subject (or aaug if EDI was) more so than > say PIK, LHR, INV, ABZ, NCL, Timbuktu, etc then that is their problem > (only one particularly noisy contributor in each group is indicated thus) > . Anyone who gets offended by that is not worth a jot IMO. Decent > contributors certainly don't need to censor their posting behaviour to > pander to the trolls. Airport specifics are better discussed in the right > group, obviously, and largely thet are but those who think GLA and EDI are > a special case needing special rules can take a hike IMO.
>>Yes, we know what you were "exploring" and of course you have every >>right to post what you want, but it still doesn't hide the fact that >>the post was always going to piss certain people off. You regularly >>adopt the role of playground monitor, shaking his head at others' >>bickering and inflammatory posts so it was certainly a surprise to see >>you post something of this nature.
> I think Callum was making a valid point. Some eejits are labouring under > the views expressed. Callum was saying what's good for the goose is good > for the gander, so to speak. Common sense would back up his points. As for > riling some folk, those are the types we don't really need here. All > responsible contributors should kill-file the rabble rousers so the rest > of us can get on with discussing the airports uninterupted.
>>"Let's just get on with some airport discussion" - a favourite >>response when the discussion isn't going the way someone likes. That's >>why I started this thread - because I used to come on and read about >>new routes, developments, rumours, wishlists but now all we get is >>"FAO Clive" this and "so and so is a stalker" that. Like I said - it's >>not even inter-city rivalry, it's just poster v poster which is even >>less enjoyable for everyone else - exactly the reason why I'm not >>about to enter into a long debate with you Callum. We've both tried to >>encourage people to take a step back - we've both failed, me >>spectacularly so it would seem by the various responses.
> Making a difference is well nigh impossible - many have tried (some many > times) and *all* have failed including myself but you and Callum have > always been model posters and you share a panoramic rather than blinkered > view of the air travel scene here, IMO. All I can suggest is carry on with > quality contributions to try to raise the bar and ignore the bullshit as > much as possible. There is still some value to these groups from time to > time so we can't let the spoilers win.
> A great deal of the success of the groups has been the > deliberate effort by the majority of posters to avoid > falling into the trap.
IMO, a great deal of the failure has been a deliberate effort by a significant number in here to 'humour' those who would try and impose guidelines. If people just posted what they wanted and didn't make a fuss about those who enjoy all the theatrics of imposing rules then we'd have much more focused newsgroups. Personally I think some people are ONLY here for the conflict, having precious little else to contribute.
In article <7d65a311-674e-4c45-b4be-0483b5f6a982@ 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, be_posit...@my-deja.com says...
> On 20 Apr, 12:46, Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
> >There has been a hate campaign against Joe, > >and Joe has been rather unpleasant in return.
> Dear Paul,
> I have been reading aaue since October 1999. > Unfortunately it is my belief that the poison started > at the very beginning from Joe. He appeared to be > goading "the neighbours" with a view to getting a > response and then claiming he was "defending EDI"
That cannot be disputed. Sadly for the one who claims he is being victimsed - Google doesn't lie. His efforts at trying to deflect away from the facts are sterling - but ultimately futile.
> I appreciate you may feel some historic loyalty to > him, but the above are the facts as I see them.
They are facts whatever way ANYBODY looks at them. He can claim vendetta - I prefer to describe it as pointing people in the direction of the documented evidence for them to make their own mind up. He gets himself into a frenzy when people do that - but he should have thought about that from day one when he started his bigoted and sectarian posts in aaue.
> "Clive" <clivebra...@nospamorange.net> wrote in message
>> Making a difference is well nigh impossible - many have tried (some many >> times) and *all* have failed including myself but you and Callum have >> always been model posters and you share a panoramic rather than blinkered >> view of the air travel scene here, IMO. All I can suggest is carry on >> with quality contributions to try to raise the bar and ignore the >> bullshit as much as possible. There is still some value to these groups >> from time to time so we can't let the spoilers win.
> In article <7d65a311-674e-4c45-b4be-0483b5f6a982@ > 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, be_posit...@my-deja.com says... >> On 20 Apr, 12:46, Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
>> >There has been a hate campaign against Joe, >> >and Joe has been rather unpleasant in return.
>> Dear Paul,
>> I have been reading aaue since October 1999. >> Unfortunately it is my belief that the poison started >> at the very beginning from Joe. He appeared to be >> goading "the neighbours" with a view to getting a >> response and then claiming he was "defending EDI"
> That cannot be disputed. Sadly for the one who claims he is being > victimsed > - Google doesn't lie. His efforts at trying to deflect away from the facts > are sterling - but ultimately futile.
>> I appreciate you may feel some historic loyalty to >> him, but the above are the facts as I see them.
> They are facts whatever way ANYBODY looks at them. He can claim vendetta - > I prefer to describe it as pointing people in the direction of the > documented evidence for them to make their own mind up. He gets himself > into a frenzy when people do that - but he should have thought about that > from day one when he started his bigoted and sectarian posts in aaue.
> Jim
I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant to be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow clique. Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it. Happily it hasn't quite worked out that way.
> I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant > to be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow clique. > Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it. Happily it > hasn't quite worked out that way.
Well, the anti-BAA part of the movement seems to have picked up a few fans from across the 'party divides' anyway ;-)
In article <6746b6F2msaf...@mid.individual.net>, clivebra...@nospamorange.net says...
> I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant to > be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow clique. > Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it.
Indeed and anyone who disputes that was not the case from the outset is clearly deluded. The smokescreen that others are to blame for bigoted and sectarian outpourings fools no one. If anyone doubts me then simply Google the first three months of aaue but realise that those people who seem to share similar extremist viewpoints are actually only two persons and infact the majority of the postings come from the one person under various guises. Pointing this out isn't a vendetta - it is simply letting those who aren't aware ,(the likes of PM) know the facts.
>> I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant >> to be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow >> clique. Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it. >> Happily it hasn't quite worked out that way.
> Well, the anti-BAA part of the movement seems to have picked up a few fans > from across the 'party divides' anyway ;-)
> >> I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant > >> to be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow > >> clique. Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it. > >> Happily it hasn't quite worked out that way.
> > Well, the anti-BAA part of the movement seems to have picked up a few fans > > from across the 'party divides' anyway ;-)
> True.
But the revulsion to sectarian/bigoted posting remains the same - as strong as ever. Callum and Clive must be commended for their neutral stance in trying to eradicate it. My view is that the best view to get rid of this cancer completely is by completely ignoring those who try to propogate it. That way the rest can continue to talk about aviation without the moronic interventions from the new towns.
> > >> I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant > > >> to be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow > > >> clique. Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it. > > >> Happily it hasn't quite worked out that way.
> > > Well, the anti-BAA part of the movement seems to have picked up a few fans > > > from across the 'party divides' anyway ;-)
> > True.
> But the revulsion to sectarian/bigoted posting remains the same - as strong > as ever. Callum and Clive must be commended for their neutral stance in > trying to eradicate it. My view is that the best way to get rid of this > cancer completely is by completely ignoring those who try to propogate it. > That way the rest can continue to talk about aviation without the moronic > interventions from the new towns.
> "Jim Mason" <jim.ma...@removethisukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > news:MPG.2276efc638d9e3a9896c0@news.individual.net... >> In article <7d65a311-674e-4c45-b4be-0483b5f6a982@ >> 24g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, be_posit...@my-deja.com says... >>> On 20 Apr, 12:46, Paul Martin <p...@zetnet.net> wrote:
>>> >There has been a hate campaign against Joe, >>> >and Joe has been rather unpleasant in return.
>>> Dear Paul,
>>> I have been reading aaue since October 1999. >>> Unfortunately it is my belief that the poison started >>> at the very beginning from Joe. He appeared to be >>> goading "the neighbours" with a view to getting a >>> response and then claiming he was "defending EDI"
>> That cannot be disputed. Sadly for the one who claims he is being >> victimsed >> - Google doesn't lie. His efforts at trying to deflect away from the >> facts >> are sterling - but ultimately futile.
>>> I appreciate you may feel some historic loyalty to >>> him, but the above are the facts as I see them.
>> They are facts whatever way ANYBODY looks at them. He can claim >> vendetta - >> I prefer to describe it as pointing people in the direction of the >> documented evidence for them to make their own mind up. He gets himself >> into a frenzy when people do that - but he should have thought about that >> from day one when he started his bigoted and sectarian posts in aaue.
>> Jim
> I don't want to perpetuate this but clearly at the outset AAUE was meant > to be an anti-BAA, anti-EDI management and anti-all things Glasgow clique. > Those were the intended agendas - absolutely no doubt about it. Happily it > hasn't quite worked out that way.
