I think you're out of order here mate. North put up a poll and asked for a democratic vote (even though his wording of it could have been better). Now that the vote is in and it shows a 40-odd % vote against the proposal, you see fit to lambast the electorate for their decision just because you disagree with it. Whatever vested interests you may have on the issue, there's no cause to act all high and mighty because you didn't get the resounding victory you were looking for. North's exit is an entirely different matter. I must admit to being confused as to why he feels so strongly on this issue but nevertheless I do hope he comes back online asap. He is, as you say, the founding father of this Site and he's a thoroughly great bloke - insofar as you can "know" someone from an on-line forum. I hope he returns but equally I hope that you, Roller, have a read of the principles of democracy and respect.
Can someone please tell me....in Plain English....Why this is that important ?? Is it a money thing or just ego ??
Beautifully boiled down Staines. I would be first to admit that ego creeps into it a bit ... it has to otherwise no one would return. I often take time off from posting as a lot do but i still read this daily. If we write/post then honestly we must all return to see what may be added. I look at it honestly and know that an ego is involved but I do try and say **** it to mine and keep the monkey quiet. I am not sure about money as if anyone is thinking about money doing sport writing as an income then the very first thing they will need to learn is copy and paste and then of course spin. More and more people are drawn to any written article by a visual image ... another sad fact of today ... look and go and on to the next thing and don't forget the internet allows you to choose what you look at ... how many of us hate TV adverts because we are now forced to watch them in between a program?
What utter tosh. This reminds me of being told off as a little kid. My sister would pretend to be upset about something to try and get me or my other sister into trouble. Off she would flounce to her room in a big strop, all tears and slammed doors, and my mum would say: âLook! See what youâve done? Are you happy now!?â Sorry Roller, I respect to you as a writer, and I understand that you have strong feelings on the subject, but Iâve never heard such sanctimonious codswallop. The idea that anybody has been driven out of this forum by anyone else is utterly ridiculous. What, because not absolutely everybody had the exact same view on the subject!? Embarrassing.
My understanding is......for example.... - Roller (or Clive Whittingham) puts time, effort and heart into writing an article which he posts on his blog site - he then gets satisfaction from seeing how many hits he gets on the blog site to read the article - if the article is cut and pasted in its entirety on here, he does not get the satisfaction of seeing the 'hit' numbers (even though he may actually get more readers....) - so he (and North) are asking that only links to their articles are posted here. So in this case, ego. In cases where articles are ripped from sites that carry advertising, there could be an argument that if it reduces the 'hits' they have it could damage revenue. But I asked that McIntyre bloke who runs West London Sport site about this a few months ago and his line was its not a problem. In the meantime Dave has vey eloquently explained how the notions of credit and ownership of anything on the net are extremely flimsy at best. There are no rules here. So it comes down to do we wish to respect the wishes of a fellow Rs fan or not?
Thanks mate.....Makes sense now. I couldn't give a toss either way to be honest, but if it obviously upsets some of the decent lads on here i would definately not do it. Now if someone can tell me how i 'cut and paste', i could then refuse to do it and cause upset.
I have very mixed thoughts on all this, I agrred with wjhat Dave wrote and I don't really see what the big deal is, but your last sentance persuades me that at least for QPR Bloggers, QPR Report, and other QPR MB's I will just post the link going forward, and I'll vote that way if I haven't already voted the other?! Thanks for bringing clarity Silvio!
If it stops people posting Whittingham's "what's the meaning of life", 30,000 word theses on this Site then I'm all for this netiquette thing. How do I change my vote?
Eloquently put SB, and to be honest Iâve got absolutely no issues with anything youâve said. For me, the problem really started when the âpollâ was phrased in such a one-sided and sanctimonious way. It didnât encourage open debate, and there was obviously a ârightâ and a âwrongâ answer. Frankly, this put a lot of peopleâs back up (including mine), and it meant that constructive contributions (such as Thaiâs preview idea) got completely drowned out in a sea of bad tempered acrimony and self righteousness. There was simply no need for it in my view. People have different opinions, and they should be allowed to have different opinions. After all, thatâs what makes this board interesting. Thereâs no need for it to get to the point where people throw their toys out of the pram because not everyone agrees with them, or to be told that anybody who disagrees is either a âC8NTâ or is âlazy, self absorbed and selfishâ. Thereâs just no call for it.
We had a thread on here about what makes QPR so special in our opinion. One of the more popular responses was us the fans: For fear of sounding sanctimonious again, isnât it time we showed it? This main issue to me, and I believe to Northolt, is about respect for your fellow fan. The fact that many were not prepared to show respect to a fellow fan who had grafted to create an article for them to hopefully enjoy and offered no reason for this really angers me. I completely understand and respect Daveâs argument, but still contend that just because others behave that way that we donât have to. Who here went looting because others did? Yes, it is taking to an extreme, but the point stands. The only other reason offered was by Uber suggesting general laziness among the posters. If that is the case, as we going to stop saying please and thank you because it is too much effort? In my opinion it is not good enough, and those who have been around here for a while will probably remember that my standards are not negotiable. Anyway, Iâm out of this thread (to everyoneâs relief), otherwise Iâll end up sitting on my own in The Coningham tomorrow. By the way, I donât accept sanctimonious, pious yes, but not sanctimonious.
How does an admission of "general laziness" lead one to presuppose the extinction of please and thank you? Listen. As far as the online world is concerned, for matters QPR, I only come to this site, the Beeb, the official and occasionally Mail Online. I don't care if that narrows my QPR view. OK, Maybe this is more of a specific laziness? I'd happily concede on that point. I only know of Roller and his blog because he posts here. And when he posts here it is generally to garner enthusiasm from other visitors to Not606 to come visit his blog. So, with the greatest respect, I would suggest that he uses Not606 for his own purposes. Likewise, these days Northolt bungs his "follow me on Twitter" strapline for similar purposes. For the record, and nothing personal to either of them, I simply don't bother to either read Roller's blogs nor Norf's tweets. Sorry, but I just don't. By the same token they (and anybody else for tha matter) is quite at liberty to not bother reading anything that I post - I have no doubt that for some I am an annoying and boring prick (and they'd be correct). Nobody will die and the world will continue to turn. As I said earlier on this thread, this is about their personal vanity and this is fine. But it is equally fine if some others have no interest in feeding it.
I think Northy believes strongly that his view is right and is not interested in other peoples view So much that he hasn't reappeared on here for a day and half
Probably that time of the month, I will be expecting an apology in full when he returns with his tail between his legs
Roller comes on saying he's not sanctimonious but in doing so sounds more sanctimonious than he could ever do otherwise. Irony is still alive and well. Uber's sentence above hits the nail on the head.
it is very easy to fix this so called problem every time roller writes another excellent piece he should post a link to it on here if its only about how many people read it then just see the number next to views if we ban all this cut and pasting what will I do of an evening I might even have to stop ignoring the wife and kids
He has nothing to apologise for? I respect him if he feels his opinion is what he wants to do ... I agree in principle about respect but today most audiences haven't got the standards he may feel we should have. Read whatever and do whatever you like within the rules ... Rules and Standards are different things and trying to quantify them was bound to backfire
