I only said you looked like Lalla Ward!
Another shitty podcast to listen to on the bus. Page 4
This thread is locked. No further replies can be posted.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 12:26 PM BSTWhether someone uses the word 'shitty' or not doesn't excuse a similar response.
If it's the person who created the thread, then I obviously disagree. If the poster says 'this is shitty', then someone else says 'yes, this is shit', what's wrong with that?
Quote: Marc P @ April 24 2010, 1:18 PM BSTI only said you looked like Lalla Ward!
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 12:26 PM BSTYou're changing your reasoning, Matt. First, he's fair game for pretending not to be the author, now it's for using 'shitty'.
No, I think both things leave the original poster open to the sort of response he got. And the response he got was hardly terrible.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 12:26 PM BST.
I'm trying to be absolutely fair and impartial here, and as explained above, I intervened (and unwillingly so) after a LOT of thought and then discussion.
I know you always try to see both sides and be fair, I just don't agree with the way this threads gone; especially with Paul's posts. Those really are a touch out of order. Anyway, there we go. I enjoyed my ice cream.
Quote: Marc P @ April 24 2010, 1:18 PM BSTI only said you looked like Lalla Ward!
She's 60, isn't she? 
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 24 2010, 1:13 PM BSTSorry, I didn't mean you wouldn't do anything if it was reported.
I meant to put a smillie at the end of my comment, apols.
Quote: Dolly Dagger @ April 24 2010, 3:05 PM BSTShe's 60, isn't she?
Oooops.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 3:04 PM BSTIf the poster says 'this is shitty', then someone else says 'yes, this is shit', what's wrong with that?
The overriding reason being that 'this is shit' isn't crit.
Also it isn't treating the poster with respect. You may argue that they don't deserve respect if they call their own work shit but no-one posts work and truly believes it is shit. We all secretly hope it's genius. You're taking the OP's self-deprecation as literal to justify your point.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 3:04 PM BSTI think both things leave the original poster open to the sort of response he got. And the response he got was hardly terrible.
You concede there was a response.
It was that (plus disrespectful posts elsewhere) that finally made me step in. I had to. Let's be honest, few people would have got away with dishing out such patronising treatment to another member on that recent thread. I was prepared to let it ride, only making a comment that an accusation made against the other member was the very thing the accuser does himself (as do we all) and so was rather an unfair comment to make.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 3:56 PM BSTYou concede there was a response.
Well of course there was a response, otherwise we wouldn't have had this whole dreary mess for four pages.
The thread title offered 'another shitty podcast', the repsonse was 'why would I want to listen to another shitty podcast?' Nothing wrong with that. At all.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 3:56 PM BSTIt was that (plus disrespectful posts elsewhere) that finally made me step in.
Which ones? Craig H was it? If anything, it was both of them being snarky, though only Craig H that actually started using personal insults. Apart from me, I called Craig H a tool. Buss offered a perfectly valid crit, Craig siad something a bit silly, Bussell did likewise, then on it went. If there was wrong then it was clearly on both sides, yet it's Bussell who seems to be bearing the brunt of some sort of 'blame'.
People say much worse in reponse to things posted in Crit, much worse, things that are completely out of order; why the decision to publicly go after Bussell?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 4:10 PM BSTWell of course there was a response.
So can you then be surprised that I had to step in?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 4:10 PM BSTWhich ones? Seriously, have you read the other thread? Craig H was it? If anything, it was both of them being snarky, though only Craig H that actually started using personal insults. Apart from me, I called Craig H a tool. I'm very surprised at you Slagg.
Yes, I read that thread. It wasn't the finest moment of either. That both of them got snarky was the reason I was prepared to let it ride.
If Bussell forgot he'd had a prior run-in with CraigH then the mature response was to leave that thread on realising the error. The immature response was to call another forum member (with whom you've had history) "Kiddo," with it's obvious connotations of superiority / inferiority. At best, it's only going to inflame the situation; at worst, it was baiting and an insult.
Later Bussell tells Craig that the classy thing would be to disregard Bussell's patronising responses, but the irony is it could all have been avoided if Bussell had heeded his own advice and walked away from the thread on realising his error.
I'm more surprised you think posts like that are acceptable and don't require a mod's intervention.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 4:27 PM BSTI'm more surprised you think posts like that are acceptable and don't require a mod's intervention.
Of course they do, you should step in and tell them to calm down, which you did, that's good 'modding', it's the follow up in this thread I'm surprised at.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 4:27 PM BSTSo can you then be surprised that I had to step in?
Yes, because it wasn't needed.
-Another shitty podcast
-Why would I listen to a shitty podcast?
Nowt wrong with that, I'm still failing to see the problem.
I think you've reacted way too over sensitively to a pretty innocuous exchange.
Quote: Paul W @ April 24 2010, 9:12 AM BSTSorry David, did we hurt your feelings?
Also Slagg, I find this response of Paul's out of order; it can only be there to try and rile, it serves no other purpose; why no comment on this?
As I've said before, I was prepared to overlook that incident (for various reasons) but there was a response here that also needed comment. When I was asked that maybe there was over-reaction, I had to then explain that my response needed to be understood within the context of other posts.
Quote: SlagA @ April 24 2010, 4:37 PM BSTAs I've said before, I was prepared to overlook that incident (for various reasons) but there was a response here that also needed comment. When I was asked that maybe there was over-reaction, I had to then explain that my response needed to be understood within the context of other posts.
Well we're never going to agree, there was nothing wrong with his response in this particular thread, it was a reasonable response to the threads title in my eyes. Let's leave that there shall we, as it's clear you're not just going to give in and agree with me, which is very annoying.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 4:36 PM BSTYes, because it wasn't needed.
-Another shitty podcast
-Why would I listen to a shitty podcast?
Nowt wrong with that.
You're right, if left at that, true. But later in the discussion, this remark:
Quote: David Bussell @ April 23 2010, 3:05 PM BSTyou yourself describe the show as shit (and you have a point)
Which I and you agreed was basically saying "it's shit." As can be seen in your response.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 3:04 PM BSTIf the poster says 'this is shitty', then someone else says 'yes, this is shit', what's wrong with that?
You actually agree that was the basic message. And it was at that point (the second post) I stepped in.
I apologise for posting this after you, I was halfway through an edit. 
Nearing the end of my first month of full-time, stay at home, freelance writing and I've put on half a stone. And I laid off the biscuits. Now THAT is shit.
I'd like to let this matter well alone now but I can't leave without saying a few words in my defence. Despite being outright called a liar I was taking the poster at their word when they said the podcast wasn't their own material. I agreed it was "shit" thinking I was talking to an impartial listener. If I thought the poster was was punting their own work deceptively I wouldn't have bothered posting at all. I didn't jump to the conclusion that the poster was a liar as I feel it goes against the spirit of the forum to make those sorts of value judgements.
I would also add that for all the accusations of bullying that have been levelled at me for the crime of providing an honest critique I can point to a couple of instances on this very thread where mods themselves have been deliberately provocative. I notice those instances remain unanswered for despite having been flagged up. Is is policy that such breaches of forum etiquette only bear examination if they are officially reported? I wonder if the involvement of the mods here was anything to do with an official report or whether it was more a case of being selective about the areas they choose to police. I've seen some truly egregious flouting of forum rules on this site that don't result in a single word of warning, let alone three pages of heated debate. Had I gone to someone's sketch and posted a giant picture of a turd with the word "SHIT" on it I can see how that would be contentious. All I've done is agree with a poster and extend an offer to recommend some podcasts he might actually enjoy.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ April 24 2010, 3:04 PM BSTI know you always try to see both sides and be fair, I just don't agree with the way this threads gone; especially with Paul's posts. Those really are a touch out of order. Anyway, there we go. I enjoyed my ice cream.
What the hell are you on about? What do you consider from my post as being out of order? The only think I'm guilty of is being sarcastic (not in a spiteful way either might I add).
The way you 2 go on you act like you get it so tough on here, if you actually listened to what myself and Slagg have to say this wouldn't have gone on for 3 more pages (hence why I didn't want to reply after I said my first piece).
And if you still have a problem with my post why complain in several posts, Has this been PM'd to Aaron?
Quote: David Bussell @ April 25 2010, 9:35 AM BSTI'd like to let this matter well alone now but I can't leave without saying a few words in my defence. Despite being outright called a liar I was taking the poster at their word when they said the podcast wasn't their own material. I agreed it was "shit" thinking I was talking to an impartial listener. If I thought the poster was was punting their own work deceptively I wouldn't have bothered posting at all. I didn't jump to the conclusion that the poster was a liar as I feel it goes against the spirit of the forum to make those sorts of value judgements.
I would also add that for all the accusations of bullying that have been levelled at me for the crime of providing an honest critique I can point to a couple of instances on this very thread where mods themselves have been deliberately provocative. I notice those instances remain unanswered for despite having been flagged up. Is is policy that such breaches of forum etiquette only bear examination if they are officially reported? I wonder if the involvement of the mods here was anything to do with an official report or whether it was more a case of being selective about the areas they choose to police. I've seen some truly egregious flouting of forum rules on this site that don't result in a single word of warning, let alone three pages of heated debate. Had I gone to someone's sketch and posted a giant picture of a turd with the word "SHIT" on it I can see how that would be contentious. All I've done is agree with a poster and extend an offer to recommend some podcasts he might actually enjoy.
Thank you David, I too consider this matter closed.